You are here: Home > Recommended Reading

Archive | Recommended Reading RSS feed for this section

I Am We the People, And So Are You

By on May 12, 2016 in Liberty & Freedom, Recommended Reading

image of dumpster fireMany years ago, I read Ayn Rand’s [easyazon_link identifier=”B0082RHM4A” locale=”US” nw=”y” nf=”y” tag=”persephonek20-20″]“Anthem”[/easyazon_link] and in hindsight, it completely changed the path of my thinking.

Let me pause for a moment to take inventory on who is still reading. I mentioned Ayn Rand in my first sentence, so I assume a handful of readers decided to skip the bailing and just jump ship. If you’re still with me, I assume it means you either disagree with Rand but have an open mind, or are not offended by the mere mention of Rand’s name. I actually hope it’s a little bit of both. For those of you I lost, although you’ll never read this, I hope there comes a time when ideas contrary to your biases cause you to dive in more deeply to understand someone else’s perspective. Until then, best of luck in your utopia bubble.

Back to you, dear reader, who has stayed the course. Don’t worry, this is not going to be all about Ayn Rand. For the record, I have only read one of Rand’s books, and do not consider myself a “Randian” although I do find many of her ideas kickass, and others not so much. I felt it was important to begin by invoking her for three reasons:

  1. Reducing the reader pool to people with open minds,
  2. Reading “Anthem” changed my mind, and
  3. Rand once said that the “smallest minority is the individual.”

The last two items are completely intertwined for me, and have shaped my current political philosophy. More on that later.

Last week (I’d originally drafted this on 5/5/16 but had some blog tech issues and couldn’t post) , I read an article by Elizabeth Nolan Brown that summarized Nebraska Republican Senator Bob Sasse’s epic rant on the completely awful choices for President the American people will be faced with next November (Sasse says “there are dumpster fires in my town more popular” than Clinton or Trump). But something else he said stood out to me even more than that colorful one-liner:

“The main thing that unites most Democrats is being anti-Republican; the main thing that unites most Republicans is being anti-Democrat. No one knows what either party is for—but almost everyone knows neither party has any solutions for our problems.”

For me, sadly this is a broadly true assessment, and it’s the main reason I loathe all party politics. Humans are innately tribal. We all have tendencies to form bonds with people similar to us, join together for comfort, friendship, and security, and to defend each other when the other side tries to knock us down, even if the other side is justified. These bonds were a significant factor in the survival and evolution of our species. Tribalism is not necessarily always a problem. It’s the same mechanism that galvanizes us to join together to fight for and against causes that affect us. But in the modern world, in particular in the modern political world, this tendency manifests itself too often in defending our political tribes above everything else, even to the point of ignoring clear evidence to the contrary. I see far more knee-jerk defense of the tribe, or the tribe’s dogma, than I hear discussion of political philosophy, and the reasons for our viewpoints. Do we even know what our viewpoints are, or are we simply parroting the party line or the talking head of choice? The reason I hate political parties of all stripes, but especially the Democrats and Republicans, is that aside from having far too much power concentrated with two very similar authoritarian brands, they reduce us to being no more advanced than our tribal-bonded ancestors, relying on instinct to join together to protect the camp from perceived threats, rather than elevating the other aspects of our nature, namely our capacity for reason, logic, and nuanced thinking to creatively solve problems.

In short, at their core, all political parties force us to think as collectivists, and there is very little room for the individual, of which I am among the strongest champions.

This brings me inevitably back to Ayn Rand. Sorry if you thought I’d forgotten her.

If you have not read “Anthem” I would strongly recommend you do. There’s evidence “Anthem” inspired George Orwell’s dystopian masterpieces. Anthem is a quick, short read. It’s not a literary masterpiece. Rand’s native language was not English, and that comes through in her prose. But it does reflect her perspective as having been raised in the Soviet Union in a middle class Jewish household, and as someone who once lived under communist, authoritarian rule. Her father was a pharmacist whose business had been taken over by the state, and these experiences are reflected in “Anthem.” The story takes place in a fictional, dystopian world where there is no such thing as the individual. Even the word “I” is not allowed. All people refer to themselves as “we” and they have names that sound more like they came off an assembly line (Equality 7-2521 and Liberty 5-3000). They have virtually no choices in their lives. They are assigned jobs they cannot escape, and are told what is appropriate to think. Every aspect of their lives is centrally planned. They have no free will, no ability to change the course of their lives, and are beholden to the will of the state for everything.

Obviously, it’s an extreme example of even what Rand lived through in the Soviet Union, but as with all science fiction, it is meant to bring into focus ideas about our own lives we may take for granted. It did this for me as a tenth grader when it made me question what does it mean to be an individual? Living in society means living with other people, and therefore leads to conflict over how best to live with others. “Anthem” asked the question does living in society mean we must sacrifice being an individual for the perceived good of the people?

Based on my anecdotal observations, the answer to that question by many people today would be a very quick “yes.”

Modern western society emphasizes the “collective good” above the individual. That in order to achieve the collective good, ideas need to be generated by consensus. That equality of outcome is the highest standard for the collective good. That sometimes, or often, it is required and good to suppress an individual’s needs or wishes to achieve the best result for all of society.

I actually agree that the goal of achieving the collective good is noble. But where I diverge from (what seems like) most people (on the right and the left) is in thinking that the collective itself is like a single organism. In reality, there is no one thing that is “society.” Society can only ever be two or more individuals living together with some mutually agreed ways of interacting. So, Ayn Rand was correct when she said that the “smallest minority is the individual.” The only way, in my view, to maximize the collective good, is to maximize the autonomy of the individual without sacrificing the equal autonomy of another individual. Once equality of outcome becomes the most important goal, individual autonomy must naturally be reduced. We can’t have it both ways. But we can have equal protection to live as individuals with preordained, natural rights to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

No single person agrees with everything the group(s) they belong to supposedly believes. Party politics, religion, and so many other factions and types of GroupThink make it difficult to be an individual, especially when we’ve eroded the framework that promotes individualism, and in many ways made that very term a pejorative.

While this election cycle has been depressing for so many reasons, it has in some ways excited me. The appalling choices the Democrats and Republicans have given us encouraged some people –even some entrenched deeply in the parties themselves like Sasse — to break away from their collective safety net, and question what they really believe. It has encouraged them to think about why they support a candidate instead of following along the party line like lemmings. Perhaps when the dust settles, people will have reverted back to the status quo. Many of the #NeverTrumpers are already backpedaling, and the majority of people tend to vote based on who is the lesser evil of the party they align with, rather on the merits of the person.

The lesser evil is still evil.

As an individual, you must be able to live with the consequences of your choices, so I will not tell anyone who to vote for or against. I won’t even berate you if you vote for Hillary or The Donald.  That is for you to decide.  All I ask is that you take some time before November and think about what you as an individual believe in. What do you stand for? Does it matter more to you that your tribe wins, or does it matter that you supported a person who adheres to the framework within which you want to live your life? What is that framework?

Another wise piece of science fiction once posed two seemingly opposing viewpoints I feel are relevant. In Star Trek: The Wrath of Khan (TWOK), Spock sacrifices himself, and while succumbing to radiation he recalls an earlier discussion he had with Kirk by saying “Don’t grieve, Admiral. It [his choice] is logical. The needs of the many outweigh…” Kirk finishes for him, “The needs of the few.” Spock adds, “Or the one.” This is a powerful endorsement that the group matters more than the individual, even if it means death.

In the next film, Star Trek: The Search for Spock (TSFS), after the crew of the Enterprise risks itself to get Spock back (in a complicated rejoining of his body and soul), Spock asks Kirk why to which Kirk responds, “Because the needs of the one outweigh the needs of the many.” This directly contradicts the sentiment in TWOK, and suggests that there are times one person is more important than the group.

It seems on the surface, TWOK endorses a collective way of thinking, whereas TSFS highlights an individualist way of thinking. But, if I may, I would rewrite these two lines of thought, and join them together in much the same way Spock’s mind and body were rejoined as two entities that can’t survive without the other, and say it this way:

“The needs of the individual, properly protected and left to flourish, lead to the good of the one, the few, and the many.”

That sentence, I believe, summarizes my current framework for successful human society. That is the lens through which I see all political decisions and ideas. That first there is no “we” without an individual person, without an “I”. Each person is constructed from a myriad of properties forming who they are, what they care about, what they think and want, and what they are capable and incapable of achieving. No single group, party, faction, or tribe can completely encapsulate each one of us. And we shouldn’t want, or need one to completely speak for us, either.

When you (and I) embrace our unique identities as individuals, and see each other as individuals first, society at large (whatever that really is) will thrive. Until that time, we are forced to endure the will of the tribes.

Peace,

PersephoneK

P.S. If you want to learn more about Ayn Rand and her philosphy (and common misconceptions about her), I recommend this 3-part interview with Yaron Brook (President, Ayn Rand Institute) on The Rubin Report:

Comments { 0 }

Paying Tribute to Serious Themes in The Hunger Games: Catching Fire

By on December 4, 2013 in Entertainment & Pop Culture, Frivolity, Liberty & Freedom, Quotes, Recommended Reading

CatchingFirePoster_MockingJay[quotepress id=”1428″]

Let me get this out of the way. I’m terrible at writing movie and book reviews. A good review isn’t a play by play of what happened, but rather a critique of the story, discussion of its themes, style, and execution. As much as I love films and books, you’d think I’d write a ton of reviews. Part of me wishes I would – or could. But the plain truth is I’m awful at them. I don’t want to mentally or physically take notes when I watch a movie or read a book. I want to enjoy the story. I think about its themes, usually heavily, but they swish around in my mind like clouds high up in the atmosphere, constantly changing and reforming, blending together to form new ideas over time. I see something different every time I look. Usually my thoughts about the stories are less than coherent or eloquent enough for someone to want to read. There’s no way I could write a timely review immediately after I finish a story or watch a film. Doing so would ruin the experience itself. Besides, I’d be sure to miss something important, and then the review is set in stone as if those were my only takeaways or thoughts for eternity. That would be annoying.

With that in mind, I wanted to share a few thoughts on The Hunger Games: Catching Fire, which I watched for the second time in a week last weekend (and will probably watch again), and The Hunger Games series in general. I loved the books, loved the first film, and think the latest film takes them all up another level. In short, I loved so much about Catching Fire. If you want to know my thoughts on some of the film’s details (like how amazing Jennifer Lawrence is as Katniss, or the improved quality of the direction and action over the first film, or how well the film adapts the book, or its attention to detail, or the delightful absurdity of Stanley Tucci as Caesar Flickerman, or, or, or…), ask me in the comments section, and I can go on and on. But for my time with you right now, I’d rather stick to some of the bigger themes of the entire series, focusing on the Catching Fire pieces most, and how my view of them might be different than what is generally discussed with these stories. For my more fangirl review of the first film, go here. But basically this “review” will be about what inspires me about The Hunger Games’ world and characters, and what draws me to re-watch, reread, and obsess over them.

Suzanne Collins (the writer of the novels) has said her inspiration for the story came from late night channel surfing, flicking between television reruns of reality show

s and war coverage. It’s so simple in conception that this would be writer is insanely jealous. From that simple merger of ideas, she created a deeply rich and layered world. This is the essence of creating believability, especially in what is truly a science fiction story, set in a future dystopia, a culture created from the wreckage of the vaguely explained collapse of society which included at some point in its history a nuclear holocaust and world-wide flooding (I suspect they came in reverse order), changing the landscape, shrinking the United States in area and in population size, and leading to the complete reformation of how society works, but with subtle reminders that this was once our current country. The world was remade over time spans unidentified (but would seem to be far in the future if the technology like hover crafts and giant game arenas with diabolical computer generated manipulations are any indication) eventually resulting in the current structure of the country called Panem contained within the former United States. Panem is divided into 12 (er… 13) districts, each ostensibly serving a specific resource niche for the shared resources of the entire country, but in reality mostly serving its Capitol and the totalitarian dictatorship, currently led by “President” Snow, that controls everything. The Capitol (probably located somewhere near present day Denver), along with one or two nearest districts, are rich and spoiled. Its people seem to want for nothing. They are consumed with outlandishly self-absorbed lifestyles, living in a bubble that is an enhanced distortion of present day Hollywood. They love their entertainment, fashion, and over the top parties. But most of all, they seem to love The Hunger Games, the annual Survivor-esque battle to the death between 24 children from each of the districts (one male and one female) aged between 12 and 18. The districts themselves, at least 3 through

12 keep the Capitol rich in resources and labor, but suffer the most in the Games. They are too poor to train “career” tributes who volunteer for the games in place of those who  are randomly “reaped” in a lottery, and who win almost every year. For the people of the districts, especially the outlying ones like District 11 and 12, the annual event is a reminder that they are powerless over the Capitol, and that two of their children are likely about to die in a brutal nationwide broadcast that is mandatory viewing. During the Games, as the people in the Districts starve, work intolerable hours, have little time for education, and suffer the carnage on live TV, those in the Capitol (seemingly not required to offer up their own children) wager on the outcomes, and cheer for their favorites. The sole survivors each year are lifted up as the ultimate celebrities for the rest of their lives, which are spent being paraded around year after year, reliving their victory, which came at the expense of 23 other young lives. They are forced to face the families of those they’ve slain in a Victory Tour, pretending to extol the Capitol, which makes them appear somewhat sociopathic to each District’s citizens, and likely eats away at the Victors themselves. We learn in Catching Fire that many of those Victors, don’t handle their success very well. In The Hunger Games novel, Katniss constantly talks about how she finds Haymitch, her mentor and previous District 12 Victor, as disgusting drunk. By Catching Fire, she’s joining him in a drink (which I was thrilled to see was included in the film as its one of my favorite scenes). Celebrity isn’t all it’s cracked up to be.

It’s easy to see how most discussions about the meaning of the Hunger Games series is an indictment on our shallow celebrity culture, crass materialist excess, and how the impoverished and lowly masses are squashed while the Capitalist ruling class is propped up on their backs. Collins makes a point to use references to ancient Rome throughout her narrative. Many of the names of characters and places are taken directly from Rome.

Panem is the Latin word for bread, as in “panem et circenses” meaning “bread and circuses”, a critique of how the Roman political classes distracted the common people from engaging in serious politics by giving them bread and games, like gladiator fights to the death. For some, the Hunger Games represents the classic Marxist struggle of the bourgeoisie over the proletariat. The all-powerful Empire against the lowly citizen.

I don’t see the story this way at all, at least not in that exact framing. The truth, whether or not Collins realized this herself, is “bread and circuses” is a reference to the Fall of the Roman Republic into an autocracy. The elected politicians bought votes by diverting attention away from the concerns of politics and civic duty. The people were happy to have free grain and games and in return gave up their own power over the government by electing those who would take if from them. This eventually led to one man seizing power rather easily, and the Republic became an Empire. It would seem to me, that Panem has already had its transformation from Republic to Empire, but we’re beginning to see Rome’s Fall. The Visigoth’s are standing on top of the hill with their eye on Rome. They just need something – a spark of motivation, inspiration — to push them towards the gates.

For Panem, that spark is Katniss Everdeen, the heroine from District 12 and co-winner of the 74th Hunger Games, known to the people as the Mockingjay, a hybrid bird that was never supposed to exist, abandoned by the Capitol’s scientists to die when it didn’t serve their purposes, but which flourished on its own in freedom.

One reason I’m drawn to stories set in dystopian futures is that they are usually (intentionally or unintentionally) discussions of how collective societies destroy individual liberty, leading to the destruction of the society itself. Whether or not that was her intention, for me, that is exactly the world Collins created, and that is exactly the dominant theme in her stories as I see them. When we first meet her, Katniss is a coal miner’s daughter who loves to hunt. She regularly defies the rules to escape to the forest, ducking under the poorly monitored fences of her district so she can keep her family alive. She wants nothing more than to live a quiet, unassuming peaceful life volunteers for The Hunger Games when her 12 year old sister is reaped despite her name only being in the lottery one time (candidates can add their name to the bucket in exchange for food for their families). In that single act of uncalculated bravery she inspires a nation to stand up for themselves and be brave, too. This single individual act of selflessness, followed by a string of defiant acts within the arena itself, result in her being lifted up as a symbol of rebellion.

She is Panem’s Rosa Parks.

Like Parks who only wanted to rest her aching feet, not inspire a civil rights movement, Katniss had no intention of inspiring anyone to revolution. She only wanted to return home alive. Unlike her friend Gale, she would have been content to live out her life quietly, without causing too much attention, tolerating the tyranny of her government. That is just the way it is, in her point of view. When she breaks the law by hunting, or participating in the black markets, it’s purely for survival, not as a political act. When she “volunteers” (someone must go to the Games, they’re not voluntary), all she cares about is surviving so she can save her family both in the immediacy of saving her sister from the Games, and also to survive them herself to take care of them later. That’s all that matters to her. She is not a leader. She is not an idealist. She is rough and practical. She is a survivor.

In the first film, the night before they go into the Games, the other District 12 Tribute, Peeta says, “I just don’t want them change me… Turn me into something I’m not. I just don’t want to be another piece in their game… I just keep wishing I could think of a way to show them, that they don’t own me. If I’m gonna die, I wanna still be me.” Pragmatic Katniss replies that she can’t think like that. She needs to win because as sole breadwinner, she needs to take care of her family. Despite that, she does exactly what Peeta hopes to do. She risks her own oblivion in the rigged Games time after time by defying the Capitol (consciously or unconsciously), and like Rosa Parks, she becomes the symbol of a struggle she doesn’t organize or lead. In the first film/book, she does this by first showing kindness and respect to her fallen friend Rue, and later by convincing the Head Gamemaker Seneca Crane that she would rather die and deny them a Victor than kill Peeta to win. She rebelled against the Capitol when all she wanted to do was rest her aching feet.

In the second film, the Capitol intends to make her pay for inspiring the people to do the same.

Panem is both a fascist totalitarian dictatorship and a collective society. There appears to be commerce, but if it is not outright owned by the state, it is certainly controlled and manipulated by the state. The Districts serve the ruling class of the Capitol. There does not appear to be any democratic system of government, at least not with any real power. The “President” can determine who lives and dies on a whim. He can even change the rules of the annual Hunger Games, as we learn in Catching Fire when he forces an all-star celebrity death match in lieu of the traditional 12 to 18 year olds being drafted, thus breaking the agreement that Victors would live life in peace and comfort. The President’s power is absolute. Even the citizens of the Capitol are pawns to him. They may lead mostly frivolous lives, but even Hollywood starlets often have their lives controlled by the forces of their celebrity, something Haymitch explains to Katniss and Peeta when he tells them they will never get off the Victory Tour train. Their lives, as rich as they are now, will never be their own. I suspect many more in the Capitol feel that way than we are initially led to believe. Even Effie Trinket, a symbol of all that is shallow and air-headed in the Capitol’s masses, proves to be less clueless in Catching Fire as we and Katniss initially assumed. She’s merely made the best of the situation she’s been given in life. Year after year she watches her Tributes from District 12 get slaughtered. Any non-psychopath with a job like that needs to find meaning in it, or go insane. She puts on a happy face, but we see in Catching Fire that she is heartbroken by the situation Katniss and Peeta have been put into yet again. Perhaps the rest of the Capitol’s citizens aren’t what they seem to be either. None of them are truly free to be individuals, and speak out against the President or his government. They are not as free and distracted by bread and circuses as we thought. When the Victor’s all hold hands at the end of Flickerman’s interview show before the Games they shout out and boo, demanding that the games get cancelled. Even the normally unflappable Flickerman is visible shaken. And we see what happens to those who make statements against the President when Katniss’ friend and popular designer Cinna is beaten in front of her just before she’s thrown back into the arena.

I’m often surprised that people see Fascism and Communism as two opposite ends of the political spectrum, when to me they’re more like the ends of a circle meeting up like an Ouroboros, the head of the snake eating its tail. Each philosophy uses different tactics leading to the same conclusions. Ultimately in each, the state controls the individual. Yet even within Panem which is under the complete control of the Capitol, the people’s desire to be free is evident, and the failure of the government to provide what the people need – despite the entire country devoted to sharing its resources — is striking. Even the state controlled security forces known as Peace Keepers often look the other way and allow the people to do what they need to do to survive. It is through her own efforts hunting, and selling the game on the black markets that allow Katniss to feed her family. She even sells to the Peace Keepers on occasion. The state cannot even control those it employs directly. Katniss hides her bow and arrows in the woods because they are illegal for citizens to own. The citizens in each district have little control over their future professions, as each district serves one or two primary functions dependent on the resources of their region. There is little mobility between the districts, and any that exists is state sanctioned. This is a world with few choices, yet individuals find a way to do the best they can despite the odds.

Propaganda is the glue that holds the country together. We first see it in the film the Districts are forced to watch prior to the reaping, that Effie has memorized. And after their victory in the 74th Hunger Games, Katniss and Peeta become national celebrities. They are forced to shill for the Capitol by extolling its virtues, and thanking it for the glory the Hunger Games allows for them. Yet, along the way she unintentionally continues to inspire individuals to risk their own lives as she and Peeta make their way throughout the districts on their Victory Tour. By showing compassion and kindness to Rue’s family, and by standing up for Gale during the live broadcast of his flogging, she inspires them more still. The citizens of Panem know what happens to anyone who defies the Capitol, but they rise up anyway. Even in the face of escalating brutality by the Capitol, and isolation from each other, they form a rebellion. The Hunger Games does indeed knit them together, but not in the way the President and his propaganda machine intend. On the surface, the reasons for revolt may simply be that the poor districts are tired of seeing their sweat and blood go to feeding the Capitol while they starve, and live in squalor. But starvation is merely a symptom of the greater loss of freedom. The citizens in the districts are not empowered to pursue their own dreams, and make their own lives better. They are not even empowered to turn off the television, let alone prevent their children from fighting to the death each year. They are powerless in every sense of the word, yet the black markets, hunting in the forest, and one girl’s choice to volunteer to die shows them that the individual always wants what the state cannot, or will not, provide. That despite the President’s rhetoric, his sole purpose is to maintain his own power, not care for and feed his people. As individuals begin to realize this, and want more than they are allowed to have, they begin to band together and fight for individual manifest destiny, and for each other. All it took was one defiant girl sparking a fire. One person really can change the world, even if they don’t want to.

Ask Rosa Parks.

Yet the road to liberty is paved with pot holes and protruding stones. Humans are complex creatures, capable of great virtue, and great sin. Sometimes we destroy those that matter most to us. I’m looking forward to the next film Mockingjay where these themes take interesting, and all too frequently true, turns by showing that even among the previously repressed masses, the seeds of corrupting power are difficult to control. That without concern for individual rights, and individual dreams, the tendency is for ambitious individuals to throw bread and circuses at the politically indifferent or misguided in order to distract them from their own rise to absolute power. In Mockingjay [vague spoiler alert], we will learn about the corrupting nature of the pursuit of power, the seeds of which are sown in the events of Catching Fire. We’ll learn more about how those caught in the crossfire, too often the average citizen and the young, are manipulated, damaged and killed in the struggle for power. In Catching Fire, Katniss struggles with PTSD caused by her experience in the first Games. She transforms from a symbol for rebellion into the tool for a new would-be dictator. She goes from being a piece in the Capitol’s Games, to a piece in the new power struggle. She wanted neither. She wanted to be left alone. She wanted to live her life in peace. Perhaps in the end, at the end of the trilogy (or in the case of the films, the quad-ology), I hope Katniss will find herself in a world not controlled by tyrants who try to use her as a piece in their games of power, but controlled by individuals doing as they wish while living in peace. It only takes an accidental spark to light the entire corrupt, fragile system on fire. Eventually, even the absolute control of a despot cannot contain the dreams, or snuff out the natural rights, of individuals. When the powerless are inspired to take back what is rightfully theirs and recognize that their lives are their own to live, that’s when the human spirit rises up to its full potential. It is through individuality and self-determination that we become a better society as a whole. Forced shared values, forced shared resources isn’t virtuous. As Katniss repeatedly shows us in these stories, even when the game is rigged so that there can only be one survivor, human kindness finds a way to exist and thrive. That’s a lesson worth remembering.

Cheers,
PersephoneK

 

[easyazon-image align=”center” asin=”B004XJRQUQ” locale=”us” height=”160″ src=”http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41B9tVfXdJL._SL160_.jpg” width=”114″]
Comments { 0 }

Fighting Magic with My Word Sword

By on July 2, 2013 in Atheism & Skepticism, Liberty & Freedom, Recommended Reading

PEN IS MIGHTIER THAN THE SWORD by PenywiseIn my recent post “Disagreement Does Not Equal Intolerance” some readers called me out on what seemed to be a contradiction in my message. While the contradiction was unintended, I can understand why it was interpreted in such a way. Such is one of the reasons I have this blog… to tidy up my writing and work to be more clear, as well as working through viewpoints I have that may need refinement. In the beginning of that post I wrote:

“changing minds about religion is not my primary motivator when I talk about my worldview on this blog and other forums, or social media, and in real life …mostly I simply want to be true to myself, be authentic. Come out from the shadows. And find like-minded individuals to commiserate with,”

but then later I said:

“it is my goal that one day, faith-based religion ceases to exist.”

The simple way to clarify this apparent contradiction is to say that while it is a goal of mine that faith-based religion ceases to exist one day, it is not a primary goal of this blog, or of my decision to discuss atheism in general, or of my life for that matter. But I want to explore and expand on this idea of potentially ending faith-based religion for a while. Hopefully I will not muddy the waters further.

JAIN TEMPLE OF AMAR SAGAR by PixattitudeI have said before that I do not think all religions or ideas are on par with each other. Some are worse than others, and therefore require different levels of concern, or attention. While I believe that it is better if as a species we all stop believing in things without sufficient evidence, I have few concerns with the beliefs of a radical Jain over the beliefs of a radical Islamist. Likewise, if time travel were no object, I’d worry less about the teachings of the Catholic Church today than I would during the period of the Spanish Inquisition or the Crusades or how it is compared to many other religions. So, even if I had the power or the inclination to suddenly remove faith from your life, I wouldn’t see the need to tackle them all at once. However, since I am a Christian apostate, naturally my emphasis will be geared towards concerns I have with Christianity over other religions I may understand less.

Absurdities and Atrocities

Stepping back for a moment, the time travel exercise highlights part of why I dream of all faith-based religion ending. Although the Christian church of today is much different than it was 1000 years ago (and obviously there really is no one “Christian Church”), the fact that it has changed so drastically over the years despite allegedly having the same beginning and end game, shows that human interpretations of unclear directives from an unseeable supernatural entity are ripe with ways they can be distorted, misunderstood, and corrupted, sometimes in benign ways, but other times in horrific ways. Even if I believed the bible was the inerrant word of god, as it sits today, it is still completely unclear to most followers as to the intended meanings of most passages. Are there two people in the world that agree on the meaning of every sentence in the bible? I seriously doubt it. That is a problem. And that problem has and can still lead to bigger problems.

Voltaire summarized my concerns more clearly than I have so far:

“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.”

The truth is, that while I am an agnostic-atheist, and obviously believe that is a world view that makes the most sense (otherwise, I’d be something else), I’m less concerned about people adopting unbelief than I am hopeful that they adopt a skeptical approach to the world. If I am to be called an evangelist or proselytizer of anything, I’d prefer it be that. I do not want to tell you what to think, which is a common denominator approach I see as a massive problem with most religions, especially those led by a hierarchy of humans. I want people to acquire the mental tools to be able to critically and skeptically think for themselves, and come to their own conclusions using the fundamentals of logic and reason. From my perspective, I believe this way of training our thought processes will most likely lead to atheism, as it has done for me, but not necessarily. Humans are adept at compartmentalizing beliefs. I have to continually work to put aside preconceived beliefs, intuition, and preferences embedded in my psyche in order to understand the natural world better. I’m still learning how to be a good skeptic, and probably will be learning for the rest of my life. It’s not an innate skill. It’s a learned skill, one not helped by our current public school system (a topic I’ll save for later) or cultural biases against logical thought. It is sad to me how many people who work in the sciences have a fundamental misunderstanding of what science even is, much less the rest of us. But because I know that most of us (myself included) are not naturally skilled at thinking scientifically, I want to do whatever I can to promote that bias. If that then leads to agnostic-atheism and total abandonment of faith-based supernatural religion, great! But if instead it leads to a higher percentage of religious scientists like Francis Collins, the director of the National Institute of Health, or like believer and evolutionary biologist Kenneth Miller, that’s at least a start. I think we’ll all be better off if scientific critical thinking dominates over irrational intuitive, dogmatic, magical thinking in pretty much every arena of our lives.

Fight for your Right!

I want to make one thing crystal clear: I would stand up for any religious person’s right to practice their religion in peace and without coercion from the government. My methods for eliminating religion end with promotion of any kind of force. If you have read my blog, you know I’m a strong advocate of Classical Liberal points of view, which espouse the right to live as one sees fit so long as the rights of others are likewise respected. My approach to ending religion by adopting skeptical thinking is purely based in rhetoric, with the exception of instances where religious freedom tramples on the Constitution, or the rights of others. I believe in the power of ideas and words, and my way of promoting skepticism and atheism is by educating, discussing, and sharing personal experience to induce introspection. Or, because I am not necessarily the best thinker the world has to offer on such issues, by promoting the words of others who have more clearly articulated viewpoints I agree with (if you have not read Sam Harris’ [easyazon-link asin=”B003V1WT72″ locale=”us”]The Moral Landscape[/easyazon-link] or Steven Pinker’s [easyazon-link asin=”B0052REUW0″ locale=”us”]The Better Angels of Our Nature[/easyazon-link] or Jared Diamond’s [easyazon-link asin=”B000VDUWMC” locale=”us”]Guns, Germs, and Steel[/easyazon-link] what on earth are you waiting for?).

Always Look on the Bright Side of Life!

I often hear some version of “why would you want to take away a person’s joy by denying them their faith?” In short, I don’t want to take away anyone’s joy. I think our lives should be about promoting joy and reducing sorrow. For me, that is a primary “meaning of life.” Unfortunately, sometimes these goals are in conflict. If we all lived in a private bubble where our thoughts and subsequent actions based on those thoughts never impacted others, then I would say believe in whatever nonsense you wish to your heart’s content. Whatever makes you happy, makes me happy.

But that is simply not how the world and human beings work. Ideas you and I have affect the decisions we make in nearly every aspect of our lives, and as social primates, those decisions impact others, from our children and family, to our friends, to strangers. Case in point: The whole argument against gay marriage is almost entirely a religiously based argument attempting to prevent what should be a secular decision. That is a very real example of how religious beliefs – even of generally kind and generous people – can limit the choices of others who do not hold those beliefs. Or if you want a more graphic example, recently in the news was the story of this child who’s parents prevented him from getting medical attention due to religious beliefs. This baby should still be alive today. I’m sure many people thought his parents were friendly and loving and should be left alone to practice their faith. No one stood up for the child being corrupted by these terrible ideas until it was too late.  What’s worse… this was this couple’s second child who died due to religion inflicted neglect.

Ultimately, what I care most about is finding a way to increase the well-being of conscious creatures, with a premium emphasis on the well-being of Humans, while limiting or eliminating suffering. This is a difficult sea to navigate with many unclear choices, but I believe that it is through science and reason we will be best equipped to truly identify behaviors and strategies that get us closer to that goal. Religious beliefs often arbitrarily restrict our morale thinking for bad or unnecessary reasons, often rooted in ancient – and often wrong — understanding of how humans think and feel and work. More so, as neuroscientists are discovering every day, we can have many of the same gratifying spiritual experiences without actual belief in the supernatural. I suggest you google “God Helmet” for an interesting read. The human mind is an amazing organ. We are only beginning to crack it open and understand what it is capable of and why. Let’s base our moral choices on our best understandings of reality, not superstition. Similar to the goals of the religious evangelist, as a skeptical (or if you must, atheist) “evangelist,” I seek to make the world a better place for all humans. One way I choose to do this is by writing, because it is one skill I am most adept at comparatively to my other skills. For the Christian, or Muslim, or other religious people, their evangelism is often expressed by promoting behaviors that lead to a rewarding afterlife. Unfortunately, those behaviors often lead to terrible ways of treating living humans here on earth. There may be a heaven, but the only thing I know for sure is that there is a life on earth. Right now. I want us all to spend our lives focused on achieving heaven on earth for our fellow human beings. For me, that’s what it’s all about.

So don’t worry… I have no immediate plans to vote to end religion anytime soon, nor do I think religion will be eliminated in my lifetime (or maybe ever… sigh), but I do intend to keep talking. Can I get an Amen? No? No worries.

Cheers,
PersephoneK

[easyazon-image align=”left” asin=”B003V1WT72″ locale=”us” height=”160″ src=”http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/519-RISqkmL._SL160_.jpg” width=”104″] [easyazon-image align=”left” asin=”B0052REUW0″ locale=”us” height=”160″ src=”http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51De3EFfS1L._SL160_.jpg” width=”105″] [easyazon-image align=”left” asin=”B000VDUWMC” locale=”us” height=”160″ src=”http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/516CtJiKwwL._SL160_.jpg” width=”120″]

 

 

Comments { 0 }

The Most Important Books I Read Last Year in 2012 (MIBIRLY 2012)

By on January 8, 2013 in Recommended Reading, Ruminations

It’s that time of year again!  My 2nd Annual (hopefully) down and dirty reviews of the Most Important Books I Read Last Year in 2012. Like last year, I spent most of the summer biking to lovely places to sit and read, and yet again, I usually found myself reading non-fiction. Although I did manage to get in the first and second installments of Robert Kirkman’s The Walking Dead novels, [easyazon-link asin=”B004VMV49Y” locale=”us”]The Walking Dead: Rise of the Governor[/easyazon-link] and [easyazon-link asin=”B007RMYDMK” locale=”us”]The Walking Dead: The Road to Woodbury[/easyazon-link]. While I loved both of those (I’m a pretty big TWD fan), my annual review of the Most Important Books I Read has a different purpose (see the MIBIRLY 2011 for last year’s reviews). Best, favorite, most important… all very different meanings. I wouldn’t claim that novels about zombies are important (though there is much to be learned and discussed from a philosophical perspective about survival and the evolution and then breakdown of culture/society), but the books that made my list this year are books I think should be read by every student of the world. These books expanded my understanding of how the world and how humans work in some way. They dispel conventional wisdom, and use science as their foundations to build a more complete or changed view of human nature. My reviews won’t be lengthy because I’d rather you see this list and then go and read these fabulous books for yourself! I realize that most of these choices are not new releases. That they were not all published last year makes them no less important.  I hope you enjoy and more importantly, that you check one out!

 

[easyazon-image align=”left” asin=”0374275637″ locale=”us” height=”110″ src=”http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41OYtkxKAoL._SL110_.jpg” width=”74″][easyazon-link asin=”B00555X8OA” locale=”us”]Thinking, Fast and Slow[/easyazon-link] by Daniel Kahneman

This book should be a standard among anyone in any analytical profession. Kahneman is a psychologist who earned the Nobel Prize in Economics. His brilliance shines through in the density of the book which illustrates the two basic ways that all human beings, regardless of intelligence level, think: Fast and Slow. Our “Fast” thinking can be best explained by thinking of our intuition, or muscle memory types of thinking. We make quick analytical judgments that take little effort. This type of thinking kept us alive while being chased by the myriad of predators on the African plains. In many ways this thinking is astonishing, but it fails us when we use it to make conclusions that require our Slow thinking drive. Slow thinking is the kind of thinking we use to solve complex mathematical equations. Its hard. It takes energy. We can only do it for short periods of time before it drains us. Kahneman illustrates the dangerous outcomes that can occur when we substitute our Fast Thinking for tasks that require Slow Thinking. And he highlights that we do this far more often than we should, even when (or especially when) we consider ourselves expert in an area. Making decisions based on intuition isn’t always bad. If you’re driving on the highway and a car swerves into your lane, it’s best if you allow your Fast Thinking brain to kick in and swerve out of the way. But if you’re drafting economic, scientific, military, intelligence, financial, etc etc etc… policies that have wide impacts, using your Fast Brain is about as useful as allowing a monkey to conduct analysis. As an analyst myself, I see lazy thinking all the time. Until we understand the strengths and weaknesses in how our brains work, we’ll continue making analytical errors that have grave impacts on how we live together in society.

 

[easyazon-image align=”left” asin=”B000QCTNIM” locale=”us” height=”110″ src=”http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/416%2BaMQs3tL._SL110_.jpg” width=”71″][easyazon-link asin=”B000QCTNIM” locale=”us”]The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature[/easyazon-link] by Steven Pinker

One think I love about Steven Pinker… he is not afraid to stare conventional wisdom in the face and tell it to go away. And he has the evidence to prove it. The Blank Slate aims to shove aside decades, if not centuries, of conventional wisdom that has told us we all begin as a blank slate with no preconceived biases, ways of thinking and behaviors. Our environment alone shapes who we are. It is society that is the evil influence, and must be fixed. Through his understanding of psychology, linguistics, history, and other sciences, Pinker shows how simplistic that view is and how much it can harm progress in understanding human nature. He commonly cites twin studies to show how much evidence there is that genetics shapes us the most, then shared environment, then unique environment. If you want a more nuanced look at why we behave the way we behave, what the gaps in our understanding are, and why it matters to know the truth, this is a great read. If you want to continue to blame all our ills on the nebulous, evil “society” or “bad parenting” or even 100% on genetics, then don’t. You’ll be disappointed to learn the truth shaded in grays, that we have much more to learn, but that we know more than what we’ve been taught in anecdotal life lessons.

 

[easyazon-image align=”left” asin=”B000VDUWMC” locale=”us” height=”110″ src=”http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/516CtJiKwwL._SL110_.jpg” width=”82″][easyazon-link asin=”B000VDUWMC” locale=”us”]Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies[/easyazon-link] by Jared Diamond

I don’t like to list any book on my list above the others. This is why I don’t put them into any particular order, however, if I had a gun to my head and were forced to choose one book to read the entire year, this would be it. It’s dense. Filled with details from just about every niche in science, all to prove (convincingly) how all humans from all societies are fundamentally able to achieve great things, but that the balance of power from the domestication of plants and animals to the present is shaped almost entirely by environment. Some cultures rolled the dice and ended up in the fertile crescent while others ended up in mostly infertile, barren Australia. His well told story amazingly and clearly proves that through science, the humanities can be better understood and tested. All humans have essentially the same genetic tools and capabilities (our differences are fewer than those of different breeds of dogs). Race is officially an antiquated concept that needs to stay forever on the bottom of the rubbish pile of ideas. That doesn’t mean some societies haven’t adapted better than others. Some have, but often those adaptions were shaped by environment rather than some inherent superiority of the people.

Other lessons I took away from this amazing book filled with too many lessons to list in a short review are that free markets and more bottom up (instead of strict top down) control and planning are the best way to improve the lives of large societies. It’s not necessity that is the mother of invention. It is sheer numbers allowing greater specialization and freedom for curious minds to wander and then share their ideas with the masses. Closed societies never learn as much as open ones. And the federal system is better than a one size fits all strong central government. It’s not in any way Diamond’s central theme, but through his ridiculous quantities of evidence and his amazing ability to synthesize disparate data, that conclusion rings loud and clear. Don’t believe me? Read this book!

 

[easyazon-image align=”left” asin=”B006IDG2T6″ locale=”us” height=”110″ src=”http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41mPcj7zKCL._SL110_.jpg” width=”78″][easyazon-link asin=”B006IDG2T6″ locale=”us”]Free Will[/easyazon-link] by Sam Harris

I wish I could write as clearly, eloquently, and intelligently as Sam Harris. Last year, his brilliant The Moral Landscape made my “Most Important” list. While Free Will doesn’t quite live up to that standard, it is an important compendium or follow-up to the ideas brought forth in it. Harris’ background as neuroscientist is on full display in Free Will. The question “Do humans have free will or are we shaped by destiny” is as old as philosophy itself. In America, a country dominated by Judeo-Christian/Western ideals, it is almost a foregone conclusion that humans have free will and the ability to 100% shape their own future. The influence is seen in our work ethic and in our judicial system. Should we always be held responsible for our actions? If we have free will, then the answer is a resounding yes. If we don’t, its more complicated. In a surprisingly short book, Harris is able to prove through recent breakthroughs in neuroscience how people will act before they consciously think about acting. He doesn’t go so far as to say that we are not responsible for our actions. His analysis and conclusions are far more nuanced than his critics will likely give him credit for being, but he does raise groundbreaking and serious questions about the way we view crime and punishment and whether or not people deserve second chances. Why do we choose to act the way we act? And can we do anything about it? Harris will make you re-think what you’ve always believed the answers to those questions are without claiming he has the answers himself.

 

Caveat:  I wrote some of these reviews many months after I read the book because I did not have my act together at the time I finished it. Apologies for any minor errors, but please let me know if you find any!

Comments { 0 }

The Five Most Important Books I Read in 2011

By on February 29, 2012 in Recommended Reading, Ruminations

Before getting too deep into 2012 (ok, we’re a little deep, but I started drafting this a month ago), I wanted to make sure I tell you about some of the most important books I read during 2011, the same year I got a Kindle!

I read many great books as a result of that simple piece of technology and a commitment I made to myself to devote time reading each week.  Reading became more of a therapeutic meditation time for me last year than ever before, especially on beautiful summer weekends where I would bike ride and read by the several small lakes near my house.   I hope to make book reviews a regular part of this blog, since they’re an important part of my path of life.

So, while many books I read last year were fantastic, there were a handful that stuck out as not only enjoyable, but important.  Important, as in, every human should read them, without exception.  Not all of them were written last year, but last year is when I got the chance to read them.  Here are the five books (not in order of importance, but more in order of suggested reading), and some of my brief thoughts about each one:

1)     [easyazon-link asin=”0805091254″ locale=”us”]The Believing Brain, by Michael Shermer[/easyazon-link]

2)     [easyazon-link asin=”1846942721″ locale=”us”]The Religion Virus, by Craig A. James[/easyazon-link]

3)     [easyazon-link asin=”0060859512″ locale=”us”]Misquoting Jesus, by Bart Ehrman[/easyazon-link]

4)     [easyazon-link asin=”B006W3YQTK” locale=”us”]The Moral Landscape, by Sam Harris[/easyazon-link]

5)     [easyazon-link asin=”B005N0KL5G” locale=”us”]Lying, by Sam Harris[/easyazon-link]

 

The Believing Brain, by Michael Shermer simply and clearly explains how humans’ propensity for believing in superstition is driven by an evolutionary need to make quick decisions or end up as food, and how not believing in superstition was probably weeded out of our ancestors.  His story of an early primate who hears a rustling in the high grass having to make a decision about whether he hears a predator or just the wind is a pure genius, yet its a simple way of explaining why we see shadow monsters in the night.  Understanding this evolutionary ingrained intuition is the first step for humanity in moving past basing our decisions and societal structures on that false “patternicty,” as Shermer defines it. People believe their own brains far more than they should, and that has gotten us into a lot of trouble over the millennia.  Shermer nicely sets the foundation to understanding how all man-made myth and superstitions came to be.

[easyazon-image align=”undefined” asin=”B004GHN26W” locale=”us” height=”160″ src=”http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51FL9CmjpLL._SL160_.jpg” width=”106″]

 

The Religion Virus, by Craig A. James is the next step beyond The Believing Brain, taking why we’re prone to superstition into the reason why religion continues to this day, despite our development of the scientific method, and virtual disproof of most religions that exist today.  Beginning with the history of Yahweh, the God of the Israelites who would develop into the “all powerful” god Jews, Christians and Muslims know today, and then explaining how the meme’s — or stories — of religion stuck with each generation and evolved just as a virus, (or a good joke), does.  James also explains how animism turned into pantheism then to monotheism.  This book erased any doubt I may have had about the historical evolution of the idea of gods and god and did so with personal reflections, historical fact, wonderful metaphors, and brutal clarity.  With my own religious background being that of a Christian, now more than ever I am confounded by my former believing self for not seeing how the god of the old testament is clearly not the god of Christianity.  And if that is true, what among the Abrahamic religions is there to believe in?  Thank goodness, my answer is “nothing supernatural.”

[easyazon-image align=”none” asin=”B0046A9JMA” locale=”us” height=”160″ src=”http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51dstvLqHAL._SL160_.jpg” width=”103″]

 

Misquoting Jesus, by Bart D. Ehrman, dives into the specifics of one of those religious meme’s — the spread of Christianity, and specifically, how the books of the New Testament were written, and altered by regular humans, each with their very human agenda’s, biases, and flaws.  Ehrman explains that there are more mistakes — whether by intention or inattention — than there are words in the New Testament!  Most people know that the books of the new testament were written starting around 30 years after the death of Jesus Christ, and none of the books were written by people who ever had met Jesus, but what’s more astonishing is the idea that the earliest known texts contain more errors and discrepancies than the later versions, primarily because earlier scribes who would hand copy texts were untrained laymen, members of their congregations copying texts in their spare time, while later as Christianity spread, scribes were professional and devoted to accuracy.  Mis-quoting Jesus puts into plain words how the new testament contradicts itself in profound and important ways, and how biblical scholars, including clergy, have known this for at least a couple of centuries, but do not teach these well accepted understandings to the masses.  Beyond the errors, Ehrman outlines the different variations of early Christianity, and how each sect’s disputes with each other and their pursuit of converts impacted what eventually became the winning doctrine, and that the winner may not have been close to what Jesus’ mission actually was about. He proves that this is not some conspiracy theory from modern scientists, but historically supported concepts. The bible does contain significant flaws, and anyone believing current Christian doctrine does so while ignoring truths that in virtually every other area of human study would cause most people to dismiss their devotion to flawed thinking and ideas.

[easyazon-image align=”center” asin=”B000SEGJF8″ locale=”us” height=”160″ src=”http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/512kDCXRwJL._SL160_.jpg” width=”106″]

 

The Moral Landscape, by Sam Harris, is by far the most important book I’ve ever read in my life.  As a former Christian, one of the things that pained and concerned me as I gravitated towards atheism was how to justify morality without God. I knew there were right and wrong answers, and that misery should be avoided and happiness should be increased, but I couldn’t articulate for myself or my Christian friends how to convey that morality can exist without a higher power dictating what the rules are.  Enter Sam Harris and BAM!  Everything was clear.  Harris doesn’t spend time detailing what behaviors are good or bad, but his main thesis is that there are one or more right ways to live and one or more wrong ways to live.  The right ways are those that maximize human well-being, and the wrong ways are those leading to human misery.  He likens these ways to peaks and valleys on a landscape.  There could be multiple high peaks and multiple routes to take to get to them, just as there are for the valleys.  There doesn’t have to be one right way to live, but Harris takes it a step further to say that morality can be scientifically understood and studied, at least to a point.  Right and wrong can be objective, even if studied through subjective data gathering methods.  There are wrong and right answers to our questions of well-being, whether or not we can ever know them.  It is on this point that I believe he loses many people, but why that is is a mystery to me.  He likens the concept to birds in flight.  Right now, there are a specific, finite number of birds in flight on earth.  There is a right answer to that question.  Whether or not we can know the answer (we can’t), does not change the fact that a specific, correct answer exists.  So it goes with morality, maybe.  Whether we can definitively know the answer does not mean we cannot study the question scientifically.  Everyone knows there is human happiness and there is human suffering. Sometimes it’s difficult to maximize happiness, without causing some suffering.  That is the difficulty of these questions, but that doesn’t mean we should forfeit that responsibility to a deity that makes it his business to watch us suffer rather than clarify such important questions for us.  If Harris left me with one idea, it’s that the single most important goal of our species should be to maximize (all) human well-being and minimize (all) human suffering.  And that responsibility rests within each of us, not with “god.”

[easyazon-image align=”center” asin=”B003V1WT72″ locale=”us” height=”160″ src=”http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/519-RISqkmL._SL160_.jpg” width=”104″]

 

Lying, by Sam Harris and Anika Harris is a lovely conceptual footnote to The Moral Landscape, though not at all a sequel.  It is a short essay more than a book, so you have no excuse to not read it.  It will take you an hour max.  While I’m not sure I completely agree with the thesis, no book has stirred my thinking on a deeply personal level like this one did.  I previously believed that there are times when lying is ok (like not wanting to hurt someone’s feelings).  After reading “Lying” I’m not so sure anymore.  Harris makes a compelling argument for why lying is never good because every single lie erodes the fabric of trust between those involved. Eventually that trust leads to less deep relationships, and eventually all kinds of societal ills.  While not lying may be hard, and even uncomfortable (“no, I never wear that sweater you got me for Christmas, grandma, because its hiddeous.”), it is nonetheless pivotal to human growth and a better society, and better world to try.

[easyazon-image align=”center” asin=”B005N0KL5G” locale=”us” height=”160″ src=”http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/31BX0aEcV%2BL._SL160_.jpg” width=”130″]

 

So, there you have it… My list of the most important books I read during 2011.  They took me on a journey of human historical, psychological, and ethical understanding that I wanted to share with you in the hopes that you might have a similar experience and chance to grow as a result.  These authors and their ideas certainly helped me take a few steps closer to being the person I want to be, and part of a society I want to live in.  Since I cannot come close to doing their books justice, I suggest you let them tell you in their own words what they have to say.  Check them out!

[easyazon-image align=”undefined” asin=”B004GHN26W” locale=”us” height=”160″ src=”http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51FL9CmjpLL._SL160_.jpg” width=”106″] [easyazon-image align=”none” asin=”B0046A9JMA” locale=”us” height=”160″ src=”http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51dstvLqHAL._SL160_.jpg” width=”103″] [easyazon-image align=”center” asin=”B000SEGJF8″ locale=”us” height=”160″ src=”http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/512kDCXRwJL._SL160_.jpg” width=”106″] [easyazon-image align=”center” asin=”B003V1WT72″ locale=”us” height=”160″ src=”http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/519-RISqkmL._SL160_.jpg” width=”104″] [easyazon-image align=”center” asin=”B005N0KL5G” locale=”us” height=”160″ src=”http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/31BX0aEcV%2BL._SL160_.jpg” width=”130″]

 

Comments { 1 }

The Antisocial Myth

By on January 25, 2012 in Introvert vs Extrovert, Recommended Reading

[This post was originally published on my old blog site, underworldgoddess.com.  I hope you find it well here.  The published date here reflects the original publication date].

In an interesting article I read today at ScientificAmerican.com, Susan Cain, promoting her new book “The Power of Introverts: A Manifesto for Quiet Brilliance”, responds to questions about introversion.  I’m looking forward to reading the book itself, since as in an introvert, I’ve always found the topic compelling, especially in the past couple of years.  I’ve read several books about the difference between introverts and extroverts, but it wasn’t until reading “Introvert Power” by Dr. Laurie Helgoe last year that I finally embraced introversion as a significant part of who I am, and even understood that it can actually be a strength.

As discussed in both the Q&A with Cain, and in Helgoe’s book, introversion is a personality trait, but it is not the same thing as shyness – a common misconception.  One can be both introverted and shy, or extroverted and shy, or introverted and not shy.  Cain touches on it in the article, but Helgoe goes into detail on how the brain chemistry is actually different in introverts and extroverts.  Introverts are naturally more stimulated and therefore tend to prefer solitude to recharge; whereas extroverts are naturally under stimulated and so to make up the difference, they tend to like lots of social interactions, busy settings.  Introverts think before they speak; extroverts think as they speak.

This was a Eureka! moment for me.  Learning that my brain chemistry is actually different than my hyper extroverted friend made so much sense.  I wasn’t defective.  I was exactly who I was supposed to be.

The misconception is that introverts are antisocial.  For years, I used this stereotype as a shield of self-deprecation.  I would openly say “I’m antisocial” to people when the last thing I wanted to do was go out for happy hour after work.  I started to buy into it myself. But it’s not true.  I love people.  One of my favorite things to do in the world is sit with a couple of close friends for hours and talk about life, debate religion or politics, dish about a favorite book or TV show – the good stuff.

I’ve always hated small talk at parties. I find it mind numbingly boring.  Who cares about the weather when you can talk about the things that actually enrich our lives?  It doesn’t always have to be serious subject matter.  I could have a pretty intense conversation about zombies or Smurfs, but that’s no chit chat.  Those conversations involve creativity and problem-solving.  Juicy “what-if” scenarios.  I love talking about that stuff with people I care about.  I just don’t like doing it 100% of the time.  I need time to think about what my friends tell me on my own.  I need a chance to ponder the meaning of life in peaceful bliss – at home, a cozy coffee shop, by the lake on a beautiful summer day.  I like to soak in my surroundings.  Absorb.  Regenerate my thoughts so I can devote attention to another friend on another day.

After reading Helgoe’s book, I realized calling myself anti-social was a disservice to myself.  I misled my extroverted friends, and made it harder for my introverted friends to be themselves.  After that revelation, I vowed to stop.  I began being more open about what I actually wanted to do, and why.

“Are you coming to happy hour tonight?”

“No thank you.  I feel like throwing on my jammies, opening the book I’m halfway through, and snuggling with my cat.”

Occasionally, this honesty causes a few off guard dazed blinks.  I just say “have fun” and be on my way.  It’s so much easier than making up some socially acceptable excuse.  People don’t believe them anyway, and I feel disgusting having used a line.

There are still times when I have to appear more extroverted than I would prefer too.  As Cain points out, we live in an extroverted culture (at least if you live in the US).  There are even times when I embrace a little extroversion and feel perfectly happy in doing so.  But more often than not, I’d rather stay home and get lost in a solitary endeavor, like writing, reading, playing guitar, video games, or taking a long walk in the park.  I refuse to let people make me feel guilty for wanting this time to myself.  If you’re one of the 50% of the total population that is introverted, I hope you’ll make an effort to do the same.  If you’re one of the other 50%, I promise to come to your parties as much as I can cope with it as long as you respect that I’m making the effort because I care about you.  And I expect a quiet cup of hot chocolate and a long conversation in return.

Deal?

-PersephoneK

 

 

Comments { 2 }