I heard a woman the other day say "my children are my greatest achievement" This set me to thinking because I was unconvinced it was true, like a lot of women these days her children were only one aspect of her life, she had been well educated, she had a job in which she had done well, served on community groups, was interested in cooking at a high level with which she entertained her friends etc.
So many aspects to her life where she was operating at a high level and yet the "achievement" was her children?
On first glance I thought she was confusing love and affection for acheivement after all few would deny the great love that a parent and potentially especially the mother has for her children. Many parents have given up even their own lives to protect their children in extreme cases and in the less extreme a still significant amount of resources and effort are devoted to children.
But lets be honest, they sort of get there regardless don't they ? I mean there are some terrible parents out there and their children still grow up and some even go on to be great members of society and acheive great things in spite of thier upbringing. So as parents aren't we rather overstating "our acheivement" when we beam with pride at little Jimmys graduation. Our own graduation sure and my reference mother presumably had to put in a lot of effort to graduate herself, but when she had kids... well....
So the dictionary says;
Achievement –noun
something accomplished, esp. by superior ability, special effort, great courage, etc.; a great or heroic deed: his remarkable achievements in art.
Does this sound like having a child?
Well actually I think it does in the end, it takes great courage to set out on a long journey to bring a child into the world and raise them up. The chances of great hurt along the way are high, some children don't make it and a greater tragedy can not befall a human being, our children will themselves be hurt and we feel all their pain no matter how small or great. Despite my reference to bad parents most try hard as they understand the world to show their children the way and it takes great sustained effort over a long time.
And the rewards, well there are rewards no doubt but it is mostly a selfless act.
So here is to those making that great courageous and heroic effort to be a mum or dad and here is cheers to the giants on who's shoulders we stand our own heroic mums and dads.
Random thoughts on Random topics sparked by my travels through life and the things I see or hear on the way
Saturday, August 21, 2010
Friday, August 6, 2010
Blame Storming
Blame Storming - sitting around figuring out who to blame for the latest stuff up.
Why do some corporates insist on this type of approach, we all know that people make mistakes and people say it so often that you almost forget that it is true. Then when people do make an error some personality types feel duty bound to punish them, effectively for being human.
Now we have a category of "mistakes" that we find unacceptable and worthy of punishment they are called crimes, the reason we punish is that we don't really think it was a true mistake. If we do think so then even within this category we make allowances. eg if you deliberately run someone over we will charge you with murder and you may spend a long time in prison, if however you have an accident and kill someone you may still be punished for essentially not being careful enough but the penalty will be nowhere near as severe.
So back to corporates and how they behave, I was speaking with someone recently who had discovered an error (not made it just discovered it) and was concerned about bringing it to the attention of thier boss because it would spark a round of recriminations and Blame Storming. I have to wonder how this organisation feels this is useful. It is clearly incentivising employees to stay quiet even if they are aware of issues, it will probably limit any willingness to take risks and therefore inovation (always a risk) will be stiffled, it will likely lower productivity as it may not be a happy place to work etc I can't really think of any positive reason to behave this way other than... it makes the boss feel superior (potentially) or some other ego boost for the people pointing the fingers.
OK so I can understand the frustration with the "non learning" employee who continues to make the same mistake over and over, however blame is still not very useful outplacement councilling is probably best.
Why do some corporates insist on this type of approach, we all know that people make mistakes and people say it so often that you almost forget that it is true. Then when people do make an error some personality types feel duty bound to punish them, effectively for being human.
Now we have a category of "mistakes" that we find unacceptable and worthy of punishment they are called crimes, the reason we punish is that we don't really think it was a true mistake. If we do think so then even within this category we make allowances. eg if you deliberately run someone over we will charge you with murder and you may spend a long time in prison, if however you have an accident and kill someone you may still be punished for essentially not being careful enough but the penalty will be nowhere near as severe.
So back to corporates and how they behave, I was speaking with someone recently who had discovered an error (not made it just discovered it) and was concerned about bringing it to the attention of thier boss because it would spark a round of recriminations and Blame Storming. I have to wonder how this organisation feels this is useful. It is clearly incentivising employees to stay quiet even if they are aware of issues, it will probably limit any willingness to take risks and therefore inovation (always a risk) will be stiffled, it will likely lower productivity as it may not be a happy place to work etc I can't really think of any positive reason to behave this way other than... it makes the boss feel superior (potentially) or some other ego boost for the people pointing the fingers.
OK so I can understand the frustration with the "non learning" employee who continues to make the same mistake over and over, however blame is still not very useful outplacement councilling is probably best.
Thursday, August 5, 2010
Is this really the answer to everything?
So on the TV the other night is an UK based expert on the problems associated with Alcohol, who was here at the behest of some interest group or other presumably the anit Alcohol lobby as his message in a nutshell was to "ban alcohol" His views on the matter prehaps best tipified by the comment "if alcohol was invented today we would ban it"
Indeed "lets ban it" a message likely to be very well received here in NZ as this seems to be our standard response to anything we see as a problem and if we are not going to ban it outright we need to regulate it into oblivion.
But does this work? Has it ever worked? and do we stop to work through the consequences based on research not emotion?
While not something banned but something regulated cycle helmets are a fantastic example where there is no reliable data on the effectivness of these helmets in preventing injury. There is evidence that the number of fatalities increase amoung helmet wearing cyclists and the stat that I like the most on this subject is you are more likely to suffer a head injury walking and yet no one is suggesting helmets for walkers. Another negative statistic is that helmets are shown to decrease cycle participation.
But I digress back to Alcohol we have a fantastic experiment in the form of the American Prohibition period between 1920 to 1933 when Alcohol was in fact widely banned in America and to varying degrees they did try and enforce the ban. Clearly it didn't work but it did turn otherwise law abiding citizens into potential criminals and gave criminal gangs a fantastic source of revenue which they were prepared to defend with violence.
Sound familiar, sounds a lot like the current "war on drugs" that America and varioius other countries including our own is currently involved in. The sad facts are people are still doing, the gangs make money out of it and in the case of harder drugs a lot of suffering results not from the drug taking itself but the surrounding activities. Pharmacy grade cocaine is cheap (it is used in some medical situations) for example but not if you have to get it off your local gang member and it may not be of the same quality standard.
So none of the above is an argument in favour of drug taking or binge drinking (the current manifestation of our drinking culture) both can be very harmful to your health, relationships with others chances of employment etc, etc. However how does increasing restriction or outright prohibition help curb the problems, so far there is zero evidence that this is working so far.
With booze the often quoted solution is to increase the price, however as I understand it the price of P (methamphetamine) is very expensive (I am not a user so stand to be corrected) but it doesn't seem to put people off. Not only that but we now have the example of "pre loading" where young people will buy cheaper supermarket booze and get hammered at home before heading out for the night. I think in economics this would be called substitution, if the price of drinks in bars was more reasonable however prehaps a more controlled approach might be taken. After all you can't take your bottle with you to the pub unless it is inside you which is what happens after all. So sometimes the "solutions" make things worse.
In the exact same arena we have an example of a system that does seem to work. Once upon a time not so long ago no one thought anything about driving drunk and it is still possible at the squash club for example for older members to talk about when xyz got hammered and end up in a ditch and the yarn is told as an item of humor not warning. These same clubs where these stories are told will also tell you that bar takings now are "way down" as "no one wants to drink and drive"
So how did this happen? Education of course, we were all taught that drink driving was not funny and that it was socially unacceptable. "if you drink and drive you are a bloody idiot" went one advert. and over time it has worked. OK police will point to greater enforcement as a factor although the evidence of penalty as a deterent to behaviour is weak as a general rule but as social animals we are driven to conform to the social norms. Change the norms get a result.
Far from banning alcohol make it unacceptable to be drunk.
You will notice that the "ban it" logic is already creeping into the food debate because some people (actually quite a few) are fat. "lets tax fat" they cry, sigh some people are slow learners is all I can say.
Indeed "lets ban it" a message likely to be very well received here in NZ as this seems to be our standard response to anything we see as a problem and if we are not going to ban it outright we need to regulate it into oblivion.
But does this work? Has it ever worked? and do we stop to work through the consequences based on research not emotion?
While not something banned but something regulated cycle helmets are a fantastic example where there is no reliable data on the effectivness of these helmets in preventing injury. There is evidence that the number of fatalities increase amoung helmet wearing cyclists and the stat that I like the most on this subject is you are more likely to suffer a head injury walking and yet no one is suggesting helmets for walkers. Another negative statistic is that helmets are shown to decrease cycle participation.
But I digress back to Alcohol we have a fantastic experiment in the form of the American Prohibition period between 1920 to 1933 when Alcohol was in fact widely banned in America and to varying degrees they did try and enforce the ban. Clearly it didn't work but it did turn otherwise law abiding citizens into potential criminals and gave criminal gangs a fantastic source of revenue which they were prepared to defend with violence.
Sound familiar, sounds a lot like the current "war on drugs" that America and varioius other countries including our own is currently involved in. The sad facts are people are still doing, the gangs make money out of it and in the case of harder drugs a lot of suffering results not from the drug taking itself but the surrounding activities. Pharmacy grade cocaine is cheap (it is used in some medical situations) for example but not if you have to get it off your local gang member and it may not be of the same quality standard.
So none of the above is an argument in favour of drug taking or binge drinking (the current manifestation of our drinking culture) both can be very harmful to your health, relationships with others chances of employment etc, etc. However how does increasing restriction or outright prohibition help curb the problems, so far there is zero evidence that this is working so far.
With booze the often quoted solution is to increase the price, however as I understand it the price of P (methamphetamine) is very expensive (I am not a user so stand to be corrected) but it doesn't seem to put people off. Not only that but we now have the example of "pre loading" where young people will buy cheaper supermarket booze and get hammered at home before heading out for the night. I think in economics this would be called substitution, if the price of drinks in bars was more reasonable however prehaps a more controlled approach might be taken. After all you can't take your bottle with you to the pub unless it is inside you which is what happens after all. So sometimes the "solutions" make things worse.
In the exact same arena we have an example of a system that does seem to work. Once upon a time not so long ago no one thought anything about driving drunk and it is still possible at the squash club for example for older members to talk about when xyz got hammered and end up in a ditch and the yarn is told as an item of humor not warning. These same clubs where these stories are told will also tell you that bar takings now are "way down" as "no one wants to drink and drive"
So how did this happen? Education of course, we were all taught that drink driving was not funny and that it was socially unacceptable. "if you drink and drive you are a bloody idiot" went one advert. and over time it has worked. OK police will point to greater enforcement as a factor although the evidence of penalty as a deterent to behaviour is weak as a general rule but as social animals we are driven to conform to the social norms. Change the norms get a result.
Far from banning alcohol make it unacceptable to be drunk.
You will notice that the "ban it" logic is already creeping into the food debate because some people (actually quite a few) are fat. "lets tax fat" they cry, sigh some people are slow learners is all I can say.
Thursday, July 29, 2010
My Kingdom for a horse
So driver behaviour featured in a recent post on being inconsiderate and I am begining to feel that I might have it in for vehicles or more specifically the way some people drive (not me of course like everyone I know "we" are good drivers)
To move on from the idea that people are just generally incondsiderate in cars and assume for a moment that most people are decent human beings then the question arises why do people behave the way they do in cars.
Brain power strikes me as a key determinant, no I am not insinuating that people are thick it is just a couple of things we have inherited presumably make driving more difficult.
Firstly speed of decision making which manifests in hesitant driving potentiall especially around intersections and the like.
So people have evolved to travel around at say a maximum speed of about 35km (which is Olympic sprinter speed) and mostly at about 5km (lesiurly walking speed) Therefore dealing with things coming at you at 50 - 100km must present a challange.
On the other hand we see tennis players and cricketers etc facing balls traveling at over 100km and they are able to deal with it? But they do it by reaction rather than analysis. The part of our brain that deals with reaction is the amigdala and is buried deep in our brains and the "oldest" part of the brain. This is also our watchdog the bit of the brain that makes you flinch at an unexpected noise or close your eyelid in time to protect your eye from an incoming partical. It is the "act first ask questions second" part of our brain. You know from your own experiance that the thinking part is much much slower.
For example if you have ever been to a scary movie and flinched at a sudden sight or sound that is our friend amigdala in action the fact that you relax again and don't run out of the theatre is our slower but smarter thinking brain taking over.
So the point is we all make decisions relatively slowly, admittedly some people are faster than others but what a car does travelling at higher than walking speeds is make this slower process visable. While some of the time we rely on learned responses such as changing gear a lot of what happens on the road is constantly changing so we have to think it through not merely react.
Next time we see someone being indecisive on the roads lets assume that they are getting to it as fast as they can its just that sometimes good decisions take time.
Next post, why some people drive in a very sequential manner, but this one is long enough for one day.
To move on from the idea that people are just generally incondsiderate in cars and assume for a moment that most people are decent human beings then the question arises why do people behave the way they do in cars.
Brain power strikes me as a key determinant, no I am not insinuating that people are thick it is just a couple of things we have inherited presumably make driving more difficult.
Firstly speed of decision making which manifests in hesitant driving potentiall especially around intersections and the like.
So people have evolved to travel around at say a maximum speed of about 35km (which is Olympic sprinter speed) and mostly at about 5km (lesiurly walking speed) Therefore dealing with things coming at you at 50 - 100km must present a challange.
On the other hand we see tennis players and cricketers etc facing balls traveling at over 100km and they are able to deal with it? But they do it by reaction rather than analysis. The part of our brain that deals with reaction is the amigdala and is buried deep in our brains and the "oldest" part of the brain. This is also our watchdog the bit of the brain that makes you flinch at an unexpected noise or close your eyelid in time to protect your eye from an incoming partical. It is the "act first ask questions second" part of our brain. You know from your own experiance that the thinking part is much much slower.
For example if you have ever been to a scary movie and flinched at a sudden sight or sound that is our friend amigdala in action the fact that you relax again and don't run out of the theatre is our slower but smarter thinking brain taking over.
So the point is we all make decisions relatively slowly, admittedly some people are faster than others but what a car does travelling at higher than walking speeds is make this slower process visable. While some of the time we rely on learned responses such as changing gear a lot of what happens on the road is constantly changing so we have to think it through not merely react.
Next time we see someone being indecisive on the roads lets assume that they are getting to it as fast as they can its just that sometimes good decisions take time.
Next post, why some people drive in a very sequential manner, but this one is long enough for one day.
Water, water everywhere and not a drop to drink
So the UN is trying to make water and sanitation a human right. It was described as a non binding aspirational goal. Which presumably is what the rest of the human rights are also based on a cursory examination of the others.
Here is a link to The Universal Declaration of Human Rights http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr
As you can see there are 30 of them. What strikes me reading through the list is how few of them NZ has acheived at the moment without adding further rights on top.
1 "...human beings are... endowed with reason...." clearly whomever wrote this was living on a different planet from me. I meet humans on a daily basis who have virtually nil ability to reason.
8 "right to effective remedy for any acts violating the rights granted to him by law" nope not here, we all know that justice via our court system is excedingly expensive and in a number of instances government departments (the ones most likely to violate your rights) are exempt from prosocution
9 "no one shall be subject to abitrary arrest or detintion" except it seems if it suits the state, we all know that people can be detained on the suspicion of terrorisim so strike that one too.
11 "everyone is presumed inocent until proven guilty" except for tax cases in NZ where you have to prove innocence
12 "everyone is entitled to privacy" nope again we allow law enforcement agencies to routinely snoop on people (who are innocent until proven guilty remember)
13 "everyone has the right to leave the country" well as long as it is ok with the government having paid all your fines, obtained a passport and gotten another country to agree that you can go there.
15 "everyone has the right to a nationality" unless you are adopted from a foriegn country in which case you have no nationality until the government decides to give you one.
17 "no one shall be abitrarily deprived of their property" unless of course we need it for tax or perhaps we might want to build a road on it or perhaps we consider your house historic etc.
19 "everyone has the right to expression" unless of course we think that it is hate speech or you want to wear a gang patch or we otherwise disagree with your expression.
23 This one is all about employment and is completely indefensible as a "human right" since when has the "right" to form a trade union been an inalienable part of being a human being. I am confident that many generations of people could live and die without the need of a trade union. This article also assumes that work is some how a societal good which unless you are living in a comunist country it is not.
24 "the right to paid holidays" I can't rationalise the idea that holidays are a human right at all, presumably as a hunter gatherer if you sat on your bum too long you starved to death so when did holidays become a human right. Does this mean unemployed people are entitled to holidays? Why don't stay at home mums get holidays
And now they want to add water to the list, given that this is a necessity of life then this feels as least as reasonable as some of the other nonsense that is included in the declaration now, but how is this to be manifest? Is the first 2 litres a day for each citizen of water provided to be free and then the normal charging regime of direct charging or via rates cuts in and who by the way pays for the first 2 litres? If I am out in the country side etc does that mean I can trample peoples property rights (article 17) in order to asert my right to access to water.
In the debate a case was sighted of a community in Bolivia where a commercial company after putting a water scheme in place wished to deprive the locals of the right to collect rain water. OK I think I can accept that access to rain (or the weather more generally) is potentially a human right, however after that it gets a bit murky.
With all the brain power devoted to the UN shouldn't they be a bit smarter about what they are trying to acheive. "design a system for idiots and only idiots will use it'
Here is a link to The Universal Declaration of Human Rights http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr
As you can see there are 30 of them. What strikes me reading through the list is how few of them NZ has acheived at the moment without adding further rights on top.
1 "...human beings are... endowed with reason...." clearly whomever wrote this was living on a different planet from me. I meet humans on a daily basis who have virtually nil ability to reason.
8 "right to effective remedy for any acts violating the rights granted to him by law" nope not here, we all know that justice via our court system is excedingly expensive and in a number of instances government departments (the ones most likely to violate your rights) are exempt from prosocution
9 "no one shall be subject to abitrary arrest or detintion" except it seems if it suits the state, we all know that people can be detained on the suspicion of terrorisim so strike that one too.
11 "everyone is presumed inocent until proven guilty" except for tax cases in NZ where you have to prove innocence
12 "everyone is entitled to privacy" nope again we allow law enforcement agencies to routinely snoop on people (who are innocent until proven guilty remember)
13 "everyone has the right to leave the country" well as long as it is ok with the government having paid all your fines, obtained a passport and gotten another country to agree that you can go there.
15 "everyone has the right to a nationality" unless you are adopted from a foriegn country in which case you have no nationality until the government decides to give you one.
17 "no one shall be abitrarily deprived of their property" unless of course we need it for tax or perhaps we might want to build a road on it or perhaps we consider your house historic etc.
19 "everyone has the right to expression" unless of course we think that it is hate speech or you want to wear a gang patch or we otherwise disagree with your expression.
23 This one is all about employment and is completely indefensible as a "human right" since when has the "right" to form a trade union been an inalienable part of being a human being. I am confident that many generations of people could live and die without the need of a trade union. This article also assumes that work is some how a societal good which unless you are living in a comunist country it is not.
24 "the right to paid holidays" I can't rationalise the idea that holidays are a human right at all, presumably as a hunter gatherer if you sat on your bum too long you starved to death so when did holidays become a human right. Does this mean unemployed people are entitled to holidays? Why don't stay at home mums get holidays
And now they want to add water to the list, given that this is a necessity of life then this feels as least as reasonable as some of the other nonsense that is included in the declaration now, but how is this to be manifest? Is the first 2 litres a day for each citizen of water provided to be free and then the normal charging regime of direct charging or via rates cuts in and who by the way pays for the first 2 litres? If I am out in the country side etc does that mean I can trample peoples property rights (article 17) in order to asert my right to access to water.
In the debate a case was sighted of a community in Bolivia where a commercial company after putting a water scheme in place wished to deprive the locals of the right to collect rain water. OK I think I can accept that access to rain (or the weather more generally) is potentially a human right, however after that it gets a bit murky.
With all the brain power devoted to the UN shouldn't they be a bit smarter about what they are trying to acheive. "design a system for idiots and only idiots will use it'
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
You can't always get what you want
Recently I have been told that "In a democracy people get the government they deserve" which is a quote from Alexis de Tocqueville and is an often used quote to explain why democratic governments are as bad as they are. Clearly the quote could be used to explain good government but firstly people seldom think that their government is any good and secondly if they do they will tend to point to the leader or the party philosophy as the reason for the "good governance" rather than the system that created the government.
I first must admit to not being an expert on de Tocqueville and nor have I read any of his books, however a quick internet search reveals that he lived in France from 1805 to 1859 and the quote above comes from his books on America where he was observing the birth of a new form of government practiced in a way that was completely different from the land of his birth.
As he seemed to admire the way America was unfolding I suspect the quote was phrased in the positive i.e. that finally the people will get a government that they deserve rather than the tyrany of Europe where politics and government were dominated by an aristocratic elite.
It is ironic that the period in which this man lived and the emerging democracy of America were really a period of power dominated by the elite (including America) and his comments now being used to justify a system of mediocre government dominated by the masses.
Democracy as currently practised seems to me to be mostly about the tyranny of the majority with some checks and balances to make sure this doesn't go to far. It is odd that for government we believe that "might is right" i.e. no matter how stupid your ideas or policies are if you can persuade enough people to your point of view then you are justified in implimenting this policy. This would be the only area of society where we think this is a good rule. In the playground we call it bullying, in the workplace we have laws to regulate the might of employers etc.
A small example would be the dog chipping law which requires all dogs to be microchipped. This was in response as we remember to a young girl being savagely mauled by a dog (or possibly two I can't recall). It was universally approved of by "the majority" however any short period of reflection will demonstrate that this measure will do absolutely nothing to prevent dogs bitting people and as there has been other incidents since this is clear. Yet "the majority" agreed this was a sensible idea. "The minority" eg dog owners lost out and had a silly law inflicted on them.
As we all end up in various minorities depending on the issue I am not sure we "get the government we deserve" but rather the government other people thrust upon us. Do I deserve to be ruled by a generally uneducated boorish majority or... well the or that is another question entirely.
I first must admit to not being an expert on de Tocqueville and nor have I read any of his books, however a quick internet search reveals that he lived in France from 1805 to 1859 and the quote above comes from his books on America where he was observing the birth of a new form of government practiced in a way that was completely different from the land of his birth.
As he seemed to admire the way America was unfolding I suspect the quote was phrased in the positive i.e. that finally the people will get a government that they deserve rather than the tyrany of Europe where politics and government were dominated by an aristocratic elite.
It is ironic that the period in which this man lived and the emerging democracy of America were really a period of power dominated by the elite (including America) and his comments now being used to justify a system of mediocre government dominated by the masses.
Democracy as currently practised seems to me to be mostly about the tyranny of the majority with some checks and balances to make sure this doesn't go to far. It is odd that for government we believe that "might is right" i.e. no matter how stupid your ideas or policies are if you can persuade enough people to your point of view then you are justified in implimenting this policy. This would be the only area of society where we think this is a good rule. In the playground we call it bullying, in the workplace we have laws to regulate the might of employers etc.
A small example would be the dog chipping law which requires all dogs to be microchipped. This was in response as we remember to a young girl being savagely mauled by a dog (or possibly two I can't recall). It was universally approved of by "the majority" however any short period of reflection will demonstrate that this measure will do absolutely nothing to prevent dogs bitting people and as there has been other incidents since this is clear. Yet "the majority" agreed this was a sensible idea. "The minority" eg dog owners lost out and had a silly law inflicted on them.
As we all end up in various minorities depending on the issue I am not sure we "get the government we deserve" but rather the government other people thrust upon us. Do I deserve to be ruled by a generally uneducated boorish majority or... well the or that is another question entirely.
Friday, July 23, 2010
Just this once.....
So are you considerate? I am...., well most of the time I mean come on sometimes I am in a hurry aren't you, I mean well just this once it won't hurt anyone if.....
Today I was trying to pull out of a driveway from a parking area onto a busy road and along comes another driver who wanted to pull into the same driveway. So thier solution was to stop in the middle of the road with their indicator on holding up all the traffic behind them, clearly getting in the way I had wanted to travel and glaring at me as if I was being very inconsiderate for being where they wanted to go. This forced me to turn in the opposite direction to allow them to get out of everyone elses road. I guess I could have sat there and glared back but hey I would probably still be there, breath in and let the small things go.
A short distance down the road in the wrong direction (from my point of view) I encounted another vehicle that was crawling along as the driver was looking for a park again eyes fixed (well swivilling I guess) on their needs and oblivious to those behind them such as myself and about four other vehicles.
Another breath and sigh... let it go.... however I did start mumbling to myself about why people behave this way. Of course the social scientists will tell you that it is because you are not in their (the people causing you the problem) tribe. i.e. they don't know you, therefore they don't care.
Apparantly we can only maintain about 50 - 70 close (ish) relationships before the time and effort overwhelms us. We can have many more people that we know but even then there is a limit measured in a few hundred for most of us before we just don't care. It simply isn't possible for you to truley care about everyone.
This is not the same as being able to empathise we can do that for anyone once their plight is presented to us, but we don't feel sad about all the people who will be murdered in the next 24 hours as we just don't know them. When someone we know turns up in the statistic we have an entirely different reaction.
But I don't think that is entirely it, I think sometimes we know damn well we are being inconsiderate but in that moment we think "well most of the time I am good" a little bad for just a couple of minutes won't really hurt. "Hey I really need to park my car and I am in a hurry" Trouble is if everyone does this even just now and again our odds of striking someone in any given day go up a lot.
So the next time you are tempted to take up two parks because getting it right is hard, or leaving your supermarket trolley in the middle of the isle while you scoot back for the soup you forgot etc, just remeber that we all reap what we sow in the world of consideration. Life's short but not that short and the time you save today may be wasted tomorrow when someone else forgets about you.
Today I was trying to pull out of a driveway from a parking area onto a busy road and along comes another driver who wanted to pull into the same driveway. So thier solution was to stop in the middle of the road with their indicator on holding up all the traffic behind them, clearly getting in the way I had wanted to travel and glaring at me as if I was being very inconsiderate for being where they wanted to go. This forced me to turn in the opposite direction to allow them to get out of everyone elses road. I guess I could have sat there and glared back but hey I would probably still be there, breath in and let the small things go.
A short distance down the road in the wrong direction (from my point of view) I encounted another vehicle that was crawling along as the driver was looking for a park again eyes fixed (well swivilling I guess) on their needs and oblivious to those behind them such as myself and about four other vehicles.
Another breath and sigh... let it go.... however I did start mumbling to myself about why people behave this way. Of course the social scientists will tell you that it is because you are not in their (the people causing you the problem) tribe. i.e. they don't know you, therefore they don't care.
Apparantly we can only maintain about 50 - 70 close (ish) relationships before the time and effort overwhelms us. We can have many more people that we know but even then there is a limit measured in a few hundred for most of us before we just don't care. It simply isn't possible for you to truley care about everyone.
This is not the same as being able to empathise we can do that for anyone once their plight is presented to us, but we don't feel sad about all the people who will be murdered in the next 24 hours as we just don't know them. When someone we know turns up in the statistic we have an entirely different reaction.
But I don't think that is entirely it, I think sometimes we know damn well we are being inconsiderate but in that moment we think "well most of the time I am good" a little bad for just a couple of minutes won't really hurt. "Hey I really need to park my car and I am in a hurry" Trouble is if everyone does this even just now and again our odds of striking someone in any given day go up a lot.
So the next time you are tempted to take up two parks because getting it right is hard, or leaving your supermarket trolley in the middle of the isle while you scoot back for the soup you forgot etc, just remeber that we all reap what we sow in the world of consideration. Life's short but not that short and the time you save today may be wasted tomorrow when someone else forgets about you.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)