He does have some killer insights couched in his text, though — and that is the difference in aggregate cultures (social structure be damned!) on the difference of motivators of large masses of people.
Particularly relevant is drawing a line between guilt — which is self-inflicted by the person feeling it; and shame — which is inflicted from the outside.
It won’t take long for students of this blog to realize that guilt is the result of a developed independent self-image. You yourself don’t feel good for doing something that is in conflict with what you believe yourself to be. Shame is inflicted from the outside — by others — and so is inherently a result of social networks that suppress agency, and rely on external defined, status-driven relationships. The authority says you should feel bad about yourself, and so, well, you do.
Shifting back into the topic of this blog, shame functions well in low-empathy environments, with simplistic reasoning on why you are doing what you’re doing. Guilt is the result of existence in higher empathy environments. You hold yourself accountable because you’re connected to a larger body of people. Shame is used in low-responsibility situations, whereas guilt relies on higher responsibility stages of personal development.
What’s more interesting is what a bellwether/signal this is, in the current COVID milieu, on what stage of development our society is currently at — and at what level of complexity messages the larger body politic can actually operate at. There is no better example than masks. If you don’t wear a mask, now even if you’ve had the vaccine, and can’t give the disease to anyone, you’re not operating at the level of emotional empathy that authorities expect. Higher v-Memes would think this as gaslighting (it IS a control measure directed at the population) and resist the manipulation. Or even make the more grounded argument — if what we’re really working on is emotional comfort for those terrified of COVID, for whatever reason, should we not also require women to wear burqas as to not offend the Wahabbi members of our population?
Clearly, it’s easy to get lost down the rabbit hole — that’s the problem with fundamentally arbitrary measures that don’t work well. But it also allows us to gauge how easily our societies are manipulated. If we are deeply shame-based, AND have open channels to the outside world with poor national self-image, our level of development will make us particularly vulnerable to those who mean us nothing good. The counterpoint of how governments manage this is China, which carefully meters information to their society (through the Great Wall and general press control,) even though China as a whole has a very powerful self-image of itself as a great place. The leadership, either through emergence or design, know that their population is easily shamed (really read manipulated) and they aren’t going to drop the developmental stagnation policies any time soon. In fact, they’ll dangle their version of goodness out to the West (wouldn’t all of you give up your freedom to live in a safe society?) And those at the same level of memetic development, who just happen to be a sizable hunk of our journalistic caste, will amplify them. No extensive propaganda campaign needed.
Regarding guilt, it IS a sign of the development of a society that it can feel guilt. A population that possesses the ability to feel guilt can fix long-time wrongs, like slavery and theft of native lands. But only if we’re developed enough to feel it.
Otherwise, it turns into shame, with it’s concomitant linkages to lower v-Meme development, with strong In-group/Out-group behaviors. Which never help the Out-group in the long run, regardless of how shrill the voices become. The In-group will posture, and the out-group will still suffer. This is a great piece around one of my big issues — equity in education — that offers up ample evidence for this case.
So, thanks Joe — that dichotomy is a good one. And a powerful indicator of empathetic development. I’m doubling down on development in all this. If we do, people will feel guilty — and solutions for our problems will emergently appear. Shame will always remain the tool of the elites. And we know those folks only use what benefits them.
Successful prevention campaigns in any public health emergency use the memetic structures of their society to communicate with their publics. By placing information in an appropriately couched format that matches the population’s level of empathetic development, news literally travels like memetic wildfire. I wrote about this here early on during the pandemic. There’s been a lot of water under that particular bridge — that post was written in March 2020. But it still holds up, because it harnesses that deeper understanding/guiding principle of how people know in a given society. Quick update — the U.S. is still in chaos, and fighting it out in the lower v-Memes (which is actually devolving our society) because we just don’t know ourselves — and we actually refuse to acknowledge the updated science, which shows our initially order Non-Pharmaceutical Interventions just DID NOT work. And no surprise — those biases remain, casting aspersion through the lens of moral purity on pick-your-outgroup. Those filthy Republicans/Democrats. We always knew they wanted to kill us.
Bhutan is an interesting example to the contrary. They are ruled by a king, and the majority of the population rests somewhat comfortably in the Tribal/Magical – Authoritarian v-Meme. I think most Western descriptions of life in Bhutan come through rose-colored glasses, but it’s still a place I would like to visit, even if I didn’t want to live there. The country is kinda racially homogeneous, and religiously homogeneous, in part because they deported a bunch of Nepali-leaning (like over 100K) Lhotsampas, that involved all the usual rape and killing of any Tribally based/Authoritarian populations. If you read just the short Bhutanese history on the Wikipedia page, you’ll never believe any bullshit from the vast majority of Western journalists ever again about Bhutan being a historically peaceful kingdom.
Still, Bhutan is Buddhist, and Buddhism is a very interesting religion (and I owe a lot of my own reflective practice to meditating over Zen Buddhist koans while riding my bike.) The short version is a good hunk of Buddhist leadership realized that they’d never be able to evolve the value meme set of their larger population, because of poverty. So they went “all in” on the lowest level of the Empathy Pyramid — mirroring. I’ve posted the pyramid below in case you’ve forgotten it.
That’s the whole idea behind the Dalai Lama gig. Pick one child, have him raised by other enlightened beings to be an exemplar (kinda like the Buddha himself) and then everyone will copy him. It’s a good idea, and likely has made predominantly Buddhist countries suffer far less sectarian violence than comparable places. But they’re not the paradises that the West projects — Myanmar is over 80% Buddhist, and they seem to have had no problem massacring the Rohingya Muslim minority. Social structure dynamics and empathy development uber alles, folks. Hate to pop your chanting bubble, but Tribal/Authoritarian societies gonna Tribal/Authoritarian. And that usually means hell for the out-group.
Nonetheless, it’s not a bad strategy. And you can use it for the good of your people. This story (that totally makes sense) popped up on Twitter this morning, about how Bhutan launched its vaccination campaign.
I’m not going to mess with the lamas that made this call — do remember that the policy of this blog is to explain things in the here-and-now, and NOT!!! call BS on higher intuitive insight, unless it’s obvious falsifiable. Which, in this case, it’s not. There are understandings beyond my understanding. At the same time, well, gotta admit that giving a 30-year-old woman was a great choice. In the middle of a demographic category, extremely unlikely to get any side effects, breaking down any male/female preference (the Buddha ordained it, after all) — good on ’em.
Because I am no expert on Bhutan, let alone Buddhism, I also can’t comment on whether all this was emergent system behavior, or choice-by-design. But regardless, it does show that governments, if they have the best interest of their people at heart, can do right by their populace. Because of their level of Empathetic Development, Bhutan could never in 1000 years come up with an mRNA vaccine. But they did know the time to step outside their level of empathetic development and grab that tiger by the tail. Not all borrowing from higher v-Memes has to be iniquitous (as I’ve discussed here regarding nuclear terrorism.)
“If you see things the way they are, things are the way they are. If you do not see things the way they are, things are the way they are.”
One of the more interesting concepts in neuroscience is called the Default Mode Network (DMN). This Wikipedia article does it justice — as much as one can believe scientists studying what might be called the center of purposelessness.
And what is the DMN? It’s the connected regions of the brain that communicate with each other when you’re not particularly focused. If you believe the Wikipedia article, then you’ll see that much of what the DMN does is background processing for relationships with others and self. Here’s the list:
It is potentially the neurological basis for the self:
Autobiographical information: Memories of collection of events and facts about one’s self
Self-reference: Referring to traits and descriptions of one’s self
Emotion of one’s self: Reflecting about one’s own emotional state
Theory of mind: Thinking about the thoughts of others and what they might or might not know
Emotions of other: Understanding the emotions of other people and empathizing with their feelings
Moral reasoning: Determining just and unjust result of an action
Social evaluations: Good-bad attitude judgments about social concepts
Social categories: Reflecting on important social characteristics and status of a group
Social isolation: A perceived lack of social interaction.
Remembering the past and thinking about the future:
Remembering the past: Recalling events that happened in the past
Imagining the future: Envisioning events that might happen in the future
Episodic memory: Detailed memory related to specific events in time
Story comprehension: Understanding and remembering a narrative
What this list makes me more assured about is how we see transfer of relational modes to actual cognitive action modes. If we are indeed captured by the guiding principle of this blog — “as we relate, so we think” — it should come as no surprise that what happens in the DMN bubbles up to the surface when we attempt to focus. Our brains are practicing this constantly, even when we don’t believe we are thinking.
What this also means is our default, First Tier v-Meme is a real thing. I think it’s a fun exercise for blog readers to ponder what this might mean. For me, I am totally a Performance-based thinker. Confront me with a problem, I’ll give you some path out of your current state toward a goal you might have, or we might share. Some people obsess over status and moral judgment (Authoritarian/Legalistic.) And still others are deeply concerned about individual needs, and attempting to contextualize whatever their response is by considering the people around them (Communitarian.) Go down the v-Memes and see where you might fit in.
You’re likely to not get operating v-Meme out of reading any skilled writer’s prose, however. Writing is a developed ability all its own, and people versed in active reflection can often write at a much more evolved v-Meme than they actually operate at. Which is also interesting! And nope — I’m not going to go through my various writer friends and tag them out. Though I did just write this piece on contemporary journalism.
I’m all in favor of more research on the DMN — but it doesn’t lend itself easily to standard techniques. So stay tuned.
I’ve felt a bit of pandemic stress myself here recently — my dear students are definitely suffering from a lack of social contact, and I can see the fading of resilience in our young people that only connection can heal.
It’s forced me to think a bit about what I write — and why anyone should care. I do know my R0 << 1, regardless of my own regard, or the actual virtue of the work. So recently I was thinking about how to explain why someone should bother, or even attempt to steep themselves in the work on this blog, which, for the most part, avoids descriptive narratives, along with the inevitable good or bad, of current events.
So I came up with this. Whack-A-Mole. For those that care, “Whack” is the Anglicized version of the Japanese-Anglicized world “Whac”. In Japan, the game is called mogura taiji, “Mole Buster” — and so was rebranded to “Whac”, which then got turned into “Whack”. The Wikipedia post is well worth the read.
For those unfamiliar with the game, it is a mechanical arcade game where, for a certain amount of time, little moles pop up out of holes, and you have to whack them before they retreat. Your score is dependent on how many of the moles you whack. When your time is up, it’s up, and your score is tabulated. I’m sure there is a theoretical maximum of moles one can whack in a certain amount of time. Here’s a picture pirated from a software consultancy in Germany.
Whack-a-Mole is the resonant paradigm for our time, with all our various Wicked Problems. We never can get ahead of whacking the heads of the little critters. They keep coming on and coming on until our time’s up, or our shoulders are tired. You’re set up for fun (or failure) from the moment the system hands you the padded hammer. And yes, you’re never going to really destroy the moles. The best you can do is count coup on the little suckers.
What does this have to do with our Theory of Empathetic Evolution? Or rather, why should you care about the complex, interwoven structure of knowledge, social systems, personal development and culture? If you were to draw a big circle around everything that was involved in Whack-a-Mole, you’d include the arcade game itself. You’d also include the workings underneath. And you’d also have to include both the person doing the whacking, as well as the person who handed them the hammer.
The only real way of winning Whack-a-Mole is to have the self-realization that it is a game, and that the game is actually embedded in a framework where the actual, underlying dynamics are hidden, and elusive. I myself don’t know if the randomness of the moles is generated digitally, or if it’s a complex mechanical system with a non-repeatable pattern. Either way, the only way out of the endless game is to either break the machine, or do game-change beneath the surface. The moles’ behavior is, quite literally, emergent — and we simply can’t know on the surface what makes the moles pop up in the order they show their little faces. They just do.
But if we understand the Deep OS, at least we have a chance. You have the work on this blog about the social physics of game change, and you can, if you’re willing to sweat your brain, make more educated guesses on the pattern of the moles. Or you could potentially reprogram the game, so the moles popped up in a more orderly fashion.
And if you do need a more top-level description, you could read Hanzi Freinacht’s book Nordic Ideology. Highly recommended and as exciting a book on political philosophy as one can find!
Or you could elect not to play. But be aware, just because you decide to sit out a couple of rounds, the moles are going to keep showing their little noggins. As long as someone keeps putting quarters in the machine. And someone is ALWAYS putting quarters in the machine.
Note — this is not an easy post, and requires familiarity with the larger memetic theory I write about. But it’s an important thing I’ve been wanting to write about for a while. Don’t say you haven’t been warned.
In the hurly burly of political discussions, one of the most volatile topics in play is how we talk about censoring misinformation, or disinformation. For reasons discussed in this previous article, we can expect little help in evolving nuance from the mainstream journalism community. Locked in the paradigm of “reportage”, their job is solely to report what the various experts and authorities tell them — even if what that is goes against everything that is observable.
This surfaces the larger philosophical question — how do we know the truth? And, not surprisingly, how we know the truth must be hooked to how our brains process information. That leads inevitably to our own understanding of how we think and form perspective — which then, inexorably, leads to v-Memes. How we relate in the social structures that we’re given creates in our own mind the truth, because that leads to the basis for coordinated action. A group of individuals sharing the same truth can then functionally coordinate activity — and that leads to, more or less, evolutionary success if, over the long term, that group of truths/information reliably constructs a model of the world that is grounded in reality.
This is a big thought, so I’ll state it outright:
Truth is the reliable and valid representation of information that allows shared coordination of action inside a social network.
This is the kind of statement that opens up whole cans of worms. Nothing in this indicates anything necessarily contact with physical reality, though with the various forms of social evolution, obviously this matters. Truth also becomes dependent on scales of time and space, as well as energetic reach of a given agent. No one can teach us better about this than Winnie the Pooh. Trees may be filled with hives of bees with delicious honey — but without some means of accessing the honey, we rapidly become disinterested in honey as a food source. That doesn’t mean we can’t find modes of spatial enlargement, as Pooh Bear aptly demonstrates in this famous picture:
Where are we going with this? Instead of arguing about truth, what we really need to do is recast this discussion in terms of what I call validity grounding. How do we know things are true? Or really, how do we know things are valid, and grounded to a larger physical reality?
For those with some electrical background, grounding is a familiar concept. It is a way of taking a given circuit, and making sure that all parts of that circuit function off the same base potential. We use the term as well to show someone, in all forms of life, are not floating about in how they perceive the world, dependent on whatever knowledge base they may reference. We’ve all heard statements like:
“He’s very emotionally grounded.”
“She’s grounded in the physics of the situation.”
And so on. From there, it’s easy to expand the concept to all sorts of information. Validity grounding matters because it becomes the reference that all other activities in a person’s social network (or larger society) relate back to. And this is predicated on the two primary types of information in a society: a society’s beliefs, which are integrated aggregates of information, often processed by and through elites; and the accepted observations of other sentient agents (We the People!) who are doing their own thinking on what they see.
This dichotomy of beliefs and independent observations also map to the notion of closed and open systems in how they manage validity grounding. Beliefs are held inside a closed network that almost inevitably sorts into some version of a hierarchy, with the people at the top of the hierarchy being responsible for defining truth for the larger group. As opposed to more open social networks — data-driven observations rely on the agency of the members of that network, which can both form and dissolve, and so are inherently open in nature. Beliefs are low-empathy and dependent far more on how members holding them feel; data-driven observations are dependent on more developed, rational empathy.
Closed and open systems, for anyone that has done any measurement work inside a lab, also behave very differently. Inside a closed system, signal drift , the result leading to arbitrary measures of voltage or current, makes measurement inherently unreliable, as well as invalid. An insulated, closed system cannot self-correct on its own. My favorite example of this was the Aztec Empire, that I write about here. They convinced themselves (through their priest caste) that human sacrifice and cannibalism not only were acceptable, but necessary for the survival of the society. Without killing people on a daily basis on the altars, the sun would not come up. This set of beliefs led to profound, psychopathic drift in validity grounding for an entire society. One of my favorite examples of this was the focus on developing obsidian spears, refined for the technical purpose of solely wounding their enemies, so they could be sacrificed alive later. The Aztecs had so utterly dominated the subservient tribes that they would line up their young people as tribute when the Aztec emissaries came knocking. They were marched up the mountain to have their hearts cut out and eaten.
But when the Spaniards showed up with their forged metal swords and horses, it served as a profound validity grounding moment for the Empire. Metal swords are, in reality, much more robust than obsidian spears. And that, along with the revolt of the subservient tribes, allowed a handful of Spaniards to sweep away the battle forces of the Aztecs, which likely numbered into the hundreds of thousands, over the course of only a year. If you’re a closed social system, be careful what beliefs serve as your primary source of validity grounding. Because reality is still out there to bite you in the ass. In the lab, poorly grounded systems that drift are subject to violent arcing between different potentials when those systems actually connect with a larger, more relevant grounded systems. In societies, it can literally mean collapse of empires.
More highly evolved systems can still suffer validity grounding failures. But systems that integrate, in an evolved fashion, more viewpoints, are also far less likely to be surprised. I talk about this concept in the context of design in this post. Regardless of how well we may listen, understand and integrate our various agents/people/sensors inside an open system, though, tragedy can still strike.
Consider this example. We’re all relatively comfortable with planning a picnic on any given day if we can check the weather report. And modern weather forecasting has even given us the ability to plan a bike ride, following a nice wind direction on that same day. Models are made and updated every hour that take into account the winds off the California coast and how they’ll affect the foothills of the Sierras that are tremendously accurate — large, global spatial scales are now routinely integrated into modeling of weather in your backyard. But if an asteroid hits the planet (understand this in terms of much larger-than-comprehensible scales of time and space) it’s still “See you later, alligator!”
Walking up the V-Memes — Validity Grounding for Different Social Systems
Since people need points of synchronization in order to understand their position in the universe — relative or absolute — references are provided for validity grounding dependent on the active social structure of a given social organization, and its needs. The simplest example is perhaps the conversion of time of day from being independent for each city (noon could be easily measured when the sun was directly overhead, and watches set accordingly) to time zones, which were required for trains to run on a single track with passing sidings. Two trains, headed in the opposite direction on one track, was literally a disaster waiting to happen.
So.. here we go — a list of the v-Memes, with social structure, and primary validity grounding (VG)!
Survival v-Meme — (survival band) — conscious acquisition of immediate information (is there a tiger in the bushes?) — VG — You lived to see the next day! Centered on the individual and their immediate senses, with little/no influence of social connection to others around you.
Tribal/Magical v-Meme (tribal society with magical beliefs) — old myths and stories provide environmental grounding and allow persistence of a group of people into the future who can carry forward these stories. VG — modest level of reinforcing basic survival information, as well as larger context integrated over time from explorations outside the group and returned to “make sense” of the larger world. More VG in an immutable identity as the same as those in your in-group, but different from other groups around you. (Most tribes’ names are usually a variant of “the people” — which has implications for those in out-groups who are NOT part of that tribe.)
Authoritarian — (power structure dependent on those higher in the rigid hierarchy holding positions assigned by people higher in the hierarchy). VG is provided by the person at the top of the hierarchy, with potential sub-assignments by that person to various sub-classes of individuals. “The King Knows Best.” One can see the perils of this type of system clearly — if that one person, in charge of grounding the entire society to reality, is a nut, obvious bad things can happen.
Legalistic/Absolutistic — (Stacked hierarchy organized by rules, and organized elites somewhat independent of personality. Position/title matters!) VG — different roles are supposed to be aware of certain inputs outside this closed system, and are responsible for the veracity of information used in decision making inside the hierarchy.
Performance/Goal-Based — (Mix of lower social structures, where individuals have some ability to choose who they talk and listen to.) VG provided by a shared goal or purpose, that requires the individual to both observe and facilitate that shared purpose. Additionally, this is the first truly open system. If an individual decides that outside input is needed, others can be added to the social structure (like customers) that can provide fresh perspectives to determine if the system is meeting the needs it proposes.
Communitarian — (Mix of lower social structures, where group well-being is assessed both by aggregate means, as well as individual cases inside the social structure.) VG is provided to greater or lesser extent by input and data collection of all members of the social system. Where these systems can stumble is through the assumption of equal input. Everyone owns a piece of system validity — but not everyone owns the same size of chunk. This v-Meme will also be more or less valid and grounded dependent on the personal evolution of all system members. One where only a couple of individuals are truly data-driven, but most members are magical thinkers, will not persist, at least at this level. Much of the problems we are seeing with individuals struggling to validity-ground our own current form of governance is related to this failure of personal development.
Higher v-Memes/Second Tier (mix of lower v-Meme systems, with intentionality as part of system evolution — we are designing a system for a combination of functions, both lower and higher.) The big VG shifts in Second Tier systems are two-fold. The first is the addition of reflective practice on a profound scale — are we really doing what we thought we were doing? Can we explore other modes of grounding so we can be sure we’re actually doing what we think we’re doing? The second VG point involves actively understanding what is NOT known, as well as what CANNOT be known. This metacognitive awareness may be experienced to lesser extents lower down in the v-Meme stack, but in real Second Tier thinking, is an active part of the discussion. This as well is a current problem in our social systems. We refuse to accept or acknowledge the fact that we can make our systems more valid, and grounded over time — and demand perfection immediately, without evolved change. Or we accept Authorities at face-value, instead of demanding them to provide prima facie, observable evidence that what they say is true. The lack of VG in, for example, the dietary community is extreme — the US has an obesity rate of something approaching 65%. Yet the nutrition community insists on managing old guidelines that have been shown to be wildly, demonstrably false. This is not Second Tier thinking.
Summary — How Do We Know the Truth?
I know the text above is complex. And while it is possible to reason through the above validity grounding points, I thought I’d add this section for those that want to beat me over the head so I just get to the point! The list below is how we get to the truth for the various social structures/v-Memes/stages of development that are all linked together! No justification is given — that comes from above.
· Survival v-Meme — did we live another day? The information we reflect on will let us figure out what was true or not if we think back on the day’s events.
· Tribal v-Meme — did our immediate group last another year? Did our myths of how the world works hold up in the face of any larger changes?
· Authoritarian v-Meme — This one’s easy. The boss tells us what the truth is, and it’s our job, regardless of what we see around us, to believe it.
· Legalistic v-Meme — The rules are the truth, and we better follow them, as well as make appropriate sacrifices to our own personal well-being to conform.
· Performance/Goal-Based v-Meme — The truth will get us closer to both our personal goals, as well as goals shared by a more compact community. The big transition here — we, as individuals, get to contribute to the truth. Our observations matter.
· Communitarian v-Meme — the truth is reflected in actions that promote aggregate member well-being, which can be measured as those circumstances change.
· Second Tier v-Memes — the truth is reflected in larger Guiding Principles of the Universe (we’re not going to argue that the Law of Gravity is The Truth, for example) as well as a deeper understanding of where we cannot possess the truth.
I’ll close with this thought. Validity Grounding — the process of evaluating whether what we believe and act on matches reality — is one of the most important exercises a society can engage in. It’s why science, well-done, is one of the most important functions of a modern society. But as I’ve written elsewhere, it cannot be separated from personal and societal evolution — both in the creation of more complex knowledge, as well as the ability of people in that society to correctly apply it. We will always need authorities as part of validity grounding. But they cannot be, nor should they aspire to be absolute Authorities. We have to come far more deeply to terms with the fact that many outcomes cannot be known with certainty, all the time.
And that is the current peril with the most recent advocacy movements for censorship. It’s easy to look at the polis and declare certain parts of the information space “untrue” — like QAnon. But there are always going to be controversial shades-of-gray discussion in any modern society. For example, as the pandemic has shown, and will continue to show, many initial assumptions about various prophylactic behaviors involving Non-Pharmaceutical Interventions are false. I wrote a sense making piece myself on mask efficacy here, early on in the pandemic before widespread adoption. I believe that the data I evaluated was true, and the reasoning solid.
The deep reality that we will have to deal with is that unevolved Authorities in our society are always fond, through emergent disposition, of controlling the information stream – reality be damned. And those Authorities will also be intrinsically interested in their own egocentric interest — regardless how much they may protest. AND they are far more likely to squelch the voices of Validity Grounding that do not support their position — and turn an open society into a closed one.
Let’s never forget what happens to closed systems with poor grounding. That arcing thing ain’t pretty.
One of the reasons I’ve always loved whitewater so much is because running rivers (or surfing big waves) hones one’s sense of validity grounding constantly. You under- or overestimate? The river spanks your ass. The picture above of Benny shredding what is known as “The Cheese Wave” is classic. He’s got to find the wave, figure out when the water level is right, and then practice so he can get on the face of that monster. And then, in the moment, has to rip it up. That’s an entire scaling stack of reality that led to that picture.
One of my favorite visionaries was/is Greg Noll, the dude that (on a surfboard) surfed Big Waimea the first time. His famous quote:
“You want to know what it’s like to be a big wave surfer. Grab a board, paddle out past the break, point that board down the face of a grinder, and MAKE A COMMITMENT. That’s when you know The Truth.”
One of the things you’ll often hear repeated, ad nauseam, is the value of family in raising kids. And make no mistake, good family is basically priceless. Good family cares about the long-term success of you, as well as your kids, and can create a safety net when, not if you have emotional challenges in your life.
But not all of us are born into families that care. In fact, as I’ve stated, some of us have really drawn the short straw when it comes to that kind of thing. Biological family that plays the “if you love us, you’ll let us beat you” game are more common than folks realize.
Such as it was for my situation. And no — I’m not going to discuss the long tapestry of misery that goes in my own background — I’ve alluded to it enough in my other writings. Too many of them are still alive, and would be happy to litigate.
But I have been truly gifted with an extended family of non-biological uncles and aunts, that have been deeply concerned with the well-being of me, and especially my boys. These people have served pivotal roles in my children’s development, in a host of situations. They have taken their roles as functional adults in my children’s lives seriously. And I am truly, eternally grateful for that. We live in a society that preaches that children are a liability — too much money to raise, think of the career possibilities constrained, and other such icks. But the people that have stepped up in my circle are an exemplary group of humans. They haven’t all be there, at all times — they have other lives and responsibilities. No one person in diffuse modern society can be held to that standard. But they all have brought something, selflessly, to the table.
And you would be surprised how the connections have been made.
A quick review — relationships, as we’ve discussed, create the brain wiring that we all live by. These relationships have two primary components. When combined, they create the memetic profile that the child will see and interact with.
The first are called Externally Defined Relationships — these are title-driven relationships that come with a code of conduct that is established by larger society, and are largely belief-based. Rooted deep down in the limbic system that ran our Tribal past, they are instinctual. Mother and father are great examples, and come with elaborate descriptions of what mother and father are supposed to provide. But there are other slots in all our various hierarchies. Doctor, pharmacist, engineer, teacher — these are also important titles, some gained through extensive schooling. If you are sick, you don’t wander around the local shopping mall, yelling “I’m sick, come help!” You go to a doctor’s office. Externally defined relationships help us, and our children quickly navigate large, complex societies. And to the extent that we have our children practice those relationships, ranging from that tribal background (mother, father) to the far more Legalistic and formal (professor) the greater a range of thinking modes we open for our children to seek out authority-driven advice, as well as form the patterns in their brains for other rule-based processing.
This is an important point. Our children need formal relationships in their life so they can process rules in other parts of their life. As we relate, so we think.
But all the externally defined, healthy relationships in the world are not enough in and of themselves in training your children’s brains. Healthy externally defined relationships do provide children with a bedrock of sturdy attachment. No one can create an entire culture on their own. And not every hierarchy a child is exposed to is wrong.
The second category of relationship deals far more with active empathy. I call it an Independently Generated, Data-Driven, Trust-Based relationship, and it derives its legitimacy through interaction with the two participants. These relationships are inherently data-driven. People interact, they read the cues from faces, and calibrate their behavior toward each other based on that information and their own judgment.
This sounds more complicated than it is. You may trust your wife, for example, to remember to pick up your prescription from a pharmacy, but when she offers to make soup, you might want to order take-out. The independently generated relationship here shows how the scaffolding works. A good wife or husband should be deeply concerned with a partner’s health. But we all know that when it comes to being a great cook, the proof is in the pudding!
These relationships are absolutely vital. They evolve your children to be rational human beings. Rational relationships lead to rational humans, and especially humans that have agency — the ability to act, pick and choose for themselves.
Which brings us back to adding family, especially in the case where you don’t have any. I’m a declared orphan, and my boys functionally are as well. You cannot raise a child in isolation — it just doesn’t work, regardless of how good a parent you are. You need other people, and especially other adults, in your child’s life. If we are having a crisis in contemporary society, it is with that destruction of the multiple-generation family in all our kids’ lives. Kids can indeed learn important lessons from playing with other kids. But anyone that has the idea that homogeneous age interactions (think playing soccer) can completely do the trick, — you’re wrong.
Kids can, and do learn important lessons from interacting with other kids. But when everyone looks like you, and runs like you around a soccer field, there’s not much empathy development going on. Rather, what you’re doing is raising a child with a crowd mentality. And that’s not good for popping kids out of their own egocentricity, which is developmentally where they naturally start. Anyone that’s ever attended a seven-year-old’s soccer game can attest. The ball is kicked. The mob follows the ball, until it is kicked again. Rinse and repeat.
That’s why aunts and uncles are so important. And they can be found and cultivated, from all sorts of interesting places. They will come and go — but they are vitally important in your child’s upbringing.
Here is the challenging part of child-rearing. To receive maximum benefit for your child, you have to establish a pattern. First, assess the person and their ability to be alone with that person safely. All the rest of the advice flows from understanding that trust you can give the adult.
The second part? You have to get out from in between the child and the adult. With all the aunts and uncles in my kids’ lives, I’m very clear at the outset. “I’ve raised this child to this point. I think he/she is a pretty good kid. But if you spoil the child, or create some other imbalance in the relationship, I’m not going to worry about it. You’re going to have to fix it. I’ll always be happy to talk to the child, and potentially discipline after the fact. But I consider you a partner in raising this young mind.”
In the picture at the top is an old girlfriend, Karrie, who definitely fell into the “aunt” category. Karrie and I had a relationship that only lasted formally about three or four months, though we still remain friends to this day. We took a number of camping trips with the boys — Karrie would drive up for the weekend to Pullman, and we would take off with the kids from there. Since we drove two cars, it was imperative that Karrie had a companion to talk to as well. No isolating the kids from their responsibilities as good hosts. So the boys would take turns riding with her.
On one car ride, Conor, who was nine at the time, engaged Karrie in a conversation on her stock portfolio. Of course, I realize how much a nine-year-old can actually know about stocks — not much. But for half the ride, he asked questions regarding Karrie’s choice of stocks, why she thought those particular companies were good investments, and so forth.
At about the halfway mark, though, Conor got out his Yu-gi-oh card collection. While not trying to terribly distract Karrie from her driving, he turned the discussion toward which was his favorite card, and so on. Of course, Karrie found this deeply endearing. As best as a nine-year-old could do, Conor was attempting to balance the conversation, mixing topics he thought she might be interested in, with others that he cared about.
The picture at the top of this post is also a great example. I had taught Conor how to open a bottle of wine and serve, so he was getting a little help from Karrie in setting the table for dinner. Conor had the title on our trips of a “nine-year-old sommelier” so he would always taste the bottle to make sure the wine wasn’t bad (of course, he didn’t really drink himself) and then serve. Karrie was also famous for her chocolate-chip cookies, and she would bring the boys small gifts. A perfect auntie!
Every aunt and uncle is different, and that is part of the joy. Every different one will bring a different set of talents into the child’s life. We spent much of our weekends post-divorce with Uncle Ronnie, who has a son Conor’s age. Ronnie is an amazing skier and lifetime friend of mine. It was through his tutelage that Conor also became an amazing, expert skier. Conor and Ronnie would always be the first up the mountain on powder days, for the first run (called Rope Drop, for the moment that ski patrol would remove the rope blocking the run. )
Other uncles have served other roles. One of the most memorable Uncle moments happened when Conor was five years old. We were on a river trip down the Lower Salmon, and Conor was riding in the raft. We have a standard adventure rule that is enforced by all the uncles — “talk the talk, gotta walk the walk.” One of the things I noticed with young men especially, is in a crowd, they would talk themselves up into doing really stupid things. But this was a ratcheting effect — back and forth, daring each other and then stopping realistic assessment of the actual threat an activity might pose to life and limb.
So we implemented a rule — there was never any pressure to do something risky. But if you say you’re going to do something, then if the uncles present decided it was fundamentally safe, you could not back out. And if something was truly out there, you were called out for that bad decision as well. But you learned to think before you opened your mouth. There was never a shame in deciding a priori to NOT do something. Risk is relative, and rests with the individual. But your word? That’s a different story.
We were drifting down to a very modest rapids, one that is very swimmable. Conor started jumping up and down. “I want to swim the rapids,” he exclaimed. I was rowing — “are you sure?” I asked. He said “yep.”
We drifted down another 100 yards. “OK, get ready,” I said. Conor was looking over the edge, now not nearly as certain about his boast. “You gonna go?” I asked? Conor said “I don’t want to. I’m scared.” Sharing the front of the raft with him was my long-time traveling companion, Uncle George. George looked Conor square in the eye. “You know the rules.” Conor took one look at Uncle George’s face, and immediately bailed off the raft into the whitewater.
If you raise your children right, with a diverse community, they will internalize far more from these relationships than you might realize. On an expedition to West Papua, only a couple of years ago, my older son Braden and I were with a very poor trip organizer, in one of the most remote circumstances I’d ever been in. We crowded into an overloaded boat in the dark, because the trip organizer had failed to account for a shift in ferry schedule. The boat had no lights, and the boat driver had positioned a young boy up in the front with a cellphone, to theoretically spot any obstacles on what would be a 20 mile boat traverse of a finger of a bay.
Halfway out, Braden turned to me and said “you realize that you’re violating every rule that you and our uncles have taught us.” “Huh?” I said. “You beat into our heads, ‘Never get on a traverse without some plan on how to get off of it if something goes wrong.’ Always figure out how to bail off the traverse before you start.” He was right, of course. We immediately started guessing distances to shore in the darkness, and deciding which direction we would swim if the boat hit a lost shipping container. These are lessons that stick.
Uncles can be older. One of my mentors, Al Espinosa and his wife Mindy, helped me profoundly raising my boys after my divorce. They are the boys’ only real grandparents. Mindy took Conor to church, and as a consequence, Conor has a far deeper grounding than most of us with a secular background on how other people think. They communicate regularly with both boys, even though they have other grandchildren with their own kids.
It’s also important that if you expect others to be good aunts and uncles to your kids, you stand ready to serve as well. One trip I had organized brought along Peter, an expert backcountry skiing friend of mine, and his two girls, Willow and Sophie. Sophie was a classic easy keeper for an eight-year-old. But Willow, age six, had the devil in her. She was sitting naked save for a lifejacket in the front of the raft, taking one of the water guns and spraying the other adult, who was a bit less forceful than me, in the face. I told her to stop — and said if she didn’t stop, I was gonna pick her up by one leg and drop her overboard. She looked at me, filled the water gun again, and did it to my passenger.
So I grabbed her leg, and held her out over the edge of the raft. “You wouldn’t dare drop me! I’ll tell my dad!” Of course, I knew her dad, and we both shared that understanding of the value of a child forming her own relationship with adults in the party. I rolled my eyes, said “Oh brother!” and let go. She came up sputtering (she did have a lifejacket on.) “I want my daddy!” she hollered. He was about 1/2 mile down in his own raft. “Start swimming,” I said. In about 30 seconds we had her back in our boat.
At camp that night, she was still sulking, finding very little succor from her father for her behavior. I was seated in my camp chair, smoking a cigar. I reached into my snack bag, and pulled out a jumbo-sized chocolate bar, and started peeling back the wrapper. The rest of the kids started swarming me for their share. Willow cried out, “I want some too!” I replied “I only give chocolate to little girls that can make up and give me a hug.” She had been sitting on her father’s lap. Instantly, she vaulted off the stool of safety and into my arms. We had no other issues the rest of the trip, and of course, became fast friends. And yes — six-year-olds make great friends.
What you’ll find if you open your mind is that there are lots of elders who are willing to be involved with your kids. I came at mine through my outdoor activities, and often with my dating life. Your path may be different. But the secret is still the same. Once safety is established, get out of the way. Let the child learn to manage their own relationships. It is the foundation of appropriate agency and rationality.
Sometimes, Twitter provides. I had a bit of fun with a couple of youngish Austrians, reminiscing about times in Vienna and the Austrian countryside. And Matt Pirkowski, another public intellectual and complex systems thinker, turned me on to the concept of The Great Filter.
What is the Great Filter? From the Wikipedia article, it’s a concept proposed by Robin Hanson, an economist at George Mason University. (For all the academics out there, I’m sourcing info from the Wikipedia article — fair warning. This is a blog!) The Great Filter attempts to explain why we’ve witnessed no definitive extraterrestrial sightings.
That statement is actually an extremely complex one to unpack. And the former head of Harvard Astronomy, Avi Loeb, as I wrote about in this piece, would strongly disagree. Avi thinks that we haven’t been looking very hard, and he’s probably right. There’s a crazy romp through the memetics of why we wouldn’t necessarily even be able to have contact with aliens, even if they showed up with the answers to our problems. The memetic differences between underdeveloped us and them would likely be so great we wouldn’t get anything they’re trying to tell us.
But let’s assume, for the sake of argument, that the Great Filter, defined as the obstacle for developing interstellar life is actually correct. For every stage of the nine progressions, there are challenges — some greater than others. Here’s the nine:
What concerns us in this piece is the transition from 8 -> 9. Can we get there? And if we don’t, what happens?
I wrote about what we need to actually generate starships in this piece, titled “Stephen Hawking and Not Getting Eaten by Aliens”. The main takeaway of that piece is that we can’t get there physically without realizing the importance of most of life in the biosphere. Everything is connected, to greater or lesser extent, in what Lynn Margulis called a “holobiont“. This concept is so important, friend and collaborator Ugo Bardi, a physical chemist at University of Florence and I are working on writing a book on it.
The raw fact that everything is connected is undeniable. It smacks us in the face every day. But the deeper problem with us understanding this (or at least a critical number of us) is in the memetics. We have to have enough people thinking along the lines of meaningfully connecting penguins in the Antarctic with condos in S. Florida. And it’s not just knowing whether they are connected or not. It’s whether we should meaningfully care, and how ignorant we are. That’s far more complex than screaming from the rooftops at the public as a biodiversity advocate for saving all the penguins, or a real estate developer arguing for building more condos because of “the market.”
And the problems don’t end there — in fact, they’re just getting started. Those interconnected thinkers have to be understood, or at least mirrored by enough folks to start the meaningful memetic down-migration of smaller, less-connected pieces of information for broader dissemination. And the public then has to exist inside a culture that reinforces values at least marginally friendly to the idea that “All Holobionts are Important.” Or else you end up not just with incomprehension, but tribal warfare as various status-based leaders use and manipulate those knowledge fragments for their own end. In case you’re looking for an example of this, look at how people manipulate even something as simple and noble as The Golden Rule. ‘Nuf said.
What’s the big transition between #8 and #9 that seems to be the sticker. My friends, Daniel Görtz and Emil Ejner Friis, under the pen name Hanzi Freinacht, describe this elegantly in their books “The Listening Society” and “Nordic Ideology“. That is the transformation of masses, to individual identity, to the context of individual identity in the sense of also a group. They call this the “Dividual”, and if you’re interested in a deep understanding of these things, I can’t recommend their books highly enough.
From an empathy perspective, that thing of going from the idea of masses/elites, to individuals, to even further, individuals as part of the larger, active, agency-empowered collective, is really what I write about on this blog. The short version of this is that the transition from “individual” to “individual as a more deterministic, and self-actualized member of a group” is hard. Really hard. Our hardwired brain really isn’t set up for it (short version, we like mirroring and copying), which means it totally has to be loaded into the software of our neural system.
But if we don’t do it, we really can’t understand, or create the world holobiont that we need to get through The Great Filter. You have to have enough decentralized sensing and actuating in order to create the social structure that can grok the holobiont. And it’s more than that. There’s one hundred steps in between the penguin and the South Beach condo. It is simply not realistic for any one person to understand the decisions and trade-offs in a causal chain that links aggregate survival of either. But if enough people, are aware enough, with a global perspective, and a commitment to appropriate information detection, transmittal, and action, and are also humble enough to work in the context of what I’ve called a Hierarchy of Responsibility, as opposed to the Hierarchy of Status — taking on burdens because, well, we know better, and not because we’ll be immediately rewarded, then we just might pull it off.
We might get through the Great Filter. Because if we’re not there, we can’t evolve the social structures to develop the spaceships that might get us off this planet without destroying it. Because, as crazy as it may seem, those two outcomes — both preservation of the Earth holobiont, and creation of the tech. that would enable large-scale colonization — are absolutely linked in memetic structure. And though I realize I’m one of the only people writing this kind of stuff, I’ll tell you — the memetics don’t lie.
What the real transition is called between #8 and #9 is a term also coined by my friend, Ugo. He calls it a ‘Seneca Cliff’, and he’s got a whole blog, called The Seneca Effect devoted to it. If we don’t figure it out, we die.
What’s fantastically interesting about it is that while it deeply concerns humans (we’ll go extinct, potentially with life on Earth if we don’t figure it out) it’s not so much a function of our humanity. It’s a natural outgrowth of crowding without the requisite information coordination and appropriate development of complexity. We’re basically everywhere on the planet, and running into each other. Even in the Arctic, the Russians and us are arguing over drilling for oil and shipping across ice-free zones that have only recently been created with Anthropogenic Global Warming.
And our efforts to the end of world collaboration have been only limited successes, with a fair amount of abject failures. Talking about how the UN is a mess, or even the WHO, is outside the scope of this blog post. The reality is, though, that any large central authority is very unlikely to pull off the changes we need. It’s centralized, and as such, the memetics just don’t line up. Any world hierarchy is inevitably, no matter how benevolent, going to generalize, and end up being controlled by high status, egocentric people. Klaus Schwab and Bill Gates anyone? In our current system, regardless of discipline, the elites in those disciplines live in bubbles, and no matter what kind of rational argument is made, it simply can’t penetrate. Uh, don’t ask me how I know. The laws of social physics apply to Yours Truly as well.
And that leads to a perennial lack of validity grounding. No one knows what’s real anymore.
And that leads us back to The Great Filter. That doesn’t mean that there is no race of extraterrestrials out there who hasn’t passed through the eye of that particular needle. But there are laws of information physics that must be followed. Because they’re the LAW.
Will we make it? I can more tell people how we won’t make it if we don’t change certain things. Of course, preserving the physical holobiont of the Earth is vitally important. It’s a rear-guard action to say we should save forests, grasslands, oceans and their critters. Especially while we figure the rest of it out.
But even that won’t be enough if we don’t truly turn to developing our young people — and more than anything we need not only a focus on healthy early development, but a focus on young people in the 18-25 years of age cohort. I’ve been watching my students (and of course this is part of my contribution to the global information flow) and am just appalled at the way we’ve treated this age cohort during the pandemic. Only six months ago, we were condemning them as super-spreaders and such. But from where I sat, I saw broad compliance with the ersatz public health safety measures we elders put on them.
What’s broken it for me lately, as one example, is understanding how we’re running tests on them in their university classes. Various “services” for exam proctoring require loading of malware on their computer for tracking their browser history. And some even require a second camera to “watch” them to make sure they don’t take their eyes off the screen. I don’t doubt that some young people will cheat on tests. But every measure we take should be weighed against a larger set of outcomes. And one of the most important is how we develop the brains of the people who will be responsible for the future. We already have massive surveillance in the U.S. How is personalizing that going to create the decision making brains we are going to need in the future? To call it Orwellian is a crazy understatement.
We need to start drawing those lines between development of all, survival of our Earth holobiont, and what we do short-term for whatever an end. Because there is a price that will be paid — potentially sooner rather than later.
It’s all connected. And dunno about you, but I sure don’t want our species, or our Earth holobiont, to get filtered out.
One of the saddest (and scariest) things that I’ve avoided writing about forever is the enormous problems in our journalism community, that appeared to have started with the Trump years — but in reality, have roots far beyond our current sad state of affairs. One of my personal heroes, William Greider, wrote about this back in 1993, in one of certainly the books seminal in my own mindset — Who Will Tell the People: The Betrayal of American Democracy.
The book is full of crazy deja vu for those that think our current problems are somehow new, or due to Donald Trump’s presidency. The grand bazaar that is the current reality of our modern political system was already well in place then, and Greider chronicled all of it long before “populism” was turned into a dirty word. In fact, one of the chapters was titled “Rancid Populism”, where Greider described things like Astroturf, and White Hat politics for the first time.
One of the most interesting chapters, though, was on journalism, and the intrinsic problems that had arisen with the field since its slow “professionalism” in the ’60s and ’70s. It’s easy to take a comment like that and immediately assume that it is some Right Wing pigeonholing of the field. Journalism schools are, unsurprisingly, housed inside universities, and universities have long been known for ascribed liberal politics, regardless of the actual reality of the charge.
What Greider talks about though was not so much the notion of effete liberalism taking over newspapers and television. What he noticed, even though he came from a modest white collar background (Greider grew up in Cincinnati, about 90 miles from where I grew up) was that newspapers, formerly dominated by blue-collar working class types, had long since given way to people with degrees from universities. He was one himself (he graduated from Princeton), and documented the move away in the journalism community from demanding rights and improved labor conditions for the working class. Just like the Democratic Party, who used to draw on unions for their base power, newspapers had left those readers in the dustbin of history. Now we get fancy cooking sections.
Greider didn’t have the tools of memetics to comment on the changes that he so ably documented. But what was actually happening was profound. By moving journalism inside universities, and creating a professional class, now of high-minded, but naive middle-class youngsters, the axis of change in journalism had shifted away from Evolution, with increased validity, data-driven thinking and real consequences for the people receiving the papers, to increased Sophistication — processing increasingly complicated beliefs, particularly in the lower Authority-driven and Legalistic/Absolutistic v-Memes that reflected the university system minting new graduates.
Here’s a picture that is a quick display of these tendencies in data structures.
And here’s the bad news. Instead of the data-driven question of authorities and institutions that the media used to be famous for, when you educate journalists with college professors (of which I am one) and establish things like accreditation bodies, you inculcate belief-based authority-seeking. It’s a natural consequence of the type of relational development inherent in these systems, as well as the fundamental knowledge structure. A natural predetermination for authority-seeking in the memetic make-up in the people doing the reporting.
This was a profound sea change from what had gone before. Though one would find it hard to argue that the earlier press had also leaned heavily Democratic, their orientation was fundamentally different. Their v-Memetic axis was about power, or rather, a natural suspicion of power. Contemporary journalism, on either Right or Left wouldn’t say they’re concerned so much with sucking up to powerful people. It’s not a conscious action. It’s what they do. They would call it access, but it’s powerfully corrosive. Fox News is widely condemned for inaccurate and destructive reporting, and at some level, this is fair. But there’s hardly any difference in the Deep OS of Fox News, letting former President Trump prattle on with his three breakfast buddies, than CNN or Rachel Maddow printing everything various powerful liberals say. Both end up divergent from any notion of validity — the grounding process that relates information back to what’s actually happening in reality. And here’s the other thing — irrational relationships lead to irrational thought processing. As we relate, so we think.
And so in the case of information or misinformation, or disinformation, one ends up with a corrupted news source that people just tune out. Or not. Once separated from most people’s common reality, it becomes entertainment. What I’ve seen happen is that while politics has always had a good bit of theater involved in it, reporting on our politics have turned entirely INTO theater. Outrageous events like the Capitol Riots are billed as coup attempts. I’ve written about this before. Real coup attempts are actions involving at least some segment of the military, a la the various machinations of South American governments, that intend to replace the acting government. In the run-up to the Capitol Riots on January 6, all former Secretaries of Defense, and the current head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said “leave us out of this.” Of course, what did happen was tragic, and an inquiry is needed. But it was no coup.
The problem that occurs when you mess with the Deep OS of the system, you end up leaving the dominant information flows driving our country outside of grounding reality, as well as driving how we know things to more belief-based mental models. Worse, though, is the decomplexification of knowledge structures that are used. Instead of shades of gray, we end up with a lot of black-and-white, dichotomous thinking. And worse — as things deteriorate further, we see “splitting” in an entire cohort of our population — an inability to reconcile any good with bad on deciding perspective on issues. Here’s the complete psychological definition from Wikipedia. Sound familiar?
Splitting is the failure in a person’s thinking to bring together the dichotomy of both positive and negative qualities of the self and others into a cohesive, realistic whole. It is a common defense mechanism. The individual tends to think in extremes (i.e., an individual’s actions and motivations are all good or all bad with no middle ground).
When you uncouple development of any particular societal organ (and journalism is one of our most important) from information evolution, you get energy poured into sophistication — which means you’ll end up with increasingly convincing, belief-based narratives that are still fundamentally ungrounded. Journalism had beat that with its working class flacks walking the streets. But arguing with sophisticated thinkers, regardless of how self-evidently wrong they are (COVID is a mind-bending proof of this) is exhausting.
The other thing that has happened with the corruption of contemporary journalism, or rather, the de-evolution from grounding validity in the press corps, is that no matter what the actual state of affairs, profound memetic filtering happens on the downstream side of any current event. There is almost no cause today that is completely above scrutiny in the complex interplay of modern life. The critically thinking observer certainly knows this. Yet when you put a double stack of memetic filters — first in favor of the Authority-Driven v-Meme (important people get an outsize voice in defining reality) — and then add the inevitable topical filter that naturally exists on both Left and Right sides of the political spectrum, you end up with repetitive garbage. Further, when you add the effects of victims of trauma into the feed, these large signals are the primary ones that make it through that double filter bank.
No better example exists in the COVID crisis than the one deconstructed, with just a little fact-checking by WIRED journalist David Zweig, Are Covid Patients Gasping ‘It Isn’t Real’ As They Die? In the article (review ‘splitting’ above!) Zweig covers a CNN interview of ER nurse Jodi Doering from South Dakota.
“When I read some of your tweets, my jaw dropped,” the host told Jodi Doering, referring to her account of gravely ill patients who “scream at you for a magic medicine and that Joe Biden is going to ruin the USA. All while gasping for breath.”
“The reason I tweeted what I did is that it wasn’t one particular patient,” the nurse said. “It’s just a culmination of so many people, and their last, dying words are, ‘This can’t be happening, it’s not real.’ And when they should be spending time FaceTime-ing their families, they’re filled with anger and hatred, and it just made me really sad.”
Zweig tiptoes very gently around calling her a liar — and I think that’s fair. What’s far more likely is that she’s traumatized, and suffering from the effects, which, unfortunately include splitting. But basically Zweig, with a little shoe leather, virtual or otherwise, demolishes her claim. Additionally, other nurses in the same hospital chain call bullshit on the whole trauma angle.
COVID is a sensitive subject now — I get that. But this kind of BS is incredibly corrosive to our national identity. This story was used, along with the notion of the Sturgis, SD motorcycle rally, coupled with a Republican governor, Kristi Noem, a high-profile politician who refused to implement any of the regressive, restrictive COVID policies on her state, as a Red State/Blue State narrative by the journalism community. The reality, not surprisingly, of COVID in North Dakota and South Dakota, two states in the same seasonal situation, with roughly equivalent topological concerns and population demographics, was that COVID affected both roughly the same.
Yet the mainstream journalism community, including the New York Times, used it as an example to double down on negative coverage of the state, regardless of the plausibility that events like the motorcycle rally really did much of anything. They didn’t. And funny that at the same time as Sturgis was being held, another large crowd event — the South Dakota State Fair — was being held, with little, if any scrutiny from journalists. Even East Coast affiliated journalists don’t want to mess with the deeply Tribal v-memetics of Mom, apple pie, and Hereford steers.
What these examples show, unfortunately, is that the mainstream journalism community acts exactly in the memetic band-pass filtering mode that I’ve been discussing. Start with a poorly sourced, but powerfully resonant emotional story, of a benighted nurse, coupled with stupid hicks deep in denial in the American Heartland, who are low-status and deserve whatever they get, so steeped in denial-of-authority of the epidemiology/professor overclass. Add in interpretation and amplification of those authorities — “We knew this would happen.” And then, finally, run it through the topical filter (Right vs. Left) with a little concern trolling along the way. The Sturgis rally coverage was especially pernicious. The gap between any surges in cases and the motorcycle rally was literal months, for a virus that is well-established as highly infectious, in a venue where most of the events were held outside anyway. But that grounding validity generates nary a peep.
The problem with all this is that the memetic filtering also applies to learned scientists, like Martin Kuldorff and Sunipta Gupta that may be far less sanguine about restrictive COVID policies than others. Naturally resonant low empathy policies, such as population masking, even of little children, and school closures, as well as ridiculous policies as COVID-Zero, and restrictive lockdowns, all definitely residing in the low-empathy v-Memes, have their efficacy regularly trumpeted by the mainstream press. V-Meme matches v-Meme. Yet experience and more careful scientific research is showing that all these low- and anti-empathetic interventions really don’t do much of anything. And scientists I’ve covered in the past, with more subtle messages, are attacked as angels of death and whatnot.
The pandemic is indeed a multi-faceted event — but consider this picture from this story on kids in band practice at the school, in Wenatchee, WA. At some level, it’s such an extreme example, I’ve got to ask myself if I’m indulging in a little splitting myself!
But you can’t get at the core of all this as tending to fragmentation and individual isolation better than kids in outhouse tents (that’s what they are — in case you’re wondering.)
Lest one think this is just an American affectation, you’d also be making a mistake. The memetic problems we are experiencing here are also present in other countries. Of particular interest is how the international media has handled Sweden, which favored voluntary restrictions and a focus on preservation of civil liberties. Popping out the other end of the pandemic, Sweden has fared somewhere in the middle of all the mortality figures (I think it’s currently 11th in standing.) Here’s Sweden’s current death curves.
Yet instead of critically examining the Swedish population-based experiment, there has been almost uniform condemnation of their efforts. Letting people make choices and have agency is a Performance/Goal-Based or Communitarian v-Meme function, as well as trusting people to make those good choices. That’s not resonant with the lower v-Meme structures of the journalism community. And as journalists have sought further access to higher authority individuals, with no cultural sidebars to even respect lower status individuals, such strategies are an anathema. So much, in fact, that a recent Swedish public radio investigative report uncovered a closed 200 member Facebook group with the primary reason of discrediting the higher empathy approach adopted in Sweden. It’s no surprise that the article reports major news outlets, such as Science and the Washington Post, printed and amplified the information from the effort. That’s the effect of memetic resonances.
And, not surprisingly, the group is engaged in “splitting” messaging with regards to the foreign press. From the article:
“The leader of the Facebook group also describes in posts and on Twitter plans to try to bring those responsible for the corona strategy in Sweden before an international court for crimes against humanity. It is described as absurd by experts in international law with whom we spoke. They emphasize that this criminal classification is about deliberate attacks on the civilian population and which is primarily used in wars and conflicts.“
Not surprisingly, inside Sweden, the various restrictions on individual freedoms don’t line up with the memetics at all — and hence, the messaging have gone nowhere inside Swedish national boundaries. The public health authority in Sweden, run by Anders Tegnell, a noted public health epidemiologist, actually has a firewall between it and the government. For all the hue and cry about science running the management of the pandemic, Sweden is arguably one of the few places where it’s actually happened.
It goes on to issues facing the Developing World, which largely has been unaffected by COVID. Why? Mean population age. Consider the average age in the U.S. — 38 years — to India — 26.8 years. Or even Nigeria — 18.4 years! The journalism community reports a lack of vaccines in the latter two countries as more proof of white supremacy, or colonial thinking. And there’s no question — there’s surely a little of that. But there’s also not a problem in those countries, with lower mean ages. COVID below 50 or 60 is a bad cold. Should one spend precious dollars on a nationwide vaccination program in these countries? Surely the trade-offs are worth a little debate. And if you find it, notify me in the comments.
We have the ability to understand the root cause. Journalists, like all of us, are not inured to the effects of social structure on their fundamental neural wiring. Self-awareness has to be the first step.
There are no easy solutions to evolving the memetics of our journalism community. What’s worse is that the pressures on journalism — from more state control, to chronic defunding of the more legacy institutional model, make it difficult to propagate reform. Add on top of that the challenges of a younger, less experienced corps simply because a journalist’s salary can no longer feed a family, and it’s clear we’re definitely up against it. And let’s not mince words here — the Trump years were appalling for evolving a more insightful journalistic corps. Trump would take any criticism and use it to incite violence against the press corps.
But instead of blaming everything on Trump, let’s harken back to the problems that Greider laid out, what is now a long time ago. Evolving more independent relationships with sources can help. A healthy distrust of power and politicians would also be a start. The memetics point the way we have to go.
P.S.— I know that at times, believing that there are these larger structural forces that compel people to think how they think. I go back to my favorite Arthur Conan Doyle quote, from Sherlock Holmes:“When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.”
There are days when it feels pretty lonely in the zone of being a scientist, and actually remarking that it may be larger social forces and physics are doing science and scientists no favors. Then along comes no one less in stature than Avi Loeb, astrophysicist and Chair of the Astronomy Department at Harvard. If there’s two areas of research that get a pass on musing about how messed up we are, it’s particle physicists and astrophysicists — their stature is that high. And with his Harvard and National Academy pedigree, Avi sports the trifecta at the start of the argument. He’s recently gained notoriety with his belief that the oddly shaped meteor, Oumuamua, stating that he thinks it is likely artificial, and a light sail from a galactic civilization from long ago.
But Avi doesn’t argue from the standpoint of “I’m a famous Harvard astrophysicist — listen to me.” Nope. He says “consider the evidence, and considering how difficult it is to collect the evidence, back an observation up with a potentially causal hypothesis that captures a larger dynamic.” Now we’re memetically talking. And he talks extensively about this in this piece in Scientific American.
It makes me think I need to add one more person to my “most like to have lunch with” list. I think that Avi’s likelihood of learning about my work on structural memetics is probably on par with establishing definitive evidence that space aliens are among us, or me actually having lunch with the ghost of Antoine de St. Exupery, the other person on my list. Which, in a curious way, says something about how the War of Ideas goes. I keep going back to the famous quote by Max Planck (a particle physicist) saying “Science advances one funeral at a time.” Avi’s got friends in low places. Like Pullman, WA.
Too many scientists are now mostly motivated by ego, by getting honors and awards, by showing their colleagues how smart they are. They treat science as a monologue about themselves rather than a dialogue with nature. They build echo chambers using students and postdocs who repeat their mantras so that their voice will be louder and their image will be promoted. But that’s not the purpose of science. Science is not about us; it’s not about empowering ourselves or making our image great. It’s about trying to understand the world, and it’s meant to be a learning experience in which we take risks and make mistakes along the way. You can never tell in advance, when you work on the frontier, what is the right path forward. You only learn that by getting feedback from experiments.
He, of course, is diagnosing an Authoritarian-Legalistic power structure, a closed system with poor validity grounding that I’ve discussed before — scientists as authorities, instead of scientists practicing data-driven and theoretical model reasoning. As our systems become more closed, there is the larger and larger potential for what, in the systems community, we call signal drift (I write about this in a longer piece here. Data and observation are the key elements in validity grounding, and the minute you abandon our ability to do this, by positing multiple unseen dimensions, to the exclusion of other questions, you’re setting yourself up for a fall. The other vitally important one is the ability to admit you’re wrong, and change your mind. The lack of COVID theoretical remediation is one example — we’re still waiting for the most prominent voices to even acknowledge seasonality. But it goes on and on. As Avi brings up, “String theory anyone?”
Avi would be at home in the Lean/Agile community — and is also a populist. He’s got a customer — the public — and like it or not, the public are interested in aliens.
“Okay, here is my point of view. By and large, the public funds science. And the public is extremely interested in the search for alien life. So I must ask: If scientists are supported by the public, how dare they shy away from this question that can be addressed with the technologies they are developing?”
As I’ve noted, they could show up with the answers to all our problems, and because of their advanced v-Memetic development, it’s unlikely we could understand them. But Avi urges us to attempt to do so, and the article makes the case that it’s not THAT unlikely that we could discover some potential friends, who might be patient enough with us to help out with our current milieu. E.T. for therapist, instead of dissection target? Phone Home, little buddy. And if we don’t, we’ll still gain a far greater understanding of our place in the larger universe. Can’t get much more grounded-metaphysical than that.
Lest there’s any doubt that Avi is a higher v-Meme synthesizer, consider his argument on exoplanet research. Most exoplanet research is focused on finding oxygen in atmospheres. This is a relatively safe area of research, everyone can agree on hunting for oxygen and water. Throw out more odd chemical assays as bad data. But as someone with metacognitive stretch, Avi argues that we should exactly be looking for outliers, like industrial pollution on exoplanets. Good scientists look at outliers, and don’t just discard them because they’re inconvenient — it’s my key trigger to see if someone’s using their brain in understanding new phenomena. Now we’re talking.
So if you’re looking for a good, reasonably short Sunday read, here’s the link again. And if by some weird quirk of fate you know Avi, tell him there’s someone he needs to have lunch with. I’m buying.
PS — If you follow this blog, I know it likely doesn’t need saying — but here it is:
“As we relate, so we think.”
“We cannot reform science without fundamentally rethinking the social structures we create knowledge in — and subjecting them to dramatic reform.”
I’ve got a couple of short posts I’m going to churn out to keep my loyal readers happy that are primarily food-for-thought, as I complete a longer piece for another friend (Hi, Ugo! I haven’t forgotten!)
One of the more interesting graphs I’ve seen come across my desk was produced by Kate Starbird, at the University of Washington. Kate is a professor studying, with data science, conspiracy theories and their effects through graphical analysis. It’s a bit like staring into Saruman’s Palantir as it means dealing with Mordor on a relatively continual basis. What that means is that the work is definitely well-done, and instructive, but doesn’t really tend toward nuanced predictions. This is a picture generated by Starbird that ran in a short piece in Nature on Qanon. For me personally, I am not questioning the existence of the Qanon crowd. At the same time, I also would like some way of estimating their ability to act consistently on their fantastic belief. The structure of Qanon is so fantastic (in the literal sense of the word) it makes great story. And of course, the media just love it. But how large is the action envelope, and how many people will do something? Those are big questions.
Here is Starbird’s graph on the meme-o-sphere.
The tripartite nature maps well into the memetic landscape. Democrats are Legalistic/Absolutistic v-Meme rule followers, and as such are more diffuse in focus on content. The Political Right is definitely Authoritarian v-Meme, and as such has greater coherence of views. And finally, the dark cloud on the right of the picture is the cluster of Magical Thinkers — people with one of Julian Jayne’s Old Gods installed in their head – that may look just like Trump.
With incumbent chaos — these are the people raiding pizza parlors looking for pedophile rings. Naturally, there is bleed-over in the meme-o-sphere, especially between the Right and the Magical Right.
But as I discussed in this piece, bonds formed socially on line don’t necessarily lead to action. Yes — we had the Capitol riots. Yes — they were in essence seditious, but from a material perspective, not realistically so. There was no ability that any of the actors had to actually install a new government, a la a real coup. And those riots did not lead to the vaunted armed protests in 50 states on Inauguration Day.
We need to understand why — as any civil state needs to figure out appropriate action. Do we need some total crackdown and suspension of freedoms in order to maintain civil democracy? I’d argue not. But we could also use a deeper analysis on what the shape of the funnel is that Starbird’s tripartite clouds feed. As long as we have a toxic combination of weak national identity, and growing wealth inequality (and as I have argued in the piece — dietary/health instability) we are going to have some level of insurrection. Whether we are in a more profound state of collapse, or maybe just hitting some nominal stride a la Spain and its Catalonian/Basque problem, or even Russia’s chronic issues in the Caucasus involving Chechnya and Dagestan, is a perspective deserving of far more thought and scrutiny than our current chronic nods to the Apocalypse.
Especially when it comes to any debate involving regulating social media. I was one of the people that breathed a sigh of relief when Twitter finally suspended Donald Trump. But I gave that sigh with an enormous sense of foreboding. Like it or not, social media is how we communicate. And suspending any person is the modern equivalent of Being Sent to Coventry — a total ostracism of the target. It’s time to have a more nuanced debate between the sickness and the cure. Something, on a variety of fronts, we haven’t been doing so well with recently.