How Do You Decide?

Tags

mind, opinions, psychology, thinking

I’ve mentioned more than once that I’ve been engaged in debate on Facebook with people who went to my high school, on a variety of topics.

As you might expect there are two camps, the liberals versus the conservatives. As you might assume, there are any number of shades of grey.

It got me to thinking. Yes, we are THERE again.

The Contrarian asks me occasionally why I bother. “You will convince no one, you know that don’t you?” he muses.

Yes I know that. Here is my list:

1. There are lots of people who read but don’t comment because they are interested but not passionate. My comments may provide the last piece of the puzzle that enables them to form an opinion. They more people who are involved in the process the better.
2. I learn a great deal myself. Arguments lead me not to empty talking points but to actual research, and so I learn refinement of my opinion as well as to create a more cogent argument for what I believe.
3. In attempting to figure out why those who disagree with me believe what they believe, I’m forced to confront my own reasons for believing what I believe. Sometimes I find that my reasons aren’t worthy of supporting that opinion–in a word, they are self-serving. I can adjust  my opinion accordingly.

It’s this latter point that I wish to address.

I’m inclined to think of myself as something of a Renaissance woman. Now before you commence to laughing out loud, let me proceed. I am such only in the sense that my interests are very far-ranging and always have been. Along the way, I’ve managed to learn more than the average person about a whole lot of things from cosmology to paleontology, to biblical studies and theology, and so forth. I am not a Renaissance woman in the sense of having expertise in any of these, just an intense interest and the willingness to learn.

That said, this is how I approach forming an opinion. I will use the example of an area of biblical study called Markan priority. Markan priority simple states that the Gospel of Mark was probably the first gospel written that has come down to us. It posits that both Matthew and Luke used Mark, their own independent information, and a source called “Q” to form their own gospels which were written 10-15 years after Mark’s.

I’ve read numerous books on various aspects of biblical studies, some couple of hundred at least, and I have studied under three professors with PH.D’s in the field. I’ve attended dozens of workshops and adult education classes on various biblical issues as well. So I consider myself above average in knowledge.

Yet, I am no expert. Far from it. I cannot read Koine Greek which is essential to actually study of the bible on a professional level. So how do I arrive at an opinion?

You may first wonder why anybody cares. I can tell you that they do; there is a hotly contested debate over this issue. Why?  Because to a fundamentalist, not only the words in the bible, but their very organization within the bible is something God ordered. Open any bible and you will find that Matthew is the first gospel you come to. To disturb that by suggesting that Mark was written first is tantamount to calling God a liar.

So I have read all the arguments pro and con on Markan priority. I understand them well enough. I am aware that at this time, there is a clear and fairly overwhelming majority who believe that for all kinds of reasons, Mark was probably written first. All kinds of other things make sense when this is assumed. They make no sense by and large when you don’t.

So my opinion, given that I am no expert myself, is that the better opinion is that Mark was written first.

This is how I arrive at opinions on any field of study that I am not an expert in.

Sometimes, I might even wish that the things were otherwise. When it comes to theories about the future of the universe, I’m compelled to accept that the majority opinion is that the universe is continuing its expansion from the “big bang” and that that expansion is accelerating. I’d rather believe that the universe is in a “steady state” meaning it’s stable. For some reason, that’s comforting to me. But I feel that I have no basis to buck the experts who spend their lives studying this stuff, and like any real scientist, aren’t going to pursue dead ends intentionally. There is not glory in pursuing obvious falsehoods.

So while an opinion might make me feel better, I cannot maintain it for that reason alone.

Similarly, I’d love to believe that global warming isn’t true. It would make me feel a lot better about the future certainly. But I’m constrained to believe what 97% of all climate scientists tell me–that humans are indeed part of the equation of global warming and that we need to do what we can to turn it around before it is too late–if that is at all possible.

What troubles me deeply is the degree to which average people, who have no expertise in the area of climate (just like me) are passionately in the camp of the 3% claiming that global warming is a hoax. Since they cannot possibly be following the same process of opinion forming as myself, what system are they using?

I’m afraid that they are buying into the hoax theory simply because they wish that to be the answer. Either because they feel guilty that they have been a part of the problem, or because they don’t want to pay (taxes) to attempt to solve the problem. If you admittedly aren’t an expert, how do you “choose” one set of arguments provided to you by  those who have a very high stake in their position, i.e., gas and oil interests and those they pay to “study” the issue?

Is my model of opinion formation wrong? Am I missing something here? I’m puzzled, and when I am, I figure you guys can bail me out. So straighten out my aching head, for I’m confused.

A Tidy Mind

Tags

brains, Contrarian, Humor, life in the foothills, thinking

Once upon a time, in a galaxy far, far away, I was a student. When I started eighth grade, I was placed in an advanced math class, Algebra I. My brilliance, as you can see, was noticed early.

By the tenth grade, I was in Algebra II, and struggling. I just could not get the equations any longer. Truthfully, I had struggled through Geometry in the ninth grade as well. I decided to opt out of Trig and Analytical Geometry. I will never forget that I had to “not fail” the final in order to get a B– in the class. I got a D.

Several years later I actually bought a work book and tried to systematically learn the darn stuff. I failed again. This, I have to tell you, was a major blow to my ego. It was not until years later that I read that there are two ways to understand math, and typically only one way is taught in most of our schools. I was one of those who needed the “other” method.

Similarly, I am told that some people are incapable of “seeing” optical illusions:

I’m told that depending on how easily you can decipher this, you have either a weak or strong mind, whatever that means.

All this adds up to only one thing: brains are not all wired the same. Now I don’t know if we are all unique, or if there are some basic systems that most people fall into.

No truer proof of that is the Contrarian and myself. This came to the fore but again today.

We got a letter from the State, telling us that their data base failed to show that we had insurance on one of our cars. Now this is patently in error, since you can’t get a registration, license, plates or title without such proof. The letter gave instructions on what to do, and then who had to do what. Basically it was comparing the actual VIN with the title, with the letter, with the insurance card. Depending on what matched or didn’t, would determine the next step.

To make a long story short, all numbers agreed so the next step was to call the insurance agent and have them resubmit the information to the appropriate data base collector.

The issue for the Contrarian and I came after.

“You know, I really had a hard time finding all the information,” he sighed.

“Why is that?” I muttered.

“Well, you had a folder entitled car insurance, but the title wasn’t there. I couldn’t find any folder entitled ‘car’ and then found a folder entitled ‘Dodge’ and one entitled ‘Subaru’. I had to find all three to make sure I had the right stuff.”

“Well, yes, I see your trouble. Just rewrite the folders in any way that works for you,” I proffered, walking from the room.

You see, it makes perfect sense to me. There are less than twenty folders in our file cabinet. It takes less than 30 seconds to run through them. I keep the titles separate because it’s easier than reading down to find out which car is which. Perhaps it would be easier to put the insurance for each in their “car” folder, but I didn’t anticipate any problem like this.

This situation is not unique. If we have a computer problem, we both approach it from vastly different places. In fact, any thing we do is approached from different angles. I open a box and reach for the instructions, methodically lay out all the pieces, remove all the boxing material, and then begin. He throws packing material hither and yon, picks up pieces he identifies as fitting together, and starts assembling until he runs into a problem.

We do not play well together. In a sandbox, we would have beaned each other over the head with the shovel and the pail. If you ran into us in a moment of joined effort, you would think we hated each other. Usually somebody is forced to retreat to cool down during any enterprise.

We do not teach each other well. I’m busy telling him that it would have been more useful to lead with this fact rather than that one. He looks at me as if I were a moron and simply repeats the same sentence again and again as if a rhesus monkey could understand.

I feel stupid. But I know I’m not. He’s a DOS and I’m an Apple. It’s just that simple.

Who’s Thinking for You?

Tags

critical thinking, Fox Noise, Media, Osama Bin Ladin, political discourse, psychology, right wing wackos, sociology, thinking

I’m forced to believe that we live in a mostly schizophrenic world. We are assaulted day and night by “news” however one wishes to interpret that. Mostly it’s not news at all, but one form or another of someone’s truth, deception, or best guess.

Add to that the never-ending drumming of product, product, product, and it’s no wonder we drown ourselves in food, drugs, alcohol, and any of a number of addictions, all intended to shut out the cacophony.

It’s simply too much. We try to make sense of it all, and we fairly cannot.

I’ve been reading Thomas Merton lately. A book called Seeds, containing paragraphs from his many writings grouped around common themes. Merton’s take on society is scathing, and frankly works today as it did in the 50’s and 60’s when he did much of his writing amid the “Cold War.” Supplant “terrorism” for Cold War, and nothing much has changed.

He suggests that one of our greatest illusions is that we think. We don’t he argues, we simply think that we could think if we needed to. But we don’t have to. We simply wait until someone says something that “makes sense” given our history, and then attach ourselves to it. Their thoughts become ours, their ideology ours. All the better if it is a group.

Our lives are now composed of slogans, formulas, ideologies, and declarations. We know the jingles to every advertising product. We want “things” because we have been carefully taught to want them. News passes by like a ticker tape, we have only a few hours, at most days, to digest, before another “event” captures our attention and must be fit into the drama of our lives.

Merton argues that we give up our responsibility to think because we want to. We believe the propaganda because it’s easy, it gives us the illusion that we are thinking while we devote our time and energy to living up to the “lives” we’ve been taught make us successful.

An example is the Iraq war. Now I didn’t buy the propaganda at all, I was pretty darn sure this was the wrong war for the wrong reasons. Yet, I was hopeful that all the claims about why it was necessary would be true. Why? Because like all Americans (or most I should say), I was deeply pained by 9/11. I wanted an “answer”, an enemy that could be grasped and throttled.

We may have an unease about a lot of the propaganda we hear and read, but we tell ourselves that “our” side is by and large better than the other side.

I’m about Bin Laden’d out. First I had to work through the issue of America’s jubilant response. But that was only the tip of the iceberg. Since then we have had to confront the “deathers”, those insidious and nearly legally insane folks who truly believe this is all a fake to deter us from the real issue–that Barack Obama is an illegitimate usurper in the White House.

These deathers are easily dismissed of course, since even Al Q!aeda has declared their leader is in fact dead.

Fox Noise, caught in a no-win situation, praised the action for about thirty-six hours. Then came their twisting of the facts to cast doubts about the whole affair. The White House handled the information “poorly”, even though “facts” were clamoured for well before any debriefing had occurred. As natural discrepancies on details emerged, Fox got more and more suspicious of the competence of “this President” The Blaze headlined: “Obama can’t make up his mind; Panetta gives order for mission.” The suggestion is obvious although it cannot be more of a lie.

Soon we were back into the issue of “enhanced interrogation” techniques, the propaganda euphemism, the polite way of saying torture. The right was bringing out its guns to “show” that Obama’s moment in the sun would not have been possible without the waterboarding that the Bushites were condemned for.

Suddenly, we are back to debating the relative “value” of torture. If torture lead to finding Osama, them of course, moral issues no longer matter. Really?

Just as quickly come the complaints that the American people should not give so much credit to Obama. Rather the great George W deserved the “real” credit. It was he of course who announced our “goal” of finding Bin Laden. No mention of course that he fairly laid that aside in his quest to take down Iraq for the neo-cons. No mention that we lost our opportunity to stay on the track while fresh.

The debate still goes on over the “pictures”. The right finds this a great argument–its cathartically necessary they claim. We must “prove” beyond any shadow of doubt. All the while of course, they know he is dead, but that is no reason not to *wink wink nod nod* to their deather base for whom the lack of pictures is just more evidence that it is all a lie.

And far in the background, barely mentioned, are those, like Michael Moore, and certain religious personages who remind us that we have not even begun to discuss the morality of this “assassination.” Everyone admits there was no real effort or desire to “take him alive”. That opened up a whole can of worms that few wished to take on.

How do we live with ideals when we so conveniently flout them for expediency’s sake? Is it any wonder than the world shakes its head in dismay at our wagging the moral finger at anyone else while we take the path of least resistance.

Yet, we make, at best passing offers of argument on all these issues. We don’t have time, we can already see a new event looming on the horizon. Clear the decks, make ready for our next round of “thinking” and don’t forget to pick up milk on your way home.

Related articles

• “Deathers” Offer a Unique Case Study for the Formulation of the … (blogs.discovermagazine.com)
• ‘Deathers’ take over where ‘birthers’ left off (politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com)
• Conspiracies conjure that Osama bin Laden still lives (Cindy Sheehan, deather) (gunnyg.wordpress.com)
• Truthers, Birthers, And, Now, Meet The “Deathers” (outsidethebeltway.com)

How Deep Can You Go?

Tags

appeasement, foreign policy, reading, thinking

I’m not at all sure where my head is these days. I confess to growing tired of the daily political grind. The same voices all saying the expected things.

I’m no different mind you. I can throw the tomatoes with the best of them. But I grow weary too.

Perhaps my weariness is that nothing seems to change much. I can collect a dozen or more instances per day of absolute insanity which passes as some kind of political action. We all know the players. At times it seems that the Republicans are so bereft of ideas about  what to do, that they have made a conscious effort to come up with a unique objection to anything proposed by a Democrat. As one blogger suggested, tomorrows headline will likely be: “Obama ignores efforts to cap the oil well by having dinner with his family.”

Which is all to say  that through reading books and following links, I am at least occasionally seeking more substantive stuff to think about. Websites like 3quarksdaily and Arts and Letters Today have lead me on a trek to a land of high brow intellectual argument that I haven’t indulged in since my college days.

This is the stuff that makes the average working class fundie wanna hurl. It requires real attention to what you are reading. It ain’t like reading People or (gasp) Playboy. Since they don’t take the time to try to understand it, they brush it off as more intellectual elitism. I can understand.

Maybe I’m being snooty here, but frankly, it’s nice to get one’s teeth into something that is not every body’s Chevy. Thinking is a lost art most would argue, in this country at least. It has been replaced with knee-jerk reactions to sensory input in the form of instantaneous images and sounds.

We are as addicted to flipping websites as we are to holding tight to our remotes. A long article means we might miss God knows how many YouTube offerings and blog postings on whatever our favorite pass times are.

I denigrate none of the above of course. Hobbies are essential I believe to well-being. Balance is part of a healthy life.  I confess that I do more than my share of flipping. I read a few paragraphs here, and then skip to the first sentence of each paragraph, then look to see–how much longer is this thing?

I try to give some choices to you, and as I do so with more determination, I find that I read deeply less and less. Except when I slip away to read actual books. I do pretty well at that, by sheer force of will.

I have no clue what I am getting at here, except to say that I’ve grown more thoughtful lately, and my interests, I find continue to broaden. I think that is a good thing, but I’m not sure. How thinly can one spread oneself before you know a tiny bit about a lot of things. That seems not much of a foundation from which to pontificate from.

So I continue to puzzle. What I am getting more sure of is that real knowledge comes with sweat and hard work. Well, maybe not sweat. But important ideas are not simple ones. One that seems so on the surface is seldom so underneath.

I’ve been reading some stuff on homosexuality and the church, and that is what I have come to. There is, it seems to me, taken fairly, enough there for either side to hang a reasonable argument on. I have changed my mind NOT at all, by the way. I am still firmly convinced that the bible doesn’t speak to the issue of homosexuality in any way that is determinative, and in it’s inferences, especially in the New Testament, offers more than enough to suggest that loving committed relationships are to be upheld regardless of the sexual configurations.

What I am suggesting, is that below all the rhetoric are some difficult issues, and although I still come out on the same side, I at least recognize that the other side is not bereft of argument, though most of its actual proponents may be woefully unskillful in either understanding or arguing them. Unfortunately to change their minds would require that they at least learn the real basis of their objections.

This all came to mind with a piece I located at a site called “The National Interest Online. The article is about appeasement as it relates to foreign policy. It raises the important question as to whether it is always a bad thing?  The very word, as we know, suggests yes it is. Neville Chamberlain, Hitler, WWII. Need we say more? But do read, and see what you think.

Think being the operative word. Don’t dismiss it as wrong because we all know appeasement is a bad thing. That’s what is going terribly wrong today. We are captured by phrases and recoil or embrace with little more thought.

 Huckabee is pissy mad because the liberal media has glommed onto his use of “the ick factor” referencing homosexual behavior. Well, he chose to react in typical homophobic fashion didn’t he? What does he expect? Republicans generally loved to use the word liberal because they thought it made most Americans recoil. They found it does not, so they moved on to socialism, Nazism and Fascism, and the ever popular Communism.

It seems to me we need high level discourse on our issues. No amount of simply bandying about the usual catch phrases will do. In order to take our conversation to the next level, we each have to read more and more difficult “stuff.”

There is still plenty of time and room for our usual fun-loving satiric fun. But it cannot replace, as it has now tended to do, really thoughtful reading, contemplating, and discussion.

Just my take on things and you know what that is worth.

Listen to Me–A Recipe for a Sane World

Tags

God concepts, Internet, opinion, power, quotations, Sophia, thinking, women, writing

I often sit down to write with little or no idea where I might end up. I figure that’s a good thing mostly. And frankly, on occasion, I start one place and end another. There is no road map after all.

I picked up this article in the NYTimes, which seemed provocative and in the end enlightening. It warned implicitly at least that we are usually wrong when we form opinions mostly from anecdotal evidence.

It seems to me, that most of what we do is in the form of  concluding from whatever “evidence” we have acquired up to a certain point from actual research or reading and experiential events. Depending on how heavily weighted the former is, we are more likely right or wrong.

The article pointed out that while it may seem that we are being turned into attention deficit superficialities by the ready speed of the Internet, in fact we aren’t, as attested by any number of actual scientific studies. Okay, I can buy that. And frankly, I’m relieved.

But the unintended consequence of the article, was a off hand link to a site I’d never heard of, and that was worth ten times the article to me. Where I started in the direction of discussing how we prefer 500 words or less in our posts, I drifted into the realm of thinking my opinions mostly shit.

So I developed this tongue in cheek title and went looking for a suitable image. I, as most writers, undoubted assume that we have something you should hear, so I typed in “God Complex” thinking it an amusing image for the post. Alas, not a single one portrayed a woman as suffering from this. So I tried “God as Woman” and that got me “God as women?” and then mostly tons of images of God creating woman. Then I tried feminists as God, and I got more garbage in the form of symbols, and this went on for some time.

My frustration grew. Finally I got the above sweet nurturing image of God as Sophia. Not at all what I was looking for. No ripped abs portraying woman as conqueror or powerful overlord of earth–no I got sappy sweet mother goddess stuff.

And I was reminded that yesterday, the owner of The Daily Beast was on GMA. She was asked what it meant that most of the Tuesday primaries had been won by women. Her response was, “well it proves that women can be wingnuts too.” And I agree.

It’s not that I’m arguing that I want women to be power hungry, insensitive louts like some men are. I’m acceding that they already are, and probably always have been. Yes, I believe that there are differences between men on women on a whole plethora of levels, but given the right motivations, women are as greedy and blood thirsty as any man thought of being.

So why no women with God complexes? I dunno.

Finding Arts and Letters Daily, (the above link) is like finding nirvana. It’s like you want to redo your entire blogroll, and well, spend a few days, weeks or so meandering around. That for me is the point of the Internet, but it’s a little like walking into the Library of Congress or the MMA–you have a day–choose wisely.

Once upon a time it was possible for a man or woman to know virtually everything that there was to know about any given field of endeavor, and perhaps several. Today, you can but keep generally abreast of the trends in a field. There are more books, articles and such than you can ever hope to read or even know about.

And the amazing thing, is that we (the writers of whatever) in our pathetic egotistical sadness actually think that somebody has time to listen to our pathetic whinings. Yet, the human spirit appears to forge ahead, confident that somewhere an audience exists. Dangerously, this thought occurs to the serial cannibal as well and they can but be encouraged when they find their own among the billions who inhabit the planet.

It all leaves me with no depressed feelings, but a shrugging feeling. I distinctly felt a shrug coming on as I thought about it. I don’t care. I write because I like my own voice inside my head, and I think myself devilishly funny and acidic and witty. I’m always surprised when my best prose, my most humorous repartee is met with silence, but it’s simply not my fault if you are unable to see the genius I am.

Now that was supposed to elicit a huge guffaw, before you snap off thinking me insufferably arrogant. The fact is, there is more talent on planet earth that most realize. I am not exceptional but the norm I suspect. That is not cause for sadness, but gives hope that in the end, this planet will survive its experiment with the human species.

So as you can see, this post is a bit incoherent. I am aware of that! But it’s what I chose to do today. Wandering as the thought carried. Thanks for wandering with me. I like the company. After all, there is a worthwhile couple of links, and you can skip the rest.

Two quotes:

Speed reading is touted as letting you read much faster with good comprehension. Woody Allen read War and Peace in one day and proved the truth of that by responding: “It’s about Russia.”

Jean-Paul Sartre quipped:  In a football match, everything is complicated by the presence of the other team.

The Art of Wisdom?

Tags

critical thinking, essay, IQ, Literature, philosophy, thinking

I continue to believe that much that is wrong with higher education, and certainly of lower education, is our failure to teach and thus to learn, “how to think.”

You may think such a thing is self-evident, but I can assure it is not. For all creatures, with a sufficient brain, think in some sense–a dog thinks it’s hungry and walks to its food bowl, much as a fish does. When satiated, they stop.

However, humans, or at least higher life forms have greater capabilities, and can make decisions about events yet to come, assess long term benefits and pitfalls. We have the ability to think critically. And yet, few of us are taught this most important skill. Instead we are relegated, all too often, to the tried and true method of experimentation and learning from “our mistakes.” This is both time consuming and can be costly.

I have been a reader all my life, yet, I feel not particularly well read. I can name dozens of “classical” literature that I have not read. It was not stressed in my youth certainly–books (except for cheap dime store war novels) never graced our coffee table or night stands for that matter. I knew nothing of architecture, anthropology, french literature, or god forbid philosophy.

I did not secure a liberal arts education, where I might have bumped into some of these things. Trying to read, say Spinoza today is a bit like dropping into the middle of War and Peace and explaining the plot. I don’t get the language. A dozen other topics have left me cold in the same way–verbiage that I cannot penetrate no matter how hard I might try.

One is tempted to simply say, that I don’t have the IQ for it. And in fairness, that might be accurate. Maybe I could read Jergen Moltmann for years and never discern what the hell he is trying to tell me, because I just don’t have the brain power for it. I just don’t know, though I’ve devoted some significant thinking to the problem.

It matters. I am not comfortable with being average in intellect, I want to be part of that rarefied 1-2% of superior minds. I suspect I am not, and thus, I am perhaps wasting time.

As I said, part of it may be  simply that you have to be in the club. Doctors can read all manner of stuff that we laypersons can’t fathom, because they have a secret language that only they know. Same for lawyers. I suspect the same thing is found in most of our disciplines.

Part is not existing in the social milieu where such material is discussed as a matter of course. We were working class folk, and though I was often teased for having my head in a book all too often, I was not dissuaded from my pursuit often. But then, I had no one to bounce these new ideas off of either.

Some things I read at too early an age, and simply didn’t have the background. Dropping into the middle of War and Peace again. I recall reading Kate Millet’s Sexual Politics in my late teens or very early 20’s and recall nothing memorable. I certainly wouldn’t have grasped much of Simone de Beauvior’s Second Sex I doubt. (Which by the way it is being re-issued in English in its entirety.)

All I know is that when I come upon something that I start to read, and it gets all existential and then tells me about ontological and teleological methodologies, I start to swoon, and not with love, but with nausea. We get to neo-Platonism before I have begun to digest Platonism, and then it goes off to Post-Modernism with hardly a chance to catch my breath. I hear about relativism from people who don’t frankly have a clue what they are talking about, but they have picked it up as a good sound bite from their talking points memo.

It starts to make my head hurt, then starts to make me feel stupid. And if there is one thing I don’t like to be, it is stupid. While it’s far better to know one is stupid and to keep quiet, it is still pretty bad to know that.

Having no really great talent, such as violin playing, or creating exotic desserts, I have to rely on something after all.

Which brings me back to critical thinking. Perhaps I can do that, at least well enough to know that I am not Einstein’s protege′ nor heir.  I can’t write prose that draws on seven different disciplines including neuroscience, anthropology, analytical psychology and Elizabethan court literature. Nope, if you expected that, well sorry to say, it ain’t me.

Yet, I look adoringly upon those who can, for they just sound so dang smart. Maybe it’s all pretense. Maybe it’s all an inside joke and they  and their peers know it’s all so much blather. But I doubt that. I truly do. And I wanna be part of the club.

So I read.

Beware: Your Mind is Out to Mislead

Tags

brain research, character, experiences, psychology, sociology, thinking

Brain researchers tell us that we are much the product of our experiences. While genetics play its role, most of our opinions, beliefs, and framework for examining information comes from a hidden and unrealized drama that plays out inside our heads, quite unbeknownst to our consciousness.

Every new experience is compared and contrasted with everything we have already experienced, and catalogued and filed accordingly. Experts tell us that it is mighty darn hard to undo these conclusions that we hold, even though we are largely unaware of it. Hundreds of tests prove this conclusively, and I’ve written about some it on these pages over the last couple of years.

Yet it still amazes me how old prejudices die slowly or not at all. I refer you to the ideas we have about small town people and fancy city folk. Having been both, I’m in some position to know, yet I am as much a victim of my preconceived notions as the next gal.

As some of you know, I’ve been reconnecting, slowly with some folks I went to school with. I don’t mean a couple of years of commonality, but kids I went to school with from K-12. And it has been an amazingly strange experience. It is happening by fits and starts, and there are no real “trends” but only hints of trends. But still, it’s a pondering oasis.

Those I expected to go to college, didn’t. Those who I didn’t think would, did. Those who stayed near to “home” were largely not the ones I would have expected. Sure, here and there, people turned out as I thought, but mostly they didn’t. I realized that as to each and every one, some I had known well, and some I knew not well at all, I had never had a “serious” conversation with, on a matter of substance. I mean substance like racism, or religion, or anything of the kind.

The minor trend I see, is that those who went on to higher education, those who moved about the country, and such, generally have broader prospectives on the world. Those that stayed close to their lives as children, were more narrow minded. Plenty of folks would say, “No chit, shylock!”

That is after all, the presumption. The small town hickish type versus the urbane sophisticate. Yet my own experience in small town American and big city America don’t bear this out. The trend , as I said, is minor, just a wispy smoke of a notion. Yet, the conclusion, obviously ingrained at an early age, remains.

This against dozens of Hollywood movies telling the opposite. I don’t have to name names, the plot is universal. Kids graduate. One goes off to college and a big city career, the other remains in town, becoming the insurance agent, librarian, or hardware store owner. A death in the family brings the big city type home, and he/she reconnects. Eventually, the “smart” city slicker learns a lesson of life from the “small town” hick.

Yet, still the perception persists. And thus, I’ve been just blown away by the outcomes to some I went to school with. Airheads (I thought) are deep socially conscious thinkers, and bright lights (I thought) have reconstructed safe but weird worlds which they inhabit only with other fairly brain deprived humans.

And I ask myself. What is the problem with my (our) ability to discern character? It is clear that spending eight months at six or so hours a day, for thirteen years didn’t give me much of a clue. So I wonder, am I any better today? I would dearly like to think so.

So what was going wrong all those years ago? As I said, I cannot think of a single serious conversation I ever had with any of them, “closest” friend or barely knew. Is this the key to discerning? Could I have predicted who would be liberal/conservative/religious/socially conscience/self absorbed, if only I had asked the right questions? I don’t know.

Are all kids just too caught up in dating, clothes, music and entertainment? Are we not filled with sufficient “experiences” to make judgments possible at that age?

Being a seriously mature adult now, I have to wonder–are the quality of my friendships more genuine now? Is it a product of having the “right” kind of conversations or just a matter of living long enough to meet enough people to cue the right conclusions?

I don’t pretend to know of course. I never do usually. I raise the question and ask for input.

It seems important to know. I need to spend time, which means learn, from people whose character is sound, knowing that that is surely a subjective idea in the first place. In a world growing exponentially more complicated, it’s damned important to keep one’s bearings.

Perhaps it’s a element of aging. I have less and less time to spend with stupid backward people. They pull me down into a spiral of despair, and they offer me no help in how to make the world a better place.

For those of you who are beginning to think I have too much time on my hands, well, I can only say, come live in the meadow and you will find reason to spend a lot of time in your own head. I’ve grown rather comfortable there. I will sit upon my hill come spring, letting the warm breeze play across my upturned face, and I will pass my judgments upon Earth.  No one will much hear me, no one will much care, but I will feel better for the doing of it.