Thanks and Feedback

[Johnathan Clayborn]
First of all, dear readers, thank you. Today marks the day where readership of my blog has reached over 1,000 views. It’s a small milestone, I know, but it’s not too shabby for a small intellectual blog that I don’t really advertise.

On average I get about 168 views a month when I only post an average of 5.5 posts. That breaks down to about 30.5 views per post.

I have had readers from all over the world; the United States, Russia, Germany, France, the United Kingdom, Canada, Brazil, Costa Rica, the Philippines, Malaysia, Turkey and Georgia.

A lot of the more interesting follow-up conversations happen off-site, either through Facebook or through email or on the phone. But, as I was explaining just last night, the purpose of this blog isn’t to shove my ideas down people’s throats and assert my “rightness” on these issues. It’s simply to provide me a place to vent the deep thoughts that I have sometimes have and to provide my readers with an article that makes them think or question or ponder, even if only for a moment. Being highly intellectual I crave those topics that really make me think, even if I disagree with the overall point of view. Those opposing points of view that have been carefully represented and backed up by research or other empirical data I truly appreciate it as it makes me re-evaluate my own thoughts and I’m able to ask myself “does this opinion come from biased feelings that I have, or is there actually a valid reason to think this way?”

What I would like to know is this; what topics do you want to hear about? Do you have any specific requests for articles for me to research? What do you like or dislike about this blog?

Also, as an Athenaeum is an institution that is dedicated to the promotion of learning I have tried to keep many of my articles as unbiased as possible. I have been toying with the idea of opening up this blog to other authors who may also wish to write intellectual articles of a similar fashion. In the promotion of knowledge and making people think it could be good to present ideas from more than just one person. What are your thoughts on that? Would you be interested in reading articles from other authors as well?

Anyway, thank you all for your readership this far. I sincerely hope that I can meet some of my self-imposed goals and that you do (at least occasionally) leave this blog thinking about the topics that I’ve written about.

Evolutionary Musings

[Johnathan Clayborn]
Based on all of the new information I have learned about the plethora of member species with the genus Homo and the genus Australopithecus I have been wracking my brain with all kinds of questions about evolution and humanity.

Clearly, in my mind, the mountain of data and fossils that they have uncovered seem to soundly refute the notion of intelligent design as even being a possibility. A glance at comparison photos of known hominid skulls speaks more to this than I can ever do with words: http://jisciences.blogspot.com/2010/01/human-evolution-101.html. The resemblance between several of these skulls as compared to modern humans (bottom right) is astounding.

But, of course, having stated that I do not believe that intelligent design is the answer is not the same thing as saying that I believe that scientists have the right answer either. Clearly, they’re still trying to figure it out as well. Much of the evidence that I’ve seen leads me to believe that they are on the right track, however, it also makes me wonder how long it will take before we fully understand and ancient family tree, if that day ever comes to pass.

The first thing that should be pointed out to continue this discussion intelligently is to consider the entire mountain of research that has been completed with regards to the Human Genome Project. The entire human DNA genome was sequenced and decoded. Many hundreds of studies have been done on the DNA of modern humans and we now more about ourselves than ever have before.

In fact, by studying the different genetic mutations of the human hapologroups scientists have been able to recreate the historical migratory pattern of our human ancestors for tens of thousands of years. Maps such as this one: http://www.kerchner.com/images/dna/ydna_migrationmap_(FTDNA2006).jpg and this one: http://www.roperld.com/graphics/MigrationMap.jpg. One interesting thing about these DNA studies is that they seem to loosely confirm some of the biblical concepts found in Genesis; every living person on Earth is descended from one common male ancestor and one common female ancestor. The only scientific hitch is that these individuals did not live at the same time.

All of this type of information, dating back to around 200,000 years ago, is a relatively small amount of time on the time-scale of human evolution. Scientists had believed that they had found a generalized “tree” of evolution that showed that humans descended from Neanderthals, and that if you go far enough back there was a common ancestor that tied everything neatly together. Many, many times this concept has been referenced within popular culture. The Geico commercials featuring the “cavemen” is one such example, as are movies like “iceman” and “homo erectus” and even an episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation entitled Genesis where the crew de-evolves into more primitive species. Commander Riker turns into a Neanderthal.

Now, this is one point where I want to stop and explain one surprising counter-argument that I’ve found against evolution. There was one particular blog post I was reading a few days ago where the gentleman who wrote the blog was essentially saying that evolution is wrong because it’s racist and that it was only intended to prove that Africans and other non-white peoples were primitive and stupid, and then worthy of enslavement and mistreatment. Naturally, I had to set the record straight. In terms of evolutionary biology the word “primitive” does not mean “stupid or unintelligent”, it means “most like the original specimen.  As one example, suppose that you were to look at all of the different models of cell phones that exist today. Some a flip-phones, some are touch-screens, some are smart phones, some so-called “candy bar phones”. But, if you look at all of the different models of phones and their styles and functions there are many traits and characteristics that they have in common. But there is one trait or feature that all cell phones share; a number keypad; thus logically we can deduce that if all phones have a numbered keypad, then that is something that that must have come from the original model of cell phone since it is a trait that is present on its modern day descendants. Scientists refer to this “common denominator trait” as the primitive trait (as opposed to the advanced trait, which is the result of the process of evolution).

Putting that analogy to application in the evolutionary sense, “eyebrow ridges” (aka; supraorbital torus) is a trait that is found in every species of the genus Homo, Australopithecus, Pan, and Gorillini. Based on this, scientists have concluded that eyebrow ridges are a primitive trait, one that our common ancestor had as well. Based on genetic sequencing of fossil remains, scientists also believe that fair skin is a primitive trait and that darker colored skin is a more advanced trait; an evolutionary defense mechanism that people developed to protect themselves against the sun.  This particular topic, and this word in and of itself is one that is misunderstood and has been the cause of many debates over and over. For the record; scientists no longer believe that we are descended from Neanderthals, but instead that they were a sister species. They also do not believe that the Neanderthals were unintelligent. There is evidence to support that Neanderthals made tools, used projectile weapons, had language and some researchers even postulate that they may have developed art and music. In fact scientists now believe that one of the hominid ancestors, Homo Erectus sailed the ocean on rafts more than 700,000 years ago. When a scientist is calling a species primitive it is not in regards to its intelligence. Even modern day Gorillas and Chimpanzees can be taught to speak in sign language and understand human language, even if they are not able to reproduce those sounds. Clearly this is a sign of intelligence as well.

There have been a lot of changes in the concept of human evolution recently. Much of it is the result of new fossils that have been found within the last 10 years. Take, for example, this fossil found only two years ago: http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/03/24/new-ancestor-scientists-ponder-dna-siberia/ or this one found in 2007: http://news.softpedia.com/news/New-African-Fossils-Further-Complicate-Human-Evolution-62257.shtml. Many opponents of evolution will cite these are arguments that these finds disprove evolution. I would disagree with them. Evolution has been proven as a concept as far as I am concerned. You want examples? Look at the donkey, a cross-breed between a mule and a horse. Take modern almonds as another example; the historically ancient version was poisonous to human consumption. And what about modern corn? It’s more than 3 times as large as its ancient ancestors with larger kernels.  The fact that there is so much ambiguity and confusion about the process of human evolution just means that we don’t have all of the answers. Look at the how many times we’ve been wrong before; the world was flat, the sun revolved around the earth, reflex was the result of an internal hydraulic pressure system, etc. Whenever you are trying to piece together a puzzle and old and as complex as this one you are bound to run into instances where the pieces don’t quite fit just right, even though it looks like it belongs there. This process is no different. As evidence that evolution is not only possible, but probable, consider this naturally occurring hybrid shark found off of Australia a few months ago: http://news.discovery.com/animals/hybrid-shark-australia-climate-change-120103.html.

But, even understanding that there are some margins of trial and error there are many questions that I have about humanity and evolution. One such example is the consideration given to the competing theories on human evolution. One of the most popular and widely accepted theories is that Humans (Homo Sapiens Sapiens specifically) migrated out of Africa and colonized the rest of the planet starting at around 150,000 years ago. This is called the Recent African Origin theory (RAO). The biggest evidence supporting this theory as being correct is the many hundreds of thousands of DNA studies conducted during the Human Genome Project (the maps I posted earlier). This is regarded as fact; humans did migrate out of Africa, no one is disputing that claim. But is this the only possible explanation?

The main competing explanation of the Recent African Origin Theory (also called the Recent Single-Origin Hypothesis (RSOH)) is the so-called Multiregional Origin Hypothesis. This model states that the human beings are different all over the world because they are all one species that diversified to fit their environment and that these “ancient bones” are all also human and just other examples of this diversification. Their primary arguments center around the fact that Homo Erectus is found in both Asia and Africa at the same time and that Homo Ergaster is physiologically similar to Homo Erectus to the point that some experts believe them to be the same species.

Pragmatically, there are issues with both of these theories. With regards to the multi-region theory, if all of these fossils are the diversification of a single species, then where did that species come from? This particular theory is most-often posited by those who favor intelligent design. But, on the other hand, if the RSOH is correct, then where did all of the other species of Homo go?  If they are so genetically close to us, why did they die off and we survive?

These questions lead me to profound questions of my own. It has been pointed out numerous times that the overall skeletal morphometry of modern humans is wildly diverse. It’s also been pointed out that some modern humans have physiological characteristics in common with these ancient bones. Therefore, one question that comes up is did the ancient Early Human Ancestors (formerly known as “cave men”) interbreed with the other species of Homo during the last few hundred thousand years and is there evidence of that today? The results seem to indicate that this is likely true. Some studies have shown that some middle eastern DNA sequences have between 4-8% DNA genome in common with Homo Neanderthalensis. This is suggestive of interbreeding.  It’s also been pointed out that the skulls of Malaysians, some Asians, and Aborigine Australians (among others) have many physical traits in common with Homo Erectus, such as the prominent supraorbital torus, and the sloping forehead.  There have been some studies that seem to support this (http://ethesis.nitrkl.ac.in/2406/1/brijeshthesis.pdf, http://unsw.academia.edu/StephenWroe/Papers/1527145/Human_remains_from_the_Pleistocene-Holocene_transition_of_southwest_China_suggest_a_complex_evolutionary_history_for_East_Asians) however, the data and the studies that have been done on non-Africans and non-Europeans have been very limited. Thus, it begs the question; are those humans examples of cross-breeding between Homo Sapiens Sapiens and Homo Erectus, or are those humans modern day living examples of actual Homo Erectus specimens? The studies conclusively show that modern human skull characteristics differ considerably across the globe. This further begs the question; are these morphometric variances within tolerance for a shared taxonomic classification as evidenced by scientific standards, or should the variances be broken down into different taxonomic classifications? And does the entire genus Pan deserve to be moved within the genus Homo based on the close genetic kinship? There is a precedence for such an action based on prior DNA comparisons of other non-human species. And if that happens then would chimps then be considered “human”? Paleoarchelogists have determined that many species of early hominids used fire, tools and had developed language and some of them they theorize had art. Many of them lived in social settings much like we do. Thus, I can’t help but wonder, what does it mean to be “human” and where does one draw the proverbial line in sand between “human” and “nonhuman”? As you reflect on that question go take a look at the reconstructions of the fossils found here; http://www.daynes.com/en/reconstructions.php and really ponder what it means to be human.

In Search of Answers

[Johnathan Clayborn]
Sometimes the most interesting things that you learn are things that you discover entirely by accident. This was certainly the case for me this week. Before I get to the meat of my article, I beg you to indulge me a paragraph or two explaining how I stumbled across all of this information.

To begin this story properly I need to take you back to 2005. I was very active in the online genealogy circles for people researching the Clayborn family. I was literally getting a few emails a week from people asking if I had heard of this person, or if I knew what happened to that person, etc. Then I had received an email from Dr. Alex Waldrop, a genetic researcher who was overseeing the Clayborn Family DNA Study. I was intrigued. I had never heard of this before.

Dr. Waldrop explained how Y-Chromosome DNA was passed down genetically from father to son with only very minor mutations over vast periods of time. This is the same basic test that courts use to determine father-son paternity. In theory, if you traced your family tree back to your great-great-great-great-great grandfather and you found his brother and you followed the line down through his son’s son’s son’s son, etc. until you found your modern day cousin, then you and he should have these exact same genetic markers in common. Naturally, this type of tool would be invaluable to genealogists because it could provide clues and links when a paper trail runs cold. Dr. Waldrop was compiling a results database of Clayborn DNA and he asked me to participate in the study. I agreed and in a few weeks a kit came and I swabbed my cheek and sent it off.

About a month later the results came back. The accompany report turned my world upside down. While I was part of Haplogroup R1b1 like the Clayborns, my DNA was not even remotely close to anything that even resembled a Clayborn. There was no doubt of my recent ancestry due to strong family traits and characteristics. I look as much like my father as my son looks like me. So then we went back to the paper trail and noticed a discrepancy in the 1860 census and came to discover that my ancestors were adopted by the Clayborns at that time.

Armed with this knowledge I examined my ancestors’ mother, Christina Croy. Naturally, I compared my DNA to that of the Croy family. Much to my disappointment I did not match them either. And that’s where the trail goes cold. Christina Croy totally disappears prior to 1850. Her early life, and the clues about the father of my ancestor are buried in some scrap of information that I have not been able to located on paper.

Naturally, I turned back to what I did have, my DNA results. I routinely search Y-Chromosome DNA databases in the hopes that a match will just appear one day where previously none had existed. So far my searches have been utterly fruitless. I do know that I have two extremely rare genetic markers for my specific haplogroup. One marker occurs only in 0.5% of the R1b1 population. The other marker occurs in 0.3% of the population. I often joke that due to this I’m a freak of nature, but the truth of it is that the statistical probability of some other family that’s not genetically related to me having these exact same mutations is so low that they should be considered an extreme improbability.

I was reading more about Y-DNA research as it relates to ancestry and some of the articles that I stumbled across took me from looking at Y-DNA studies of the recent ancestry and paternal lineage to Y-DNA studies of ancestry of the human species as a whole. I was surprised, but I learned to two important things; first, the taxonomic classification system is far more complex than they taught me in high school, and second, there is a massive amount of evidence that would seem to disprove the very notion of intelligent design.

First, the taxonomic classification system according to High School science is 8 levels deep. It goes; life, domain, kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus and species. In truth, this is infinitely more complex. Humans are 25 levels down in the classification system. There are also sub-kingdoms, sub-phylums, sub-orders, infraorders, parvorders, superfamilies (like the mob, I guess), sub-families, and tribes. Logically, I should have realized that High School science barely scratched the surface here, but I did not image that it would be so complex. The main reason for this is because prior to that time I did not have a need to know.

The second lesson was the most surprising; intelligent design seems more and more like a far-fetched idea with each passing year. Why do I say this? Because of the large amount of data that exists about other species in the genus Homo.

Everyone knows that we’re Homo Sapiens. What most people don’t know is that we’re actually Homo Sapiens Sapiens. This is to differentiate us from our extremely closely related genetic cousins, Homo Sapiens Idaltu who lived around 160,000 years ago. In fact, artists renditions of the skulls found of Idaltu show that they are so closely related to us that it would difficult to distinguish them on sight alone if they were alive today.

And, of course, let’s not forget Homo Neanderthalensis, once thought to be a direct ancestor of the human species scientists now believe them to genetically related cousins, albeit ones that did not contributed any considerable DNA to our present physiology, thus making them a parallel and separate species. The same thing is true of Homo Erectus.

Among the many other species within the genus Homo are; H. Gautengensis, H. Rudolfensis, H. Habilis, H. Ergaster, H. Antecessor, H. Heidelbergensis, H. Erectus, H. Rhodesiansis, H. Neanderthalensis, H. Floresiansis and the newly discovered Denivosa Hominin.  While some of these species are decidedly ape-like or inhuman in their appearance, others are quite similar to modern humans.

For me, the biggest question that is raised by the discovery of all of these different species is this; if God is perfect, and if intelligent design is truly the explanation for the origin of the Human race, then why were there so many different variations of human-related species? And why did none of them survive? Surely God would not have created a species that he knew to be flawed. It is obvious that scientists today still do not have definitive answers, but with each passing discovery it seems less and less likely that Humans are the direct creation of God.

Kony 2012?

[Johnathan Clayborn]
I was watching the news last night and the reporter was talking about this viral video with over 40 million hits. The video was about something called Kony 2012. Naturally, in typical news fashion, they didn’t explain a single thing about the video other than it was something that everyone should take the 30 minutes to watch.

Being the ever-curious person that I am, I saw the video. Being a compassionate person I’ll admit that I got suckered into it too. Luckily one of my friends was quick to send me over some other information that made me re-evaluate the video more critically.

I will summarize the video for those of you who haven’t seen it. The video brings to light the actions of Joseph Kony, the leader of the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA), a rebel army operating in central Africa. According to the video, the film-maker first learned of Kony in 2003 when he was visiting Uganda. He met a small child named Jacob whose brother had been murdered by Kony. Kony burned the schools and would steal away small children while they slept. The video shows horrible conditions of thousands of people practically sleeping one on top of another for safety. The interview with Jacob continues and the boy says that he’d rather die than stay alive because there’s no hope for his future.

It’s pretty heart-wrenching stuff. The video explains that the young girls that the LRA steals away are forced into prostitution rings. The young boys that are stolen are forced to shoot and kill their parents and become part of Kony’s army, which is, according to the video, more than 30,000 strong.

The video talks about how news about Kony has spread and that the US government finally went to help by sending 100 military advisors over to Uganda to help train and advise the Ugandan Army on how to find Kony. The video also explains that through the donations of people like you, new schools and jobs have been built and people have hope now.

The video further goes on to say that they need your help right now in order to keep the pressure up and ensure that Kony is stopped, and for a donation of just a few dollars a month you can receive a free kit that has posters and stickers and things that will make Kony famous and make the government bring him to justice, this year, before December 31^st, 2012 so that our children can inherit a world better than the one that we were born into.

Admittedly, it’s difficult to watch that video and not feel something; anger, pity, bewilderment, something. However, as the link my friend sent me points out, not all may be as it seems. Now, don’t get me wrong, I’m not denying that Kony is evil and should be brought to justice, that’s not the case at all, but let’s look at some of the other things.

First, there are some people who object to the video’s makers, Invisible Children, Inc, to wanting to make him “famous”. They argue that they should be trying to make him “infamous”. On this point I say that the opponents of this video are splitting hairs. It’s clear that the film maker is using the word “famous” as a synonym for “notorious”. Okay, so maybe vocabulary isn’t the guy’s strongest suit. To me that seems like a rather petty issue to argue.

Some of the opponents of this video take objection with the manner in which the message is spread. They argue that by using campaign signs that say “Kony 2012” that they are, in fact, endorsing him and his actions lending credibility where none is deserved. Really? Come on, give me a break. This is a basic marketing ploy. Film-makers do it. The news does it. Car companies do it. They feed you some tiny snippet of information to get your curiosity up so that you’ll go figure out what it is. In marketing terms this is called a “hook”.  Okay, so they see the campaign signs. I’m willing to admit that I might be suffering from false-consensus effect, but I would like to believe that’s not the case. I think that most people would say to themselves “Kony? I’ve never heard of Kony.” And then they would Google “Kony 2012” and stumble across their campaign to bring him to justice.

The rest of the arguments against the video are far more serious though. First, the video claims that “for a donation of just a few dollars a month you can get a free kit”. What they don’t tell you is that this “few dollars” is $15 per month, minimum. Anything less than that and you have to buy the kit at $30….oh yeah, and they’re backordered and they aren’t even guaranteeing that they’ll ship in time for their big to-do on April 20^th either.

Okay, so you decide to give $15 a month a month and you got your free kit. Where is that money actually going? Well, the first thing that you should be aware of is that only 31% of the money that’s donated actually goes to helping anyone. Don’t believe it? Look at their financial statements (http://c2052482.r82.cf0.rackcdn.com/images/737/original/FY11-Audited%20Financial%20Statements.pdf?1320205055)

The video also alleges that they need to provide equipment to the people and the army to better stay on top of Kony’s movements. The video calls this “real-time tracking”. However, according to Page 9 of their financial statements (see Note 1, paragraph 3) it very clearly states that this technology will be used for a twice-daily broadcast.  Last time I checked “twice daily” is not “real time”.

So where is this money going and can you trust your donation? By default donations are available for general use. So they can use them to buy the $751,000 of computer equipment that they own, or the $177,000 it cost them to make that video. But, donors can “flag” or “earmark” their donations to go to a specific cause, like, you know, actually helping out the Ugandans and other Africans that they’re promoting help for. But, there’s a catch; this earmark is only temporary (as mentioned in their financial statement). Thus, all they have to do is sit on your donation until that time frame expires and then they’ll be able to use it for whatever they want. Pretty cool, huh?

There are some websites that do independent verification of charities to help ensure that you aren’t donating to some scam-scheme and pissing your money away. One such website is Charity Navigator. I went to that site and I looked up Invisible Children and four other similar charities who claim to help people in Africa. The other four charities were; water.org, Amref USA, Africare and Children of the Nations. (Links are posted below).

The first thing that I noticed is that Invisible Children has an overall rating of 3 (out of 4) and a score of 51.52 out of 70. Not bad, right? Would it surprise to learn that out of the 5 charities I looked at this one scored the lowest? All of the others were a rating of 4 with a score in the 60s.

Charity Navigator also breaks down where the money is going as well. In addition to being the lowest overall scoring charity out of the five charities it’s also the one that spends the most on “administrative costs” in comparison to the rest of their expenditures.

There are some opponents that claim that the Invisible Children is claiming that they want peace, when in truth they are just war-mongering bastards who want Kony dead, not tried. Their proof? This photo of the founders of Invisible Children holding weapons. (https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi9tubf1-0gOS0fcRsb7dnXlTuZTzLaiymAt7DA0TrDHMwNOVd0p_FNdCE3IWtkhoDRX68LVB1UndvJcfI6n6_WryJpARm_NER8abAguVKZso5whoQtu6wJERIA1qSBeqTI7GB3p47Dv7w/s1600-h/IMG_2941.JPG) I say, so what? There’s a picture of them holding weapons. Just because they’re holding weapons doesn’t mean that they intend to use them on Kony. A) They’re guys. The vast majority of guys would pose for a picture with a weapon if given the opportunity. B) You can’t tell intent from a still photo that can be easily taken out of context. It’s possible that the soldiers of the army asked them to pose with them for thanks in bring the US troops and supplies over. I don’t know. There’s no other references thus making it impossible to know what this photo is all about. And if they are right and they really want Kony dead? Again, I say, so what? Let’s not forget that Osama Bin Laden was hunted down and executed while he slept for war crimes against America. Why should Kony’s treatment be any different? Sure, the ideal solution would be to peacefully arrest him and make him stand trial so that the ICC can sentence him to die. But, let’s be pragmatic about it. This man is a war criminal. He’s spent the last two decades of his life fighting one group after another; the National Resistance Army (NRA), the Ugandan Army and many other smaller warlords and tribal villages. Based on his prior behavior what in the world makes anyone think that this man will suddenly denounce his entire way of life and give up peacefully?  Especially after two of his top commanders; Vincent Otti and Raska Lukwiya had already been killed in action rather than surrendering.  Allegedly, in July of 2006 Kony told the Vice President of Southern Sudan that he is not willing to stand trial (although admittedly the proof of this statement is sketchy).

Next, I’d like to address this notion that the video puts forth; we should all write our elected officials and demand that they bring Kony to justice and insist that they keep the troops in Africa. First, I’d like to point out that the US had been involved with the search for Kony since 2008, with our assistance to the Ugandan Army in the unsuccessful Operation Lightning Thunder. They were successful in driving Kony out of Uganda, but he evaded capture.

Second, since American support is going on its fourth year let’s talk about something that the video fails to mention; US support is not likely to wane and US troops are not likely to leave. Why do I say this? Because in May of 2010 President Obama and the US Congress passed the Lord’s Resistance Army Disarmament and Northern Ugandan Recovery Act. President Obama stated that this bill signed into law US Policy to “kill or capture Joseph Kony and crush his rebellion”. (press release is the links below).  The link to the details of the law can be found here: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s111-1067. The funding of this law continues at least through 2014.  So hurry up, write congress and tell them to do what they’re already doing.

Other opponents of the video point out that this video is not relative any more. They point out that it was filmed in 2003, and most people are watching it now in 2012 for the first time. One person gave the analogy of watching a video of 9/11 today and then having someone ask for donations to help with the cleanup effort. In 2003 this story was legitimate and real. However, in 2006 the Ugandan Army pushed Kony out of Uganda and into the Congo and Sudan. Uganda has had 5 years of peace, and 5 years to develop a completely different set of problems. Also, as Dr. Ernesto Sirolli of the Sirolli Institute points out, not all “relief aid” to Africa is actually helpful. (http://www.sirolli.com/DesktopModules/UltraVideoGallery/UltraVideoGallery.swf?vId=33&portalId=0)

Many opponents of the Invisible Children video point out that their timeline to bring Kony to justice is unrealistic. There are 100 US military advisors supporting the Ugandan Army. However, the Ugandan Army is highly inept and they lack training, technology and discipline. The US Marine Corps, arguably the best, most capable fighting force in the world, could not find Osama Bin Laden in the deserts of Afghanistan for 10 years. Thus, it’s completely unrealistic to expect that an untrained rag-tag army of soldiers will find and capture or kill Kony in the Jungle in less than 1 year.

As one opponent of the video points out “it’s hard to take any documentary of Northern Uganda seriously when a 5 year old white boy features more prominently than any of the Ugandan children or survivors”. He makes many other great points too, and you can read about them on his blog here: http://justiceinconflict.org/

Other opponents of the video are quick to point out that awareness does not equate to action. As examples they cite; Osama Bin Laden, a “household name” for nearly a decade before he was killed, and all of America learned his name in one moment. There’s also Saddam Hussein, Gadhafi, and Hitler. These too were powerful, evil men that the world knew about but was unable to stop when they wanted, and certainly not for lack of trying.

The video makes several mentions of the fact that Kony is “top of the list” for wanted persons by the International Criminal Court in Hague. Interestingly, I have not been able to find a single delineated list of wanted persons issued by the ICC ranked by importance or notoriety. Sure, I can find arrest warrant information, and I can see that he is on their wanted list (which is housed over at Interpol), but nowhere does it indicate that he’s at the top of the list. The video also fails to mention that Kony is only 1 of 5 members of the LRA who are on the ICC most wanted list. One of those five is confirmed dead, killed in a shootout. Another of the five is presumed dead. But that still leaves Kony and two more of his top commanders. In this case there is a clear succession of leadership if Kony is removed. The LRA would simply replace him and keep on keeping on.

The video also poignantly portrays the image of Kony’s army being filled with as many as 30,000 child-soldiers, ready to fight and die for him. However, experts in Uganada, Central Africa and the LRA point out that this is simply nowhere near the current state of the situation.  Not to mention that Kony himself has not personally been since 2007. The last reported communication from him to the outside world was in April of 2008 when he backed out of peace talks with Uganda. There is some speculation that he may already be dead.

Probably the most alarming thing about the Kony 2012 video can be summarized by the follow quote by German Philosopher Frederick Nietzsche: He who fights with monsters should be careful lest he thereby become a monster.  What does that have to with Kony? Let’s recap; Kony is evil because he press-gangs children into his army, he’s bad because he kidnaps women and girls and rapes them and prostitutes them out, and he’s bad because he steals valuable resources from the people who live in the area. The Kony 2012 video asks you to support them so that they can help the Ugandan Army catch Kony before he causes any more harm or conflict in Congo or Sudan.

First of all, Kony isn’t causing much conflict in Sudan. In fact, Sudan gave Kony military support to fight against the Ugandans. Sudan only withdrew support for Kony after the ICC issued a warrant for his arrest. Maybe it’s the whole, the enemy of my enemy is my friend, but Kony isn’t causing trouble against Sudan, at least not right now anyway.

Secondly, let’s turn the focus onto the soldiers tasked with hunting Kony down. In 2001 the UN released a report stating that the Democratic Republic of Congo was guilty of forcibly recruiting child-soldiers into its army. The Ugandan People’s Defense Force also forcibly recruited young children into their army as well, according to the same UN Report. Hold the phone, isn’t that the exact same thing that Kony is guilty of?

But Kony killed innocent civilians and raped all kinds of women. As it turns out, so did the UPDF. In another report from the UN the armies of Uganda and Rwanda were responsible for crimes such as mass rape, targeted killing of civilians, and “other crimes against humanity”. These crimes took place between 1993 and 2003. And allegedly, after 2006 during their hunt for Kony the UPDF is responsible for looting diamonds, timber and other natural resources out of the Congo.

So, as the Kony 2012 video shows, it’s perfectly okay to use one group of people who commit crimes and atrocities to hunt down another group who commit the exact same crimes so long as someone profits from it in the end.

UPDATE:
The LRA attacked a small village in the Congo on March 7th. But, as this article explains, the LRA is now only down to around 200 soldiers, which is certainly a far cry from the 30,000 that the video alleges. Here's the article: http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Keep-Calm/2012/0307/Lord-s-Resistance-Army-After-long-silence-the-US-tracked-rebels-attack

References:

www.kony2012.com

http://thedailywh.at/2012/03/07/on-kony-2012-2/?fb_ref=newpromocopy

http://c2052482.r82.cf0.rackcdn.com/images/737/original/FY11-Audited%20Financial%20Statements.pdf?1320205055

http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=8875 (water.org)

http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=4943 (AMREF USA)

http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=3220 (Africare)

http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=8392 (Children of the Nations)

http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=12429  (Invisible Children)

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/statement-president-signing-lords-resistance-army-disarmament-and-northern-uganda-r

http://ilto.wordpress.com/2006/11/02/the-visible-problem-with-invisible-children/

http://www.sirolli.com/DesktopModules/UltraVideoGallery/UltraVideoGallery.swf?vId=33&portalId=0

http://chrisblattman.com/2011/11/21/what-you-should-be-reading-if-you-want-to-understand-the-us-and-the-lords-resistance-army/

http://justiceinconflict.org/

http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/136673/mareike-schomerus-tim-allen-and-koen-vlassenroot/obama-takes-on-the-lra?page=show

http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/country,,CSCOAL,,COD,,498806012d,0.html

http://www.voanews.com/english/news/africa/UN-Congo-Report-Released-Amid-Protest-from-Uganda-Rwanda-104165814.html

http://www.interpol.int/Wanted-Persons

http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/k/joseph_kony/index.html

Why Reporters Have a Bad Name

[Johnathan Clayborn]
Okay, so there is arguably a stereotype about reporters being dirty, underhanded people who are only interested in the story and are willing to the skew the reality of the situation to make sure that it’s an interesting story. Naively, I didn’t believe this stereotype. And that mistake is the reason for the rant in today’s post.

As many of the friends and readers know, I am almost finished with my Bachelors of Psychology program over at Grand Canyon University. Also, those of you know who know me know that it has not been an easy journey.

I had some serious issues with my financial aid crop up late last year and among the resources that I uncovered was a reporter who works at the Arizona Republic who was writing a story about the “woes of online schooling”. Naturally, I reached out to her. I know that my issues were not an isolated incident and my hope was that by holding GCU accountable for the mistakes that they are making, they might institute better policies and prevent this from happening to other students.

I spent about 3 months talking with this reporter, telling her my story, sending her emails and ensuring that she had access to my records at GCU. The article broke in yesterday’s paper in the business section (the electronic version is here: http://www.azcentral.com/business/articles/2012/02/09/20120209arizona-board-hears-complaints-vs-for-profit-schools.html#comments)

The article does mention me and my plight by name. However, that’s about where the accuracy stops. The school, as I suspected they would, lied to cover up their mistakes. The Vice President told the reporter that he “never knew anything about my issue”. Well of course not, the Student Resolution Team specifically blocked that from happening. I asked to meet with a Dean or a President of the school and I was told, and I quote “as far as meeting with a Dean or a President, they will not be able to assist you with financial issues.” It is therefore no surprise that the school told the reporter that they didn’t know anything about my plight.

However, that’s about where the school’s credibility ends. In the article Chris Linderson, the VP for Finance and Compliance is quoted as saying that I have had four Finance Counselors since I started at GCU. That’s a lie. I’ve had at least six. They are; James Mitchell, January Harrison, Jasmine Taylor, Sarah Crouse, Chrissy MacDonald and David Jacobson.

Going back to my issue with Financial Aid, on July 14th, 2011 I received an email from FAFSA saying that my aid had been processed and that I would be getting the full amount. The following day I received another email from FAFSA saying that my aid had been processed and was available.

Then, on July 18^th, 2011 I got an email from GCU saying that I have been selected for “verification” and that I needed to redo my FAFSA and turn it in, and that’s when the trouble began. On August 9^th, 2011 I got another email from FAFSA saying that my student loan had been changed; it had been cut in half.

I immediately contacted GCU about this and was met with nonchalance. They literally told me “nothing’s wrong”.  Apparently getting your financial aid cut in half inexplicably and being told that you had to pay for half of your schooling out of pocket is “not wrong”.

Continued efforts to contact the school were met with increasing hostility. The school blamed the government for the error saying, and I quote; “The decision to give you less money for the academic year is not GCU’s decision, it is the Federal government.  You need to call the FAFSA representatives if you have concerns about how much money you will receive.  I will have the Office of Financial Aid review your account regardless, just to make sure everything is correct.  Keep in mind, if you are reaching your aggregate limit, there will be no more funds for your education.” Are you kidding me? What kind of bullshit answer is that? Reaching my aggregate limit? I’m not even halfway there yet, I have plenty of aid remaining. And the Federal Government awarded me full financial aid, then GCU “corrected something”, then I have half the aid and I’m just supposed to believe that the government changed their minds?

Next, at the behest of GCU themselves, I called FAFSA directly on August 10^th. I spoke with someone named Crystal. She told me, and I quote “the Federal Aid Administrator at GCU is the person who is completely and solely responsible for this. FAFSA has no reason to deny additional aid based on your income and the change in your award was the direct result of the correction made by GCU.” Hmmm…so GCU says that they aren’t responsible, but FAFSA says they are. Call me crazy, but I’m inclined to believe FAFSA on this one.

I contacted GCU again via email that same day. The response I got was, and I quote “everything is in order on your account.”  Really? My financial aid is cut in half, FAFSA says that you changed it, and my academic counselor is telling me that I have to pay half of my costs, and everything is in order? There haven’t been any changes to the laws or regulations about how financial aid is awarded. There haven’t been any changes to the number of classes I’ve been taking, my number of dependents and my income has dropped and yet my award is reduced.

It wasn’t until several weeks later after I involved the Department of Education that Finance counselor miraculously discovered the error; the Verification Packet that GCU submitted to FAFSA had me marked down as a half-time student. FAFSA recalculated my aid based on that information. Once they corrected it, my aid was restored to normal.

In the article the VP at GCU is quoted as saying: “In this case, Clayborn's financial-aid calculation changed last summer, in part, because the number of class credits he was taking increased and there were changes in his household income. It took a few months -- until early December -- for all of the federal loan and grant payments to show up on his account, she added. That may have led Clayborn to conclude that he would have to pay expenses out of pocket, Linderson said.” What a crock of shit. This school and this spokesperson obviously do not know the innate detail of the records of which I keep. My first semester at GCU was 12 credits (UNV103, CWV101 & EDU 310). My second semester was also 12 credits (EDU230, EDU 215 & EDU 225). My third semester was 16 credits (ENG260, PHI103, MAT134 & ENG350). My fourth semester was also 16 credits (ENG450, ENG358, EDU313N & ENG460). This financial aid incident happened during my 5th semester, during which I took 12 credits. So, if I went from two semesters of 16 credits and full financial aid, I ask you, dear readers, how the hell does dropping to 12 credits constitutes and “increase in the number of credits”?

What does all of this have to do with why reporters have a bad name? Because I gave all of this information to the reporter at the AZ Republic and she didn’t do anything with it. Instead she wrote an article that painted me to be an unassuming imbecile who can’t calculate student loans. By the time this happened let’s not forget that I was starting my third academic year with this school so It’s not like I was new to the process. This reporter was armed with enough information to call the school out on their lies and hold them accountable and get answers, and she blew it. The whole reason that I cooperated in the first place was so that she could make people more aware and keep this kind of thing from happening to others. I was naïve to think that a reporter had the civic duty to spread the truth and inform the people who read the paper about what happens. This will certainly be the last time that I cooperate with a reporter on a story like this one. I’m just offended that after all of the conversations that we had and the mountain of evidence that I sent her that would even imply that I just didn’t know what was going on. 

 

Deafening silence

[Johnathan Clayborn]
Sorry guys, I’m long overdue for a new post. It’s been an interesting couple of weeks. Busy with work and school and recovering from the flu. I’ve got a few deeper, more political topics I want to write about, but they will have to wait until the weekend.

For now, I’ll tackle a more light-hearted philosophical quote. One of my favorite quotes is; “If you don’t understand my silence, you will never understand my words”.  Admittedly, I have absolutely no idea where this quote originated and all of my attempts to uncover the etymology of this expression have turned up nothing.

What is interesting is the huge amount of people who simply do not understand this expression. Some of the websites I came across had comments like; “flawed logic is flawed”, “this is hands down one of the dumbest sayings I’ve ever had the displeasure of reading”, and “this is retarded”. Obviously, these people aren’t capable of grasping the meaning of this expression and, ironically, it is people like this that the quote is most applicable to.

Some of the websites had answers that were partially true. Many of the websites understood one facet of this expression; it is often associated with anger. However, anger in and of itself is not the only explanation or use where this quote applies.

Yahoo! Answers featured a response that reads thus:
“Here's an example. When I am upset at someone for something that I believe they have done that has wronged me, I may give that person the silent treatment. If that person doesn't pick up    on these non-verbal cues, and he/she has no idea why I would be upset about what he/she did      because his/her ethical/moral perspectives are different than mine because we have two    different sets formed from two different sets of life experiences-- well then, that person will not                 understand why I am upset even if I tell him/her why I am upset using words.”

This poster definitely hit on part of the situation. However, the essence of this quote is more than just about being angry. It’s about having a communicative disconnect so deep that it is without measure and words, no matter how intelligent or eloquent, will never be able to bridge that gap.

Another site, Bookmunch, had a review about some completely unrelated book, but the top of the article was a paraphrase of this quote which read “If you can’t understand it without an explanation, then you can’t understand it with an explanation.”  This too, is only part of it. There are many topics that I can think of that I do not understand without an explanation, but with an explanation everything becomes clear. After all, that is the entire model of our education system. However, if you substitute “it” with “my behavior” , “my thoughts”, or “my feelings”, then it takes on a different meaning altogether and one that is far closer to the point.

I also came across another website, a blog called e-stranged, about families who are estranged from one another. This post makes many interesting statements that are also in line with this as well. For example, in the image on the wall is written “silence is speech”. This, I think, more than any of the other explanations is closer to the truth of the matter. Silence is also speech. If you don’t understand my non-verbal speech, you won’t understand my verbal speech.

There are a few other paraphrases of this quote as well. One of them reads “if you don’t understand my silence, then you don’t deserve my words”. This one I’m not so sure that I necessarily agree with, although I do understand the point that they are making. I think that there may be quite a few exceptions to the above quote. Also, my words are mine to give to whom I will. I may decide that someone is worthy of them, even if they don’t understand my silence. Failure to comprehend the meaning of my non-verbal speech is not an automatically disqualifying condition of my verbal speech.

The e-stranged blog also features a quote by Leonard Peltier; “Silence, they say, is the voice of complicity. But silence is impossible. Silence screams. Silence is a message, just as doing nothing is an act.” This too is very appropriate.

I often use silence in many facets of my life. Yes, the most obvious is when I am angry with someone. If the anger is fresh I often get very quiet until I’ve had a chance to reflect upon my thoughts and feelings because I don’t want to say something that I don’t mean and that I’ll regret and have the message I’m conveying be lost in the tone with which I am saying it (see Art of Arguing). If the anger is older it could just be that I have nothing to say because I’m too hurt or in disbelief about what happened.

Sometimes, as I just alluded, I am silent when I’m in a state of shock. “Congratulations, your son’s mother is pregnant and the father is a registered sex offender!” What do you say to something like that? Do you speak words that are hollow fillers of thoughts that you haven’t even fully formed yet? Or do you remain silent and reflect on this information.

Sometimes I am silent because I have nothing to say. As one poster put it, the silence can sometimes mean that you are comfortable enough with a person that you don’t feel as though you have to say something every minute of the day. Sometimes silence is a comfortable silence.

And yet, other times silence is a tool. Sometimes the silence says “I know. I know your secrets. I know that every word coming out of your mouth right now is a lie, but I’m not going to call you out on it simply to have you lie more and tell me that I’m wrong when I know the truth. It’s easier to let you believe that you’re getting away with these lies for now than it is to start a fight every time this comes up.”

And still other times it is a shield; like when you meet new people for the first time. Do you just run into a party full of strange people that you don’t know “guns blazing” spouting off to every person that you see? Or do you sit quietly and observe the room and try to ascertain who the fool is, and who is the intellect? When you are the new person on the job it’s sometimes disrespectful to be offering up all kinds of solutions when you don’t even know the situation.  It’s entirely plausible that someone already thought of that. It’s possible that someone equally intelligent as you are has shown them this already and there’s a reason that they aren’t using it. To avoid coming across as arrogant, you can sit quietly until you make that determination.

Silence can also be a conveyance of emotions; I’m sad, I’m hurt, I’m lonely, I don’t feel well. When people are sick or in pain they don’t want to talk much (especially if their throat is what hurts). If they are depressed they might not feel like talking about it.

Far too often the deeper statement of what we mean is lost within the more superficial context of what we say. This is a far too common problem with oral communication that leads to fights and arguments, and one that is intensified when trying to ascertain meaning through electronic communication like text messages. People have a tendency to latch onto specific words and phrases, which really might not mean much in the overall context of the message, and inject their own meaning upon them. Case in point, look at Star Wars: The Empire Strikes Back. Princess Leia says “Why you stuck up, half-witted, scruffy-looking, nerf-herder!” Han Solo’s only response is “Who’s scruffy looking?” Clearly, the meaning of Leia’s message is lost on Han.

Granted, those of you who know me know that I am a self-professed logophile (lover of words) and I obviously feel that verbal and communication plays a huge part in understanding one another. However, that being said I also believe that a lot of us need to spend far less time speaking and jumping to conclusions and more time listening and understanding.

The e-stranged blog has some more apt feedback. Admittedly, their take on the quote is rather the opposite viewpoint of mine, however, that’s not to say that aren’t some things that we can agree on. For example, they state that “silence is not a simple statement. It is a highly complex form of communication.” Quite so.

They believe that no one should have to interpret the silence. And to that point, I agree also. However, until they ready to actually listen to my words, it’s not worth wasting my breath on. This other blog is of the opinion that you should speak simply because you are worth speaking about. And I don’t disagree with that. However, you must consider that communication is a two –way street. Sometimes the person with whom you are conversing is emotionally or intellectually incapable of comprehending what you say. How long will you continue talking before you give up? Sometimes the person to whom you are speaking is so self-centered and opinionated that whatever you say is automatically wrong, simply because you said it. In cases like that my silence may mean “I’m not even going to engage in your antics because I have better, more productive things to do with my time”. That’s certainly no slight to myself, in fact, I could argue the opposite; I’m smart enough to know that this conversation would be futile.

Sometimes, you can communicate more with silence than you can with words. Sometimes, a simple look can speak volumes in seconds where words would take minutes and not accomplish the same task. Silence is often misunderstood, and because of that we often misconstrue all silence to mean that the other person is angry or upset, even if that’s not the case. Instead of assuming that they are mad, try approaching the situation with an open mind and inquiring about their silence, then you will be in a better state of mind to hear what they are trying to say.

Sources:

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110117074826AASrpST

http://sayingimages.com/if-you-dont-understand-my-silence/

http://bookmunch.wordpress.com/2011/10/27/%E2%80%9Cif-you-can%E2%80%99t-understand-it-without-an-explanation-you-can%E2%80%99t-understand-it-with-an-explanation%E2%80%9D-iq84-book-3-by-haruki-murakami/

http://estrangedfamilies.wordpress.com/2012/01/15/silence-means-goodbye/

The Art of Arguing

[Johnathan Clayborn]
This post took me a lot longer to write than I was hoping. I had been extra-busy these last two weeks with a lot of "life stuff".  But I digress, this article was intended to complete the trifecta of “Art of” articles complimenting the ones I already wrote on communication and listening.

Arguments, unfortunately, are one of those things that you will inevitably experience at some point in your life. Some arguments are small and mild with people politely agreeing to disagree, whereas other arguments are much more intense and violent with people screaming and yelling at each other and things getting thrown across the room.

While, admittedly, some arguments are sudden and seem to occur for no good reason, those of us with practice usually will be able to tell when an argument is just around the corner. Before the argument is going full swing there’s one question that you need to ask yourself: am I going to argue to be right, or am I going to argue to make a change?

This might seem like a strange question to ask; after all, what’s the point of arguing if not to win? But, these are very different approaches with very different results. Let’s talk about the first point, arguing to win for a moment. If you want to argue to win there are certain tactics and techniques that work better in this type of argument. First, be evasive and refuse to answer direct questions. Argue in circles and repeat your earlier statements a lot. This tends to really frustrate your opponents. Second; draw correlations where none exist and cite that as fact. For example; “you like red blue is clearly better so therefore you’re wrong about your understanding of that law”.  This is one sure-fire way to throw your opponents off-track. Another good tactic is personal insults. Many times when you deploy these little strategic gems in the middle of your heated argument the other person just gets so pissed off that the stop arguing altogether. There’s a very good chance that you’ll win the argument instantly. Lastly, use vague, non-specific, non-descript evidence to support your argument. For example, if someone asks you why you believe something, say “because” or if they ask you how you arrived at a particular conclusion you can say “well, it’s true”. And, if they ask you to walk them through your thought process you can deflect them by saying things like “what? You can’t use Google?” or “How are you supposed to figure it out for yourself if I teach you?” To top off this argument style, you can always claim that they’re using these tactics against you.

As you have probably guessed, that preceding paragraph was tongue-in-cheek deliberately. If you have ever been in an argument against someone who is using those strategies against you then you know full well how frustrating they can be. And if you haven’t been in that type of argument, give it time, it’ll happen sooner or later. The only upside to the approach listed above is that it’s guaranteed to make you win. It’s pretty much impossible to beat that style of argument. The down side; it’s cheap and dirty, you will probably lose friends over it, and people will want to avoid any conversations that have the potential for argument with you. There’s also the chance that you’ll be labeled as “pigheaded”, “stubborn”, “unrealistic” or any number of other similar names. So, if that’s not the best way to argue, what is?

Even though it’s difficult at times, you have to remember that the person that you’re arguing with has feelings too. The ultimate goal of any argument is to try to get the other person to see your point of view. In order for this to happen you need to keep them thinking objectively (or as objectively as possible). In order to keep them objective there are certain cardinal rules that you should never break in this type of argument.

Rule 1: NEVER question a person’s intelligence in an argument. Granted, you will sometimes be perplexed at how your opponent arrived at a conclusion that was so far off-base from yours. However, the second that you begin to question their intelligence they get angry and defensive. They also immediately discredit everything you say because you’re not smart enough to realize how smart they are. And, let’s not forget that the main point of the argument is that you want them to see your point of view. The only way that they can accomplish this is if they have enough reasoning power in their brain to follow your steps of logic. If you honestly believe them unintelligent then this process is not likely to happen and any argument would be a complete and utter exercise in futility.

Rule 2: NEVER resort to personal attacks or name-calling. Calling people nasty names like “right-winger” or “leftist” or “Republican” or “Democrat” will not serve your purpose. Yes, it’s entirely true that your opponent may be one of those things, but they don’t need you reminding them of that fact. Your goal in the argument is to change their thought process, not to belittle or demean their associations. Any attempts that you make to undermine their position by resorting to name calling will put them on the defensive and they will automatically discredit anything you say because you’re not smart enough to see how wrong you are. See how that works?

Rule 3: NEVER use the words “always” or “never” in an argument. No matter how well intentioned you may mean them to be, they typically come across as attacks, which puts the other person on the defensive. Not, not only are they discrediting everything you say because you’re not smart enough to perceive reality, but they’re not even listening to you because they trying to prove that you’re wrong. For example; “you never help me clean around the house!” …”that’s not true, I did the dishes on Saturday and I did the laundry on Thursday, and I cleaned a bathroom on Tuesday”. Now, instead of arguing about what’s important; that you feel that you need more help around the house, you’re going to spend the next 45-60 minutes arguing over the finer nuances of how often who does what, which is really kind of trivial in the long run.

Rule 4: NEVER approach the situation with the viewpoint that your opinion is superior to theirs, especially just because it’s your opinion. To do so would anger them and they would automatically discredit you because you’re too stupid to see how right they are.

Rule 5: Stay focused on your point and stick to the facts. Okay, you hate Obama, I get it. But why? “because he’s an evil President who wants to destroy the American People” is not a valid argument. That’s an example of the first type of argument. I don’t bear Obama any great love, but, like most things in like I realize that he’s not completely evil. But, unlike some of the other people who argue the point, I can cite the reasons why I don’t particularly care for Obama. I can cite dates, legislative bills, policies, and so on. My arguments are vague or ambiguous, they’re specific and to the point. Some of my friends love Obama and we agree to disagree, but I have great respect for their ability to back up their argument with facts. It’s entirely possible that when presented with exactly the same data people will draw different interpretations from that same data. Part of this is because as people we have vastly different moral and ethical values and different principals and ideologies that we hold dear. We tend to latch onto those things that matter to us and ignore the rest. A perfect example of this is a phenomenon that I call “Holy Text Syndrome”. (I’m sure that there’s an actual scientific name for it, and I guess you could classify it as confirmation bias, but this tends to prove the point rather markedly).  To demonstrate HTS in action gather a group of people in a room together. Read them a passage from the Bible without any further explanation, connotation or voice inflection. Then, ask the people individually what the passage was about. I can pretty much guarantee that you will get more than one answer. In fact, depending on the size of the group you may get as many as 10 different answers. It’s part of human nature to inject our own thoughts and feelings and opinions into what we read (which is part of the problem with people misunderstanding text messages and emails so often). The key to these arguments isn’t so much the fact that you’re right and they’re wrong so much as it is that you want to reframe how they think about the topic. Their perception of the issue is what’s driving their opinion, their belief and everything else behind their logic. This is true even for the most pragmatic, factual people too.

Rule 6: If you are trying arguing to make a change for the better you have to walk into the argument embracing the possibility that you may be wrong and you have to be open-minded enough to realize that. I will readily admit that although I have utterly destroyed the arguments of several people on certain topics, there are other topics where I have presented my opinions based on the facts as I interpret them and then someone else has presented me with information or an idea that I have not considered before and I ended up conceding my argument. If you’re not prepared to concede your point if you know that the other person may be right, then you probably shouldn’t even bother as it will simply devolve into a shouting match.

Tip: In general there is kind of a scale for how risky arguments can be. When discussing topics like what color to paint the walls, or what to eat for dinner the risks are generally fairly low. Most people don’t have a whole lot invested in that type of decision. However, as you move up the ladder and talk about topics like religion, politics, childrearing or treatment of animals, things tend to get very heated, very quickly. It’s difficult to separate out your emotions from your opinions, but it’s a necessary point of making a good argument. If you can’t do it then the argument will devolve into a shouting match and it isn’t worth arguing in the first place.

Well, dear readers, I hope that I have sufficiently entertained you with my thoughts on arguments.  My strongest piece of advice on arguing, especially when arguing with close friends or family members; if you feel yourself about to go over the brink and lose your cool, it’s better to just walk away. Even though you may say things out of anger and you may not mean them, and you may forget what you have said in a few days, I promise you, the other person will remember. I can recall every nasty, no-good name or statement that has ever been said to me in an argument, especially when they were said by people who cared about me. Good luck and happy arguing! …well, as much fun as you can have arguing anyway.

The Art of Listening

[Johnathan Clayborn]
As a follow-up article to my post about communication, I elected to continue that line of thought and focus today’s article on listening. As with talking, listening is at the crux of every communication issue, and I’ll explain why.

First, let me start out by making two statements; 1) there is a difference between listening and hearing, and 2) selective hearing is no joke. The latter of those statements is the most absurd to most people so I’ll start there.

Many people often joke about people having “selective hearing” when dealing with communication issues, especially when dealing with; family members, parents and children, spouses, etc. This is absolutely true and is something that afflicts everyone. Yes, some people can learn techniques to minimize this effect and listen better; however, everyone has selective hearing.

Now, before you write me off as a complete crackpot, allow me to explain. Buried deep in our brain is a biological process that psychologists call a “schema”.  A schema is a process that your brain utilizes automatically to sort out the various input signals and decide what information is useful and what’s not. Without this process our brains would become overloaded trying to process every single stimulus and we would drive ourselves insane. Schemas (combined with binocular rivalry) are what are responsible for those fad 3-D image posters. Unfortunately, that example is also the hardest to comprehend. Instead let’s just focus on auditory schemas. We’ve all been in someplace crowded, like a restaurant, or a shopping mall at Christmas time. Almost everyone else in the restaurant or the mall is speaking the same language that we are. They’re all carrying on conversations that we should be able to understand. But yet, to our ears all we hear is incomprehensible chatter while the conversation of your dinner partners is perfectly understandable.

How can this be? Why does your mind separate out what your dinner partners are saying into comprehensible speech whereas everyone else comes across as something more like white noise? This is an example of a schema at work. Your brain is subconsciously sorting out the important signals (your dinner-mates) from the unimportant signals (everyone else). And yet, even while this is going on your brain isn’t completely shutting off the other signals. It’s actively scanning them, looking for “buzzwords”. Buzzwords could be words that represent danger; kill, die, bomb, gun, shoot, etc. A baby’s cry is also not dumped into the useless category due to evolution. However, sometimes, especially if you have something on your mind, your brain will pick up other “buzzwords” that have some meaning to you; Linkin Park, motorcycles, Star Wars, etc. The more value or association that you have with the word, the more likely your brain is to sort it into the useful pile. That’s part of the reason that we hear bits and pieces of other conversations sporadically.

As if that wasn’t bad enough we have other factors working against us too. As humans we have this innate ability in our brains to fill in the missing pieces automatically. It’s a semi-conscious cognitive process. One example of this is the famous Rorschach Tests, known in common vernacular as the “inkblot” tests. In those tests we see a visual pattern and we identify it with something else that is often not what it truly is. There are other types of similar tests where psychologists remove random bits from photographs and ask subjects to identify what is in the picture. Our brains are capable of filling in those missing gaps and coming to the correct answer. And still, yet one more example is the computer-geek language of “leet”. Most of us can read leet without too much issue: 4s d3m0nstr4t3d by th1s 3x4mpl3 0f l33t t3xt h3r3.

The fascinating thing to me is that while many of these ocular anomalies are understood (at least in passing) by the average person, their auditory counterparts are completely lost or ignored. As humans we have this innate ability to “fill in the gaps” in our hearing as well, especially when our full cognitive resources are not devoted to listening or we are otherwise unable to interpret what is being said. The proof of this comes from the plethora of websites devoted to the most common “misheard lyrics” such as; www.kissthisguy.com, www.amiright.com/misheard, and www.misheardlyrics.net.

To share some of my own rather humorous examples; the first time I was watching Star Wars there was a scene in Episode IV: A New Hope where Darth Vader says “There will be no understoppers this time”….or at least that’s what I heard. I promptly searched the dictionary for “understoppers” and came up blank. It wasn’t until many views later I realized that he actually said “there will be no one to stop us this time!” Well, that’s a big difference, especially because that actually makes sense.  And yet, sometimes even today I still hear understoppers despite knowing that he really says.

There’s a song by the late Isreal Kamakawiwo (aka: Brother Iz) called “somewhere over the rainbow”. The first time that I heard that song I heard “K is for spaghetti”. In truth he says “Okay, this one is for Gabby”.

There’s also a song by the singer Kelly Clarkson called “Breakaway”. In that song I heard “I want to go to Walgreens”. In truth she said “I want to feel the warm breeze”…although, in my defense I was thinking about Walgreens as I was having some very serious tooth path and my prescriptions were ready. My first thought was; “wow, she must needs meds too”.

Other people that I know have heard things like “a bowl in a china closet”, or in the scene in City Slickers they heard “I crap in your new” instead of “I crap bigger than you”. I’ve also heard people talk about “we have a flight to Japan” instead of “We have a change of plans”. Other people have taken misheard quotes and applied them out of context. For example, one person I know kept referring to the enemy ships in Star Wars as Century Ships instead of TIE Fighters. The TIE component is really an acronym meaning “Twin Ion Engine” describing how the ship is propelled. However, this person was watching A New Hope and Han Solo makes reference to the TIE Fighters as being sentry ships…although that’s not what they heard. It took us a while to convince him of the truth.

As humorous as these anecdotes are, they are not localized to just one person or even one group of people. There are numerous examples of this type of selective hearing that occurs every day. All of us have done this before, and all of us will do this again. It’s the result of a physiological function of our brains. Sometimes we realize that we’ve misheard something (although we usually blame the other person) and we say to ourselves “what did they say?” But a lot of the time these misinterpretations are so subtle that we don’t even realize that they’ve occurred (even if the singer must have been high when they wrote those lyrics…).

The worst part of all of this is that when you add our brain’s cognitive abilities back into the mix on top of all of these other psychological factors that are already happening it makes listening even much more difficult. And what’s even more interesting is that there’s an indirect relationship between how close we are to a person emotionally versus how well we listen to that person. It sounds crazy, I know, but bear with me.

Our brains are constantly scanning input from our environments, scanning for danger, looking for things that may harm us or may be dangerous in some way. All of us tend to have a skeptical approach to dealing with strangers and people that we don’t know. As a result we also tend to analyze their actions and their speech a little more closely, looking for some subtle clue that can tip us off to their nature. However, with people that we know we tend to be much more relaxed in our cognitive analysis of their behavior. Because of this our brains don’t pay attention as much to what they say and we’re left free to interpret and “fill in the gaps” more in conversations with them.

Admittedly, sometimes this behavior can be as hilarious as the iPhone’s auto-correct feature; generally this behavior can have potentially disastrous results. This is especially true in cases where you may believe that friends or loved ones may have slighted you in some way. When we feel that we’ve been slighted our bodies begin to initiate that “fight or flight” response. This can often lead to couples breaking up, friends or family not speaking for months or years at a time, or spouses engaging in ugly, nasty arguments (which we’ll discuss in more depth in tomorrow’s article, The Art of Arguing).

Now that we are aware that this process and the fact that this behavior is occurring we can take steps to correct it. The first step in correcting behaviors is awareness, which we’ve achieved just by reading this article. We now have an understanding of what is happening within our heads and why it’s so hard for us to listen. The next step is to take active steps to calm ourselves and clarify. Admittedly this is a little harder and it takes practice, but the payoff is immense as you realize that half of the arguments that you’ve had are really about nothing more than selective hearing.

The crucial part of that step, really, is the calm part. If you are not calm before you try to clarify then you run the risk of engaging in confirmation bias as your emotions cloud your judgment. The clarity part is much easier. Clarity can best be achieved by one simple phrase “can you explain what you mean by that, I don’t understand?” With this phrase the wording of the phrase is the key to its use. If you simply say “What do you mean?” or “explain yourself” then your request could be taken the wrong way and the other person may feel as though you are attacking them. By phrasing it this way you’re delivering the message for clarity in a more neutral tone that is much more likely to get an explanation.

Another technique for clarity that you can use is simply rephrasing their statement into a different perspective. Say something like “I just want to understand what you mean. Are you saying….?” Again, the key to this is to deliver this message with a non-aggressive tone or language.

Ponder this information and this advice next time you find yourself in these types of situations. Ask yourself if you are really hearing what the other person means to say, or are you allowing your selective hearing to take over? Always ask for clarity and try to understand what the other person means and focus less on what they say. Sometimes people exercise poor judgment when choosing their words. And I’ll be expanding on this series tomorrow with another article covering the art of arguments, and how to win and lose them.