I don't claim some vantage point "outside" politics or anything; I used to, but that was because I thought "politics" meant "being dogmatically loyal to a rigidly partisan agenda", and I certainly wasn't that.
But: I would like to be able to communicate more with people who aren't going to presume that because I think public healthcare might be a good idea, that means I think The Government should be able to threaten people with firearms and steal their underwear. Or that because I think technological innovation is nifty, that means I identify (or should identify) as a libertarian. And so on.
I sometimes feel like I spend massive amounts of time and energy explaining what I don't think, based on the assumptions people make about one or two things I say.
Probably someone who tried could find some common thread between my various views and values, but I don't see it as useful to spend time or energy figuring out what ideological moniker to stick on myself.
I am often deeply frustrated when supposed political-ethical discourse consists of people throwing abstractions back and forth at one another. I know that language itself is a kind of abstraction and that I am no more "outside" abstractions than I am "outside" politics -- but due to how my brain functions, I tend to see things at what might be described as a fairly high resolution.
For example: sometimes at work I have to make drawings, usually in situations where I need to communicate to someone how they should build or modify something. I can sometimes modify hardware myself, but there are some things I'm not authorized or trained to modify, and there are experts in the company whose whole job is to assemble and fix and change some things. So when I am working with one of them, my primary objective is that of communicating exactly what needs to be done. And what I often end up doing is drawing something very very detailed and very realistic.
This is my natural approach; it is not something I do to show off. In fact, it's one of the only ways I can actually communicate what I need to in that context -- if I try to just draw a bunch of blocks or squares representing the object(s) in question, whether or not the other person recognizes it will depend on the coherence of their internal symbol-systems with mine. So it actually takes a lot more cognitive effort -- and time -- for me to come up with a "stick figure" or block drawing version of something than for me to just draw the actual darned thing as I see it.
The same often goes for learning (and explaining) things. Whether the subject is engineering, social justice, or science fiction, I often need to delve way into the subject and get a sense of all the pieces before I can even hope to talk about it from anything resembling a high-level perspective.
I find it practically impossible, for instance, to open up a book and read about what some ideology supposedly is, and come away with an actual sense of what I've just read. When I do recognize ideologies, it's because I've had enough experience feeling out patterns in actual reality to be able to look at words and see something familiar. I've been accused of, at various times, both "arrogance" and "re-inventing the wheel" because of this, but I honestly can't learn about that kind of thing any other way.
Furthermore, I am generally unable to ignore things -- even when those things threaten to undermine or operate in ways inconvenient to notions I'd much rather be true. Even if I try really hard (and I have, in some cases). I can't un-see things I've seen, or forget or disregard stuff that bothers me, or pokes holes in an idea just because reality would be tidier and prettier if I could.
When I have tried to do that kind of thing, it has eventually (and invariably) led to the cognitive equivalent of being hit by a truck. Or suddenly finding myself dangling over an abyss.
This is definitely a weakness in some contexts -- for one thing, it often makes me feel like the whole world (and everyone in it) is in fast-forward and I am always struggling to keep up -- but it's also a strength in others.
I know I'm not the only one who thinks this way, and I don't think having this kind of brain puts me in some special superior club, but I do think it's worth noting, because it definitely impacts the way I write and the observations I make.
Wednesday, November 05, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
I sometimes feel like I spend massive amounts of time and energy explaining what I don't think, based on the assumptions people make about one or two things I say.
From a certain point of view, this is the way things ought to be. From a wider (alien?) perspective, humans are very very similar to each other, even those of us who aren't quite neurotypical work in quite proscribed ways.
You can imagine communication as a kind of series of diffs exchanged to explain our divergence from human standard.
Excepting generative endeavors like engineering and analysis, of course.
Practically, of course, the assumptions people make often aren't unifying, but divisive, painting people as caricatures.
I know it's normal to an extent, but just the sheer number of assumptions that gets made (and the tenacity to which those assumptions get held to even in light of data contradicting them) amazes me sometimes. I don't expect it to fully go away, as that would likely entail some sort of direct telepathy, but I do figure writing stuff like this when I have the words to do so might at least help temper it somewhat.
Previously Anne posted:
But: I would like to be able to communicate more with people who aren't going to presume that because I think public healthcare might be a good idea, that means I think The Government should be able to threaten people with firearms and steal their underwear.
I didn't presume you were being political nor presume that The Government should be able to threaten people with firearms, etc.
I just wanted to know the principle behind your comments and see if you had or had not considered the violent aspects to the services The Government forces upon us.
I got my answer and I thank you.
Yes on everything. I learn in exactly the same way. I have to delve into the subject before I'm able to grasp the general abstract principles.
This applies to subjects of study as well as life situations. For instance, it takes me about two years to fully understand and accommodate to a new environment, such that I can make adequate decisions in that environment. In other words, I'm not fully functional and useful in the workplace during this time, and it's difficult, as people don't see what the big deal is. They might perceive it as stupidity, laziness, and lack of motivation.
Struggling to keep up with the world that appears to run in fast-forward, yes. This applies not only to learning, but also trying to process all the surrounding information. I'm so tired with this running to keep up.
Karolina said:
For instance, it takes me about two years to fully understand and accommodate to a new environment, such that I can make adequate decisions in that environment. In other words, I'm not fully functional and useful in the workplace during this time, and it's difficult, as people don't see what the big deal is. They might perceive it as stupidity, laziness, and lack of motivation.
Ohh. That. Thanks for mentioning that, actually, because it explains some of the stuff I ran into when I first started at my job. In retrospect I actually do think a lot of that kind of thing is expected of new people -- but it really did amaze me how often it was presumed I'd be able to make quick decisions about stuff I really wasn't familiar enough with to say much of anything about.
Struggling to keep up with the world that appears to run in fast-forward, yes. This applies not only to learning, but also trying to process all the surrounding information. I'm so tired with this running to keep up.
Yeah. But the thing is, I have been in situations/environments where I've had adequate time to process things and in those cases, I can do very well, and not feel like I'm trying to run a marathon while juggling bricks.
When I was evaluated as a 4-year-old, one of the comments the psychologist-person made was, "Anne is not a child to fit comfortably into someone else's agenda". And that's still true except for the fact that I'm not a child now. :P But it's not due to some feeling of "oh, I don't need to follow the rules because I'm special and superior!" -- rather, to the fact that I need more time and information to learn and do some things.
Sometimes what I think happens is that people see the results of something I did on my own timeframe/agenda (like...an art project, or something I built, or a long thing I wrote), and presume that in order to have done it at all, I must have done it in standard ways, and should therefore be able to do that kind of thing on demand.
But it doesn't work that way.
I used to beat myself up mentally constantly for not being able to make it work that way, but I stopped doing that so much when I realized I actually got more done when I didn't try to force things.
Also, related to that: I've noticed that when people SEE me work (on anything), they often tend to stand behind me saying, "oh, don't do it THAT way, do it THIS way, it'll be much more efficient!" When if I tried to do it the way they're suggesting I probably wouldn't be able to do it at all.
Hence, I'm often kind of furtive about how I work, like I often prefer to do it, or large parts of it when nobody is watching me. Because apparently I often don't "look like I know what I'm doing".
Occasionally someone will have a suggestion for me that actually helps, and I am definitely open to new information and strategies, but...
...right now I am really racking my brains trying to figure out how to deal with a particular situation I run into every so often.
There are people with a certain kind of personality, or language style, or something, who just seem to consistently not "get" me, and who will give me all these rapid-fire suggestions as to what I should be doing and how I would be doing it.
And often these are all suggestions I've gotten before, and tried, and found not to be useful. So I end up rejecting several pieces of advice in a row from that person, who takes that to mean I am a "defeatist" or "afraid to try" or "scared to venture out of my comfort zone".
Furthermore, because these individuals tend to be very verbally quick, my brain bogs down really fast when interacting with them, which can lead to lots of speech-hesitancy on my part (that or semi-random babbling). And THAT tends to get read as me being either timid or scared or upset. So then I'm pegged as a defeatist who is also emotionally fragile. *sigh*
What is *actually* going on during those occasions is that I'm getting severely overloaded with input. It's like my CPU is trying to handle too many processes at once, and the only way to really remedy that is to work through them slowly or cut some processes out.
But it's hard to explain that, and people with the personality/interaction style I'm currently struggling to relate to tend to either think they need to "rescue" or baby me (ugh), or that I need to be "pushed" more so that I won't "limit" myself via timidity or something.
And another thing: sometimes these folks will say things like, "Whatever you need, I'm here to help, just let me know." Which is fine and good, and appreciated and all that. But -- then when I actually do ask for some kind of help, or make a suggestion of some sort, they act like I've asked for or suggested something too bizarre to even consider.
Like, there are several people right now I am trying to convince not to ask "How are you?" when their primary reason for talking to me is not to ask how I am. But it's like they don't even consider that to be a valid request -- they will pretty much *demand* that I answer it, and ask it over and over again, even while I'm trying to figure out what they actually want so I can prepare the right subject modules in my brain for the discussion.
And another thing: if someone comes up to me and says, "I need to talk to you about something," and tells me to come with them somewhere, I really really do need SOME inkling of what the "something" is before we sit down to talk about it. Because, well, it could go really badly if I'm led somewhere, sat down, and suddenly thrust into a discussion of something without any warning or time to prepare. I might end up with no useful language on that subject, or I might end up in a very automatic speech mode, neither of which is very conducive to productive discussion.
What makes all this even more difficult is that often these people really are genuinely well-intentioned -- they just don't know what they don't know, and I haven't yet figured out a way to communicate to them that they're looking at the wrong territory entirely in trying to figure *me* out.
Anthony: Oh, this wasn't entirely prompted by what you wrote, but that was part of it. This has been a long time coming.
Loads here i really resonate with :)
One really quick response to the politics thing: i see no contradiction at all between being a libertarian and supporting public healthcare, because government healthcare isn't public healthcare. True public healthcare would consist of people getting together, consensually and non-heirarchically, and pooling their resources to provide healthcare without the involvement of either government or capitalism.
But then, i define myself as a libertarian rather... differently from most people in the US who call themselves libertarians - see Proudhon, Godwin and Kropotkin, rather than the likes of Rand or Von Mises...
shiva said:
One really quick response to the politics thing: i see no contradiction at all between being a libertarian and supporting public healthcare, because government healthcare isn't public healthcare.
True public healthcare would consist of people getting together, consensually and non-heirarchically, and pooling their resources to provide healthcare without the involvement of either government or capitalism.
That's sort of the ideal vision I have for healthcare as well.
I am extremely hierarchy-averse and coercion-averse, which is why it bothers me that people often frame healthcare debates as being divided between two choices: either a "social darwinist" thing where people sink or swim based on their capacity to succeed in a capitalist-competitive environment, or a "communism" thing where The State is this massive entity that essentially threatens people into submission in order to make them distribute resources in a certain way. I don't like either of those scenarios.
But: I also realize that the ideal vision may not be practical. Humans have an unfortunate tendency to organize into hierarchies even when there's nobody setting up an hierarchical structure and imposing it on them from the outside.
As a kid I remember feeling very scared in "playground" environments because the more vulnerable kids (i.e., those of us who couldn't easily defend ourselves verbally or physically) tended to get relentlessly picked on with no recourse for complaint; the teachers would just say, "Oh, you kids need to learn to sort that out yourselves". Ideally it would have been best if individual kids had just been able to see that being cruel and picking on others was wrong and mean, and not do it, but that isn't the way it generally worked out.
On the other hand, I am also very much NOT in favor of lots of external structure/control being applied to people or groups. I don't tend to do well in over-structured environments either, and those sorts of environments still permit bullies to enter positions of power.
So the challenge I always seem to be facing in thinking about this stuff is: how can we humans maximize individual liberties, minimize coercion, and at the same time not foster an environment where vulnerable people are exposed to dangerous levels of precarity? From what I understand (which admittedly may not be much) of libertarianism, at least the kind most self-identified libertarians I know here in the USA (who probably think different things than people who call themselves libertarians in other countries/cultures/subcultures) appear to espouse, that philosophy sounds good from the maximizing-individual-liberties standpoint, but really fails to account for the precarity problem.
My friend Dale has written a fair bit (so long as I'm understanding him correctly) in defense of the state (and taxation/public works) as being a means by which precarity can be lessened in its impact. It's taken me a while to process those arguments but I am finding them pretty persuasive at this point, albeit with the caveat that I still don't understand the semantic network of words like "the state" well enough to even think of using them in my own defenses of whatever-it-is I'm advocating.
But I can still conceive of something people might decide to call a "state" representing the very situation you describe, in which people simply decide to pool their resources to help provide a safety net for their neighbors (and their own protection, as any one of us could at any time become more vulnerable due to disability, injury, changing family circumstances, etc., and suddenly require a very different/nonstandard set of resources in order to function optimally).
This might sound really naive, but I simply don't get how someone could possibly think, "Well, gee, I've got these millions of dollars here, but I'd really rather use them to buy a fleet of yachts rather than put money into healthcare for people who can't afford it." I know there are some wealthy philanthropists, and that some very rich people have contributed huge amounts to projects likely to actually help a lot of people, so I'm not demonizing people with really high incomes or anything -- certainly some of them are very ethical and generous. But at least the way things are now, most of them are able to do all that despite also paying taxes, and probably significant taxes at that. And, probably, still afford stuff like big screen TVs and gigantic beds.
I don't agree with all the ways in which the taxes I pay are used, but I really don't mind paying them so long as I'm employed. I know several people who are on, or who have been on, disability/SSI, and I like knowing that I am contributing toward the livelihood of such persons. Not a single one of them is "lazy" or uninterested in contributing something to the world -- they just don't happen to be configured in ways that currently permit them to occupy an economic niche within the competitive economy. So I appreciate that there's a means of doing so, even though I think the actual service quality needs vast improvements (and I do believe such improvements are feasible and worth working to implement).
I can agree with the libertarians that it is inappropriate to bodily force people into prison for nonpayment of taxes, just because in general I find it abhorrent to physically violate people for any reason. But I don't see how one can believe it's wrong to apply force for tax nonpayment but okay to apply force for nonpayment of services provided by a corporation or individual. Either way you have force being applied, you're just choosing to see it as legitimate or not depending on what you're calling the entity applying it. And I don't think it's a foregone conclusion that one is horrendous whereas the other is categorically necessary. I wish there wasn't any at all, frankly, but I'm not nearly convinced enough by any arguments at this point that you're going to make everything better for everyone by eliminating its legality in one context (i.e., government) but not others.
To a point I can see how a person's "stuff" can be considered an extension of self (e.g., it does strike me as an act of violence to run up to someone on the street and take their pants, or their wheelchair, or bicycle, away from them) but I think it's a bit of a stretch to consider taxation on a really high level of income the same thing. I can get behind the (libertarian?) notion that it's wrong to stick people in prison for nonpayment of taxes, on account of my very intense wanting to defend bodily autonomy, but at this point I'm just not sure how precarity would be dealt with if the onus were just put on people right now to voluntarily contribute toward a safety net for everyone.
Again this is not saying "I approve of force", it is just saying that I don't know how to design a perfect civilization down to every detail, and I don't think anyone else does, either. And I don't think only people who have a grand, unified, ideologically consistent vision of what the world should look like should be allowed to point out things that seem wrong and suggest ideas to improve certain areas of human society.
Oh, and just because this assumption sometimes comes up in these kinds of discussions: I do NOT believe that everyone should be obligated to go to a subsistence level before anyone can have anything that isn't absolutely necessary for survival. That wouldn't be practical or ethical, IMO, because it would presume a whole lot about what different people want and value most, and would get very messy and probably likely to violate people's bodily space.
In other words, I don't think people who live in the US suburbs (as I do) with nice computers and enough food, etc., will do the most good by deliberately rejecting the advantages we do have -- rather, we should just work toward acknowledging how good we have it, realizing life isn't a zero-sum game, and helping others get to where they are in less precarious and more fulfilling circumstances.
One thing I appreciate about you is how you have such an understanding of yourself. I am 35and yet sometimes I don't think I understand my own way of doing things or what I feel on certain subjects. Worse, sometimes my ability to articluate my thoughts to others is very difficult.
You mentioned health care. I am so hoping that there are better systems put in place to help people who can not access health care in the U.S. Choosing between feeding your family and paying for a child's filling should not be a choice any parent has to make. In America everyone should be able to have health care.
Marla said:
One thing I appreciate about you is how you have such an understanding of yourself. I am 35and yet sometimes I don't think I understand my own way of doing things or what I feel on certain subjects. Worse, sometimes my ability to articluate my thoughts to others is very difficult.
Whatever I can articulate now is the result of many many years of attempting to figure out how to say things. It is not something that comes easily, for sure. So I can relate on that. But as for understanding myself: my personality is just introspective, I guess. I remember as a very young kid wondering what it meant to be "me" and trying to figure out what made me a particular person and not someone else, or some other part of the environment, etc.
Also, introspection has become much more effective and accurate since learning more about how my brain actually works and getting to communicate with others whose brains work similarly. When I was younger I had all these weird scripty memorized "theories" about my own behavior and reactions because there wasn't any real vocabulary available for me to use to describe actual inner experiences.
Like, I remember not wanting to go into certain buildings because they were "bad" or had "bad feelings"; much later on I realized that this had to do with the lighting in those buildings, or how they smelled, etc. But since other people weren't complaining about those things I didn't even think to put them into words. I used to see myself as someone who "randomly freaked out for no reason", and it was only when I started finding ways to control certain variables that I started to see patterns to my own reactions.
That, in turn, has probably contributed to how I analyze decisions I make -- e.g., whenever I have a choice of some kind, I find myself asking what I actually value and why I value it, and using that to help decide. Plus, even though I can now explain some things in language that I didn't used to be able to, I've gotten a lot more comfortable using my brain in "non-language mode" because I am no longer confusing "thinking" with "coming up with words". So ideas can develop a lot more thoroughly before I try to explain them now, and that seems to be for the better.
You mentioned health care. I am so hoping that there are better systems put in place to help people who can not access health care in the U.S. Choosing between feeding your family and paying for a child's filling should not be a choice any parent has to make. In America everyone should be able to have health care.
I wholly agree with this. The whole point of "civilization", in my opinion, is to remove a lot of what is dangerous and precarious for people living in a "state of nature". I don't claim to know how a healthcare system that benefits everyone would actually be implemented, but I don't think anyone has yet demonstrated that resources are literally too scarce or that somehow there's some set of uncontestable facts about reality that make it so more healthcare for people who need it would come at the expense of someone else's freedom or other important rights. This is an area I am still really awful at articulating things in, though, so I probably can't say all that much on it yet.
Post a Comment