The Conscious Revolution is Catching

Mental capacity, and the lack of it, was much discussed in and around Ottawa last week.

 

The word "crazy" gets bandied about with alarming regularity, considering how poorly defined it is.  You can use crazy in the sense of nonsensical, bold, aggressive, reluctant, petulant, ignorant, dumb or even as a descriptor for an actual condition of cognitive impairment.  Given its vagueness of meaning, crazy is really a poor term to use as anything other than an insult.  If you want to actually give a situation, a condition or a person meaning, you need to refine your terminology a bit.

 

 

Hence, Rob Ford's functional fixedness is being considered through the lens of a recognized cognitive behaviour suite, obsessive compulsive disorder.  There are plenty of other politicians who could be diagnosed as having a "mental illness" and indeed, many have come forward, admitting to battles with neurologically-originated conditions like depression or alcoholism.  In fact, the study of the political brain has become trendy in science and journalism  Now, we're still in that phase of the game where we look to use labelling of cognitive ability as a stick to beat opponents with; there has been a lot written of late tying social conservative beliefs to our "reptilian" brain, with the implication being that one end of the political spectrum is dumber or less open to new ideas than the other. 

 

 

But there are a couple other things happening at the same time that, whether we see it clearly are not, are wholly connected to this phenomena.  One, the mental health crisis that, while not prominent on the radar these days due to the focus on our economic doldrums, still lingers.  It is the economy, though, that reigns supreme - along with questions like "how do you motivate innovation to grow new economic activity?"  Innovation, artistic creation and that nebulous concept of crazy are rightly intertwined; innovation is equally a function of our grey matter.  Then, there's health care, specifically the unsustainable nature of our existing model.  There's a huge mental health component to that Gordian knot as well.

 

 

Who makes decisions about our health care, our economy, our services?  Those people who get it into their heads that the world needs their leadership to function properly - a delusional belief if ever there was one.  Just because it takes a bit of delusion or narcissism to think you're that important doesn't mean that it isn't true; exceptional individuals, for better or worse, do change the world.  It's these outliers who, given the right opportunities in life, will build the better light bulb, cure cancer or develop a health care model that is adjusted to the realities of modern society and demand.

 

 

There is a lot of crazy in politics, but we need that crazy to move the ball forward.  Even if you're a status-quo libertarian who thinks of progress as inconsequential, you can't deny the historical reality of manic, motivated people developing followings and nurturing change.  It's just the way things are, the way they've always been.

 

 

In service use, in labour but especially in politics, we are beginning to peel back the layers; instead of simply accepting "that's just the way it is" we're asking "what makes them that way?"  In the days of colonialism, anthropology was a tool used to help Western powers understand (and better manage) those that they colonized.  The corollary of that process was the absorption of bits and pieces of indigenous culture into Western society.  Today, there's almost a reversal of that process emerging; through the studies of organizations like Samara or the information exposure efforts of Wikileaks or 404SystemError, it's now the average citizen who's peeling back the layers of political motivation, reverse-engineering the behaviour of our pols to understand it better.

 

 

As the public becomes increasingly inquisitive about the cognitive capacities or our pols - and as we have ever-expanding access to every breath they take, every move they make - there is more and more thought being given to how we can read, choose and motivate our political class better.  This trend ties in to the notion of managing cognitive labour to greater results, reducing external service dependence, de-medicalizing mental health and of course, getting more out of life.

 

 

This notion of maximizing human potential and of creative destruction in our society at all levels through systematic change is not a new one, nor is the idea of sudden bursts of civic activity, demanding more of society's leaders.  In fact, you could say it happens with startling regularity, with each iteration allowing people at all levels to climb the pyramid a bit further.

 

 

We're in the bust part of one of these cycles now; there will be hard times for those at the lower echelons of society that will trickle up, in degrees, to those above them.  As the wheel turns, though, both sides will realize that to reach their end goals, middle ground needs to be found.  It's that balance between executive function and systematic reaction that at some level, we are constantly striving to achieve. 

 

 

What all this focus on mental capacity at all levels does is allows to pursue that goal more consciously.

 

 

Systems, not Silos

The evolutionary line that ultimately led to the invention of the iPhone did refine these capabilities to enhance social interactions to an extent not found in chimps, enabling hunter gatherers in the Flintstone era to function as a “unique and highly competitive predatory organism.”

There's a Hopi proverb that says "one finger cannot lift a pebble."  It takes the whole hand to grasp, the arm to move and of course, the brain to coordinate.  Each finger is it's own thing, yet each is part of something larger, too.  It takes a centrally coordinated executive function for those parts to do things together, but when they do - the results are are disproportionately greater.

 

 

 

 

 

The brain works like that, too.  We like to look at the separate pieces as serving distinct functions, but the reality is that we need every piece to reach our full potential.

 

Whatever we like to tell ourselves, the same holds true for society.  We're not a bunch of silos working in competition; we're part of the same societal system.  Together, we are more than the sum of our parts.  When we recognize this, consciously, we don't need hand outs or hands up - we become the force that moves pebbles and mountains ourselves.

 

 

Profiling The Kadhrs: This Smacks of Eugenics

Welner also discounts much-cited comments by some U.S. guards at Guantanamo that the Toronto native is a “good kid” and “salvageable” – calling them “shallow in their prognostic significance.”

 “When one leaps to the conclusion about Omar Khadr’s future because he is friendly, one might recall that Osama bin Laden has always been described as gentle, likeable and charming,” New York-based Welner told Postmedia News.

“Lest we forget,” Welner said, “Omar Khadr’s university-trained father, for whom Omar translated, was ‘good’ enough that others would give him their money for his orphanage – yet he was raising money for al Qaida, and (was) a high-ranking member” of the terror group.

Dr. Michael Welner is a forensic psychiatrist, one of many looking for ways to quantify evil.  He has been called to offer testimony on the likes of Luka Rocco and, of course, Omar Kadhr.  This, to be, is more than dubious science, as evil is a linguistic catch-all and not a scientific concept; it's a little too familiar.

Even more disturbing are the connections Welner is making between Kadhr, his father and Osama bin Laden; it doesn't matter what they say, it doesn't matter how they act, they are fundamentally evil and that evil can't be overcome.

If we believe that as a concept, what's the conclusion to be drawn?  That some people, groups of people, perhaps even whole tribes are not suitable for social living.  What do you do when you have people that you don't want around?  You run them out of town.  Or, failing that, you contain them.  When you create a distinct divide between yourself and a perceived other, you permit yourself to stop seeing them as human and remove responsibility on your part to treat them as human.

We're seeing what that looks like in Syria.  We've seen it before - in Rwanda, the former Yugoslavia, in Nazi Germany.  Simple solutions with finality are never the answers they seem to be on paper.  There's a reason for that - life isn't simple.  Answers aren't simple.  We might prefer them to be, we might even delude ourselves that they are, but simplicity exists in our minds only.

There are psychotic people in the world - people, human beings - who do not have the neuro-psychological capacity for empathy.  They aren't evil, they're limited, just as someone born with any deficit is.  While these folk can be dangerous to society and must be contained, they aren't monsters, any more than a shark is.  Beyond this, the brain is a very plastic organ; with the right training, accommodations and environment, most neurological conditions can be managed.  It's just takes conscious effort on the part of everyone.

This issue isn't about Omar Kadhr - he's a symptom, not a disease, one person that none of us has ever spoken to.  This is about what we are willing to accept as fact on the belief of so-called experts.  We cannot allow for philosophies - for that's all they are - like Werner's to stand unchallenged.  We've seen before what happens when prejudice is justified by science.  It's not a path we want to walk again.

UPDATE - Now, Francois Legault is adding his own piece to the eugenics file, saying Quebec kids should be more like Asian kids.  What's really being asked is, what motivates behaviour?

Be mindful

Three stories that jump out at me today...

Former Ornge employees have described Mazza as "impressive," "brilliant" and a "visionary," but also a tyrant whose volatile temper exploded when they didn't do what he wanted.

Mazza was on mental health leave until now - psychiatrists deemed him medically unfit to testify.  Of course, there will be those who say that's all just a ruse, an excuse to avoid scrutiny.  They should check out the CAMH campaign around mental illness denial.

"I've travelled across this country and what I've seen more than anything is anger. We have angry people."

Angry people in Canada?  There's a growing trend of this fact making the news.  Of course, it's sensationalist (ie, twigs our emotions) but it's none the less true.  Stephen Harper has been waging a fear campaign for his entire stint as PM and now it's coming back to haunt him.  Harper's a decent tactician and certainly strategized his political rise carefully enough - why didn't he see this coming?

Ford decried the “disgusting act of senseless violence,” but stuck to his mantra that “the best social program around is a job.”

Mayor Ford's solution for gang violence?  Declare a war on it.  A war on war has never been a particularly successful approach, but Ford is certain it will work this time.  He doesn't believe in proactively supporting people to help provide them choices other than violence, though - that's too totalitarian in his view.

Is there a common thread to these stories?  I believe there is.  Until we take the time to understand what makes behaviour tick and consciously wrest control from gut reaction, we will be doomed to repeat history.

How Fit is Rob Ford?

“We must use every legal means to make life for these thugs miserable, to put them behind bars, or to run them out of town,” Ford said in a statement. “We will not rest until being a gang member is a miserable, undesirable life.”

Ostracize.  Contain.  Punish.  These are Rob Ford's solutions to gang-related crime.  The underlying principle is that some people are bad seeds and need to be removed from society to prevent harm to everyone else.  It's not an a-typical social conservative position to have.  It goes along with the idea that government is oppressive to the individual and that taxation disincents people from working and innovating; if they got to keep more of their money, they'd work harder to get even more money.  Greater prosperity will result in greater demand, more jobs, and more prosperity for everyone.

So - on the one hand, we need to remove bad apples so as not to spoil the bushel.  On the other, we shouldn't regulate behaviour, because that impedes good behaviour through resentment, etc.  Some people would say that taking away social services and regulation (minimum wage, education requirements, etc) but punishing people for crimes that are fostered by socio-economic conditions is ridiculous; you're punishing people, essentially, for their lot in life.  It's not fair.  It makes more sense to be proactive, to educate, accommodate, etc and avoid crime in the first place.  Reactive behaviour comes too late.

It all depends on what kind of society you're trying to build.  There actually is a case to be made for the Rob Ford model of society - it's called "survival of the fittest."  It's basic evolution - the strong will rise to the top no matter what and the weak or unruly will be eliminated (or locked away/run out of town).  By culling the weak/unprosperous, only the successful will be left.  It's not trickle-down economics; it's cut-the-bottom-off economics.

There's a problem, though - consciously or not, social conservatives are applying biological evolutionary rules to society.  Society is a different animal entirely, with different rules.  See, if society were designed for the "fittest" to survive, it would actually the ones who kill, steal and cheat that would get ahead.  They're the toughest; they're willing to do whatever it takes to win.  Think about it - do back-stabbing and dog-eat-dog competition result in the smartest, most social, most innovative people climbing corporate or social ladders?  From a different angle, does wealth make one immune to the impact of a riot, or an epidemic? 

Despite what laissez-faire free-marketers would have us believe, we actually have had a Rob Fordesque society in history - just look at medieval Europe, or before that, Rome for two examples.  People aggregated where there was opportunity, but when they're solely out for themselves, they aren't looking after the interests of their neighbour; waste goes into the street, work gets done to the lowest price and the least amount of work, etc.  Disease, fires, looting, etc were significant social problems.  The challenges of many people living in close quarters actually fostered the climate of centralized coordination and regulation that is government.  The "free market" model isn't what we're moving towards - it's what society is moving away from.

The only way for a truly free market society to thrive is if people live at a distance from each other - each to their own plots, free to make and enforce their own decisions without being impacted by the actions of their neighbours.  A feudal society, in short, with everyone lord of their own castle.  That's the position of the Ontario Landower Association folk.  There's a problem with that model, too - when people are left to their own devices, independently, they actually don't need to innovate as much or share their innovations; after all, new ideas aren't going to be picked up until someone proves them, and where's the profit in the proving process?  The reason that innovation has continued to pick up speed is due at least as much to social density as it is to any other factor.

Innovation is a social phenomena.  Literally; the part of our brain that motivates pro-social behaviour is the same one that allows for innovation and executive function (the ability to proactively plan).  The part of our brain that is the seat of emotions (biological drives that motivate us to react, like locking people up after a crime is already committed) stores memory, but doesn't foster connection-making or active solution-creating.

Social conservatives don't trust hope, because hope implies change.  They're thinking with their reactive brains, primarily; there's no way to quantify hope and really, there's no evidence in the world that can convince them you can reform a criminal through education and restorative justice.  By the same token, progressives get frustrated with the "with us or against us" mentality of the socons; why can't they see where progress can take us?

Evolution isn't a ladder - neither the reactive nor proactive brain are better than the other.  Both have their uses, context-determined.  It just so happens that in an increasingly dense social context, the ability to plan is a really useful tool to have.

Ford says the best social program is a job - but you can't get a job unless you can prove you're able to do the work.  How do you get the training, the experience, the dare I say it, social skills?  Through social programs.  The more educated a society is, the more equitable resource access is, the more prosperity there is for everyone and less violence.

It's not that Rob Ford's model is wrong; it's just that he hasn't followed it through to conclusion.

Tom Cruise Never Wavers

If he finally conceded that he was gay, and gave us a guided tour of his sexuality, would that be enough? Unlikely, because the mood around him is one of terrible anger, not curiosity.

Ostensibly because he’s a liar, leading a double life in front of us – we who are exemplars in every way! More likely because he won’t do what we want, and that is to let us call him gay all the time.

Is Tom Cruise gay?  Does he have a mental illness?  Has he been brainwashed by Scientology?

As one of the top movie stars in history, there's obviously a lot of interest in Tom Cruise.  We love to scrutinize our celebrities; it has been thus since Zeus was a little fella.  Cruise himself has made this easy - through his couch-jumping, anti-post-partum medication-taking, Scientology practicing antics, there has always been fodder for a public hungry for controversy.  The fact that Cruise frequently comes across as sanctimonious doesn't help.

And yet... nobody can deny that Cruise throws himself fully into each role he performs.  He's certainly not afraid to push his boundaries.  Over his life he has picked up skills ranging from piloting to fencing; he stops to help complete strangers on the street.  Everything Tom Cruise does, he does with utter conviction. 

Who of us can say the same?  Not many.  It takes a certain kind of passion, of belief, to throw oneself so fully into a way of living that accepts no compromise.  The grand irony is, we demand that level of dedication from any leader (political, religious, etc) yet are mistrustful of conviction when we see it.  In a way, though, this does make sense; we create our leaders in our own image.

Me, I think Tom Cruise is delusional.  It would surprise me none at all if his position within the church of Scientology has fed that delusion.  Of course, I also believe that a certain degree of delusion (as long as it's accompanied by humility) is a good thing.  The best politicians I know thoroughly believe that they owe the world the benefit of their leadership.   If they didn't, if nobody did, we'd have no leadership at all.  Of course, the best politicians go out of their way to base their policy directions on fact, something Cruise himself has had trouble with.

Yes, Tom Cruise is larger-than-life and yes, there are some real, troubling problems with the way Scientology conducts its business.  But are those the things that really bother us?  I can’t think of a person I know that hasn’t supported sanctimony in one form or another when it supported an argument they believed in.  Maybe it’s the fact that he seems never to waver from his chosen lifestyle that irks us.  He says he believes in helping people and that’s what he tries (emphasis on tries) to do.  He believes in Scientology and lives its tenants to the letter.  If he’s got a homosexual skeleton in his closet, then that is a chink in his public armour that would scale him down to human size a little bit.

If that’s the case, though – if we dislike Cruise more for his constancy rather than the fact that we question our behaviour, does that say more about him, or about us?

I don’t believe in drawing lines in the sand, because I don’t believe there is any communication gap that cannot be breached, if we simply try hard and creatively enough.  And while I might not approve of all Tom Cruise does through the lens of Scientology, I’ll tell you this – if the zombie Apocalypse hits, you could do worse than to have Tom Cruie as a neighbour.

But again, that's the point, isn't it?  When times are uncertain, when we don't know what to expect next, when trouble is lapping at our shores, who do we turn to?  To those who demonstrate a dare I say it, ideological conviction.

The Sanity of Truth

What is funny, sort of, is that it may be insanity that finally saves us. The whole planet is getting very unwieldy, and not only because of toxic fumes. Still, you can look at the world’s craziness as the death of what does not work, making way for new growth (hopefully according to life’s principles).

Life is not about right and wrong. Nor is it about perfection; who wants to live in Pleasantville? When its principles are adhered to, life thrives. When those patterns are disrupted, life withers. In that sense, we are all alike, two-legged, four-legged, multi-legged, winged, slithery, scaled, and rooted.

For people to mentally and emotionally heal and mature, they have to be honest with themselves. Maybe that is the bee in the bonnet here. If we want to live insanely, let us be honest. Though we do not have power over death, we do know what sustains life yet live as if ignorant.

There is nothing complicated about the truth.

And, as they say - the truth will set you free.