Loyal to WHAT!

     Loyalty. What does that mean to you? Don't give ME an answer, THINK about it. Where do your loyalties lie? Do you lie about them, even if to yourself?

     This concept seems easy, on the surface. Most people say they're loyal to their country, their family, their friends. Once in a while, though, someone will gather the courage to tell you the truth. They know ahead of time that you're never going to trust them again because you won't understand. You can trust them more than you can ANYONE ELSE, but you don't see it that way because their loyalty isn't to a person or specific group (tribe) in the way you've been taught to understand the concept. That's all you understand. From childhood we're taught to be loyal to our tribe, our nation, the social group we are forced into in a way that demands we cover for our peers; we hide what they do wrong or we're "disloyal". We are expected to support them no matter what, even when we know they're wrong. But, a small portion of humanity has other loyalties that mean they won't support you when you're wrong, because their loyalty is to a concept, an idea, and they won't back you if you knowingly, intentionally violate that. If they are brave enough, they'll tell you that they are loyal to humanity, to integrity, to respect, and you'll say "whatever". Or they'll say they are loyal to the tribe, and then act in ways you don't understand by staying true to their word. You won't believe them. You won't understand them. You won't trust them.

     "But I'M loyal to a concept! The concept of tribe, the concept of family..." and you don't get it. Do you care what's best for the longevity, the long-term good of HUMANITY? Did you take an oath and will do what you can to stay true to it, even when you'll be ostracized from the rest of the tribe that took the same oath? No, you won't. You care more about belonging to the group. And you have to. When we're excommunicated from the group, we lose access to resources. We lose help in times of need. Even when we're right, we lose the support we're supposed to get. You are doing what's right for your survival, and you have to. You have a family to take care of, children to provide for. If your peers (wrongly!) feel betrayed, you lose a vital support structure. The majority of Germany didn't support the Nazi regime, but couldn't say anything. Germans had already been killed trying to stop the Nazi rise to power, would YOU be next? If you speak out, your windows are broken, you can't buy groceries, and your children are bullied relentlessly. Those who were strongly loyal to Germany stood up, and were killed. Or, they stood up subtly and smuggled Jews and gays out to safety, constantly fearing for their lives and their families.

     So who are these outsiders with their big ideas about larger concepts and the greater good? Why can't they just go with the flow? Because they CARE!! They care in ways you'll only claim to comprehend. They care about everyone and everything. This isn't something they can just turn off; it's genetic (see research into the neurological origins of introversion and sensitivity). They see your loyalties as self-serving (which they are, but necessarily so) and small-minded. They are thinking about second-order effects and long-term consequences. They are contemplating why things happen, and how to address root causes rather than symptoms. "But I do that!". No, you engage in a superficial intellectual exercise about it when you have down-time. They do it with almost every decision. They aren't thinking about how an interaction effects the desired immediate goal; they're thinking about how it'll achieve the long-term goal. When you make a decision, it's about what will put food on your table tonight or later this week. They're thinking about how today's purchases will effect the economic situation for farmers on another continent for the rest of the farmer's life.

No, not that specifically; that's just an example. It's different for everyone.

     And those people are screwed. Their lives are hell. Think of the police officer who truly wants to make a constructive difference in the world. When she witnesses an instance of excessive force used, she knows she has to stay quiet or face a life-threatening backlash. The other officers will label her a snitch. They won't work with her unless forced to. Her reputation will be tarnished because the other officers won't comprehend the level of loyalty she feels to the tribe. They think they can't trust her because she won't help cover-up their unethical actions. She'll be pushed out of the job she loves. And is she keeps quiet? Now she's an accomplice and liable to disciplinary action if anyone finds out. The politician who doesn't want bribes, doesn't want to help a specific group but prefers what's best for everyone over the long term? His peers have to vote against his good ideas in order to get the extra money, in order to maintain the illusion of loyalty to their tribe (the "other" party), even if they agree with him. Advertising campaigns are initiated against him for not pandering to a special interest group ("Senator Schmuckatelli voted against giving your group government money, so you should vote for his opponent who will provide more handouts") . His constituents are turned against him by the groups that control the money. Consider the political dissidents in Germany in the 1930s and '40s. They lived in constant fear, but worked against what they knew was wrong for Germany, and for humanity. Those with the strongest loyalty face daily emotional torture, hoping their actions will make a larger difference.

     Earlier I said that you can trust these people more than anyone else. That doesn't make sense to you. "He won't back me if I make a mistake" or "sometimes you have to bend the rules to get things done. I can't count on them to support me when I don't have another choice". These are bullshit answers, and you know it. You don't have to bend every rule just for the heck of it, you just don't want to be patient. You didn't just make a mistake, you screwed-up royally and are trying to hide it. This aside, you can count on them to support you to the ends of the earth p IF you do the right thing. You know what's right. You know what is expected of you. You are "just looking out for number one" and trying to avoid the resulting karma. You can trust them because they will never ask you to lie for them. They won't make you an accomplice, putting you or your family at risk. When they make a decision, they're taking YOUR family into consideration. They are loyal to the tribe in ways you are incapable of. You can trust them because you know what oath they took. You can be sure they're going to work hard to stay true to it. Yes, they'll make mistakes, they're human. Those mistakes won't drag you down though. They won't ask you to clean up their mistakes. What's braver: lying to an investigator, or facing the music and righting their wrongs? To answer that, ask yourself which you're afraid to do! Do you have the integrity to clean-up your own mistakes, or do you ask others to lie for you?

"Well, it turns out that loyalty is a complex and paradoxical emotion. Psychologists have been studying the interplay of social injustice, righteous anger and group allegiance, and it appears that loyalists are not simply apologists for anything and everything the group stands for. In fact, ramped-up loyalty may be a predictable step toward taking a firm and principled stand.” [Herbert, W. (2009) The Paradox of Loyalty].

In an experiment studying university students, “(the students) who were the most devoted to their school to begin with were also the most cooperative and helpful when forced to confront the school’s failings. That is, those truest to their group redoubled their sense of service and commitment when faced with injustice. They didn’t criticize, nor did they distance themselves from the others in the group.”

            Qualifying everything based on this with the recognition that the study was short-term and limited: That cop who is a whistleblower is MORE loyal to the tribe than the ones who cover-up abuses. The politician who struggles to get anything constructive done despite strong pressure otherwise is MORE loyal to the tribe than the ones who play the political games (“Power attracts the corruptible…” Frank Herbert, Dune). 

The same study finds “… this pumped-up loyalty is unlikely to last for long: If confronted with continued evidence of unfairness and injustice, many will stop compensating for the group’s shortcomings—and leave” 

Those who have the strongest loyalty will work phenomenally hard to fix their organization, but they have limits. The organization will lose its best personnel, its hardest workers, those with the strongest ethics and integrity, when they become frustrated and give up. At that point, you’re left with the self-serving and disloyal. Yes, you who are so proud of having “shovel friends” are now recognized as disloyal and a hindrance to the tribe. In being self-serving in your misuse of tribal resources, you drag everyone down. When someone works to get ahead, and you call them a "sell-out", "vendido" and "traitor to your culture", you are preventing the tribe from getting ahead by one of its members increasing overall quality of life with their improvements. 
This last sentence is something I've read called the Crab Effect. When fishermen (fisherpeople?) go after crabs, they put the crabs in a big container. Once in a while, an individual crab will make headway climbing out. These fisherpeople have remarked that the other crabs will crab the one escaping and pull it back in. We see it in humanity constantly: if someone "of color" tries to leave their neighborhood and improve their education, they're told "That's a White thing", and shamed into staying poor. If someone leaves their home town (El Paso, TX is a stereotype example), they're criticized for betraying their heritage and pressured to go back. Isn't that poor person going to improve the quality of life for everyone by entering the workforce with a strong skillset? Aren't they in a position to improve the tribe's place in The Universe? The kid from Segundo Barrio who gets a job in Dallas is going to be able to send money home to los padres and help improve their house. They'll remove themselves as a drain on limited resources and put themselves in a position of providing resources. Instead they've guilted into staying in that apartment in Chihuahuita and working at Chico's Tacos the rest of their life. How are their friends and family being loyal to their friendships and relationships when they prevent these people from getting ahead in life? How are they loyal to their tribe? THEY AREN'T!!! They're insecure, scared...and human. Humanity in repose: Disloyal.

Unfortunately this is the human norm. Look at executive leadership anywhere, globally, and you’ll see it saturated with those whose loyalty is to themselves, not the tribe. There are some with more tolerance for frustration who stick around longer, certainly, but how long do any of them last? When they leave, their positions have to be filled. New members join, and some are enthusiastic and motivated to make a constructive difference, but for how long? Statistically, over time, any organization will end up with more personnel who are disloyal to the organization, tribe, nation-state, family, etc, than was previously the case. Over time, every organization becomes corrupt and has to be torn down. Look throughout human history. From the dawn of civilization, we’ve experienced this repeatedly. It plays perfectly into the “Five Stages of Empire” model (see The Fate of Empires, Sir John Glubb). This historical cycle, of course, drives me freaking bonkers whenever I hear someone say that government should be involved in anything. Do y’all not pay attention to history at all? No, they don’t.

Now to those who are “disloyal”. They (most of the human race, it seems) insist that they’re being loyal. They insist that their actions increase trust within the group, strengthen interpersonal bonds, and that every rule has to be bent or broken in pursuit of the mission. These are the people who are proud to have and be a “shovel friend”. For those not familiar with the concept, a Shovel Friend is the person/people who will help bury a body, no questions asked, and never say a thing about it. That is considered loyalty in the majority. “Loyalty”? I’ve been familiar with the Shovel Friend concept for years, and I know that there are a few people who would consider themselves to fall in that category with me. As much as I appreciate the idea that I have that kind of help, if needed, these people have garnered a significant level of respect from me, and I would never drag them into my mistakes. For me (and many people I associate with) a loyalty to the concepts of respect, integrity, and friendship would keep me from ever using them in that way. I picture the stereotype person saying “he’s my loyal friend, so he’ll help me bury this dead hooker”. So how loyal of a friend are YOU that you’d ask them to put their lives in jeopardy, set-aside their integrity, to help you when you screw-up? How loyal are YOU that you’d ask a “friend” to be an accomplice in a violation of law/policy/ethics/morality/whatever? I’m going to call you Disloyal. I’m going to say that you are Disloyal to your friends and family. If you were loyal, you would never put them in that position. You would not put yourself in a position of needing that kind of help, and if you did give in to some impulse that you should have restrained, you would take care of it yourself out of loyalty to your friends! You want people to trust you? Don’t do things to violate that trust.

When priests were found to be sexually abusing young members of their congregation, was The Vatican loyal to Catholicism by removing those priests from their churches and putting them in "a retreat"? They helped degrade the public's trust of their institution, and pushed parishioners away. They maintained soiled integrity and prevented an improvement of the organization as a whole. Were ENRON and AIG executives being loyal to their shareholders and the companies by prioritizing short-term profits and stock value over longevity? No! They destroyed public trust, caused more legislation to be passed (Sarbanes Oxley Act), and harmed the company, and thus the stockholders. I could go on and on.

There are ways to accomplish your mission, achieve the profits, and get things done, without violating a respect for humanity. When you get impatient, frustrated, feel threatened when something triggers your insecurities, and you act on a destructive impulse, you are betraying your tribe. Unfortunately for humanity, we seem to be wired to trust people who are obligated to us, and vice versa, rather than those who are loyal to more lofty concepts. There’s something driving most of the species to be loyal to their Shovel Friends, and not to the person who tries to clean the organization up. And thus, we accomplish less than we otherwise could. We expend resources cleaning up horrid messes and call it “loyalty”, when it is the opposite.

This post is essentially a rant. I’m not facing a crisis of loyalty. A friend brought it up in conversation recently, and it got me thinking about it. I’ve found my peace and do everything I’m capable of to make a difference from the inside, but some of that is a combination of idealism and resignation. “I’ll just stay here and do the best I can, while encouraging the good people to keep doing the best THEY can and trying to discourage the disloyal from doing more damage than they already do”. We all see it constantly: ENRON, AIG, various military involvements around the globe, misuse of public capital, etc, ad nauseum. When you get frustrated with any of it, remember that there really are a small cadre of people loyal to the larger concepts of justice, respect, longevity of the species. And think about what you have done. How have you acted in a way that was disloyal to your organization? We’ve all done it at some point or another. We all feel insecure at times. The difference is that those who are truly loyal work hard to improve themselves, and thus the tribe is strengthened.

When we lose those with strong morals, strong loyalty to more lofty concepts, the entire tribe is hurt. We aren’t all strong enough to stand with them, but we can encourage them and make sure that we don’t make their jobs harder. And when they finally get fed-up and leave, we can try to retrieve some tiny spark of the torch they held up, and keep it smoldering. Even if we can’t be the roaring bonfire they are, we can be an ember. That may encourage the next bonfire to act. 

I know that my advice is worth the paper I'm writing this on, but for those who experience the justified crisis of loyalty: 
1.  Pick your battles. Is what you see now worth the organization losing you and your influence? If it's big enough, then go for it. If it's relatively small, then stick it out and work from within to make things better. 
2.  BE the difference you want to see. Yes, that is thrown around a lot, but it's true. In maintaining your integrity, you motivate and inspire others to do the same. If the tribe loses you, it loses that, and nothing can replace your integrity, loyalty to cause and concept, and inspiration.
3. (and I'll stop with 3. I could go on all night) Actively encourage those who are on-the-fence or unsure, and actively discourage the disloyal people. Be the subtle cheerleader for those who have tough decisions, or who hear bad advice from other sources. Additionally, when someone comes to you trying to "brag" about things they've done that are disloyal to the institution, make it politely clear that you don't condone their behavior and don't want any part of it. After that, your presence will motivate them to refrain from disloyal behavior because they'll know that you won't "have their back", while keeping you from being pushed out of the group for what they would feel is a betrayal of trust. Hey, you just made a constructive difference!

Twenty steps forward, nineteen back. Another twenty forward, another nineteen back. We just took two steps forward!

Don't Be Lasagna

I've stolen this phrase from The Doctor, and have now built a short speech about how dangerous it is to fail to stay calm when trying to make important decisions. Not exactly how the writers of Doctor Who intended it, but I'm running with it (and hoping to not get sued by the BBC).

This applies every freaking day!!! When you are in a stressful situation, when you are faced with something that angers you, when you have an important decision to make, you will perform better if you CALM DOWN!! (the irony of writing "calm down" in all caps does not escape me). Use knowledge, forethought, and self-awareness to "prick the film" and prevent yourself from exploding. As a friend recently said, when I explained my new motto: "keep your ricotta to yourself". That works. When you let your inner lasagna explode, that ricotta ends up effecting a lot of other people, and having further reaching effects than you expected.

You are more likely to do something to the "right of bang" when you are anxious. You'll take things personally (which is almost always bad, no matter if it's intended as personal or not), you'll miss important pieces of information that are vital to the decision-making process, you'll forgot HOW to make good decisions, you'll forget what your overall goal is. When you take a moment, during your approach, to remember to stay calm, you'll see more of the relevant factors. When you feel yourself getting worked-up, and take a second to breathe (pricking the film on top to vent pressure), you're going to be more observant and make better decisions.

How does this apply to today? Well, lets see:

Whatdaya know, there's some lasagna right there. People are using national-level politics as an excuse to engage in childish behavior. "Let's burn something!!!" is such a constructive way of getting your feelings heard!
Actually, it seems it's a good way of getting flash-bangs thrown at you, and fire extinguisher-sized cans of pepper spray discharged in your face.

I think there are many factors in play here. One of the largest is the U.S. having become the "decadent capitalists" the now-defunct U.S.S.R. said we would. We, as a collective entity, have no truly existential threats. We aren't required to work at ANYTHING in order to survive (and many people believe that we shouldn't HAVE to work in order to survive. I disagree, but that's another matter). We've become a society of children. Very deliberately! "Let kids be kids" and "I may grow old, but I'll never grow up" define the western world. Society encourages us to remain childish (not child-like, there's a difference) forever. Self-restraint is actively discouraged. "Go with your heart", and similar adages, encourage spontaneous actions based simply on the emotions that you're feeling right now. Don't take a moment to think about long-term consequences, that's for old people who can't be trusted. They follow obsolete traditions that need to be overthrown. "Down with the dominant paradigm" cries the protester. Buddhist "live in the now" has been mis/re-interpreted as "Live FOR the now". Being an adult is now a horrible shame.

And so we get a society of lasagna. "If you're not angry, you're not paying attention" was the '60s and '70s chant. I'm going to counter that "If you're angry, you CAN'T pay attention". You've lost perspective in your quest for an emotional high. It feels so good to engage in violence on behalf of a cause, doesn't it? Yah, let's smash the windows and loot that little store your grandparents own. Get the adrenaline flowing in righteous indignation.
We are voting for politicians who are "passionate". We encourage everyone to have an opinion on EVERYTHING, and criticize them for not knowing the subject we're in favor of. If someone says "let me get back to you. I need to research that first", we belittle them. "Just go with your heart! What does your heart say?". Yah, how dare you not go with your first, knee-jerk reaction. I'll burn your car!

There's an old Zen koan that describes your core self as the moon and emotions as clouds. Paraphrasing horribly, it says  that as you look at the moon, you see clouds pass over it. The clouds don't change the moon, they just add to or detract from it, depending on your perspective. The moon stays the same. As such, remember that emotions come and go. Pay attention to them, but you don't have to act on them. They don't define you, they just show you (and those around you) what you are feeling at the time.
Seeing emotions this way helps prick holes in the film. Working on not acting strictly on emotions leads to us seeing more of the overall situation, more of our options, and lets us contemplate long-term and second-order consequences. Emotions are strong, important motivators, but they shouldn't be your overwhelming motivation. Feeling uncomfortable with a mess in your diaper motivated you to learn how to "hold it" and use a toilet, so emotions aren't to be shunned in a Mr. Spock-esque manner, but when you move beyond the lowest levels of Maslow's Hierarchy, you need to take longer and longer to consider what's going on. We are complex beings...ok, MOST of us are...well, MOST of us are, to some extent...anyway, and have a complex, multi-dimensional manner of approaching anything. Disregarding some of those dimensions is DANGEROUS!!  Don't just challenge those in charge, challenge yourself! Why do I feel a compulsion to engage in behavior X? What could happen if I do? What could happen if I don't? Will I get a nice meal with the current season of the Doctor, or will I explode in the microwave and have a heck of a mess to clean up? Will I effectively have my voice heard, and considered, by those who are in power, or will I look like an ass who needs to be pepper-sprayed and thrown in jail? Gee, which is more effective (and more comfortable. If you've never experienced pepper spray, please trust me when I say it's an exceptionally challenging experience)?

I recall a woman telling me about a demonstration she took part in. Her group protested in front of the local district courthouse in favor of an idea that wasn't even a proposed bill. She was in law school at the time. If you know how the legislative process works, you know that her group was going out it backwards. She got somewhat indignant when I pointed this out. Lasagna!

I'm encouraged every time I read about a school giving mindfulness classes to young children, or using meditation in place of detention. They're teaching their students to slow-down and THINK about what they are doing, and about what is going on. These children will be constructive adults (I hope). I would love to see DISPASSIONATE politicians. No more impassioned speeches about how this group, or that, is being trod-upon by some other group. Instead, I'll vote for the politician who is calm. Who may make a mistake in front of the camera (a la Gary Johnson's flub with Syria), but who I believe is going to make dispassionate decisions based on logical calculations of what is in the long-term best interest of humanity.
Unfortunately, that kind of politician can't exist. The people who take that approach shy away from public office, and wouldn't be voted for by a nation of 17-year-olds who want to "catch the feels" in order to feel empowered.

Make America Think Again

What a wonderful sign: "Make America Think Again". It's a clever play on the now-POTUS's campaign slogan. It is simple, easy to remember, and makes sense; would we want Americans to NOT think? Of course not.

Unfortunately, like almost everything, it's over-simplified. "Make America Think Again". Sure, as soon as we aren't over-complicating our lives with inconsequential crap like sportsball games and America's Next Top Whatever. As soon as we don't have to worry about our kids being suspended from school for having violated a (counter-productive) Zero Tolerance Policy on violence by pointing a fish stick at someone and saying "bang". As soon as we aren't bombarded with advertisements saying we aren't good enough unless we spend more money ("How do you know if your car is ugly? It's paid off" said a billboard I drove past). As soon as we aren't facing cultural pressure to make our lives as complicated as possible. "Important people have complicated lives, therefore I must complicate my life in order to be important" seems to be the philosophy. This complication prevents the average member of the "Silent Majority" (somewhere around half of the country's eligible voters) from having the time and/or energy to "think".

The "Silent Majority" gets out of bed without enough sleep, has to feed the dog and their 2.8 children (or whatever the current statistic is), get the kids off to school while getting themselves off to work. At work they can't be proactive or constructive because they're too concerned with getting in trouble for violating an obscure regulation, so their day consists of CYA activities and worrying about their reputation. Then they get home to raucous children who have to be fed, cleaned, pushed to do too much homework that doesn't make sense anymore, while the nominal "adult" has to get the burdensome taxes done, pay an ever-growing stack of bills, and pray to their personal version of God that they have enough coffee to make it through till the weekend. And we're supposed to THINK through this?

Think about what, exactly? About economics on the national level? About what the U.S. should do to reduce violence in the Middle East? And what about an exceptionally small minority of the population that's making headlines with violence, giving the impression that there's a volcanic eruption of brutality between law enforcement officials and (insert ethnicity here). Where is the average American going to get the time to put energy into national-level policies? Joe Beerdrinker and Suzie Soccermom can barely keep track of who the mayor is; they don't know anyone on the city counsel beyond someone's cousin. They're supposed to keep track of the fact that Congress is forcing DoD to buy more tanks simply because the company that makes the M1 Abrams MBT lobbied their senators to keep them in business? They're supposed to keep track of which politician is a sexual predator? Should the U.S. be friendly, or belligerent towards Russia?  Should we be sending MORE of our military personnel into Syria? Why? What does it accomplish? How does it actually serve Mr. Beerdrinker and Mrs. Soccermom?

Then again, who is it that's demanding that we "Make America Think Again"? Someone who says there should be less government intrusion into their lives, but more government support for their lifestyle. They want everyone else robbed at gunpoint (face it, that's what taxes are. You don't believe me? Try to not pay or your taxes for a while. The Criminal Investigators from the IRS will come knocking) in order to pay for whatever they want to do. "Tax the rich" doesn't work; "The Rich" have lawyers, lobbiests, and specialized accountants to ensure that they are taxed as little as possible. That burden ends up falling on the already-stretched middle-class. "Tax the middle class" doesn't exactly have the moral weight the previous slogan does, but it's accurate. "Make America Think Again". What exactly does that mean? Does it mean we should all engage in some critical thinking with regards to our individual politics? I think that's wonderful!! Does it mean "you have to agree with me or you're an idiot!"? Well, to be realistic, it would read "...our your an idiot!", but that's another matter.

Well apparently "Think" means to overturn cars, burn businesses, and leave tons of litter on public streets in a show of defiance towards someone who really doesn't care. At worst, he has his steak medium rare and gets another glass of wine. At best (for him), the voters who put him in office are enraged even more, and will support him clamping-down on you with an iron fist, which will result in more violence.

"Make America Think Again". "A majority of American's polled agree with me" (cool. How many actually responded to the poll? did you have a statistician analyse the data for accuracy and relevancy?). "98% of American's want things done my way". Don't you mean 98% of the people who filled out your questionnaire at the mall or linked-to on your blog? That is NOT 98% of American's. Half of ANY nation just wants to be left alone. Imagine if there was a way to actually find out what all of ANY population supports on a given issue? I strongly believe most people, if provided accurate, relevant, material information (accountants will recognize those characteristics) along with the time and energy to think about where they stand on the matter, will want the government to butt-out.
"Make America Think Again". Absolutely. First: Define what "to think" will entail. Second: how will you get America to "think"? Where will the time and energy come from? Will you change our materialistic, consumerist culture such that people are encouraged to meditate on larger matters? Will we be encouraged to NOT buy a new car, but rather spend money on something more constructive in the long-term? Will be be permitted to voice an opinion without being denigrated?
"Make America Think Again". Absolutely. How?

When it comes down to it, I strongly believe this meme is a fairly accurate representation of American politics from the perspective of the middle-class, silent majority: