Thursday, December 31, 2020

December Deductions 2020; Day 32!?

 If you're like me, sometimes it helps to have a reference to remember something, so I'm going to pull out the old classic of Zombieland for our 32nd December Deductions post:


Rule 32: Enjoy the Little Things


Not everything is bad. There are some good things left, and it's good to take time to enjoy them. To that effect, I wanted to share a few little things that I take time to enjoy every now and then. It's just going to be a bunch of links, but they're there for you to check out if you wish. 


Eyebleach subreddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/Eyebleach


Illegally Smol Cats subreddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/IllegallySmolCats


Le Internet Medley by The GAG Quartet: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mghhLqu31cQ


My favorite Markiplier video of all time: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YArClaHvoT0


Cyanide and Happiness Random Comic Generator: https://explosm.net/rcg


Universal Paperclips Idle Game: https://www.decisionproblem.com/paperclips



There you go. Hope you can find some little things to enjoy as well. Goodbye!


December Deductions 2020; Day 31

 Today's the final day. After weeks of posting, and for you reading the posts, we're finally at the end of December, and of 2020. Today I have one very important task for you to do:


Celebrate. 


We did it! I hate to say it, but this was hard. I haven't done daily posting like this in years, and frankly, reading it has to have been hard too, so today I just wanted to share a few things I can recommend to do to celebrate. 


First, if you like, go online and find a diploma template, and make one for yourself. December Deductions, class of 2020! 


Second, treat yourself to something small. We're all hurting financially right now, so I'm not talking about something that would necessarily cost money. Listen to a song you loved but haven't heard in a long time, or watch a video you used to watch over and over. 


Third, I can't really afford to treat you to something, but I can try, kind of. If you like video games, I suggest going to the Free Game Findings subreddit. You don't need a Reddit account, you can just click on the link below this paragraph, and check to see what's available. Usually it's just links to other sites where you can get a specific game for free. 


Link: https://www.reddit.com/r/FreeGameFindings/


Finally, take a breath, count to three, breathe out, and relax. You did it. You made it through all I have for you for the time being. There will be one more post, a bonus post, but it's not something you need to stress about. If you're reading this, it's probably already up on the blog. 


That's it. There's no more following along, my daily posting is over for now, but should you ever come back to re-read what I've posted, or read stuff I post in the future, I will "see" you in those posts, and have a great year. Goodbye!

Wednesday, December 30, 2020

December Deductions 2020; Day 30

 Today's lesson is nearly the last, and I saved this one for now because after all we've been through this month, after dragging yourself through all of those previous posts, it's a lesson that you need to learn, and a lesson that's very hard to learn:


Self-regard; be willing to admit when you do well. 


If you're like me, this will be something you struggle with your entire life, but it's important to try. You are not a universal failure. You are not a mistake. You are not worthless. You are not useless. The way to get around the beliefs and feelings that we are these things is to take the time to focus on what we do right. It's not easy, but it's important enough to do it anyway. 


If you've been following along, or even if you haven't and you're just stopping in to read this one post, you're actively doing more to improve yourself than you otherwise would have. You deserve to feel good about that. 


There are a lot of tools and tricks to help you learn this lesson, but I think I'll just share one of the few that have worked for me. At the end of the day, or whenever you're not feeling good, think back to everything you accomplished, big or small. For today alone, I got out of bed, I heated up something for breakfast, I got myself dressed, I wrote this down, etc. etc. Try to take a moment to think about all the things you accomplished today, and even if only in your own mind, be grateful to yourself for them. You did good, and you can feel good about it. 


Alright, that's it for today. Tomorrow's the last day of the month, and I've got something special planned that I hope you'll enjoy. As I've said before, if you're following along, I'll "see" you in the next post, and otherwise have a great day. Goodbye!

Tuesday, December 29, 2020

December Deductions 2020; Day 29

 Today we're going to talk about a concept in philosophy that makes a lot of people, including many philosophers, uncomfortable:


It's okay to not know the answer (Agnosticism).


The most common use of the term "agnostic" today refers to those who do not have a strong belief one way or another about the existence of a god, in comparison to "atheist" which is a strong belief that no such god exists. However, the actual concept of being agnostic just means you refrain from having a belief on a particular subject. This idea is very old, but rarely put into practice. 


Sometimes, despite all the information at our fingertips, and all the different tools we can learn to use from epistemology, we just don't have enough evidence to support a belief on something. A very low-risk example of this is the weather right now in an uninhabited portion of Antarctica. Without looking up some kind of weather satellite that might cover the area, I have literally zero evidence to support a belief on whether or not it is snowing right now. As a result, I am agnostic on the subject; I just don't know, and won't claim to know. 


That approach becomes harder and harder the more the belief seems to matter. A lot of people, for instance, hold a very strong belief over whether or not a particular political move was good or bad. Without an in depth analysis of the alternatives and effects of that move, it's hard to say. In that case, it's not unreasonable to be agnostic on the question, but often you'll be treated as if you're weak for not blindly supporting one side or another on the subject. 


In the end, agnosticism helps us and those around us. If we don't know something, and can comfortably say we don't know it, we reduce the chances of people relying on under-supported beliefs that we may hold. It can also help others deal with the fact that they don't know some things. Not knowing is frightening these days, since it seems like we should be able to know everything since all the world's knowledge is often literally in our pocket, but that's not the case. It's okay to not know the answer to a question, and outside of school, it's generally not the worst thing in the world to not know something in the moment. If nothing else, you can say you don't know now, but you will find out. 


Oh, and don't feel the need to use the term "agnostic" if you think it might make others uncomfortable. It's just a more academic way of saying that you don't know one way or another for sure. It can be a fun term to pull out in a friendly discussion, but don't feel obligated to use it. 


Alright, that's enough for now. As I've said before, if you're following along I'll "see" you in the next post, and otherwise have a great day. Goodbye!

Monday, December 28, 2020

December Deductions 2020; Day 28

 Alright, today we're going to cover how to properly handle an argument by analogy, and the basic test on whether or not it'd good. 


Arguments by Analogy. 


An argument by analogy generally uses the following basic form: Thing A and thing B are similar in that they both have properties W, X, and Y. Thing A has property Z, so it is reasonable think that thing B also has property Z. As an example, all Call of Duty games to date have been first person shooters. Since the next Call of Duty game will be made by the same company for the same fans and under the same series name, it's reasonable to believe that it will also be a first person shooter. 


There are two things you need to look at when testing an argument by analogy. The first is that the form makes sense, specifically that the two things are similar in a meaningful way. For instance, if I were trying to make an argument by analogy about Usain Bolt and Michael Phelps, they are similar in a lot of important ways: they're both Olympic athletes, they're both gold-medal winners, and they're both well known public figures. The second thing to look at is whether or not they have any significant differences that affect the conclusion. If, for instance, I said that Michael Phelps and Usain Bolt are Olympic gold medalists so they can probably run the same speed, you could point out that Usain Bolt's gold medals are in running, while Michael Phelps' gold medals are in swimming, so Usain Bolt probably runs significantly faster than Michael Phelps. 


Use that test when assessing any argument that's trying to make a point by comparing two things. If, for instance, people claim that belief in the conspiracy that lizard people run the government is reasonable because the Watergate scandal was a conspiracy theory until it was proven, you can point out that the Watergate scandal has proof associated with it, and that it took relatively few people to pull off, while lizard people running the government would take thousands of people who are in the know to just not talk about it. Sure, they're both conspiracies, but one is significantly more reasonable than the other. 


I hope this one comes in handy for you all. As I've said before if you're following along I'll "see" you in the next post, and otherwise have a great day. Goodbye!

Sunday, December 27, 2020

December Deductions 2020; Day 27

 Today we're going to address one of the most common cop-outs on the internet: 


"Do your own research" and other nonsense arguments. 


Let me start out by saying that doing your own research is a good thing; check sources, find alternate viewpoints, seek the truth. That being said, "do your own research" isn't a good argument. This has been used a lot lately for two purposes. The first is a great example of the genetic fallacy: they'll say "do your own research" when you use a reliable but commonly known source, like a news organization, the CDC, the NIH, or scientists in general. The implication is that your source is unreliable because they found more reliable ones, but they won't share them with you. It's little better than a smokescreen. The second purpose is a vain attempt to shift the burden of proof to you. "Do your own research, I don't work for you." Yeah, but you made a claim, so back it up or deal with the fact that you're going to face the same criticism as anyone who throws out an unsupported claim. 


Another similar "argument" is the concept that if someone failed the trust of the public once, nothing they say is true. Something akin to "you can't trust them! They did this thing!" This is another great example of the genetic fallacy. If someone is untrustworthy, then obviously I suggest looking for sources on their claims, but if they provide sources and those sources are reliable and applicable to the claim, then the claim isn't completely without merit. Yes, that includes the exact public personality you're thinking of where you'd "not believe the sky was blue if they said so." 


These kinds of arguments are there to derail the discussion from being about the merits of any argument, evidence, or theory. They seek to make it seem like the speaker is somehow superior than others involved because they have superior knowledge and understanding that they can't be bothered to share. If it can't be shared, it's not useful to anyone but the person who already has it. If you notice that someone seems to think that they don't have to do any of the "work" in a discussion, ignore them, they're not trying to be helpful or educate or anything that's worth your time, and yes, you can quote me on that. 


Alright, that's enough for now. As I've said before, if you're following along I'll "see" you in the next post, and otherwise have a great day. Goodbye!

Saturday, December 26, 2020

December Deductions 2020; Day 26

 I think today will be the last of the rules of thumb, tomorrow we'll go back to reason and arguments. But first:


Praise in Public, Reprimand in Private. 


This is an excellent rule to follow for anyone who has any sort of authority over others. Following this will generally result in higher morale, higher productivity, and just a better culture around you in general. Praising someone publicly not only gives them recognition, but it also shows others what you consider to be praiseworthy, and so what they should do to earn your praise on their own. Reprimanding in private preserves the dignity of the other person, gives them an opportunity to provide explanation, and gives you the opportunity to judge if correction and education will work, or if it's time to consider letting them go. Harsh, but true. 


Praising in private doesn't tend to do a lot of harm, you just miss out on some of the benefits, but reprimanding in public does a lot of harm. Not only does it turn the conflict into something very one-sided and final, since they can't really provide a reasonable explanation when they're having to defend themselves publicly, but it also causes others to be hesitant to act as well. Ruling through fear doesn't work these days, not unless you're a dictator who can actually execute people, so please don't try. Take the time to properly address the issue, not just turn it into a major problem. 


That's all for today. As I've said before, if you're following along I'll "see" you in the next post, and otherwise have a great day. Goodbye!

Friday, December 25, 2020

December Deductions 2020; Day 25

 Today we're continuing with those rules of thumb. 


If it's not your business, don't attack it. 


This obviously sounds a lot like yesterday's, but it's important enough to me to make an entire post on the topic. A lot of people like to butt into other people's business, and they're rarely nice about it. I've done it, most people I know have done it, it's a common thing to do as humans. We need to not do that. 


A really good example of this is someone's gender. I could literally go into a full dissertation on how gender works and why very few of the loudest people talking about it are getting it right, but for the sake of your sanity I can sum it all up in one simple phrase: The two situations in which what happens to be in someone's pants should matter to you are if you are their doctor or if they want you in them as well. Bar none. If it doesn't kill you to call someone by their preferred nickname ("Bob" instead of "Robert" for instance), it won't kill you to use someone's preferred name in general, or preferred pronouns. Otherwise, even if they're "wrong" about their gender, let them be, it doesn't affect you in the least. Get over yourself.


The same thing applies with personal problems; if you're just going to shit on someone for their problems, don't bother. You're wasting your time, doing harm, and nothing good is coming out of it. You can spend your time better by just shutting up and finding something else to occupy your mind. 


Seriously, the concept of "mind your own business" is so old it hurts, and yet people still aren't getting it. Just let people live. 


OK, I'll shut up now. Thanks for reading, and as I've said before, if you're following along I'll "see" you in the next post, and have a great day. Goodbye! 

December Deductions 2020; Day 24

 The next few posts are going to be rules of thumb I find to be very helpful in day-to-day living. Let's start with the first one:


If it does no harm, don't attack it. 


Now, you probably immediately thought of stuff online, but this comes in handy in a lot of ways. A great example is spiders; they're small, they can creep us out, but 99 times out of 100, they don't want to be anywhere near you, and they take care of other pests that can cause harm. Don't get me wrong, there are some species of spider you should be sure to remove, like the brown recluse, but for most of those calling a pest control expert is better than trying to handle it yourself. If they're invading your living space, then find ways to remove them, but if you can, do so without hurting them. I say this as someone who, thanks to a quirk in my brain, can literally go into convulsions upon seeing them, so if anyone has cause to want them gone, it's me. 


Of course this does apply to online stuff too. A lot of people have a lot of hobbies that other people don't understand, everything from interest in a particular IP to strange kinks not everyone thinks are okay. By and large, if they're not hurting anyone, don't waste your time and energy attacking them. Furries aren't going to take over the world, Marvel fans and DC fans will keep arguing but that's as far as it generally goes, and those people you know that like to be tied up, blindfolded, and left completely in the hands of someone else are generally doing so safely and with consent. It's okay to let people enjoy things. 


As a side note: if you wish to encourage others to follow this rule, do so gently. Attacking people for attacking people just makes them feel like they were right to do it. That, and it's usually a lost cause if they get defensive. You have limited time and energy, maybe don't waste it on trying to hurt people for hurting people. That doesn't tend to help much in the end anyway. 


Well, that's all for today. As I've said before if you're following along I'll "see" you in the next post, and otherwise have a good day. Goodbye!


P.S. Yes, I know this is late. I'm sorry about that. 

Wednesday, December 23, 2020

December Deductions 2020; Day 23

 Today we're going to face a harsh reality; my last tip doesn't fix everything, it doesn't give complete control, and it can be tracked and undone, but that's also a good thing. 


Any system can be exploited, but the people that know the system know how it can be done. 


This is obviously somewhat topical, as there was a system that many people who are not experts on that system insisting it was exploited, but can't tell you how, while the actual experts are saying it wasn't exploited because they know how it could have been exploited, it was checked repeatedly, and therefore wasn't exploited. 


This is something that is generally true of any system. Yes, those that know a system can bend it in many strange ways to get what they want or need, but anyone else who knows the system just as well will know how to do that. There are very few systems that have so few experts that major exploitation can exist. The more a system is used, the more people are likely to understand it. So if a system is used my millions of people, and administrated by tens of thousands of people on an local level, it's almost impossible for large-scale exploitation of that system to go unnoticed. 


Now, that doesn't mean a system can't be noticeably exploited and the guilty parties get away with it. For instance, the fact that we all know what a "swing state" is should tell you that the electoral college, as a system, is exploitable, a lot of people know how to do it, it's regularly exploited, and no one gets in trouble for it. There's also the possibility that the exploitation can be discovered, but tracing it back to a source isn't possible. That situation is fairly common in cyber-attacks, where we can see the results of the attack, even fix the problem, but can't definitively trace it back to it's exact origin point, though we can usually get some idea from out intelligence community. 


That's it. If you plan on exploiting a system, be aware that someone else probably can too and will know how you did it, so I suggest not doing something that can force you to face punishment. Anyway, as I've said before, if you're following along, I'll "see" you in the next post, and have a great day. Goodbye!

Tuesday, December 22, 2020

December Deductions 2020, Day 22

 Alright, today's tip is probably one of the hardest for me to teach, because I don't really know how to describe it, so we're going to do a really wide overview. 


Learn the system; Use the system. 


One of the biggest mistakes I see people make consistently is thinking that because the system doesn't function well for the purpose we need it to, we need to work outside the system to change it, or completely replace it. You can check history, that doesn't really work well. Even in instances where people think that someone was bucking the system and succeeded, many times they were just using a different part of that system. Case in point: the United States Revolution. We think that by writing the Declaration of Independence and fighting a war they were destroying the previous system, when they were actually using it. The Declaration of Independence acted as a diplomatic document, and war was, and still is, a diplomatic action. They simply used the tools and systems available internationally to reach their goals, namely to cut themselves off from the British Government. 


Learning a system is the key to success with that system. Part of learning a system is learning what systems affect it, so you can sometimes go outside the system to use the system. In the United States, almost every system that is related to the government can be affected by contacting your elected officials, for instance. Learning when to use the workarounds can be very important. 


One of the best examples of how to handle this particular issue comes from the Pixar film "The Incredibles." Early in the film, you see the main character, Bob Parr, working in an insurance company. His boss gets upset because Bob's customers have become "experts" at getting their claims handled, which we see Bob helping one client with just that. That level of expertise allows him to use the system to help people reach their goals. 


That's how you can win even when the system is set up against you, find someone who knows the system, or learn the system very well yourself. Experts on various systems, whether it be government systems like Social Security, corporate systems like medical insurance, or even computer systems, get paid a lot for their expertise, because they can make things happen. That's how one can succeed, learn the system, because once you learn the system, you can use the system, exploit the system, and even change the system when you press the right buttons. 


That's all for today. As I've said before, if you're following along I'll "see" you in the next post, and have a great day. Goodbye!

Monday, December 21, 2020

December Deductions 2020; Day 21

 Today's another break day. You've earned it, so let's do something fun. You've seen me write essays, obviously, but let's see if I can write something else. I'm going to go grab a few short writing prompts, and just put the results here. If you feel inspired, take some time and try it out yourself. 


Poetry prompt - Vessel: Write about a shit or other vehicle that can take you somewhere different from where you are now. 


There's a van in the wood. 

In the van is a bed. 

By the bed is a shelf

full of books to be read. 


There's a book on the shelf

With red letters on back

Worn and decayed

But I can see "Jack." 


In the book there's a plant

That reaches up in the sky

Above all the clouds

Above birds that fly. 


Jack climbed up the stalk

And came down again

He learned to be good

To family and friends. 


The story ends there.

I close with a sigh,

That excellent novel. 

It took me so high. 


The book's back on the shelf;

The van's still in the wood;

I'm going on home, 

But not quite for good.


Some day I'll be back

To sit back on that bed,

There's another adventure

On which I must head. 



Prose Prompt: Choose an animal and write about it.


There once was a cat named Mars. He knew that was his name, but he didn't know why or how. His people used to when it was time for good things, like food, or treats, or sleep. They sometimes used it when he did something they didn't like, but he knew they didn't hate him. If they hated him they wouldn't keep loving him, and yet every day they call his name, and there's fresh food in his dish, a treat in their hand, and a warm bed to share. "If that's not love," Mars purred to himself, "I don't know what is." 



Paragraph prompt: Write something that begins with the word "hello."


Hello, my name is Mark Scott, and I'm here to tell you about the amazing world of vacuum cleaners! Have you ever noticed that your carpets get dusty, that there are webs in the corners of your ceiling, or that there's just a bunch of dirt in a place you can't quite reach? Well I have the product for you! Take this here vacuum cleaner, attach the hose and nozzle, turn it on and wowee, it'll suck up anything! OK maybe not anything. Maybe just dust and other small things. But still, it's pretty neat, right? No? What do you mean everyone already has one? I'm 50 years too late!? Oh boy, I better go back and tell the boss. Goodbye!



Alright, that's enough creative writing for one day, if you can call that creative. It was fun enough, and I hope you enjoyed reading. As I've said before, if you're still following along I'll "see" you in tomorrow's post, and have a great day! Goodbye!

Sunday, December 20, 2020

December Deductions 2020; Day 20

 Wow, you've made it two thirds of the way through this month. Based on what I've seen so far, that's an accomplishment. 


You're doing great. 


Remember that rule of thumb I mentioned? Everyone is doing their best? Well, I think today we're gonna focus on helping each of us understand that applies to ourselves as well. It's very easy, especially for those of us with stress, anxiety, or mood disorders to fall into the trap of believing that every time something goes wrong, it's because we messed up, because we didn't try hard enough. The problem with that is if you really look at it, 99 times out of 100 you literally did everything you could have with the information you had at the time. Sometimes our best doesn't look great, whether it be because we ran out of steam, had the wrong info, or just miscalculated, we still mess up, but that doesn't mean we're horrible people. 


If you've been following along this month, or reading this at a later date, you've been exposing yourself to a lot of stressful, annoying, and difficult concepts to swallow. You've been working hard, believe it or not, and you deserve a few moments out of your day to admit that to yourself. I know to a lot of us it feels weird or wrong, but believe me, acknowledging how hard you've worked is just as important as acknowledging someone else's hard work. 


So please, take a few moments, and just thank yourself for what you've been able to do, big or small. You've done things to help other people, maybe just tiny things, but you've done 'em! You've done things to keep yourself going, even if it's just the basics, you had to put in the effort to get them done. In most cases, because of the effort you put into the world around you and the people you love, the universe is a better place than it would be without you putting in that effort. So take a moment and acknowledge that. 


Alright, take a deep breath, and let's continue on in our respective days. Thanks for coming to hang out with me today, and if you're following along, I'll "see" you in tomorrow's post. Have a great day! Goodbye! 

Saturday, December 19, 2020

December Deductions 2020; Day 19

 Today we're going to talk about heroes, and why we need to be careful about them. 


Admiration is good, hero worship is not. 


I've described to you what the genetic fallacy is, but for review, it's the fallacy that judges an idea based on where it came from, rather than its actual merits. We talked about an example of this yesterday, when I mentioned the bandwagon effect, and the hypothetical example of going on a juice cleanse because an instagram model liked it. That specific version of the genetic fallacy, where we believe something based solely on the fact that someone we admire believes it, is hero worship. 


Hero worship causes problems in the belief acquisition process. Instead of appealing to an authority on a subject, we give our heroes authority on all subjects in our mind. We see this happen a lot, and we've seen it especially in the last decade or so here in America, with a lot people doggedly following their preferred politician, agreeing with them on every subject, fighting for their beliefs rather than one's own. 


Hero worship acts as a broken version of a legitimate form of argument: an appeal to authority. An appeal to authority generally uses the expert opinion from someone who is an actual authority on the subject at hand as evidence for an argument. For instance, if Neil Gaiman, one of the best writers alive today (in my opinion), were to give a talk about storytelling, I would probably consider almost anything he said in there to be expert opinion, and at least somewhat convincing in an argument regarding storytelling. 


Hero worship does the same thing, except it denies this basic fact: an expert in one thing is not necessarily an expert in anything else. We start with a simple belief that this person is an expert in something we care about, whether founded or unfounded, and then just let our minds run rampant with that. Really trust that politician? Then follow their random career advice! Think you've fallen for that actress? Spend your money on the products she recommends. That kind of thing. Don't do it. 


Still, it's not bad to admire someone, even to aspire to be like them in some way. I deeply admire Neil Gaiman, as you may have already guessed, and some day I'd like to develop a more fluid and enjoyable writing style, like his. That being said, if Neil Gaiman gave me a suggest on who to vote for in regards to fiscal policy, I should probably only consider that about as useful as any random person saying it. Now, if a former secretary of the treasury department were to make such a recommendation, backing it up with analysis based on their time in the office, then that's something more like an expert opinion. It's important to know that those two people are two different people. I would gladly take Neil Gaiman's advice on writing, but I don't think I'm going to get good writing advice from an economist. 


Our heroes should help us define who we are and who we want to be, but never should they be all that we are or want to be. Devoting yourself to becoming just like your hero denies one of the most valuable things about you: you're you. No one else can be you, and frankly, you can't really be anyone else. Be the best you that you can be, and decide carefully what that means to you, but don't try to be someone else. There's nothing wrong with looking up to a fitness expert, but don't try to have their exact body type. The same goes for a musician; learn from them, be inspired by them, but don't try to copy them. Every hero you have should be someone you admire for a reason, or multiple reasons, but you should also be willing to admit that person's faults. If you find you can't, you may need to reassess how you see them in relation to yourself. 


TL;DR: it's okay to admire people, to let them inspire you, but don't let their existence consume you. You're important too. 


That's all for today. As I've said before, if you're following along I'll "see" you in the next post, and have a great day. Goodbye!

Friday, December 18, 2020

December Deductions 2020; Day 18

 Today's should be short, it's just a very simple concept that most people already get. 


Improvement rarely comes without change, but not all change is improvement. 


People like to use the viral quote “The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.” Side note: this was never said by Einstein that scholars know of, it just got misattributed to him at some point. The point of the quote is somewhat accurate, if you want to improve, you need to change something about how you're living. 


That being said, "change for change sake" is generally not helpful either. 


Sometimes changing things to how they once were is helpful. Sometimes keeping some aspects the same will result in better results than a sweeping change. Sometimes, you're already on the road to improvement, and you just need to keep doing what you're doing. Pushing forward doesn't mean constantly changing things, it just means you continue to put forth the effort. 


Make your choices on changes based on whether or not the change will be worth it, not based on a simple desire to add in more change. Comparing risks, effort required, and potential gain will be more useful than focusing on whether or not you changed something recently. 


Also, don't fall into the trap that since a lot of other people are seeming to benefit from a change, you should try it too. That's the bandwagon effect, and it's not terribly useful. Look into what's actually going on, and if it's new information to you, or if maybe something related to it in your life has changed since you last considered it, then sure, maybe it's a worthwhile change. Just, don't suddenly decide to go on a juice cleanse because an instagram model you follow did it and liked it. 


That's all for today. As I've said before, if you're following along I'll "see" you in the next post, and have a great day. Goodbye!

Thursday, December 17, 2020

December Deductions 2020; Day 17

 Today we're going to talk about something that comes in very handy when trying to understand current events. You've heard the phrase "don't put all your eggs in one basket," which means don't devote all your resources to one thing that can fail, use multiple baskets so that if one fails, you still have some eggs. This is a news related corollary of that:


Don't get all your eggs from the same basket. 


Internationally, the concept of news programming is somewhat broken. Sometimes, like in the USA, they're all based on what pays the most, because we failed to protect against that. Since ratings and views pay, we get content that's selected, written, and presented to entice us, rather than inform us. In some nations they have just state-run media, which inevitably becomes little more than an arm of government control. In some nations, they have a combination of the two, with both benefits and detriments of both. Still, news is something we consume, because we want to understand what's going on. 


One of the easiest traps to fall into when it comes to news is the false idea of neutrality of a single source. FOX News has been labeled the "most trusted" news source, and many of their regular viewers only get their news from FOX. Every major network in the USA is the same in that aspect, they convince their viewers that they are truly neutral, and therefore accurate, and try to entice their viewers to watch only them. That's where things like exclusive interviews and those horrible opinion shows on news networks come from. It's all about getting more views, and it's not great. 


Still, there is a certain level of accuracy news organizations generally have to maintain. Outright lies from a news organization will be met with lawsuits, for instance, so they tend to avoid that. Like we talked about in my posts about word choice, they'll often do that through carefully wording things so they're not legally a lie. The important thing to remember is that all of these news sources have bias, some much more than others, but none are truly neutral. 


As a result, it's important not to get caught in a news echo-chamber, and only getting your news from one source, or from sources that almost always agree with each other on the interpretation of the facts. You'll need to get your news from multiple sources with different biases to get a better picture of what's really going on. That on it's own won't create an extremely accurate picture, but it will at least give you an idea of what pieces of interpretation are in dispute. 


These days, getting your news from multiple sources is pretty easy, since there are apps and commentators that will do it for you. News highlight shows on YouTube, like the Philip DeFranco Show, often mix in and note the differences from multiple sources. Apps like Google News on Android devices will choose what sources to give you based on which ones you've actually interacted with, so you can keep it coming from many sources by going to many sources. None of these are perfect, but they do help. 


In addition, it helps to understand the difference between news and news commentary. In some cases, there's a nice, clean line, like when the anchor says a key phrase like "I think," or "to me," but most times there isn't. There are cases where entire shows should be treated as news commentary, like any opinion show regardless of what network its on. Generally, the more famous the anchor, the more likely that they're leaning on commentary more than just the news. As you experience news from multiple sources, you'll get better at knowing when they've started to add their own spin to it. Obvious bias is nice in that it makes it clear when they've stopped being objective. Stating a motive for action that wasn't stated by the person making the action is a common example, they can't know, but they'll go ahead and imply that an alleged criminal committed a crime because of one of the anchor's pet causes. 


All of this makes it sound like to understand anything you need to spend hours and hours comparing sources, that's really not the case. A few good sources will be all you need to get the gist of a situation. For me, I prefer to try to find the news sources that are generally rated as high in accuracy, with moderate bias as opposed to significantly left or right. Once I get the gist of a situation, I'll often decide I don't need the details, and be able to move on. If I decide I need details, that's when I start going in deep, looking for other sources, looking for raw footage on social media, etc. Don't spend a lot of your personal resources on researching something that you really don't need to exhaust yourself over, most news stories are over within 24 hours, replaced by the next sensational story. 


To sum up: if you're taking in the news, don't take it from just one source, or from very similar sources, branch out to avoid getting sucked into the bias of the sources you naturally gravitate towards. 


That's all for today. As I've said before, if you're following alone I'll "see" you in the next post, and have a great day. Goodbye!

Wednesday, December 16, 2020

December Deductions 2020; Day 16

 Today is one of the most important lessons I have learned, at least when it comes to how to handle myself and how to see other people. 


 Difficulty is subjective, not objective.


Just to review, a concepts objective if it's true or false regardless of who believes it, talks about it, experiences it, etc. The existence of the Sun is objective, it either exists or doesn't regardless of what you or I think. A concept is subjective if it changes from person to person. Things like opinions and personal experiences tend to be subjective. For example, what a person's favorite flavor of ice cream might be is subjective, because it changes depending on the subject of that sentence (person). 


When I say difficulty is subjective, I'm talking about severity. The existence of difficulty is generally objective, but how one experiences it changes from person to person, and even when looking at the experiences of one person, it changes over time. What is easy for one person may be very difficult for another person, and what was easy once is not easy now. We've all run across these situations, but we rarely take the idea that difficulty is subjective to its natural conclusion. 


If difficulty is subjective, then any experience that has any level of difficulty may be vastly different from person to person, or from time to time. One great example of this is those with anxiety disorders often will be able to recite at least one instance where a very simple, easy task was so difficult that they still failed it, and it felt like everything was coming to an end. I'm speaking from personal experience when I say that spilling just a little water can be the final straw in an anxiety attack and leave you out of commission for days if you're dealing with an anxiety disorder or mood disorder. 


Since we know that experiences can be vastly different based on the subjective nature of difficulty, we naturally ask the question as to whether we can perceive the difficulty, so we can act accordingly. For our own situations, yes, we're generally able to understand how difficult something is for us. For others, however, it's not possible to simply see or measure the difficulty. Difficulty isn't really quantifiable, it can't be measured objectively, only aspects that can increase or decrease the difficulty. In short, no, we can't perceive the difficulty of what others are going through. 


That's a key takeaway here: you can never fully know how difficult a situation is for another person. You can sometimes guess, or even be told and therefore understand better, but there's something missing in how we perceive difficulty. Since we can't really compare it to our own concept of difficulty, we're never going to quite get it right. Since we cannot know how difficult something is for someone, aside from situations that require it, judgment of others in regards to how they handle the difficulty of a situation is ill-advised at best. 


I run by a rule of thumb every day, and although I have failed to live up to it multiple times, it's proven to be helpful for both my own sanity and in defining how I interact with others. That rule of thumb is as follows:


For your average person, unless they prove otherwise, they're generally doing their best. Some days, their best doesn't look great, but they're still putting forth the effort. 


I didn't fully understand how to apply this until I ended up psychologically disabled. The long and short of it is that for almost everything, the difficulty is exponentially higher for me now than it was before my decline, and for many things that almost anyone can, and should, do daily, I can't. I can't hold down a job, I can't maintain even contract employment, I can't even control my sleep schedule. I lacked the experience before to fully understand how much one's best can be limited. My best on any given day looks like shit compared to my best from several years ago, even on my best days. 


Now, take this rule of thumb with a grain of salt. It works well for me because it reminds me to treat other people with basic respect until they prove they don't deserve it, and to give people the basic benefit of the doubt. I've found if you apply it to most people you interact with, those you'll not likely interact with again or who's interactions are limited, you get along much better. Sometimes people make bad decisions in traffic that irk me, but if I remember that maybe something else is going on that I just don't get, I can take a breath and let it go, rather than seething for hours. Sometimes people put their desires before my needs, but they likely don't understand what my needs are, so I can accept that they're acting not out of sheer malice, but simple ego-centrism, a trait that I have to be aware of constantly in my own reactions. For every interaction that's small, it doesn't really cost me anything significant to grand the other people involved the benefit of the doubt, to treat them as if they're trying their hardest, but it makes the burden of that interaction much lighter in my mind. For interactions with people I've known for a long time, like coworkers (back when I was working), family members, friends, and other loved ones, giving them that simple benefit of the doubt often helps me learn to control my own impulses without getting upset, making my reactions more reasonable, and my day a little easier. But I can't say I have objective evidence for those claims, they're just extensions of the reasoning I put into the original conclusion that we shouldn't judge others too harshly without knowing all the facts. Try it out, see if it helps you feel better throughout the day. 


Alright, that's enough on this topic. As I've said before, if you've been following along I'll "see" you in the next post, and have a great day! Goodbye!

Tuesday, December 15, 2020

December Deductions 2020; Day 15

 When I was working on my bachelor's, I was blessed, or lucky, or however you wish to put it, to take a literature course taught by a professor that believed something I think we all should learn and apply:


If you're never offended, you're probably not learning. 


I like to take that to the next level. We've all heard someone say "it's your right to be offended," and that's true. Constitutionally, it's part of our first amendment rights. Ethically, it's something that happens in our heads and can't be stopped by anyone else. Personally, it's part of how we react the the world around us. But with every right comes responsibility. 


I believe it is out responsibility to be offended, fairly often, and to react accordingly. 


Allow me to explain with an example from my own life. If you ever get the chance, read "The Bluest Eye" by Toni Morrison. You may recognize the author's name, she's a truly amazing novelist. Between the years 1975 and 2018, she received 40 different awards for her work. She is an excellent author, and her book, "The Bluest Eye" offended me so deeply that I was forced to realize how much of a hypocrite I was. 


At the time in my life that I read the book, which was part of that aforementioned literature course, I had attested repeatedly that every human being deserves to be treated as a person. Perhaps I'll go into detail on that later, but part of that is allowing them to tell their story. That's a right, to tell their story as they see fit, it's part of freedom of speech but also part of how we should treat every fellow person. 


There is a passage in "The Bluest Eye" that takes the perspective of a child molester. Even now, just mentioning what the character was twists my stomach because to me there are few kinds of people that are worse than a child molester, if there are any. That passage treats the child molester just like every other character who's narrations filled the story up until that point. It treated them as a person, a human being, with complex thoughts and feelings, who did the right thing during the time of the narration. My immediate reaction was to become very, very offended. 


If you've been paying attention, you probably noticed the same thing I did moments later; my being offended was hypocritical. All Morrison had done was treat that character like a person, and let them tell their story. She treated them exactly as I had been demanding for years that everyone should be treated, but I was offended. This realization offended me even more deeply, because how dare someone point out to me, in my own mind no less, how I was failing to meet my own standards. 


In those moments, being offended was not merely my right, but my responsibility. It was my responsibility to respond to injustices both in the story and in my own mind, and reconcile them. The end result, for me, was to re-examine what I meant by person-hood, and why it was important. I grew from the experience, and my outlook has never been the same as it was before that day. But that's where the story ends, basically. 


That is part of the point of me saying "react accordingly." It is our right and responsibility to be offended, but it is not our right to use our being offended as justification to perform acts that harm others. Being offended is something that can help us grow, can help us acknowledge how others are fundamentally different, or at the very least help us understand where we draw the line on certain ideas. It does not grant us license to enforce our beliefs on others. 


Be offended. Be deeply offended. Consider what caused that offense, and whether or not it is worth being offended over. Consider whether or not you need to change because of what offends you. Maybe even express that offense to others, to let your voice be heard on the matter. There is nothing wrong with those actions. Even entering a debate with someone because something they said or did offended you can be very helpful to both parties, but do not fall into the trap of believing that because you are offended, you are right. 


If you're never offended, you're likely never exposing yourself to viewpoints other than ones with which you already agree. If you're never offended, you're likely not having the opportunities to grow that others are having, and you may stagnate. If you're never offended, you may not even know what you stand for or stand against. Be wary of never being offended. 


Now, I know you probably want to know how I changed from the experience from above, so I'll take the time to explain it, to lessen your worry. I reaffirmed that every human deserves to be treated as a person, but do not mistake person-hood with goodness. When we treat those among us that do very bad things as animals, we ignore the standard we should hold them to, and we ignore the reality that humanity is capable of horrible, horrible things. If an animal kills someone, we put it down, and often it is a tragedy. The animal could not understand, necessarily, that it shouldn't kill, it acted out of instinct. That is not true of a person. A person should be judged as one who could have done better, but chose not to. A child molester should not merely be put down because they are a broken animal, they should be held accountable for the lives they've absolutely destroyed, knowing that their victims were fellow humans, and refusing to care about that fact. In my personal opinion, a clean death is far too good for them, and the only way I can justify that belief is to believe that they must be treated as persons, not as animals. We do not dehumanize because that will give them an out, and all those like them. We give them the full benefits, and requirements, of humanity. We should treat them not as a broken animal, but a horrible human being, and the latter is far worse than the former. 


Don't let that make you believe that I think that all choices or mistakes should be judged as harshly. Those who suffer from substance abuse disorders will do horrible things because of those disorders; the proper treatment of them is to attempt rehabilitation. The same is true for those who live in such poverty that they commit crimes to meet their basic needs. Even those who commit crimes to fit in with their local subculture should be rehabilitated if at all possible. They are people, and if a person can be rehabilitated, it is better for everyone that they are. 


However, I understand if you disagree with me on either account. If what I said offended you, that doesn't mean you're wrong. It also doesn't mean you're right. It means you need to search yourself and decide for yourself whether you are right, wrong, or something else. And that is why I tell you to be offended, because being offended can be a very, very good thing if you use it correctly. 


Alright, that's all for today. As I've said before, if you're following along I will "see" you in tomorrow's post, and have a great day. Goodbye!

Monday, December 14, 2020

December Deductions 2020; Day 14

 So today we're going to learn a lesson I found out not by studying philosophy, psychology, anthropology, or sociology, but from studying literature. 


Everything is offensive. Everything has a problem. There is no such thing as an unproblematic narrative. 


Why does this matter? Well, it can come in handy some times, but in a basic sense I'm telling you this so you can understand that it is okay to enjoy things even if they don't get everything right, because nothing will. Think of the most unoffensive piece of media you can think of, then think of someone who would get offended anyway. It's not terribly difficult, especially in today's climate. 


One of the hardest lessons to learn is to separate criticism from enjoyment. There are certain things that are too offensive to be for me to enjoy, but that doesn't mean other people can't enjoy them. There are a lot of things that I personally enjoy that are offensive to other people. Most narratives that are meant to be very empowering to an otherwise disenfranchised segment of the population end up doing so by further marginalizing another population segment, and no, I'm not talking about the concept of "reverse racism." Here's a simple example: there is a novel we had to read and analyze for one of my literature classes that's mean to be very empowering to women, teen girls especially, and to the decedents of indigenous people in North America. It is, however, post-apocalyptic, and the way it decided to divide the world between haves and have-nots was based on prosthetic. Sure, it did put some focus on the unnecessary prosthetic, like cybernetic implants to let you change your eye color, but it didn't really point out a difference ethically between that and an eye to replace one that didn't work, or a replacement limb, etc. In fact, the main character is shown to be strong because she happens to need no such tools, she is even more capable than those that had access to them pre-apocalypse. In a very real sense, the author empowered young indigenous women by vilifying the disabled. 


But that was obviously not the intention, and although I can openly admit that the narrative is flawed, it's actually a pretty good book. Many, many other novels that I absolutely love make the same kind of mistake. Empowering people of color by marginalizing women; empowering women by marginalizing those with developmental disorders, empowering those with developmental disorders by vilifying the neurotypical, etc. etc. There's no such thing as an unproblematic narrative. 


Now, this concept also comes in handy because there's no such thing as a person without unnecessary bias. As we noted yesterday, we have to be willing to identify and at least try to adjust for our biases, but that's not terribly easy to begin with, and it's something that most people don't even attempt. This comes in handy when someone tries to make an argument by stating that they're ethically superior to someone else; if you have access to their public history, especially with social media, you can usually find some pretty easy examples of their own hypocrisy. 99 times out of 100, pointing it out is just going to piss them off, but let's be real, if they're not willing to listen to you because they think they're better than you, you could do worse than piss them off. In that last chance out of 100 though, they learn. They see their bias for what it is and can move forward. That's a wonderful thing, so sometimes it's worth being just a little bit of a jerk to help them understand that they too can improve. 


In the end, though, the main point of this is to not let your analysis take away your enjoyment. There are a lot of pieces of literature I love to pieces, but under an analytical eye have some serious problems. Understanding this will help you keep an open mind when running into someone who doesn't like what you do, but it will also help you learn to just shut down the criticism in your own mind sometimes so you can relax and enjoy a good story. 


Anyway, I hope today's post finds you well, and as I've said before, if you're following along I will "see" you in tomorrow's post, and have a great day. Goodbye!

Sunday, December 13, 2020

December Deductions 2020; Day 13

 Today we're going to basically remind you of a simple fact: you're not always right.


I'm not always right. 


No one is always right, aside from a few potential instances of the supernatural, but we're not going to get into that today. 


Today's tip is to question yourself. Question your own beliefs, and be willing to address them when they prove to be less than accurate. 


In my life there have been two ways I've found beliefs to be inaccurate: either I am presented with information that directly contradicts them, or I act on them and do not get the desired result, often repeatedly. 


Here's an example of the first way: I used to believe that the personality tests that would give you a personality type like "INFJ" were actually based on solid science, that you could actually use them for something. Then one day my brother brings up the fact that they're only barely more scientific than the tests to choose your Hogwarts House. I didn't believe him, at all, so I went and looked it up. Turns out he was right, and I was wrong. The result was a few hours of mild psychological turmoil (changing beliefs is never easy), and eventually I was able to accept the new belief which happened to be more accurate. 


As an example of the second way, allow me to explain how I found out that luck is a prerequisite for success. I grew up, same as many millennials, believing that hard work, determination, and a little bit of talent were all you needed to be successful. Throughout my time in school, that seemed to be accurate, because as long as I put in a good deal of effort, I succeeded academically. Then I faced the real world, where an education is helpful, but doesn't often make up for luck. I knew people who worked their asses off to become professional actors, but didn't have the good luck to be "discovered" like the ones that get sent from all over the nation to Hollywood. I've known people who worked extremely hard to get a particular job, only to find that they lacked the connections that they couldn't have gotten from outside the industry without dumb luck. I, myself, enlisted in the military, working hard to try to become a career Chaplain, and never even got close. I had the bad luck of a severe psychological reaction to some part of training, and it resulted in my mind being permanently and debilitatingly compromised, enough so that a medical board ruled that I could not continue to serve. I literally served until I had military doctors tell me not to, and that was the end of my military career. 


Neither way has been pleasant, and the deeper held a belief is the harder it is to let go of. In fact, there's also a correlation between age and the ability to adjust one's beliefs; after about the age of 25, any change in a deeply held belief can cause significant psychological distress, and as you get older, it gets harder. Not impossible, but definitely not pleasant. That's not to say any change in belief will result in psychological distress, in fact there are many beliefs that we hold only temporarily, meant to change, like what you want for dinner one night, or how confident you are in the outfit you're wearing. 


In the end, if you want to know more about the world around you, and you want to use that information, you'll end up coming to a point where you either have to change your belief, or ignore reality. For a lot of people, they choose to ignore reality, but if you've been trying to get through these posts, you're probably not one of those people. If you choose to live what's called "the examined life" and let your beliefs match what you learn about the world around you, you're choosing a difficult path, but I believe that your life will be richer for it. 


Anyway, that's all for today. As I've said before, if you're following along I'll "see" you in the next post, and have a great day. Goodbye! 

Saturday, December 12, 2020

December Deductions 2020; Day 12

 Alright, today is a pretty commonly known tip, but also one that is really easy to ignore because it's so common: 


Take Notes. 


If you're like me, you'll often have a thought or idea and figure, "no, that's too important, I'll remember it," and five minutes later it disappears. Or worse, only part of it stick around, like a conclusion without knowing how you got there, and therefore no way to convey the idea to someone else or even check to see if you were off base. 


The best thing I can recommend here is your handy-dandy computer that's always in your pocket. If you're on Android, Google Keep is a perfect tool. You can access your keep notes from the app itself, but also from any browser by logging into your Google account, so if you take a note while out and about, you can look at it on your computer when you get home. It has a feature to allow you to turn any note into a checklist very easily, and the checklist feature has been a life saver for me for to-do lists and shopping lists. The app is also available for Apple devices, but I don't know if it has all the same features; I haven't had an iPhone or any other iOS device since 2010. 


That being said, any method that works for you is good. If you prefer to keep a pad of sticky notes with a nib of a pencil in your pocket and just whip it out when you need to, then do it. If you prefer to use a voice recorder instead of writing, do it. If you think in pictures so you prefer to doodle or use the camera on your phone, do it. They key here is to allow you to access and assess your thoughts later on. 


That's all. As time goes on a lot of these tips and tricks are going to be shorter or just really specific, because large, general concepts are few and far between. 


As I've said before, if you're following along I'll "see" you in the next post, and have a great day. Goodbye! 

Friday, December 11, 2020

December Deductions 2020; Day 11

 Today's the break day. 


So here are a list of ten random free things I can do on the internet to feel better.


1. Google "Sea Bunnies." They're sea slugs that actually look like bunny blobs from RPGs. They're adorable. 


2. Google "Chuck Norris Jokes."


3. Go to reddit.com/r/eyebleach 


4. Watch old Homestar Runner cartoons on YouTube.


5. Listen to Yo-Yo Ma on Spotify.


6. Message a friend or family member.


7. Stream to Reddit using their Reddit Public Access Network software.


8. Watch Reddit Streams. Lots of nice stuff there. 


9. Write stuff and post it to my blog. 


10. Use Google maps to walk around a neighborhood virtually.


And a bonus, in case your internet is down: Go to Google and play the dinosaur runner game. 


Have a great day everybody! 

Thursday, December 10, 2020

December Deductions 2020; Day 10

 Today I'm going to talk about one of the most important parts about learning in general. 


Learn to take a break. 


Seriously, burnout can come in a lot of different forms, but regardless of where it comes from or how it hits, it can basically knock you out. If you've been keeping up just with the stuff I've been posting, you may already be very, very exhausted with all of it. Even when you're having fun learning, it can be very tiring. 


So, do yourself a favor every now and then, and take a break. If you want to read but know it's time for a break, read something about nice, simple things that you can just enjoy. If you want to watch something, every now and then choose something that's just simple fun. Better yet, do so more than every now and then. Rest is good for you. 


To that end, today's post is going to be short, and tomorrow's post is going to be a bit of a break, something fun rather than a lesson on learning. I haven't yet decided the subject, but it's not going to be particularly serious, and I hope you can take the opportunity to just chill out for a couple days, relax, let your mind recuperate from the constant assaults I've been subjecting it to. 


Remember, you're doing a really good job, believe it or not. Even on days where you're having a hard time, changes are you're putting in all the effort, but sometimes things just happen to be really, really hard. A rule of thumb I have learned to love is that for anyone with which you interact, they're probably doing their best, but some days their best doesn't necessarily look that great. Keep that in mind and you'll find it's easier to work with people. But also keep it in mind for yourself; we're all doing our best, but some days our best just doesn't look that great. Doesn't change the fact that we're doing it, and frankly, it's hard enough to do our best as it is without expecting our best to always be amazing every day. Be kind to yourself, and above all, you'll be okay. 


Alright, that's all for today. As I've said before, if you're following along I will "see" you in tomorrow's post, and have a great day. Goodbye!

Wednesday, December 9, 2020

December Deductions 2020; Day 9

 Alright, so you may have already grasped this, but just in case anyone's unaware, no one gets this stuff right all the time. Even if you do get everything I could possibly teach you right, you can and will make mistakes, you'll make wrong choices, you'll let your emotions get the better of you, you'll lose control, or any number of other possible things that will make what I'm teaching you today really, really important. 


Today, we're going to talk about apologies. 


Let's start by saying that everyone, yes everyone, should learn how to give a proper apology. We've all met the people who think apologies are somehow an admission of weakness or defeat, or those that simply take pride in never apologizing. In general, they're working under the belief that apologies give someone power over you, but that's not really what they're about. 


According to Psychology Today, the main purpose of an apology is repairing hurts and wounds in relationships. This is definitely true, and it applies to just about every possible relationship, whether it be something as personal as your relationship with your significant other or family member, a professional relationship, or sometimes even the very impersonal relationships you briefly experience in passing online. Sometimes the wounds are to your own credibility and/or personal honor, and that relationship, the one you have with yourself, sometimes needs healing too. 


Now, we all remember as kids being told to apologize and getting away with a half-felt "I'm sorry," or at least I remember that. Maybe I was just a crappy kid and everyone else meant the "I'm sorry"s they gave, who knows. In any case, as adults, we should know by now that "sorry doesn't cut it." A good apology has three major parts; first you acknowledge what you did wrong and explain that you understand why it was hurtful, you state that you intend not to do it again and possibly offer explanation, and then you conclude by inviting them to comment, or follow up with them later at least. Let's take a closer look at those pieces. 


An acknowledgment of what went wrong is important, and how you phrase it is also important. The old advice is to use "I statements," like "I'm sorry" and "I said the wrong thing." The key there is to shift the focus of blame onto yourself, rather than shift blame away. That means that apologies that end up being basically "I'm sorry you feel bad," "I'm sorry I was taken out of context," and "I'm sorry you're so weak," are not good. The verbs should be yours. Avoid the passive voice, which is what they call it when "things happen," and avoid shifting blame to the intended recipient. 


Just to make it a bit clearer, here's a simple example of a proper acknowledgment. "I'm sorry, I misspoke and I understand that by doing so I made it seem like I blamed you. That wasn't my intention, but I can see that's how it came across." 


An acknowledgment alone might cut it, but usually it doesn't. If the relationship is simply a passing one, maybe they'll be fine with that, but any lasting relationship will need a statement about the future. Now, sometimes we make mistakes because of things we can't control; a really good example of that is when a psychological disorder affects our perception to where we fail to follow through on our own values. That happens to me when I experience an extreme adrenal reaction, and I'll say things that I do not mean, that are often untrue. When that happens, I definitely need to apologize, but it also affects what I can say about the future. 


That's where explanations come in. When you make a simple mistake that you can learn from, it's fairly easy to say you'll do your best to not let it happen again, and mean it. If you've never made an apology with that kind of explanation, you might want to explore how well you're learning from your own mistakes. When the mistake is something that will be much harder to change, then it helps to better explain yourself, like I did with the psychological issue above. In either case, it should be your goal to do better in the future, and you can tell them that. Here's an example of that portion of an apology:


"I didn't mean to say it like that. I got my wording mixed up and panicked, so I said it wrong. I get that what I said was not okay, and I will do my best to not let something like that happen in the future." 


The final step is to invite comment. This is important because part of the function of the apology, part of how it heals those wounds, is to let them know they're being heard. This is where they have a moment to, if they feel it necessary, apologize in return, or simply accept your apology. I don't know of a right way to get this part done, it seems to be entirely based on the context, but the goal here is to let them know that if they need to say something, you can listen. 


This is the least fun part of the apology, because you really do need to try to listen. That means you have to be willing to hear them out if they want to more fully explain why what you did hurt them, and that's not fun. It can make you feel even worse, but it is sometimes important to let them do that. If that happens, where they feel the need to make sure you understand how your actions affected them, it is usually a good idea to go through the first two parts again to re-communicate that you understand, and maybe show that your understanding has improved based on what they said. 


Finally, there's always the chance it "won't work." No one is obligated to accept an apology, no matter how sincere. If they don't accept it, you can try to ask them why and see if it something that can be addressed. Sometimes they just need time away from the problem, which may mean they need to be away from you, so they can process what happened. Sometimes they're just unwilling to accept. Sometimes they're like the people we mentioned above, where they think they've won by getting you to apologize, and will react in a toxic manner. In any of these cases, or many others, it's alright to go ahead and end the conversation there for a while. If the relationship involved is one that matters to you long term, be sure to gently follow up with them after you've given them some time. 


Now, let's cover some aspects of apologies that I didn't get into with just the structure. First, an apology is not truly about them. It's about you, how you did something that caused unnecessary harm, or even necessary harm. Even if they can't accept your apology, it will help you learn from your mistakes and learn to trust yourself if you apologize. It also may help others who witness it to understand that you're willing to admit when you're wrong, which is an important trait to have if you're trying to learn more about the world around you. Secondly, there are some tools that do not work well for apologies. If you absolutely need to text your apology, don't make it complex, that might lead to them reading into it and result in another miscommunication. A simple "I'm sorry for ____" will work, but be sure to follow up later in a better format. The same generally applies to Tweets or anything else with a character limit. If you can, take it to direct messaging, an email, or another more fluid method of communication, like a phone call. Finally, please remember to take your own mental health into account. If you're not ready to talk about part of your personality or psychology that leaves you prone to make a certain kind of mistake, then don't force yourself, just focus more on the "I'll try not to do it again" part. If the other person is being toxic, feel free to cut the conversation short, and maybe follow up later. An apology is an action of strength, not weakness, so don't let people use it to walk all over you. You're worth more than that, and that's really why we apologize, because we can be better, we want to be better, and we will be better. 


To sum up: apologize when you screw up, which you will do, because we all do. Acknowledge what you did or said, how it affected the other person, and that you will try to do better. Let the other person say their piece if you can, so that you fully communicate that their feelings and well-being matter to you. And don't let people use the fact that you apologized to hurt you. Just because you screwed up doesn't mean they get to treat you badly, it just means you're human, and frankly, if you can apologize you're better than many, and better than you were, so hold your head up high.


Alright, that's all for today. As I've said before, if you're following along I will "see" you in the next post, and have a great day. Goodbye!

Tuesday, December 8, 2020

December Deductions 2020; Day 8

 I'm going to cut right to the chase: today we're going to talk about the function of a homogenous dialect. Let's get started. 


Alright, first let me explain what a homogenous dialect is. In the USA, and in most of North America for that matter, we teach the same dialect of English in every school, even those who prefer homeschooling have to learn it. In general, it can be referred to as Academic English. Since we all learn it, whether it's our primary dialect or not, we all can generally use it and understand it. It's all the same, which is what "homogenous" means. So our homogenous dialect in the USA is Academic English. 


That does not mean that there are no other dialects of English present or used in the USA. There are plenty. Every urban center usually features multiple, and there are a bunch of rural dialects used throughout the USA. African American Vernacular English is a very well known and heavily studied dialect that used to be called Ebonics (there is some debate as to whether AAVE and Ebonics are the same dialect or two similar dialects). Almost everyone is aware of AAVE, though you may not know it by that name. It's the dialect most commonly used in urban areas in which African Americans are the primary residents. You may have heard it called "gangster." 


That's just one example. You're probably aware of other dialects and not even know it. If, for instance, you know that in the states of Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Michigan the words "ope" and "oh" are not synonymous, or if you know that the proper plural of "y'all" is "all y'all" rather than "y'alls," you're aware of different dialects of English. Yes, their usage often coincides with an accent. The difference is that dialects are what is spoken, accents are how its spoken. 


Now, that's all just to help you understand what a dialect is, and how we already have a lot of them in our various cultures and subcultures. Today I want to talk to you about the function of a homogenous dialect, because it seems to be a subject a lot of people have been misinformed about. I'm not saying they just got it wrong, I'm saying they were told wrong when they were taught the dialect, and that those teaching the dialect weren't told why they were teaching it. 


First and foremost, there is no such thing as "proper" English. No dialect is inherently superior to another, but some serve different functions better than others. Academic English is not a natural dialect, but rather constructed. It's built to function directly with reference materials, most notably dictionaries, thesauruses, and encyclopedias. If you run across a word you don't know in Academic English, it's deigned so that you can look it up and understand it. Academic English also happens to be the dialect that I choose to use the most, simply because it can have such clean and clear definitions. The same cannot be said of most other dialects. 


Why do we have it? Because it serves a very specific function very well. The purpose of a homogenous dialect is to allow people on one side of the nation to communicate with people on the other side of the nation, or anywhere in between, and be understood. There have been attempts to create an entire language this way, but they've generally failed, but it has worked with a homogenous dialect. It is also not the only tool developed for that purpose; in the USA we have an accent that was designed to be easily understood, which I tend to refer to as the "Hollywood Neutral" accent, but it's actually a variant on a lower-Midwestern accent. In the UK, they have what's called the "BBC Accent," which was developed for the same purpose. 


Why is that important? Because when we need to have information transmitted to the vast majority of our population, or even just a lot of people from across the nation, we need to be able to do so without worrying about something getting lost in translation. This is incredibly useful not only in situations where official information needs to get out, like emergencies or systems like the "Amber Alert" system, but also because it gives a vehicle for interaction for the size of organizations and super-organizations our society and economy thrive on. The business world uses Academic English almost exclusively when it comes to writing, but you'll still find other dialect used "on the ground" as it were, when interacting with customers. That way, you get a personable interface that provides meaningful interaction with people and organizations that might otherwise not understand that dialect, and we're able to do that because we teach Academic English to everyone, while still allowing them to develop their own speaking skills with their peers, family, and community. 


Now, here's where I start to get offensive. Most English teachers in academia seem to have the reasoning for this wrong. They will tell their students that they teach Academic English because it's the correct way to read or write English, but as I said, that's not a real thing. All dialects are viable dialects, they just have different properties that make them more or less useful for certain purposes, and Academic English is specifically designed to be good for the purpose it serves. You learn basic Academic English in compulsory education because we need all citizens to be able to understand a certain level of official and unofficial communication. You learn more advanced Academic English, mostly focusing on writing, because having that skill is an unwritten prerequisite for promotion above a certain level in any industry. If you need to communicate regularly with people via writing, you benefit from that education. That's why many technical schools and trade schools still feature English courses. You're not being taught these things for arbitrary reasons, or because they're "right," language doesn't have an inherent moral or ethical value like that. You're being taught them because it benefits you, and it benefits your community, whether that be local, business, national, or even international. Almost anyone who speaks any dialect of English can understand Academic English, so knowing it and knowing how to use it opens up opportunities for communication and interaction. 


TL;DR: We all learn the same form of English, Academic English, because it helps us and it helps our society, not because it's "right" or "good" or anything arbitrary like that. That doesn't mean your primary dialect is wrong, it just means you can benefit from the additional tool that is Academic English. 


That's it for today. I fully expect for some educators to be very, very upset with me, but I meant what I said. It's up to you how honest you want to be with your students, but especially if they're adults, you probably should be willing to tell them that they're learning it because it can help them, not because some dude named Webster decided it's the right way to go. 


As I've said before, if you're following along I will "see" you in the next post, and have a great day. Goodbye! 

Monday, December 7, 2020

December Deductions 2020; Day 7

 Today's the day you've all been waiting for: we're wrapping up my tips and tricks specifically about word choice.


Tip 5: Putting It All Together and Why


Alright, so let's summarize each of the previous tips, then we'll cover the connections and the overall theme. 


Our first tip was to be aware of vernaculars, but let's simplify that again. Be aware of different sets of words and how they're used differently based on context. Be aware of it for when others' use it, and be aware of it when you do it, so you're ready to answer the question as to "why". It will also help you identify when public statements aren't *exactly* what a person means due to the need to avoid legal issues, as happens with news media very often. 


Our second tip was to be specific with your meanings, and be sure of the meanings of others. Be willing to explain the definition you're using, and be willing to ask respectfully for someone else's used definition if you think there might be a miscommunication. 


Our third tip was to not be an uninvited editor. Believe it or not, grammar Nazis pretty much derail conversations. If you're looking to learn more, you don't want a derailed conversation. 


Our fourth tip was to avoid attacking people, but rather judge and argument or claim by its merit. Look for evidence, look for good reason, etc. Attack the argument, not the arguer. 


Now, the whole reason for this is because we're all here to try to learn more about the world. That goal of learning more and the goal of "winning" an argument by beating the "other side" are mutually exclusive. If you want to learn more, and you want to be someone who helps others learn more, you need to let go of the feeling that you need to "win." If you can't let go of the feeling, at least follow through on the actions, and be careful with what you say so you don't derail the conversation yourself. That being said, don't torture yourself by staying in a conversation where you're being attacked without hope of getting it back on track towards the truth. 


I know today's post is short, but I figured all of us could use a bit of an easier day. 


As I've said before, if you're following along, I will "see" you in the next post, and have a great day. Goodbye. 

Sunday, December 6, 2020

December Deductions 2020; Day 6

 OK, today is the day you start to get annoyed with me, if you haven't already, because I'm basically going to tell you to calm down, take a breath, and treat even the rudest of people with a modicum of respect. And yes, it is a continuation of the word choice tips. 


Tip 4: Avoid Ad Hominem and other useless attacks


This doesn't have anything to do with the actions of someone else, and you are going to hate me for that. If people insult you, attack you, cancel you, lie about you, anything, you do not respond in kind if you want to continue learning. It often feels like the least fair part of trying to learn more around other people. Even before they start purposely acting like jerks, you want to act like a jerk. How do I know this? Well, I often act like a jerk completely unintentionally and people do respond in kind, but also because I constantly want to do it. I want to just slam their virtual face into facts that I know and they don't to win the argument and - obviously that's the exact wrong way to approach things. 


In case you haven't been on Twitter in the last few years, and haven't taken a Philosophy course, an Ad Hominem attack is what I discussed last week: attacking the arguer rather than the argument. Usually, the attack isn't even related to the subject matter, like pretending that correcting their grammar makes you smarter, or just insulting them. I can't tell you how many times I've had people somehow think that implying sexual inexperience somehow affected my argument. 


Oh, and I'm no saint either, this is probably the hardest lesson to actually apply out of anything I'll teach you, because it requires you to take your emotions and tell them to shut up and sit quietly in the corner of your mind while you treat the other people better than they're treating you. 


There are other kinds of fallacious attacks that tie in to Ad Hominem attacks, like what's called the "genetic fallacy." The genetic fallacy is basically the idea that a fact's merit can be entirely based on its source. Note, this is not talking about when someone makes a claim with no backing, it's most often applied, in my experience, when it comes to well known people or organizations. You are probably well aware that if you link an article from a Fox affiliate news source or a CNN affiliate news source, you're going to get replies that all too often include the word "sheep." 


That ties in with Ad Hominem attacks because one often leads to the other. If someone is angry about a claim, rather than assessing the claim's merit, they can just insult the source. "Of course someone as dumb as you watches CNN/FOX." It's very easy to dismiss claims that way, but also incredibly useless to do so. It's worth your time to judge a claim based on its merit, which includes checking multiple sources, including those you may not personally prefer. Keeps you from being in an echo chamber. 


This all leads into a discussion on circular logic, but that's a very complex subject that I will cover more in depth at a later date. I will, however, leave you with a very common example of an argument based in circular logic, so you know to avoid using it, or falling for it. It often comes up whenever someone wants to say mental health is the primary cause of a particular problem, and goes as such: 


Person A: "Why do you think they did that?"


Person B: "Well, because they're crazy!" 


Person A: "Why do you think they're crazy?"


Person B: "Well, you'd have to be crazy to do that!"


See the problem? If you break down Person A's argument, it's that a person did something because they were crazy, but the only evidence they were crazy is that they did it, so they're crazy because they're crazy. That's why it's called circular reasoning, it just goes back to itself to prove itself. Another name for this lapse in logic is "begging the question." Don't fall for this, and definitely don't use it. If you look at your argument and realize that it only supports itself, you may need to rethink your argument. 


So, to sum up: don't attack people, even if they attack you (feel free to leave the conversation though, it's probably a dry well if they're consistently attacking you rather than responding to your argument); Judge a claim based on its merit, including evidence from other sources when possible, rather than just discrediting it based on the source provided; and don't use or fall for circular reasoning. In all of these aspects, be the better person, it's your only chance of getting that "win" we talked about before, where all parties involved end up closer to the truth. 


Alright, that's enough for today. Great job getting this far. Take a breather, get something to drink, eat if you haven't lately, and let your mind chill for a bit. I'm throwing this stuff at you in a really dense and fast manner, so I'm pretty sure its exhausting. Make sure to take care of yourself even as you try to better yourself. 


As I've said before, if you're following along I will "see" you in the next post, and otherwise have a great day. Goodbye! 

Saturday, December 5, 2020

December Deductions 2020; Day 5

 Alright, today we're going to focus on something that's important when it comes to word choice, which is how much you can control other people's work choice.


Tip 3: Don't be an uninvited editor. 


Alright, we've all heard the term "grammar Nazi," and for some of us, we've used it to describe ourselves. If you know me, you know I've done this over, and over, and over, and over again. I've done what I thought was correcting people far too often. Worse, I've used a mistake/misunderstanding based on grammar or syntax as part of my argument; logic doesn't really work like that. 


"But if I'm trying to learn more about stuff around me, and if other people are wrong, then I can't!" Yeah, the whole point of these posts is to explain to you how to get around that. There's a distinct difference between asking for clarification and giving people unrequested "advice" or correction. I still have problems with this, because I got so used to using that as a tool to "win" an argument. Remember that if you're there to learn, you're not there to "win," you win by learning more, not by trying to prove the other person wrong. If you happen to convince them to learn more and maybe change their mind, great, but don't make that your singular goal. I'll explain that in more detail at a later date, but the short version is you'll just end up upset and disappointed. 


If you think there's a misunderstanding or miscommunication happening, don't push for correction, ask for clarification. Make sure to make it about your own understanding, rather than their actions or intelligence. Here, I'll give you a list of options and explain why they're more or less preferred. 


"Correction*" 


That one's dismissive, and will almost always result in the perception of you being there for a fight, and that you think you're better than them. It also has the direct effect of pushing anyone who doesn't speak English as their first language, or doesn't speak academic English primarily, out of the conversation. Just, please don't do this. 


"I think you meant/ did you mean 'Correction?"


This one's not as bad, but it still gives off that feeling of condescension and superiority. It also has that same silencing effect on people who don't speak your preferred dialect. 


"Do you mean 'correction'?"


Much, much better, but if the other person is already emotionally charged, this is still pretty likely to result in an escalation of conflict. 


"I'm sorry, I think I might have misunderstood. Can you explain what you meant when you said 'correction'?" 


That one puts the fault on your lap, leaves them open to react as if you're not attacking them. It does take up more time/character limit, but it's the most likely to result in a more reasonable conversation in my experience. 


Finally, let's talk about how using it as an argument doesn't work. The purpose of an argument is to counter the actual content of one of the previous claims, not to counter the person who presented it. Under the most strict rules of philosophical debate, who presents an argument doesn't really matter. Sure, expert opinion relies on expert credentials, but that's generally just evidence for a claim, rather than the claim itself. When you choose to try to make an argument out of correcting someone, you're basically attacking the arguer rather than the argument. It's a low blow that only serves to derail reasonable conversation. 


Why does that matter? You can't get good information out of people who are pissed at you. If you want to learn more, to become better, to get the information so you can analyze it and choose whether it's reliable or needing to be rejected, you need it to be as reliable as the source of it can provide, which means you need to treat them well. That, and they're you're fellow person, often your fellow citizen of the same nation, the same community, you need to learn to work together. 


Tomorrow's post will be about a similar subject to that last paragraph, the concept of ad hominem attacks. I hope it's helpful enough to clean up at least a few of the debates on the internet. 


Regardless, you did good today. Take a moment to relax, and remember that. You're not a bad person, and you're even working to make yourself better. You deserve to feel good about that, okay?


Alright, as I've said before, if you're following along I'll "see" you in the next post, and otherwise have a good day. Goodbye! 

Friday, December 4, 2020

December Deductions 2020; Day 4

 Day 4: Words Matter Chapter 2 - Different Definitions


This may seem a bit like a rehash of yesterday's piece on vernaculars, but it's important enough that I felt the need to spend a full day's post focusing on it, so here we go. 


Tip 2: Be Accurate, Be Precise, Be Aware Of Other Definitions. 


Why is that all one tip? Because it's all one concept. A lot of the discussions about important events and concepts today fail in a very, very important way: they don't treat their words as important as the concept requires. When you're talking about what to get for dinner, there's no reason to freak out about being precise. It's not going to really affect the discussion if you call both Taco Bell and a local, family owned restaurant that specializes in Latin-American cuisine "Mexican Food." It's simply just not that important. 


Now, when we're talking about the rights and liberties of millions of people, about making cultural changes to make the world a better place, or about just about any other socioeconomic issue that requires either a governmental or mass response to fix, the importance goes up. In those conversations, even though we often have them among people that can't really change anything, accuracy and precision are much more important to avoid miscommunication and misunderstandings. 


Let's cover one such misused and abuse word in recent years: "socialism." I'm going to try to keep from pouring into what "socialism" actually is, because that's a long discussion that doesn't have much to do with word choice, but I will focus on what it's not, and why it's use in Western politics has caused such a problem for a lot of people. To be brief: socialism is an economic system, not necessarily political or governmental, in which the "people" own what are called the "productive assets." That's it. It doesn't necessarily have anything to do with Medicare, social security, food stamps or anything else like that. 


People think it does though. Why? Because politicians and their allies largely misused the word throughout the cold war and beyond. They took a look at every social program, and called it socialist. Even today, both parties use the term socialism to describe things like tax cuts to corporations, government funded healthcare, and even government apologies for past actions. The thing is, for the most part, those are social programs, but they're not socialism. They're not changing how our economy functions on a basic level, they're changing some details about how we're running it. 


Why does this matter? Because "socialism," like so many other words that are affected by today's tip, is used not to convey information, but to cause an emotional response. We used to call these kind of things "buzzwords" or "loaded" because they really muddy the water of a reasonable discussion. If you want to learn more about the world around you, or help others learn it, don't appeal to emotion. Emotions can be wonderful things, and they can even give us some information about ourselves, but they're not useful when it comes to learning or making decisions. I know that sounds harsh, and if you don't believe me go ask a scientist or philosopher that you trust, and feel free to come back here later. 


The key to avoiding those pitfalls of emotion is to seek out accuracy and precision in terms. Part of that comes from using more accurate terms, like instead of using "socialism" as a blanket term, focus in on what you're discussing. Is it a single-payer healthcare system funded by the government? Maybe use "universal healthcare." That kind of thing. Accurate terms tend to be more professional or academic in nature, and tend to be longer, but they're worth having at your disposal, because if you know someone will immediately shut down at the thought of "socialism," which is kind of what the word has been used to do for a while now, then focus on the details, and maybe they'll be more willing to discuss why they honestly think there's a problem with it. 


When seeking to be precise in a conversation, the most important thing to do is confirm that you're working with the same definitions for key terms. If someone tells you that they hate "Obama-care," for instance, ask them to elaborate on it. What they may hate is the idea that the mandate that came with it hurt so many people who had to choose between useless but still expensive healthcare plans or paying a fee at the end of the year. Or it could be that they hate the fact that the government is deciding what people can or can't do with their money. 


Getting those key terms down pat will help you both communicate and understand better, and instead of a discussion being an argument where one person has to win, it can become a debate where, by responding to each others concerns and counter points, both of you end up closer to the truth than you started. But if you're using a word to mean something while they think you mean something completely different, you're going to end up having a hard time communicating at all. It's worth the extra time and effort to confirm the definitions. If nothing else, it may show the person you're talking with that you legitimately care enough to want to understand where they're coming from, rather than just being there to pick a fight. 


Finally, be aware of common terms that have different definitions. Loaded terms and buzzwords are a big one, because they'll often be used to mean different things by different subcultural media, whether that be a news organization, a social media site, or even just a regional difference based on where someone grew up. Over time, learn to identify the words you use that you have a definition for that doesn't necessarily match the common usage. If you've been following along so far, you've seen me define a bunch of terms because I've found that how I use them can be confusing without doing so; that's a practice you can use to avoid miscommunication. 


Alright, I think that's enough for one day. Let's quickly sum up and head out. Today's tip is to use precise terms to avoid miscommunication, open up the conversation by asking how someone is using a term that may not be in line with what you expect, and be aware of the times you do the same. Reducing miscommunication is just a generally good thing to do, so hopefully this all helped. 


Have a great day everyone, and if you're keeping up with all of this nonsense, I'll "see" you in tomorrow's post. Goodbye!