Slightly Skewed Bob

Rex, The First Animal Doctor

2011-08-09T06:22:00.000-07:00

Rex, finally unwound his legs and stood up and walked toward the stage slowly. It was time to get my award, he said to himself and slowly climbed the stairs at the annual meeting of the American Medical Association. He realized that the spring in his step was just not there any longer. He felt just like an old dog, he thought. He stood as tall as he could as his long time friend introduced him to the audience. Of course, everyone there knew who he was. He was probably the most famous doctor in the history of the world. He felt a little funny about that. Not like Sabin, or Fleming, he imagined, but he let himself recognize that he did deserve some sort of acknowledgment and he had grown accustomed to this sort of thing and no longer felt uncomfortable with the praise.

The introduction went on longer than it probably should have, but it was nice and he remembered all the effort and the prejudice that came during his journey to become a doctor. At first no one thought he could do it, but of course, he did. People did not want to work with him and he could understand that. His voice did not sound quite right to his colleagues and never would, really. He had long ago adjusted to the use of the universal translator (UT). It had been invented just a few years before his birth and he was lucky that a family that not only loved him, but also believed in him and wanted him to be all they thought he was capable of had adopted him. In fact, at times, they had more faith in him, he thought, than he did himself and he smiled about that.

His confidence changed with time, of course, as he learned more and more and learned to trust the universal translator (UT) to be reasonably accurate and even quite inventive, at times. He had a lot of help from the research from the experts on English as a Second Language (ESL), although he was really very young when he came to be surrounded by English speaking people and that helped. He also worried a lot about the dexterity issues, but the adaptive devices that were being invented by engineers for the handicapped and for surgeons, like the old daVinci system, were immediately adaptable to his own situation and he made the most of them. Fortunately, they became more advanced and reasonably portable.

The research on universal test design was also very helpful and the speech he had prepared for this honor would address that issue and give credit to the psychometricians who worked with the multicultural educators to give him a real chance to demonstrate just how smart he was. Not just in terms of raw IQ, of course, but also how much more intuitive he was than most humans. He also had great skills that were often perceived by his colleagues as paranormal, but of course they were not. His skills were just greater than theirs because of his genetic advantages, and after a while his colleagues adjusted and grew comfortable to his surprising insights.

Rex was going to talk about using odor as a diagnostic tool, just like some Doctors did once in the 1800s. Liver disease, kidney diseases and diabetes were relatively easy for him to diagnose and he secretly smiled about his skills in those areas. He tried, of course, to teach medical students to do that and they were never as good as he was, although adaptive devices helped a lot. The Smellatron aided the students a great deal, when it came on the market and he was able to share the income with the engineer who helped him perfect the device. It had been a great team effort and they both deserved the credit and the income that derived from the patents. Sometimes multiculturalism really did work, even though usually it was just silly talk. In his case, he really was different and everyone knew it and most came to appreciate that fact, and he liked to think he was actually better.

He appreciated the differences more than most, since he was the source and made the most of his strengths and minimized his inherent weaknesses. Winning the Nobel Peace prize was one of the outcomes he took great pleasure in, even though by then, nearly everyone realized that the prize was not really as meaningful as it might have been if the standards had been kept up by the various committees over the years. He really had been a very effective spokesman for animal rights organizations.

He could tell it was nearly time for him to speak and he adjusted the UT and went over a few of the short jokes that always made his speeches very popular. He liked the joke about the CAT scan involving a real cat and the PET scan being a funny joke about limiting opportunities of the creatures on the earth. The one thing he never joked about was his own image, though. For example, he always wanted to get someone to throw a stick and he would go running after it. He felt it set the wrong image, like a Black man he once read about who refused to eat watermelon in public. He did adapt a device that had been used to throw clay pigeons so it would throw sticks and in the privacy of his own estate would take it out and enjoyed himself for a few hours. It kept him in shape and that was important to him back then. Now that he was getting old, he no longer did that, but he certainly missed the exercise. Getting old and getting too busy interferes with his having fun, but he knew it was just the way life is with its yin and yang.

It was now his time to speak and he moved to the podium that was specially designed for him. He started off his speech with his usual story about the puppy mill where he was born and the wonderful family that came and adopted him. He was one of the lucky ones, but he did work hard and deserved his good fortune. The Government once tried to own him and put him on a stipend, but he ran away and won the big court case that set the precedent for all the other animals resisting Government welfare. His family knew that a German Shepherd with a little Labrador Retriever mixed in was a great combination. Eventually he became, quite literally, the first animal doctor and life was good.

The Strawberry Who Wanted to be a Banana

2010-07-11T10:42:00.000-07:00

THE STRAWBERRY WHO WANTED TO BE A BANANA
ONCE UPON A TIME THERE WAS A SMALL STRAWBERRY WHO WAS NOT HAPPY BEING A STRAWBERRY. HE SAID TO ALL THE OTHER STRAWBERRIES WHO WERE BIGGER THAN HE WAS THAT HE DID NOT CARE IF THEY WERE BIGGER. HE DID NOT CARE IF THEY TASTED GOOD. HE DID NOT CARE IF HE HAD LOTS OF FRIENDS WHO WERE RED AND HAD LOTS OF BUMPS.
HIS NAME WAS DAVID THE STRAWBERRY AND HE WAS NOT HAPPY. HIS BEST FRIEND WHO WAS NOT A STRAWBERRY ASKED HIM WHY HE WAS NOT HAPPY. HE SAID, ALVIN (WHO WAS A MARSHMELLOW) I DO NOT WANT TO BE A STRAWBERRY ANYMORE. I WANT MORE OUT OF LIFE.
DAVID THE STRAWBERRY SAID HE WANTED TO BECOME A BANANA. “I AM COLOR BLIND,” SAID DAVID “AND I CAN’T TELL THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MY RED STRAWBERRY COLOR AND THE COLOR OF THE BLUEBERRIES.”
HIS FRIEND, THE MARSHMELLOW CALLED ALVIN, SAID, “I LIKE MARSHMELLOWS BUT I ALSO LIKE STRAWBERRIES. AND EVERYONE LIKES MARSHMELLOWS AND STRAWBERRIES, ESPECIALLY WHEN THEY ARE TOGETHER.” THEN ALVIN SAID, “WHAT WOULD YOU LIKE TO BE IF YOU WERE NO LONGER A STRAWBERRY?”
DAVID SAID, “I WANT TO BE A BANANA.” ALVIN SAID, “THAT IS SILLY. YOU CAN’T BE SOMETHING YOU CAN’T BE. YOU CAN BE A STRONG STRAWBERRY. YOU CAN BE A SMART STRAWBERRY. YOU CAN BE A HAPPY STRAWBERRY, BUT YOU CAN’T BE A BANANA.”
DAVID SAID, “I CAN BE ANYTHING I WANT TO BE. MY TEACHER MS. FRUITBOWL SAID I COULD.” I AM GOING TO GET A COAT THAT IS ALL YELLOW AND I AM DOING YOGA SO I CAN STRETCH MYSELF TO BE REALLY, REALLY TALL AND I WILL LOOK LIKE A BANANA.”
ALVIN LOOKED AT HIS FRIEND WITH KINDNESS BUT HE ALSO SMILED AND SAID, “YOU SHOULD BE THE BEST YOU CAN BE, BUT YOU CAN’T BE A BANANA. YOU CAN LOOK LIKE A BANANA AND YOU CAN EVEN GET SOME BANANA PERFUME AND YOU CAN SMELL LIKE A BANANA, BUT YOU WILL NOT BE A BANANA.”
“YES, I WILL”, SAID DAVID. “SOMEONE FAMOUS ONCE SAID IF YOU SMELL LIKE A ROSE AND YOU HAVE PRICKLES LIKE A ROSE, THEN YOU ARE A ROSE, OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.” ALVIN LAUGHED BUT HE WANTED TO BE HELPFUL TO HIS FRIEND DAVID, THE STRAWBERRY.
ALVIN SAID, “YOU NEED TO BE PROUD OF WHAT YOU ARE AND YOU NEED TO BE THE BEST YOU CAN BE BUT YOU CAN’T EVER BE A BANANA.” BUT, DAVID WAS NOT LISTENING BECAUSE HE WAS STRETCHING SO HARD TO BECOME TALLER THAT HE WAS ACTUALLY BUMPING UP AND DOWN WITH EFFORT.
ALVIN SUDDENLY GOT AFRAID AND SAID “DAVID, YOU ARE GETTING BRUISES ON YOUR STRAWBERRY SIDES AND IF YOU DO NOT STOP YOU WILL NOT ONLY NEVER BE A BANANA BUT YOU WON’T EVEN BE KEPT AS A TOP STRAWBERRY.”
DAVID GOT UP AND LOOKED IN THE MIRROR AND SAW THE START OF LITTLE SPOTS THAT CAME FROM THE YOGA STRETCHING THAT HE WAS DOING. “OH OH”, SAID DAVID, WHO THOUGHT I BET ALVIN IS RIGHT. FROM THEN ON DAVID WORKED HARD ON BECOMING THE BEST STRAWBERRY HE COULD BE. AND, HE BECAME A GREAT STRAWBERRY, ONE OF THE TASTIEST THAT EVER, EVER LIVED.

THE END.

Written for Grandson David, July 7, 2010.

An Observation On The Meaning of Prejudice

2009-03-05T06:02:00.000-08:00

People struggle with their feelings and their pronouncements regarding their perceptions of others and especially of groups of others. Most of us do this with the hope that the internal expression and the external expressions will be more or less the same and both will be at least somewhat positive. Some people, politicians for example, do not seem to be especially troubled by such alignment, but most of us do struggle with being fair and honest. The rationalization of emotions is often impossible when dealing with a matter such as prejudice, but the best of us continue to try. We all try to keep from disclosing what our true inner feelings are if they are less than noble (i.e. socially unacceptable by ourselves and especially our peer group) and less than completely flattering to every group that comes up in a conversation. This is stressful and yet is a good struggle to engage upon. The effort can increase one’s maturity, which is something that deserves our time and energy.

The feelings that one has are often a product of very coincidental but meaningful experiences having to do with good and bad times with one or more of the various groups with which we come into contact. If one were robbed by an African-American, for example, that experience can naturally effect our view toward African-Americans. If the service you receive is especially pleasant in a Chinese restaurant, this too may lead to a particular point of view. Of course watching and listening to our parents and our friends have also had a profound impact upon our view of the others. Very few people who are trying to align the internal and external expressions of their feelings would not be affected by such experiences. In fact, one can argue that not being influenced by such exposure would itself be seen as odd distancing from one’s experiences.

There are many reasons why the alignment of these internal and external feelings is difficult, but one reason, I believe, is because people do not understand what the term prejudice really means. The relevant Merriam-Webster dictionary definitions are: “a (1): preconceived judgment or opinion (2): an adverse opinion or leaning formed without just grounds or before sufficient knowledge b: an instance of such judgment or opinion c: an irrational attitude of hostility directed against an individual, a group, a race, or their supposed characteristics.” These definitions put a great deal of stress upon the information one does not have about a group through use of such words or phrases as “preconceived”, “without just grounds”, “sufficient knowledge”, “an irrational attitude.” That is important, but it is not, in my opinion, the primary place where people go wrong in their sense of prejudice.

Of course, some people do not have very good information about the group towards whom they hold a strong positive or negative opinion, although this could be rectified with some effort. Difficulty obtaining relevant and accurate information is made somewhat more challenging because the data are sensitive and sometimes even the definition of the group is unclear. For example, how do I know who I really mean if I think about Hispanics or about African Americans or about Jews? What groups were the people I met a member of? For example, a close relative of mine wondered about a person we frequently saw on TV was a Jew. It was only years later that I found that they were actually Italian. This difficulty is now expressed by the acknowledgment that people want choices as they characterize themselves as members of multiple groups simultaneously. One might decide that they are most comfortable being characterized as a member of the African-American, Hispanic, Jewish group, for example and this is now even encouraged by some surveys that say “Choose all that apply” or something like that in their instructions. The problem of defining the group and its membership is a real issue, and deserves some attention, but again this is not the most serious issue, in my mind.

Things were simpler when we had to pick just one group and stick with it, although the current system is a lot more honest. Also, of course the rules that are used for such self-report affirmations are very unclear to most of us who come from ambiguous backgrounds. For example I recently found that I could join a group to learn how to play bagpipes if I am Scottish. That presents no problem for me. Being a mongrel has its advantages and my cousin the family genealogical history expert (or gynecological expert, as my aunt once clarified the endeavor to trace ones background), says I have considerable Scottish heritage to claim if I should want to do so. But, again, this is important, but not the really big problem with the concept of prejudice.

In statistics there are two very basic terms that describe data about almost any matter of interest and these are the mean and the variance. The first term, the mean, has to do with the average characterization that can be applied to a group and various measures (mean, mode, and median, for example) provide indications of that, although differences in these measures are uninteresting with regards to the point of this piece. The second term, the variance, has to do with the accuracy of that average as it is used to represent or be applied to the whole of the group of interest. In other words, how much variability is there within the group? If there is a lot, then the mean is not very representative of all the members of the group and this is typically the case. Fortunately for nearly all of us, our persona shown to the outside world is really a mixture of characteristics. For example, it may be true that generally we are unkind, but occasionally we might be very kind or generally we are frugal but occasionally we are very generous. In other words using the mean to characterize a group with variance among its members is a risky matter, but even characterizing a person can be a risk. In other words, a group, on average, may be unkind, but some members of the group can be quite kind.

It is this lack of realization that individuals and especially groups have this almost inevitable variability that causes one to worry about engaging in prejudice. In short, it is the failure to recognize the existence of variance that gets us into special trouble with the idea of prejudice. For example, let us suppose that you dislike African-Americans because you were robbed by a member of that group. If you do some homework, you will discover that such an occurrence is not as unlikely as we might wish it to be. But here comes the importance of the fundamental statistical concepts of the mean and the variance. Feeling a negative attitude toward the average behavior of a group is often justified and hence not really prejudiced. This sort of judgment of the average of any particular group might be justified by the data or the experience that one has. That does not mean that the members of the group we are considering are all like that negative characterization of the average member. In other words, there is a variance in nearly all groups’ behavior. Some are below the mean and some are above, some are very kind and some are not. The recognition and acceptance of this essential variability is the important step to being “unprejudiced.”

It is this acceptance of the variance of the people within groups that is the check on our natural reaction to a negative experience or to seeing some unpleasant, but true data about a group. One can examine all the data one wishes to obtain and conclude that your negative perception is correct for the average, but that does not make you prejudiced if you recognize that variability exists in every group. It is this essential variability that must always be kept in mind and must become the source of the external display of our feelings as well as the internal beliefs that we hold.

The interesting thing about this concept is that it applies to the outsider and makes a lot of sense out of what we see in others, but it also applies to the people inside the group. Most group members like to think of themselves as different (and better) in some way. For examples, Blacks may think of themselves as better athletes or Jews and Asians may think of themselves as better students. No matter your view of your group, it is still helpful to remember that variance exists and some overlap with members of other groups is inevitable. This concept can help to ground you in a way that might prevent too much conceit or too much self-pity. Variance goes in all directions at once with some members higher and some lower than the average of any other group. Keeping the group idea in perspective is critical to lowering the excesses of any beliefs one entertains about superiority or inferiority. The place of the individual becomes the critical consideration, although it is also quite acceptable to recognize that data about the average of a group are neither irrelevant nor determinative.

The Squirrel and the Friend

2008-09-01T17:19:00.000-07:00

The Squirrel and the Friend

There we were talking as we had done off and on for a long, long time. My friend was concerned because of some personal matters that made her question whether she was as free as she wished to be or as free as a person has a right to be. While we were talking I noticed something moving in the background. As it came from behind a tree I realized it was a squirrel that had apparently come from the street nearby. My friend and I continued to talk about the challenges of having lots of young children and wondering about getting a job and having a husband, etc. Lots of stresses in what she thinks is a unique life and I see as a fairly commonplace set of pressures. The squirrel continued to come toward the house staying behind her and moving surprisingly slowly for a squirrel.

We continued our conversation while I suggested that a job might be good to provide some extra cash, but more importantly it might provide a pathway to a sort of freedom. As with most freedoms it would be self imposed in response to self imposed captivity. At any rate, the opportunity to interact with adults and to be challenged to do more and do it better had much to recommend it. As we talked I better understood the problem with having underutilized motivation and unrealized creativity that contributed to the feeling of being greatly restricted. Finally I saw what was happening with the squirrel and why it seemed to move as though it were raised by a tortoise. It did not have the use of its two rear legs. Apparently the road had held something more imposing than asphalt. A car had clearly hit the squirrel.

We talked some more about what sort of jobs might be best for my friend and how her 4 kids between the ages of 7 and 2 would have to help, as would her husband. He seemed to be very supportive, and the kids would have to adapt, as kids usually do. As we talked the squirrel begin to climb a tree in the front yard, apparently afraid of being in the lawn with cats and dogs in that neighborhood not to mention all the children. We stayed focused on our conversation as the squirrel using just its front two legs stayed focused on the heroic task of climbing the tree.

My friend continued to feel trapped but at least recognized that she had many options and began to consider which ones to exercise. The squirrel, much to my amazement, actually got to a height of about 20 feet and then it began to slide back down the tree with its front claws scraping the bark and its two rear legs hanging a bit like a clock pendulum.
I was thinking that perhaps my friend would find a way to escape her sense of imprisonment as the squirrel hit the ground and did not move after that. I suggested that my friend look behind her and she saw the now dead squirrel. We looked at each other and agreed that was sort of sad. She said she would tell her husband to gather up the squirrel when he got home and he was reported to have done so and put the bag holding the squirrel into the garbage can with the lid on top. I left thinking how lucky she was to be able to climb as far as she wanted and to stay up high if that became her goal.

Advice To A Young Variable

2008-08-31T13:14:00.001-07:00

Advice To A Young Variable

You have just been created and you are just beginning to generate little data of your own. These data and many more will be created as you appear in the format that permits you to propagate in a healthy and hopefully reliable and valid way. This is a wonderful time in a new variable’s life and you should relish this time. But, there is more potential for success than you could ever dream of and it can be yours in the future, if, of course, you follow my advice and proceed carefully. You may think it can’t get any better than this, but that is not true. It is possible to become a great source of data, perhaps you could even be known as a latent variable or maybe you could even be referred to as a construct. It is also possible to remain one of the lesser variables, a mere manifest variable that appears to be solitary and usually works alone and stands alone in summary tables. This is an honorable existence but it is not being all you can be.

If you just do your job in an open and honest manner you are destined to remain a manifest variable your whole life. You can be common, hard working, sometimes even mildly interesting and intriguing and maybe a little challenging, but never among the great variables in the pantheon of variables that truly create the world of education and psychology. You must learn to do some very difficult tricks if you want to move up the status hierarchy of variables.

First, you need to seem to be related to others in your field, and I do not mean just where you came from. Almost no one cares who invented you although occasionally someone might remark on when you came on the scene, but do not waste your time on such genealogical matters. In other words, what I mean is that you should have some moderate correlation with many other variables, and in a pattern that is not easy to decipher but is suggestive of great import. It is best if some of these variables are older, familiar ones and some are newer and just becoming popular. In other words, cultivate a mix of ties to the familiar and ties to the new or less familiar. This will make human researchers think there is something there worth studying because you have an historical familiarity as well as the promise of something new. Feeling this, human researchers will be more likely to use you in their next series of studies. Use is what you live for. That, and the fame of being perceived as critical and necessary in any study.

Second, you must not be too obvious. Become somewhat inscrutable with a hint of potential greatness. For example, if you relate to some other variables in a direct way, mix in a few indirect relationships so that you will not be seen as boring or too readily predictable. Remember that researchers like to feel that you are familiar, but that you are holding something back. That keeps their interest.

Third, make the researchers work for their insight. If a scientist gets the insight too easily, he or she will not see the need to “buy” the variable, if you know what I mean. This means that at a minimum a computer program will be needed to calculate something about you and your place in the panoply of variables.

Remember that your goal is to be latent or even maybe to someday represent the idea of a construct. No one knows what those terms mean, but they are none-the-less very meaningful to researchers and everyone wants to use one in their study. You may become famous as a manifest variable but you will never hold the true respect of the human researchers. For example, if you try to be like “salary” you will be used a lot but not respected, like when someone says “ O.K., let’s throw in a measure of income.” Being an afterthought or even an automatic variable is not a goal worth having. Humans have an intuitive sense of the depth of an idea so that your variable name must suggest a certain panache or a complexity that is intriguing, remote and yet suggests an idea that will be understood with time.

As to the use of a computer, remember that you will be seen as more interesting if you become transformed and the more complex the transformation the better. So for example, you might learn from your middle aged friend, theta, how to become known through solving a complex equation and in that way you will take a big step toward latency or constructness (i.e., the degree to which a variable represents or suggests the existence of a construct). Never forget that a simple transformation or mathematical process such as arcsin or obtaining the expected value is just not going to change you enough to make you appear to possess sufficient depth for star quality. If a researcher has to study the transformation (in other words, it is a complicated transformation) before he or she can even understand you, that is one of the characteristics that will set you apart and make you valuable and perhaps even famous. So rotations are always going to make you seem more interesting than if you result from a simple multiplication by a constant or even multiplication and addition by constants.

Remember the F word and its magical power to demand that you be studied further and that you be taken seriously. Being “factored” is an almost sure ticket to becoming at least latent and maybe even a construct or at least a key element of a construct. Also remember that being confirmed is better than just being explored. So if you and your closest and not so close friends can work as a team you can all gain in the process, although loading on several important factors is sometimes, better than just loading on one factor, especially if the one is not the first to birth. Remember you do NOT want to be part of the scree and also remember to avoid being ignored you need to have relations with as many of your friends as possible, while keeping some individuality for yourself.

Do not misunderstand what I mean by my advice above. Being used is the best thing that can happen to you, but you must also be respected for the power that you hold over the human mind. I am sure you realize that no-one really respects a dummy variable, no how they code it. You want to become a necessary and integral part of any model that human researchers are contemplating. This will keep you really alive and let you live long and prosper. Good luck, my young friend.

2008-08-31T13:09:00.000-07:00

Some Observations Related to Fame and Fortune in the Research Profession

The following is a short (perhaps apocryphal) story of Sir Isaac Newton’s neighbor, Fred.

Fred lived on a small farm with several apple trees. The farm was just across a small stream next to another farm that was frequently visited by Isaac Newton (called Izzy, by some). One day Fred was sitting in the orchard and an apple fell upon his head. This he found to be an exciting and marvelous experience and he began to study this phenomenon. He began to record the actions around him and his own reaction to these actions. He wrote a thick description!

In this thick description he recorded many amazing observations regarding the apple trees, the apples, the fertilizer and the movement of the creek and its waters as they occasionally bathed the ground around the trees with enticing ripples of thought provoking emanations. He noticed that some apples were green and some were red and that some were large and that some were small. He noticed that sometimes the apples hit the ground and sometimes they fell upon his body, and sometimes they even fell upon other apples. He noticed that when they fell upon his head, they hurt even more than when they fell upon his arm. This all amazed him and year after year he sat under the apple trees and observed with an openness that greatly impressed his neighbors.

Finally, he had five hundred pages of thick description of the orchard and the apple trees within it and even included information about the leaves and bugs on the ground. While directly relevant to the phenomenon of interest, Fred felt that it added to the triangulation of the events by including these other observations. He published his book under the name “Apple Observation Principals” and it was a great success. Other people read this book and began to praise it. One, named Yogred, even said that it was hard to believe that anyone could ever know any more about the world of apples and their falling than did Fred.

Fred was not proud, nor boastful, although all the praise made him more determined than before to observe apples and he spent even more time doing so. In another 15 years, it came about that he was able to exceed his earlier success by writing a second even thicker description, this one of almost 1000 pages in length. This volume was also praised by many people for its truly beautiful and insightful observations. Some people even described them as having a somewhat romantic, lyric quality.

During this time, Isaac came to visit the neighboring farm and having heard about Fred’s great success, he too went to sit under an apple tree. Being a person who was not always lucky, just after he sat under the tree, an apple fell upon his head, just as one had upon Fred’s head. He jumped up, not even noticing if the apple were red or green, large or small. Later, some of the people who praised Fred’s observations even laughed at his lack of perspicacity. He ran to the house and began to think about that experience and after a few years he wrote a book called Natural Philosophy and Mathematical Principals.

The friends of Fred ignored Isaac’s book. They knew almost intuitively that it was not a good description of the apples upon the trees and their motions as they fell and of the influences of the stream, or the bugs and the grasses. They, and Fred himself, knew from casual glance that they could not read the book but that it was not worth reading, in any case. They continued to observe and to love apples, for they knew that apples were important to mankind and life was good for them, as it should have been. Isaac, too, had some measure of success with his work, although he was never able to compete with Fred as an observer of apples.

The End.

The following are just a few quotes that are purported to be from an independent and anonymous contemporaneous observer of Isaac’s and Fred’s work. Great diversity of opinion exists as to the truth of these comments, but they are much like Zen Koans, perhaps worth contemplating.

“Researchers who do not know what to do focus upon writing thick descriptions.”

“Researchers who have difficulty working with abstractions write grounded theory.”

“If one observes constantly and does not move toward the development of theory, the difficulty is probably not due to their inability to observe but to their inability to think about what they are observing.”

2008-08-31T13:05:00.000-07:00

Why do they keep on disagreeing with me?

The question asked in the title has been a concern of mine since at least high school and continues to be an issue that puzzles me, although I am beginning to reach a state of peace on this matter. When I was a high school student I would see things quite clearly and I would explain to the class or to another student how things really were. Often this raised no particular conflict or puzzlement to either of us, but sometimes I would be faced with disagreement or a questioning look. This was puzzling but good, because when I was in high school, I just assumed that the only reason someone would disagree with me was because they were ignorant about the subject at hand. This was no problem, it simply meant that I needed to “educate” the person and I would proceed to do so. Usually this worked and we stopped at some point discussing the matter any further. I interpreted this state of affairs as equivalent to “winning the debate through education.”

When I got to college, I discovered that sometimes the silence of people was not actually an acknowledgment that I had won the debate. For several years I interpreted this to mean that I had to redouble my efforts to share my view of the truth with the person in question. The big difference is that I had matured to the point where I took responsibility for the ignorance of the person with whom I shared my various insights. This was called internal locus of control in the psychology classes I took in college and I was further pleased with my greater insight that the disagreement was not really due solely to the ignorance of the other person but was a shared responsibility. The problem was, I thought, primarily due to the fact that I had not taken adequate responsibility for both our views of the matter. I also realized that the situation was more complex than I first thought. I not only needed to explain the facts but I also needed to explain the reasoning that must be utilized. In other words, I realized then that it was not just a matter of the ignorance of the facts, but it was even more due to the logic (lack there of) that was inhibiting him or her coming to the correct conclusion. I adopted my new found responsibility along with the expanded insight and shared my gifts as freely as possible.

After I got out of college I still found myself in situations where people disagreed with me. This occurred after I had shared my insight about the logical process needed to come to the correct conclusion and after I had fully explained the facts of the matter. They still disagreed. At that time in my life, I developed and adopted another new theory that now changed my perspective on these sorts of discussions. I realized that the people who disagreed with me were simply dumb and it was pointless to continue to try to enable them to see the truth. What else could it be? I shared, I explained, they failed to comprehend, ergo stupid person. Sometimes their limitations were evidenced by their inability to link consecutive ideas so that the result was the conclusion I had come up with. A nice neat logical explanation of the why of our disagreement had been provided and I was quite happy with that explanation, for a while. In fact, my realization made it clear that there was little point in trying to argue their way to agreement, so I became what was thought by others to be tactful and kindly and understanding. In reality, it meant that I gave up on them and no longer cared that they were stupid.

After I got to middle age, I continued to mature and I developed another new enlightenment regarding why people disagreed with me. They did so because we did not fully share a common value system. As I thought back to the difficulty many people had with linking consecutive ideas, I realized that while their thinking process was like mine, their value for different directions at the point where the links emerged was influenced by their values for the alternatives that were presented. For example, if I said you should not do X and X was bad because it consisted of subparts A and B and B was especially bad, someone else might say “not true.” They disagreed even though they knew that X consisted of A and B, but it turned out that they did not actually care about B and hence while B was there, it was only A that mattered and A was fairly neutral in terms of badness, at least for them. So I realized that values associated with elements of the debate was what really mattered. For example, once I said you should not eat that particular food because it is bad for you and the reason it is bad is because it increases your cholesterol. But the person I was talking to had an unmedicated cholesterol level of 125 and I realized that I would never convince them to avoid that food, because for them increasing cholesterol was really not a problem that raised any level of concern for them. I felt pretty good about this way of resolving my inner conflict regarding disagreements and as long as I remembered this viewpoint and operated accordingly, I was not getting into so many arguments and life was good.

Now that I am getting comfortably past middle age, I have been told that my problem with people disagreeing was misunderstood and that it is time to adopt a greater new insight. The problem, some people are trying to explain to me, is actually an irrational subconscious reaction to my ideas by those who disagree. I had been introduced to the power of the explanation of phobias. These are irrational rejections of my argument on whatever the matter, due to the other’s dislike of some personal quality of mine, such as my inability to select clothes that fit together in a harmonious manner. In other words they are rejecting my view because they are phobic against my personage. This seems to be the most satisfying of all the theories that I have ever held regarding those who disagree with me. They are now clearly ignorant, stupid, illogical with the wrong value system because they are phobic. What a relief to finally understand once and for all the cause of all my disagreements with all the people who have ever questioned my opinions.

I can die sublimely happy now.