Over this last weekend I had the opportunity to see a number of my cousins, many of which have young children. One moment in particular stuck out for me. One of the mothers asked for some sort of cream or lotion to give her child. The child specifically wanted what I believe was an anti-histamine cream to relieve some itching, but the mother knew that anything with roughly the same physical properties would fill the child's real need; to have their problem attended to and be given a simple solution.
Children are obligated to go to their parents to fix the majority of their problems. In infancy they have only the one signaling mechanism to do this, crying, and deploy it whenever they experience discomfort or want so they can obtain the attention of parents that will then fix the problem. As children get older parents teach them more sophisticated signaling mechanisms (such as 'using their words'), but the drive is the same, get the attention of mom or dad so that they'll put in the effort to fix my problem.
I also witnessed the impotent rage and anguish children experience when this process fails, or even more horribly when mom or dad suddenly turn and become the cause of vexation (like being told to leave the swimming pool). The wise parents I was with simply weathered the tantrums and softly prompted their kids to learn to manage their emotional responses with greater aplomb. The lesson will hopefully be learned by these children, though it will probably take a few more years of experience and cerebral development.
What struck me was the inborn drive represented by this, and the realization of how often this thinking expresses itself throughout society. We are constantly turning to figures of authority and power hoping that with their attention and efforts focused on us our problems will get fixed. We get angry when those we think are supposed to fix our problems do things that stifle our enjoyment and comfort. At another point I also discussed with my father, a professional
psychological counselor, how so many want a pill to fix their problems
and prefer that solution despite numerous benefits therapy has over drugs.
We can be active and fight to better our lives when possible, and feel the disappointments of unfortunate but unyielding circumstances without letting that sadness or anger hijack our mind. I'm taking a class in pharmacology over the summer and the lesson that comes up over and over is that all drugs have side effects, and therapy is always just a matter of handling one thing with a cost that's deemed acceptable. As Thomas Sowell put it, "All that goes with the territory, that is with a universe we did not make having constraints we cannot escape, and offering only trade offs however much the intelligencia and the politicians proclaim solutions."
The realization that there are no easy solutions for the biggest problems in our lives and that we're doomed to an eternal existence of managing (as opposed to fixing) the obstacles in our personal lives and our community is sobering, indeed. It is also what we must accept if we want to truly gain maturity beyond the child yelling, "Fix it, mommy!"
Showing posts with label impulse control. Show all posts
Showing posts with label impulse control. Show all posts
Tuesday, August 4, 2015
Friday, November 22, 2013
Sadly, the porn must flow Part 3: Regulatory and Governmental Concerns
I've now addressed concerns with a mandatory pornography filtering system based on conceptual considerations on the nature of pornography and technical ones about how the system might work. Now I will focus on a critique of the plan based on the governmental and regulatory considerations, as stated in the title. A main point in my last part could be summed up as, "Don't trust your ISP to keep you safe, you're better off ensuring that on your own." If we replace ISP with government that same idea will be found here.
America has a unique approach to government in that a fundamental value we hold is liberty, and are sensitive to the power of government to curtail this among individuals or groups. The conflict between this and the need for law forms a basis to our society. Whether pornographic filtering should be mandatory is another manifestation for this conflict, and I will be falling on the side of liberty as opposed to security.
The concept of safety curtailing our liberties is one hotly contested in the media with the government's efforts in the last ten years to crack down on and protect against terrorism. This even has a more direct parallel in the field of communications with recent Snowden leaks on NSA data and metadata collection efforts that, in my own personal opinion and that of at least one court of law, violates American citizens' rights granted by the first (including and perhaps primarily the right of association) and fourth amendments. With these already in peril, why would we want to introduce a new government mandate and increase their ability to curtail citizens' rights online?
Yes, yes, I know, "No one's rights are being curtailed, anyone can still opt in and get the content they want." In the short view this may be true, though many of the points in my previous two essays on the subject should demonstrate ways it may also not be. Though I'd rather not delve too deeply into the 'slippery slope' argument as it necessarily relies on speculation and unverifiable prediction, it would be prudent to mention that any law or regulation would set a precedent that our personal communication methods are something the government has every right to manage.
The proposal would grant new regulatory powers over our methods of communication. It would be handed off to either ISPs or/and government committees and reduce choice for the individual. While it's only a default setting that would change right now, the shame often involved in the complex issue of obscenity could easily cause this to be the societal norm, and forcing those who either held liberal views about sexuality or possibly a desire to protect their privacy and security online to be forced into an 'internet ghetto.' Eventually these people might be lumped in with criminals and subject to greater invasion of their rights because they 'chose to use the internet in a manner recognized to reflect dangerous and deviant behavior.'
Let me explain by way of analogy. How would you feel if car dealerships were now required to sell cars that would automatically avoid driving you anywhere where obscene or illegal activities were known to occur? They would naturally have to standardize and define what obscene behavior was, and so a federal committee would now decide what parts of town you were allowed to drive to. If you wanted to have full control over where you could go in the car you bought you would need to ask the dealer, and maybe they would have a special license plate for your car so that everyone else wouldn't accidentally follow you or wonder why they were having trouble getting to a place that you went to without problems. Does that sound OK to you, or does it seem like a massive intrusion of government control in your life?
The internet is indeed a radically new method of communication. Earlier methods often fell naturally into a pattern of self-regulation when it came to pornography. Movies created a rating system, magazines went under the counter, TV shows had a set of standards to follow until after the watershed. Phone lines were pretty much just as available to youngsters as much as anyone else but you needed to know what number to call and the commercials didn't go on until after the watershed, so their exposure wasn't really significant and in any event parents would get the bill later. The internet, on the other hand, is hugely interconnected and once you're online you have access to most resources with nothing more than a name, or if you're not sure of that a search term will probably work just as well. The industry doesn't lend itself well to self regulationas it is a personal service, the connection is to your home, connected to a vast public network.
It does lend itself easily to personal regulation, though. In my last post I mentioned a few good and fairly easy solutions to filter pornography. I explained my feelings that those who were unwilling to gain the technical skills to implement these shouldn't be foisting their responsibility to protect themselves on the country at large as well, but there's another aspect to this naivete I'd like to address: that pornography is a problem that technology or regulation can only slow, not stop. It plays to the most basic human drives and desires. This is what makes it so tempting, and destructive.
The way to fight pornography is to teach the right values, habits, and behaviors. I admit the prevalence of pornography can make this difficult, but teaching our children and selves the truth of what pornography is is the most effective way to fight it. We shouldn't pretend that we can shut off any exposure to it, and instead prepare ourselves and develop the mental and spiritual discipline to be strong against it when we do. This may include a personal decision to install some sort of filter on our own networks. Others might not even see a need for this.
Maturity comes with responsibility, taking on accountability for the way we live and the decisions we make. I see this petition as immature, trying to abdicate the responsibility for avoiding pornography by passing it along to organizations believed to be more capable of doing so. We must take this responsibility upon ourselves though, immense as it may seem, because immaturity and liberty cannot coexist. The more we decide that something is too hard for us and should be handled by the government, the greater the state will become as the citizen becomes smaller and smaller.
America has a unique approach to government in that a fundamental value we hold is liberty, and are sensitive to the power of government to curtail this among individuals or groups. The conflict between this and the need for law forms a basis to our society. Whether pornographic filtering should be mandatory is another manifestation for this conflict, and I will be falling on the side of liberty as opposed to security.
The concept of safety curtailing our liberties is one hotly contested in the media with the government's efforts in the last ten years to crack down on and protect against terrorism. This even has a more direct parallel in the field of communications with recent Snowden leaks on NSA data and metadata collection efforts that, in my own personal opinion and that of at least one court of law, violates American citizens' rights granted by the first (including and perhaps primarily the right of association) and fourth amendments. With these already in peril, why would we want to introduce a new government mandate and increase their ability to curtail citizens' rights online?
Yes, yes, I know, "No one's rights are being curtailed, anyone can still opt in and get the content they want." In the short view this may be true, though many of the points in my previous two essays on the subject should demonstrate ways it may also not be. Though I'd rather not delve too deeply into the 'slippery slope' argument as it necessarily relies on speculation and unverifiable prediction, it would be prudent to mention that any law or regulation would set a precedent that our personal communication methods are something the government has every right to manage.
The proposal would grant new regulatory powers over our methods of communication. It would be handed off to either ISPs or/and government committees and reduce choice for the individual. While it's only a default setting that would change right now, the shame often involved in the complex issue of obscenity could easily cause this to be the societal norm, and forcing those who either held liberal views about sexuality or possibly a desire to protect their privacy and security online to be forced into an 'internet ghetto.' Eventually these people might be lumped in with criminals and subject to greater invasion of their rights because they 'chose to use the internet in a manner recognized to reflect dangerous and deviant behavior.'
Let me explain by way of analogy. How would you feel if car dealerships were now required to sell cars that would automatically avoid driving you anywhere where obscene or illegal activities were known to occur? They would naturally have to standardize and define what obscene behavior was, and so a federal committee would now decide what parts of town you were allowed to drive to. If you wanted to have full control over where you could go in the car you bought you would need to ask the dealer, and maybe they would have a special license plate for your car so that everyone else wouldn't accidentally follow you or wonder why they were having trouble getting to a place that you went to without problems. Does that sound OK to you, or does it seem like a massive intrusion of government control in your life?
The internet is indeed a radically new method of communication. Earlier methods often fell naturally into a pattern of self-regulation when it came to pornography. Movies created a rating system, magazines went under the counter, TV shows had a set of standards to follow until after the watershed. Phone lines were pretty much just as available to youngsters as much as anyone else but you needed to know what number to call and the commercials didn't go on until after the watershed, so their exposure wasn't really significant and in any event parents would get the bill later. The internet, on the other hand, is hugely interconnected and once you're online you have access to most resources with nothing more than a name, or if you're not sure of that a search term will probably work just as well. The industry doesn't lend itself well to self regulationas it is a personal service, the connection is to your home, connected to a vast public network.
It does lend itself easily to personal regulation, though. In my last post I mentioned a few good and fairly easy solutions to filter pornography. I explained my feelings that those who were unwilling to gain the technical skills to implement these shouldn't be foisting their responsibility to protect themselves on the country at large as well, but there's another aspect to this naivete I'd like to address: that pornography is a problem that technology or regulation can only slow, not stop. It plays to the most basic human drives and desires. This is what makes it so tempting, and destructive.
The way to fight pornography is to teach the right values, habits, and behaviors. I admit the prevalence of pornography can make this difficult, but teaching our children and selves the truth of what pornography is is the most effective way to fight it. We shouldn't pretend that we can shut off any exposure to it, and instead prepare ourselves and develop the mental and spiritual discipline to be strong against it when we do. This may include a personal decision to install some sort of filter on our own networks. Others might not even see a need for this.
Maturity comes with responsibility, taking on accountability for the way we live and the decisions we make. I see this petition as immature, trying to abdicate the responsibility for avoiding pornography by passing it along to organizations believed to be more capable of doing so. We must take this responsibility upon ourselves though, immense as it may seem, because immaturity and liberty cannot coexist. The more we decide that something is too hard for us and should be handled by the government, the greater the state will become as the citizen becomes smaller and smaller.
Friday, February 1, 2013
Waiting
"Patience is a virtue," everyone says. Often one hears a response along the lines, "Yes, but it's one I don't have." I feel like this response misses the mark terribly and perpetuates the foolhardy idea that our virtues (or vices, often) are just something we are born with and will end up living life according to. It undermines the idea that we humans are free and have the power to act for ourselves, debasing man to nothing more than an animal, or even the earth, water, air, or other elements of nature. Since, as you may have noticed, the author finds this idea somewhat repugnant he will often retort with something like, "And we must learn to develop virtues."
Patience is, or at least is often perceived to be, how we handle waiting. Do we sit quietly, do we fidget, do we pace up and down? There has been an odd change recently that has caused us to think many things should happen instantaneously. When I worked as a camp counselor the employee use computers were very obsolete and of course ran quite slowly. Rather than disparaging the frustrating situation I came to refer to these as the "Zen computers." I try to take this sort of attitude toward a lot of waiting; standing in a line, downloading a webpage, or standing at the bus stop can be great opportunities to think and observe our thinking.
Often waiting frustrates us because we feel such a drive to get our next task finished or such desire to have whatever we'll get after the wait. I've had to adjust lately to some of these feelings myself. I recently changed from a company that would give me a weekly paycheck to one that pays every two weeks. This means I have to wait longer when I want to make a payment on my student loans, credit card, rent, cable bill, or anything else. I've had to do slightly more planning ahead, but the bigger deal is becoming comfortable with things the way they are until I have the resources to change them. I think this is the greater principle here. Often we get frustrated, aggravated, or just plain angry when we're forced to wait because it's such a clear signal that there's something we can't control. Facing our limitations is always humbling, and many don't wish to be humbled.
Lately I've also been waiting to get married. This has been one of the most interesting experiences I've had in learning to wait. I feel such deep desire toward my beloved as well as a certain sense that I won't be taking the next step in my life until the wedding day has come. I'm learning a lot when about enjoying the experiences I'm having even while wanting so much more. I think this is what we're really seeking when we talk about learning delayed gratification.
It's easy to view waiting as something onerous and obnoxious. It's common to equate a wait with a difficulty. I think waiting is a great way to learn, especially about ourselves. Know thyself, the saying goes, and while doing things is important we also need to take time to get to know ourselves in a more intimate setting. Waiting is a great way to do that.
Wednesday, August 6, 2008
Grow up
After working with kids at a summer camp for a little while I began to think about what maturity is. What is it that these kiddos lack that makes them kids. The answer I came up with was impulse control. The kiddos just weren't skilled enough in calming those emotional flare ups or dropping a silly argument. Hence, "Why'd you hit him?" "He said I didn't like marshmallows" or "Why're you so stupid, stars don't have rings. It's physically impossible" "Well, I dunno I'm gonna look anyway." "No, you're wrong, that'd dumb..." "Guys, quit fighting!" Of course in the discussion comes the inevitable acknowledgement: some adults don't have very good impulse control. I think we usually call these people jerks, annoying, downers, or some other of the vast collection of disparaging nomenclature. Controling your emotions is necessary for getting along well with others.
There is more rewards to emotional control than a good social life, though. It's a good life, and moreover, power to act for ourselves (free will, if you go for that term). Hear me out, Emotions are brought on by outside forces. A big scary bear makes us afraid. A bouquet of flowers makes us delighted. A new computer game makes us excited.
After those examples you might say, "but Devon, I like being delighted and excited. Me too, but it might not always be the best thing. If I buy portal (which I just did, finally, by the way) and I'm so excited I start playing and don't stop until the first week of school is over, effectively destroying any opportunity for academic achievement I have for the semester, that's obviously not good. I also loose the opportunity for other exciting experiences, such as learning and in the future obtaining a good job. If my shallow ex-girlfriend who cheated on me twice and continually criticized and spoke hurtfully towards me sent me flowers and I decide, "Oh she sent me flowers that's so nice I'm going to get back with her!" my net delight will be negative (I can feel myself getting back into physics student mode!). What if the flowers are indicative of a change of heart for this wanton woman, and renewal of relationship would do good for the both of us? Well, it still isn't smart for me to just run back. I might be happy and thinking the best of her, but wisdom dictates that I take care when reviving the connection we had. First, I don't know this is the case, and past experience indicates that it won't be good for me. Secondly, she may need me to be on guard. In reviving a relationship it would be sagely of me to go in stronger than before, ready for the maladies before heaped upon me, and setting boundaries and rules of conduct between us so that she knows how to improver herself around me and I am clear about what I want in our relationship. If learn to overcome these initial reactions and rule our feelings with our mind we can increase the happiness, peace, and whatever other good thing you want to put there (I was going to put joy, but it sounded too cute and trite "happiness peace and joy!").
So, let's be clear, emotions are good. Just like water is good. I see our emotional systems to be like indoor plumbing. There's a system of valves that we need to control, letting reason dictate the flow of each pipe. If we simply let each bubble over we'll quickly drown in our passing sentiments.
There is more rewards to emotional control than a good social life, though. It's a good life, and moreover, power to act for ourselves (free will, if you go for that term). Hear me out, Emotions are brought on by outside forces. A big scary bear makes us afraid. A bouquet of flowers makes us delighted. A new computer game makes us excited.
After those examples you might say, "but Devon, I like being delighted and excited. Me too, but it might not always be the best thing. If I buy portal (which I just did, finally, by the way) and I'm so excited I start playing and don't stop until the first week of school is over, effectively destroying any opportunity for academic achievement I have for the semester, that's obviously not good. I also loose the opportunity for other exciting experiences, such as learning and in the future obtaining a good job. If my shallow ex-girlfriend who cheated on me twice and continually criticized and spoke hurtfully towards me sent me flowers and I decide, "Oh she sent me flowers that's so nice I'm going to get back with her!" my net delight will be negative (I can feel myself getting back into physics student mode!). What if the flowers are indicative of a change of heart for this wanton woman, and renewal of relationship would do good for the both of us? Well, it still isn't smart for me to just run back. I might be happy and thinking the best of her, but wisdom dictates that I take care when reviving the connection we had. First, I don't know this is the case, and past experience indicates that it won't be good for me. Secondly, she may need me to be on guard. In reviving a relationship it would be sagely of me to go in stronger than before, ready for the maladies before heaped upon me, and setting boundaries and rules of conduct between us so that she knows how to improver herself around me and I am clear about what I want in our relationship. If learn to overcome these initial reactions and rule our feelings with our mind we can increase the happiness, peace, and whatever other good thing you want to put there (I was going to put joy, but it sounded too cute and trite "happiness peace and joy!").
So, let's be clear, emotions are good. Just like water is good. I see our emotional systems to be like indoor plumbing. There's a system of valves that we need to control, letting reason dictate the flow of each pipe. If we simply let each bubble over we'll quickly drown in our passing sentiments.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)