How to Be Wrong — Part 3 of 4

Part 1Part 2Part 3Part 4

An apology is a social act, an interpersonal transaction. It’s an attempt – in that space between us – to repair something that we’ve broken by some prior act.

It can be as simple as a quick “Oops, sorry,” offered to the stranger you bump into in a store, or as complex as an elaborate healing ritual carried out to repair a serious breach between husband and wife.

In its fullest form (it seems to me), an apology can be teased out into seven separate parts:

1. You admit it.
2. You explain it.
3. You accept full responsibility.
4. You say you’re sorry.
5. You fix what you broke.
6. You promise never to do it again.
7. You remember and learn from it.

————————

1. You admit it.

I broke your window. I missed the meeting. I didn’t get to the store on time.

2. You explain it. That is, you show that you understand just how the other party suffered a loss, and why it’s your fault.

I never should have been playing ball that near your picture window, and I know it’s got to be fixed right away. I know the meeting was important, and how much you hate to repeat yourself to those of us who didn’t make it there. Honey, I know how much you were counting on me to get there while that sale was going on, and I know that carpet we liked is going to cost a lot more now.

3. You accept responsibility.

This is absolutely my fault. There’s nobody else to blame but me; I should have started earlier. There’s no excuse for it.

4. You say you’re sorry.

I’m really sorry about it. I hate it that I wasn’t there on time. I deeply regret that I let you down.

5. You fix what you broke (OR offer in return something of roughly equal value).

I’ll get my dad to take the money out of my savings, and we’ll get that fixed today if we can. Tell you what, I’ll do the set-up for the next meeting and make sure everybody gets there. How about if we go around tomorrow afternoon to other carpet stores and see if they have something we like, then we’ll have dinner at that place you like?

6. You promise never to do it again.

I won’t ever play ball on this side of the house again. That’s the last meeting I’ll ever miss. I promise I’ll go extra early the next time there’s a sale like this – I won’t let you down again.

7. You remember it, learn from it.

Man, I’ve got to remember never to even take a ball onto that side of her house. I can’t be missing another one of these meetings; I’ve got to juggle things around on Thursdays so I’m early from now on. I can’t keep doing this to her; from now on, I’m going to put these things first.

Not every one of these things has to be explicitly expressed. In the shorthand of close relationships, several of these things often come across as understood, so much so that an entire apology might be as simple as a sincere expression and a shrug.

But if an apology is missing any one of these things, at least in the sincere intent of the apologizer, it’s something less than a full apology, and probably achieves less than the healing we’d like to think occurs.

In failing to achieve the expected healing, you can actually end up worse off. Whatever anger lingers from the original transgression can be increased by the lack of intent or action to fix things. In addition, considering just your own interior well-being, if too many of these things get by you, it will begin to separate you from the people around you. Not only will people trust you less, you’ll become less able to feel any depth to your relationships. (Or so it seems to me.)

In any situation that demands an apology, there are about four different approaches you can take, and they vary in what they cost you, both in the short and long term.

First, you can offer an apology in all its parts, in a sincere attempt to heal the breach.

In terms of effort, this one is expensive. You have to pay back what you took, fix what you broke, possibly exert yourself even beyond the actual cost of the transgression. But the benefit may be worth it if it stands a chance of fixing the situation.

Second, you can simply fail to apologize. Walk away from the situation as if you don’t see it. Or maybe you really don’t.

In terms of effort, this one is cheap, but also doesn’t fix the situation and may be pricey in the long term. On the other hand, a non-reaction may either allow the thing to go away on its own, or leave the door open to a later apology if it doesn’t.

Third, you can actively refuse to apologize, in ways ranging from “It’s not my fault” to “Forget it – I’m not apologizing.”

This one is cheap in the short term, but probably inflames the situation. In fact, if you throw a little sarcasm into it – “Well, EXCUSE ME. I’m SORRY you’re SO SENSITIVE that you can’t take a joke.” – you can make it into a deliberate distancing device.

(I bear in mind that the incident under scrutiny might really NOT be your fault. In that case, your reaction depends on whether the thing is public or private. If it’s a private personal issue, it might still sometimes be in your long-term interest to apologize. But if it’s a public or legal issue, to me it seems better that you should vigorously defend yourself — even if, as in some cases, it makes things worse on the surface.)

Finally, you can offer a “not-pology” – something that looks sort of like an apology, but performs none of the vital functions.

This one is also cheap. It doesn’t do anything to directly fix the damage, but it MAY achieve a certain amount of breach-sealing simply because it confuses the audience enough that they may think you apologized.

The not-pology can be used by anyone, but it seems tailor-made for politicians and public figures who want to appear to be apologizing, but who can’t be bothered to accept any blame for the thing, or to undertake the onerous follow-up of doing something to fix it. It acknowledges there’s a problem, but carefully shifts the blame for the thing off the person speaking:

I’m sorry you got angry at what I said. I’m sorry people misunderstood me. I’m sorry the gay community was offended. I really regret that this was blown out of proportion.

… all of which make it seem the speaker did nothing wrong, and that the onus for the breach is all on an oversensitive audience.

In real terms, the not-pology is almost the polar opposite of apology. And yet it still seems somehow able to divert any expectation of further action.

Unlike the political model in, say, Japan, where an official might actually resign after a public shaming, we in the U.S. are so used to being screwed over by politicians that a political not-pology really does end most controversies. Maybe you don’t exactly forgive the official in question, but you move on because there are other, more important issues to deal with.

There’s an especially effective variation of the not-pology that comes across in religious terms. This one is also used by scandal-plagued elected officials, but it seems more the domain of religious figures convicted of crimes:

“I’ve done a lot of soul searching, I’ve prayed and talked to God about it, and I’m confident He has forgiven me.”

This one works not at all on people who don’t buy into that person’s particular god, but it actually does seem to have some effect in the religious community.

After all, if you’ve been taught you have no right to judge people, that offenses are to be weighed and punished only by your god, you might back off and refuse to render a negative judgment. Further, if you’ve been brought to believe there are powerful people who have a direct line to your god, unlike little unimportant you, you might buy into the assertion that this big important person actually HAS spoken to your mutual god, and that he actually has achieved forgiveness. In which case, you dare not openly disagree because you’d be placing yourself in the position of second-guessing God himself.

I’d be prone to think, because of this last part, that what really happens is that these situations end in simple non-accusing silence. Nobody dares to hold the transgressor guilty because that would be doubting God’s word. On the other hand, it seems weirdly true that some people appear completely convinced that this person has been forgiven. And therefore they completely forgive him.

In actual cases in the news over the past few decades (Jim Bakker, Jimmy Swaggart), some people will see the offender in even more sympathetic terms after the breach: We’re all only human. And hey, if God Himself forgave the man after he stole millions from church collection plates, built himself a huge mansion and a Corvette collection while members of his congregation were suffering, and even participated in elaborate bondage scenarios with a whip-weilding dominatrix, he MUST be in a supreme state of grace with God.

[ CONTINUED:  Part 1Part 2Part 3Part 4  ]

How to Be Wrong — Part 2 of 4

Part 1Part 2Part 3Part 4

Okay, I know I promised Part 2 would be a look at the nature of an apology. But I’m thinking first I should make a point about WHY you apologize. Why you even admit to making a mistake at all. So:

_________________________

Modern-day Conservatives piss me off. For soooo many reasons.

But one of the main reasons is that they’re so goddam SURE they’re right about everything. Given the history of conservatism, you’d think they’d have a few second thoughts. But no.

Because conservatism is, at its roots, “Things should stay just like they are.” Or at its worst, maybe even “Things should go back to the way they were.”

(It always sort of baffles me when I hear about prominent women being conservatives. Because, after all chicky-baby, you little barefoot kitchen-minder – hey, great dinner, by the way, sweetie, and now (fond ass-slap) go do your little thing with the dishes while the grownups talk – THIS is the way men would still be treating you if the world had lived up to your ideals. You’d be without the vote, without the voice, most places without even the right to own property. The freedom you have to be an outspoken conservative was championed and won not by conservatives, but by liberals. Even that vicious, smirking cow Ann Coulter is, in large part, the child of liberal victories.)

Who opposed slavery? Liberals. Who championed it? Conservatives. The ones who wanted things to stay the same. Who created unions, and the 40-hour work week? Liberals? Who opposed it? Conservatives. On and on.

Liberals were there at the founding of the United States. Not the first to think that we should all be — rather than lords and peasants — people who were innately equal, and deserving of an equal chance to succeed and prosper. But certainly some of the noteworthy, and someone who first created a whole new country on that idea.

One of the things that worries me about conservatism, a little-remarked side-effect, is the power it gives you in the moment. Look at the Republicans, who appear to send out talking points memos to the entire GOP every week or so, and then slam those talking points at every opportunity, on TV, on the radio, in public appearances, firing in powerful synchrony, never letting up, like cannons blasting at a weakened timber in the gate of a fort.

Muslim. Birth certificate. Obamacare. Socialism. Socialism. Socialism.

Even as a minority in Congress, they set and controlled the agenda, and the idiot Democrats backed off and let them.

Face it, if you entertain NO doubts about the fact that you’re right, that you’re good, it gives you enormous power in every moment of conflict. Whereas if even the thinnest edge of doubt creeps in, if you pause to ask yourself “Am I really right about this thing? Is this a good thing? What if I’m wrong?” … well, the pause itself is an easily-exploited weakness. Doubt erodes your confidence to advance, or even to hold your position and not lose ground.

But conservative power applies only in the short term. Absolute certainty makes you strong in the moment, but as a long-term strategy, it is enormously weak.

Because … well, because this is the real world, and being right is stronger than being wrong, however long it takes you to get there.

And that’s the power of the progressive. Doubt, the willingness to consider that you might be mistaken, is a weakness in the moment. But in the long run, thoughtfulness is an enormous strength.

Because, again, this is the real world. The place you MUST accept the possibility of being wrong in any one choice, so you can consider all the others and find the strongest and best one.

Take two histories with alternate Thomas Edisons, the one who tried the 10,000 (apocryphal) materials for electric light bulb filaments, and the other who said “No, it’s corn silks, it has to be corn silks, goddamit, because by Jesus I’m not trying anything else!” and you’d have one world of light and one of dark.

This peculiar progressive power, the open-minded willingness to be wrong, applies after the fact as well as before it. It’s not just “I might be wrong” going into it, it’s also “I was wrong” coming out of it.

Because mistakes aren’t dead things to be buried — and hey (heh-heh-heh) when’s the last time you heard any Republican proudly tossing George W. Bush’s name out into the ether? Bush seems to have just poofed out of existence, conservative-history-wise — mistakes are live things to cherish and remember. Mistakes are things you LEARN from. You study them, think about them, figure out where you went wrong.

Victories might be the cherished mile-posts of forward progress, but mistakes are the road along which they’re planted.

Which means you have to look at them.

Slavery isn’t something you bury in an unmarked grave. The Holocaust isn’t something you sweep under the carpet. No, you keep things like that out in the light, hang ‘em up and beat ‘em like dusty rugs, over and over and over, IN PUBLIC, to let people know “See that? See that? Man, we fucked that one up, big-time! Jeez, never want to do THAT again!”

You look at your mistakes, you admit and study them, because you want to achieve something better.

Which is what modern conservatives never seem to want to do. To them, the “something better” is what you have, or what you had 20 years ago, or 50, or off in some every-man-for-himself, the-strong-emerge-victorious-over-the-weak frontier fantasy.

So why do you admit to being wrong? Why do you apologize?

Because in the end, it makes you more powerful. It makes us more powerful together. It allows us to shrug off mistakes and fuckups, the hurts and pains we inevitably bestow upon each other, and make progress together.

You apologize not because you’re weak, but because you’re strong. Strong enough to admit mistakes.

And because you want to be stronger still. Strong enough to attempt to fix them.

[ CONTINUED:  Part 1Part 2Part 3Part 4  ]

Short Stack #7

If a mouse quits his job, does he have to give two squeaks notice?

———————

Jeez. Already this morning I had to upgrade the power converters on the warp flux conduits, and install anti-neutrino baffles on the anti-matter plasma feed.

Being a star ship engineer is hard. Continue reading “Short Stack #7”

Rick … I Wish I Knew How to Quit You

I’m pretty sure this is going viral, so … first!  (On FTB, anyway.)

And in case you miss the joke, Rick Perry appears to be wearing the same jacket as Heath Ledger in Brokeback Mountain. (Understand, this is not making fun of gay cowboys; it’s making fun of a “cowboy” who has a visceral dislike of gays.)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

How to be Wrong — Part 1 of 4

Part 1Part 2Part 3Part 4

I’ve been reading PZ Myers’ blog since his first weeks in business, and I’ve disagreed with him, that I can recall, exactly once.

It was a very small disagreement, a matter of opinion about a minor subject. (The cloning of pets, to be precise. And I’ll probably be revisiting the subject in a blog post someday soon, so kindly save any replies on that topic.)

But more than once, after reading one of PZ’s articles, I’ve come away in such delighted, newly-enlightened agreement that I have to ask “How the heck does he DO that?? How can you be so good, so accurate, so brilliant, so thoughtful, so RIGHT all the time?”

Of course to say that, I’m comparing him to me. I make blunders, large and small, all the time.

I’ve concluded that Paul Zachary Myers is two things: One, someone extremely bright. Two, someone who happens to be, apparently effortlessly, a genuinely good person.

Whereas I probably am not. Bright, possibly, but maybe not all that good. Not innately so, I mean. If I let myself go and just say or do the first thing that pops into my head, I can easily be wrong – bad wrong, sometimes even mean wrong.

Thinking about it, I suspect that being right and good doesn’t just come naturally to me.  So I have to concentrate on it, think about it, work at it.

Growing up where and as I did, oh boy, do I have to work at it.

I grew up with racists. Gender nazis. Anti-gays. Animal abusers. Godders. People who thought ignorance was okay, and even to be admired. A stepfather who assumed, without giving it any thought at all, that it was okay to burn hundreds of books (on Science! Philosophy! History! Nature! Mathematics!) when my favorite uncle died, simply to keep from having to bother with giving them away (to ME, you stupid worthless dogshit sumbitch!).

Insular, pig-headed bastards who thought everything they did was right, everything anybody else did, if it was different, was wrong.

And people who, more than once, took away or killed my pets when I was a kid. Horrible example: Sometime in the late 50s, my father came across the family kitten (MY kitten!) thrashing around behind the refrigerator, jaws locked after biting into an electric cord, and he took the time, chuckling all the while, to stroll into the living room and call the rest of us to the kitchen to see the hilarious spectacle. BEFORE pulling the plug. The kitten lived for fucking days with half its face burned fucking black, before someone took it to the fucking city animal impound to be fucking euthanized.

Son of a bitch, shit almighty damn.

Anyway …

When you grow up in manure, even with the best of influences on the sunny side of the dirt – teachers and mentors who want something better for you – you might be well fertilized but you still end up reeking, possibly for a lifetime, of shit.

Example: Not long back, I tossed this phrase into the post When Coyotes Danced:

I’ve never even asked a biologist about it — maybe for fear I’d get a Skinnerian dullard who’d make them out to be biological drones, mechanically responding to some chemical urge with no hint of choice or joy about it.

I got an email from a reader, who gently corrected me on the “Skinnerian dullard” bit, saying, in part:

Just thought I’d let you know that I actually am a Skinnerian—or rather, a radical behaviorist (like Darwinists, Skinnerians don’t so much exist in reality as they do in mythology).  I’ve never seen coyotes dance, but it is precisely the astonishing beauty of such scenes that leads us to study what we do.  The stereotype (and, for the record, it is an actively propagated stereotype, such that education is not a sure cure for it) of robotic behaviorists could not be further from the truth, as often is the case in anti-science stereotypes.

And then not long ago I poked fun at terrorist beard-cutting among the Amish — Warning!! Vicious Hate Crimes Described Herein!! — joking that I’d like to have those people for neighbors, if that was the meanest they got.

A few readers laughed at the joke, many more pointed out that the Amish lifestyle has its share of brutality and even sexual abuse. And that none of it was funny. Most were gentle in the correction:

I strongly disagree that this is humorous or trivial. No physical assault is ever funny, least of all one intended to humiliate the victim.

… but one was quite a bit more intense.

The whole package together made me want to write this, a post on … well, How to Be Wrong.

Because it seems to me there’s a need for it.

Most of us hate to be wrong so much that plenty of us can never admit it, even after it’s been pointed out to us repeatedly and in no uncertain terms. Those who CAN admit to being wrong are usually somewhat clumsy about it. They don’t always apologize for it or fix it, possibly because in today’s world not all of us know that it takes more than a politician’s weaselly “I take full responsibility” to actually heal a breach we’ve created.

And even those on the wronged side (as Ellen Degeneres says “Not us, but … others.”) can be heavy-handed in response.

So: How do you ‘be wrong’?

Let’s start with this generic slice on the subject of wrongness – my take on the nature of an apology.

[ CONTINUED:  Part 1Part 2Part 3Part 4  ]

Rick Perry Ad and the Atheist Answer

Rick Perry digs the hole deeper, putting himself even farther from the growing mainstream of American thought:

And the growing mainstream answers back:

—————————-

Aaaaand … then I discover I’m the THIRD FreeThought Blogger (or worse) to toss this little tidbit at you. Heh.

Short Stack #6

They’re organizing the Fundamentalist Christian Olympics for this coming summer. The Gay Bashing semi-finals are already under way across the nation, and the TV Evangelist Healing Decathlon is just now about to start the preliminaries of the Bible Forehead Slam event. Shortly before Christmas, the Roadside Aborted Fetus Poster Flashing event will begin, with the Planned Parenthood Clinic Sidewalk Blocking Drill Team along for morale. Continue reading “Short Stack #6”

Scientists in Church? Ack. Thptpth.

I confess I’m not completely on board with the “let the children decide for themselves what to believe” thing.

Yeah, I get it that you have to let kids develop the ability to evaluate the nature of the world on their own.

But on matters of fact? Things which are KNOWN, and which you sort of have to accept as part of the real world? Is that about “belief?” And, considering the broader package of stuff — Eternal Torment! The Evilness of Gays! Mistrust of Liberals! Altarboy Diddling! — that can come along with it, is it okay that actual scientists are willing to expose their kids to it?  Continue reading “Scientists in Church? Ack. Thptpth.”

Human roots, goddy bark

Back when I was about 30, a friend had his dog put down. We worked at a ranch and the Boss didn’t like the fact that this guy, who lived in the bunkhouse with me and one other cowboy, had two big dogs, one of which had been accused more than once of harassing the horses.

So Farfel had to go. Tom took him in to the vet, coming back in about half an hour, the deed done. He was quieter than normal, but we barely noticed. None of us had anything in our lives to guide us in how to treat someone who lost a loved one in such a way, so we went on as usual with our workday, talking and joking. Continue reading “Human roots, goddy bark”