Fearful

At prayer meeting this morning, several men worried that some of their adult children were afraid--afraid to drive, afraid of change, afraid to leave home, or other manifestations. (OK, a worry that you'll hurt somebody when you are still objectively bad at driving isn't crazy.)

We agreed that "The world is ending" trope for grabbing clickbait eyeballs didn't help, and likely the "Mankind is a cancer on the globe" trope didn't tend to enspire confidence.

AVI had thoughts a while back about how people who grew up "in" a partly virtual world valued the virtual relationships far more than those of us who mostly didn't.

An obvious extention to that is "virtual adventuring." Do kids get out less than they used to? My sampling is somewhat biased--we live in a lower middle-class area--but some of the younger kids do get out on their bikes a lot, especially when there are more kids at home.

It's hard to know what you're capable of if you don't experiment with doing a few hard things now and then. "Hard" is relative, of course--I was a rather shy kid and "hard" included striking up conversations with new people. Virtual interactions allow some buffering.

I didn't have smart phones (for half my childhood we didn't have any phone) or computers, but I did have books, and spent a substantial amount of time with those, and not as much time socializing/playing with others as other kids did. I suspect that was partly because I was shy, and partly it reinforced the shyness -- not so confident because not so experienced.

Does "virtual life" sap time and experience from "physical life?" It does seem likelier to restrict your circle of acquaintances. I overhear things in buses and bookstores that I don't run into in my "virtual circle"--such as people who honestly believe they will live long enough for their mind to be downloaded into a computer, or people who believe that Trump staged getting shot at (I gather that the woman had never actually tried to hit anything--gun, bow, or just throwing a rock). And then when you do run into people you don't understand, perhaps you fear?

McLuhan

Graham Majin at Quillette makes a case that Marshall McLuhan's influence here is much like Foucault's. McLuhan championed the idea that the medium has an impact on the effect of a work of art (or history or)--which seems straightforwardly clear. He took it farther to say that the effect of the medium dominates, especially in aggregate, and a radical change in media changes the culture--never mind what people seem to be saying.

I read Understanding Media back in high school, and my impression was: well, ok, but ... Majin's article accuses him of helping normalize the idea that journalism makes the news and that truth isn't literal. I don't remember that, though I only read one part of his works--maybe I just forgot. (I thought The Medium is the Massage was self-indugent and silly.)

If he were alive today, he'd look at the isolated phone-veneraters riding the bus and say "I told you so:" Although our disembodied culture was certainly not what he hoped for.

Observations about political talk

Political chatter acts like crack.

When you indulge with your friends, you get a feel-good buzz as though you were actually doing something useful. You are, after all, "raising awareness," or at least just keeping each other woken, like a gaggle of night watchmen gazing into the fire.

Each bit of snark is like a dainty morsel going down into the innermost parts. It feels so good that the habit grows. More and more of your conversation involves it. You feel important—perhaps it is the only time you feel important—when you gossip your judgments on your enemies.

And you react with such shock and hatred when anyone harshes your mellow with nuance, or even—God forbid—a contradiction.

It is a thousand miles away from joy: it deadens, instead of sharpening, the intellect; and it excites no affection between those who practice it

Chastity of the Mind

It is tempting to embrace every story that comes along that flatters your tribe or besmirches your opponents. After all, the stories generally fit with what you know; build on knowledge you already have.

When you know the CIA is evil and has done unforgiveable things, stories of how they engineered Tolbert’s assassination or plotted 9/11 dovetail nicely with their record of villainy. Racists abound, so when 3 black churches burn in 2 weeks you know it means racist activity is on the rise. When you know the Clintons are corrupt and ruthless, the story that a man killed himself just before he was due to testify about them obviously tells of just another rub-out among many.

Be realistic. Soldiers won’t die if you don’t retweet that bon mot immediately, or repost that quotation of uncertain provenance. You’re not really in a hurry. You may like to think that hearts and minds wait trembling for your imprimatur on the news, but people who know you can probably already predict what you plan to say.

Instantly reposting stories that go down like such sweet morsels is just virtue signaling: your judgment must be profound since you have such noble friends and recognize such a vile and deceptive enemy!

Two words: Richard Jewell. Three words: Duke lacrosse case. Four words: Day care satanic abuse.

A good scientist looks at data that supports his model, and also looks for data that would contradict it. Until it is studied carefully, it is not good for either purpose.

The first reports are usually wrong. (Sometimes later ones are a cover-up, but not so often.) Let your conclusions be tentative, if you must draw any--wait a while and see what else develops.

Yes, I’ve been bitten by that kind of mistake too. It takes practice to reserve judgment.

---

“There’s a Bene Gesserit saying,” she said. “You have sayings for everything!” he protested. “You’ll like this one,” she said. “It goes: 'Do not count a human dead until you’ve seen his body. And even then you can make a mistake.'” From Dune by Frank Herbert

---

"Do you read the papers? Of course, you do. But do you read them as I read them? I rather doubt that you have come upon my system. ... I remember once when I lived in the Capital for a month and bought the paper fresh each day. I went wild with love, anger, irritation, frustration; all of the passions boiled in me. I was young. I exploded at everything I saw. But then I saw what I was doing: I was believing what I read. Have you noticed? You believe a paper printed on the very day you buy it? This has happened but only an hour ago, you think! It must be true... So I learned to stand back away and let the paper age and mellow. Back here, in Colonia, I saw the headlines diminish into nothing. The week-old paper - why, you can spit on it, if you wish.” From “And the rock cried out” by Ray Bradbury

---

“[John]: 'But I must think it is one or the other.'

[Reason]: 'By my father's soul, you must not - until you have some evidence. Can you not remain in doubt?'

[John]: 'I don't know that I have ever tried.'

[Reason]: 'You must learn to, if you are to come far with me. It is not hard to do it. In Eschropolis, indeed, it is impossible, for the people who live there have to give an opinion once a week or once a day, or else Mr. Mammon would soon cut off their food. But out here in the country you can walk all day and all the next day with an unanswered question in your head: you need never speak until you have made up your mind.” From The Pilgrim's Regress by C.S. Lewis