Tag Archives: society

Quite Quitting

I stumbled across the idea of #QuietQuitting which led me to this TikTok video.

The premise is that you don’t actually quit your job, you still perform your duties, but you quit the idea of going ‘above and beyond’. You view work as something you need to do, not something that defines you or determines your self worth.

There is a part of me that struggles with this idea. I can’t see doing the job I have and not wanting to do more, to give more, and to give myself over to my job. Then there is a part of me that totally gets it. I have a job where no matter how many hours I put in beyond the work day, my salary doesn’t change. I’ve fallen into cycles where I’ve dedicated so many hours to my job that I’ve had nothing left for myself or my family. I’ve left work late, and then stayed on my phone working, then gone to bed thinking about the things I still needed to do.

I have recently found a good balance. I get up very early, write, meditate, and exercise so that I feel I’ve accomplished something for myself before I even start my work day. I will stay at work an extra 30 minutes or even an hour longer than planned, but then I don’t do work when I get home. These things provide me with some balance and help me enjoy work more, and still feel like my whole life isn’t work from late August until early July.

But going back to the idea of #QuitQuitting, I see the appeal for people. I don’t think I could do it, but I understand the desire to separate work life from life, and to compartmentalize the two experiences. There are companies now that are seeing the value as well. They are doing things like telling employees what their expectations are and not requiring 8 hour days, (‘This is what you have to do by the end of the week and we don’t care how long you spend doing it or what hours of the day you choose to do them in’). Or, giving employees 4-day work weeks, or ‘Friday optional’ days if work is completed. When you think about it, for many jobs a 40 hour week is completely arbitrary, and a 60 hour week isn’t sustainable for healthy living.

Now in education, where you are responsible for the care of students, a shift to a 4-day week would take a major shift in a culture to adopt, and unlikely to be seen any time soon, but in many other jobs, this is a very likely possibility on a large scale. That said, I think our school, Inquiry Hub could do this. For example, we could make Wednesdays completely optional days, and I could have half my staff there on those days to support students doing their projects. Or we could have Grade 9’s and 10’s off on Mondays and Grade 11’s and 12’s off on Fridays, and focus our learning and support on half of the school on each of those days.

My point is that there are options… and these options can provide a balance for people that give them more time to live their lives outside of school/work, and thus reduce the desire to ‘quit quit’. Because this isn’t just something people are doing at work, I see kids doing this at school too, showing up just to do the minimum.

Maybe the 5 day work week is the problem. Maybe it’s time for us to reevaluate the way we distribute our time between work and the rest of our lives and then maybe people won’t see the need to be #QuietQuitting. Maybe quiet quitting is a signpost that we need to create more work/life balance rather than people trying to unsuccessfully do it on their own.

Cult of stupidity

There are three things that I’ve seen recently that defy common sense. All three suggest to me that there is a cult of stupidity that seems far more prevalent than should be possible in this day and age.

1. “People are vowing they’ll never go back to Cracker Barrel after the chain added vegan sausage to its menus” (Yahoo news). Cracker Barrel didn’t take anything away from anyone. All they did was provide another option for people. This is equivalent to complaining because a wheelchair ramp was added to an entrance of building. How does other options for other people threaten someone so much?

If this was just about boycotting a restaurant, that would be fine, but this is just a small example of a kind of thinking that is harmful to our free and open society. When groups of people limit the rights of other people because they don’t want other people to do something they disagree with, but that doesn’t directly affect their own lives, that’s scary. Imposing religious beliefs on other people are asinine, and there are many places around the world where this is happening.

2. The Alex Jones trial is so comical it hurts. This clip showing the judge explaining (again), “…just because you claim to think something is true does not make it true,” and basically scolding him for lying under oath, summarizes a core problem: People like Alex Jones and the thousands of fans he influences, can’t distinguish facts from beliefs. The amount of harm he has caused doing this is sad and disheartening. That his fans actively harass the parents of victims of a mass shooting, telling them they are paid actors that didn’t lose a child to a gun toting murderer is deplorable. Yet he plays a victim at his own trail and his fans believe he is being unjustly attacked.

3. Flat Earth believers. This is the pinnacle of stupidity. In this day and age you can’t have a single drop of intellectual integrity and also believe the world is flat. I’ve discussed this before (here and here) but with the new photos coming from the James Web Space Telescope I just don’t know how anyone could imagine a universe where the only flat-as-a-pancake celestial body is the one we live on?

Bonus (related to #1): Believing that any text written by men is the word of God. A lot of people find strength in their faith, and I’m happy for them. But looking at a scripture and believing that it wasn’t written by men and influenced by the cultural and moral conduct of the people of that time is blind ignorance. There is a lot of good that can be taken from scriptures, but there are also harmful memes that perpetuate harm, hate, and even violence in those same scriptures. Literal interpretations of scriptures as if they are somehow ‘THE Word of God’, leads to very ungodly like behaviours towards fellow human beings.

I used to think that lack of information led to stupidity, but the cult of stupidity that I see today tells me the roots of stupidity are much deeper than a simple lack of information.

Hot topics and doing your own research

Hot topics

It’s hard to write daily and not touch on hot topics. But I also know that it’s hard to discuss hot topics without being misunderstood or offending people either by intentionally being one-sided or accidentally by making unclear or poor analogies and comparisons. I wrote a whole post today on one such topic then I read and participated in a private conversation with my sisters and deleted the whole post. I didn’t save it to my drafts for later, I deleted it.

There are too many people already writing polarized views on hot topics, completely missing the point that ideas fall on a continuum, on a spectrum. I realize that I’m not knowledgeable enough to share my polarized view. I will upset people, and I will not change any minds… that’s not a good outcome that accomplishes anything.

This is a time for many to speak up, and it makes me feel like I should too. Then I try and realize my voice is the wrong voice. I wish a few more people would think the same way. We have entered a social media culture that says everyone has a voice, and there is a flood of voices not worth listening to.

Do your own research

The solution often given to so many voices sharing information is to ‘do your own research’. What a bunch of bullshit that is… ridiculous advice to solve a problem in an era where anyone can find the information they are looking for to support their already established views. Doing your own research suggests you have the background in doing research, it suggests you can read a scientific paper and understand and meaningfully interpret the data… in a field you probably know very little about.

Yes you can share your opinion, No it doesn’t hold more water than another opinion because you spent 20 minutes or even 2 hours researching it on the internet. Most serious issues are far more complex and nuanced than that. I’m not saying to not do research, however I am saying that you might find research that only supports your bias, and that research may not be interpreted properly by you or the so-called experts you choose to listen to.

It’s extremely unlikely that a blog post from a non-expert is going to change minds unless it’s intentionally deceptive or already leaning in the polarized direction you were considering. So I won’t throw my opinion out into any current polarized arguments right now. I probably will at some point if I’m writing every day, but for now I think I just need to shut up with respect to hot topics. Being vocal might make me feel good but my voice will contribute nothing new, nothing profoundly insightful. It will be nothing but another angry voice screaming on the internet. I haven’t done enough real research to believe I have anything of value to add.

Everything is an 11

I don’t know what has changed but it seems that whatever the concern is that people have, on a scale of 1-10 that concern becomes an 11. Anything bigger than a 6 out of 10 just skips on by 7-10… if it’s more than a 6 it’s an 11.

No nuance, no compromise, no quarter.

Miscommunication? No they lied to me!

Apology? Not enough, I want retribution!

Compromise? No, full concession!

‘Why aren’t you following up on this right now, can’t you see that this is the most important thing in the world? This… This is an 11/10.’

I’m not saying it isn’t important, but I am saying that escalating concerns like this doesn’t often get the result people want. Animosity doesn’t enhance cooperation. Anger doesn’t promote resolution.

I’m reminded of the saying, “When you have one eye fixed on the destination, you only have one eye with which to find the way.”

Further to this, I think that when things escalate to 11, the chance of reaching that destination that was the original goal moves farther away. Reactionary, angry, point-for-point volleying of minutiae doesn’t allow for solutions to be found.

I have two friends that I’ve known for decades. One of them is always having to deal with incompetence around her. It’s unbelievable how much the people around her screw up. And if you ask her how her day is going, the idiot that screwed up is what she’ll tell you about.

I have another friend who always has things go her way. She’ll have an issue with something not going well and the first thing she’ll say is, “I’m sorry, I’m really trying my best not to be a Karen, but this doesn’t seem right.” She’ll specifically say things like, “I don’t need you to fix this for me, I just thought you should know.” And she gets thank you’s in the form of gift cards, free food, upgrades, etc.

For the first friend, everything is an 11, and she has to deal with 11’s all the time. For the second friend nothing is over a 7, and by the time things are done, they are actually a 2, or not even an issue anymore.

Maybe, just maybe, short of losing life or limb, nothing is an 11… And if you believe that, maybe, just maybe, you will find that life is a little easier, and happier, when you don’t ramp things up so much.

What’s the end goal? How can you get there in a way that makes you and the other person feel good about the outcome? I doubt you can do that while you are at an 11.

The cost of it all

The cost of war is measured in many ways. Of course the cost of human life is the most obvious. Then there is the sheer cost of paying for the tools of war, and the damage those tools make on buildings and infrastructure.

But in todays globally connected economy, the cost of the war in the Ukraine is being felt around the world. Gas prices, food prices, and a deflated stock market are stripping away the profits of the rich, and the spending ability of the middle class and poor.

All this over borders… imaginary lines in the sand. We aren’t the only animal species that fight over territory, but we are by far the most violent. And, we’ve done this since the dawn of civilization. How many ‘civil’izations have been lost, conquered, displaced, enslaved, disenfranchised, annihilated?

Will there be a time in the future where we truly learn how to coexist? Where we spend more on sustaining relationships than on weapons of war? Where the cost of war is just too high to be a way to resolve conflict?

How high a price must we pay before war is finally seen as too high a price?

Subtle shades of difference

Yesterday I went for a bicycle ride with a friend whom I hadn’t connected with in months. We had a great ride and we talked about a lot of different things going on in the world today. Our views differed on a scale from slightly to considerably. There were some topics we talked about that tend to spur arguments in public discourse, but for us it was just good dialogue.

That’s a huge challenge today and news media makes the situation worse. The news does not try to make stories nuanced, media stories work to polarize views. Subtle shades of difference don’t draw attention and clicks, conflict and contrast does. The result? Every story is a problem, and every conversation is a debate. The middle ground is a no man’s land that is attacked by the extreme views on both sides, and everyone is either for or against a view.

Nuance is missed… and not just by news media, by me, by my friend, by you! We all get stuck looking at issues from the extremes and not seeing the complexities of issues that are very nuanced.

My friend and I were able to break down a few hot topics into the complicated issues that don’t sit on the extremes. We were able to partially agree and disagree with each other. We had a conversation, not an argument. Discourse rather than disregard.

It was refreshing to have this conversation. I hope that we can figure out a way to make public discourse more about sharing different ideas and less about defending extreme points of view without being able to see the spectrum that ideas fall into.

I know that the first place to start is with myself. It’s not good enough to blame the media, it’s important to recognize how I’m triggered by listening to polar opposite views, and for me to hear other perspectives without getting too hung up on how those perspectives differ from mine. I need to look for nuance, and recognize that there can be middle ground that becomes the starting point for good discussion and discourse.

Lowbrow comedy

There is all kinds of talk about Will Smith slapping Chris Rock at the Academy Awards because Chris told an insensitive joke about Will’s wife. I’m not going to discuss the issue of choosing a physical attack. I’m not going to judge, everyone seems to have an opinion, and no matter how you look at it, it could have been handled differently. But I am going to say that sometimes an extreme event needs to happen to change an unhealthy pattern.

For the last few years, comedians at these events have followed a pattern. They have all used the opportunity to get in front of famous people and roast them.They use their host position and their comedic skills to attack the audience. As Ricky Gervais said, “Let’s have a laugh at your expense, shall we? Remember, they’re just jokes. We are all going to die soon and there’s no sequel.”

The thing is, there have been many sequels. More and more, these award shows have become venues for jokes that are lowbrow attacks on famous people. They are funny in a disparaging way. They are hurtful. They are mean.

This isn’t the only kind of comedy. Being famous doesn’t give others permission to use this form of comedy.

This was not a good move by Will Smith. I’m a fan of his work and this is the most out of character thing I’ve ever seen him do. But maybe some good will come from this. Maybe hosts will try to be more highbrow with their comedy, and still be funny without attacking the audience. Funny doesn’t have to be at anyone’s expense. Funny doesn’t have to be mean.

Insightful comedy

Last night I went to see Trevor Noah live in Vancouver. My wife and I had a little escape from our house under renovation, and we enjoyed the weekend downtown. These tickets were bought months ago for my birthday, and this was the first large event gathering either of us have done in a couple years.

It felt weird to be around so many people, as I shared in this tweet about the Trevor’s ‘Back to Abnormal Tour’.

(Follow the link in the tweet here for a cute laugh.)

Watching the comedians, Trevor and his two clever lead-offs, it occurred to me that comedians are but a few people that can tread on hot topics without eliciting anger. They can broach topics and say things that would come off as inappropriate by anyone else, then they shed some insightful light on the topics. They can provide perspectives about hot topics while eliciting laughter instead of anger.

I don’t think we should live in a society where we need to rely on comedians to provide rational insight on hot topics. We should be able to have these conversations openly without name calling and yelling. But a couple hours before going to the show we were out for lunch, and on the way back to the hotel passed some anti-mask protesters. One of them was having an exchange with someone walking past. I have no idea who started it but they were both throwing F-bombs at each other. Nothing civil about that. Nothing insightful shared. Nothing funny about it.

A few hours later, I’m having a good laugh, listening to Trevor make insightful comments about topics others just bicker about. Wouldn’t it be nice if more of us could do that?

Two great divides

The gap between the rich and poor is getting bigger. The middle class seem to be lower down in the separation of this gap. One simple thing keeps the divide growing, and that is debt.

When a typical person buys a house, and starts paying a mortgage, then their future income is tied to their debt.

When a rich person buys a house, they are making an investment with their earnings, and their house becomes a future source of income.

One pays interest, the other reduces capital gains. One pays monthly, the other moves their money around. When one does renovations to add value to their home, they increase their debt, the other adds to their write-offs, and reduces taxes on gains.

But the part of this that really makes a difference is that with interest rates so low, the rich don’t use their own money, they too borrow money for expenses. But while poorer people use a large part of their income to pay off the low interest debts, the rich use their ‘extra’ money to make more money than the cost of the low interest debt. By borrowing, they increase the wealth gap. This great divide gets bigger.

This is a bit of an oversimplification, but it speaks to the fact that people live in different worlds. The same way I’ve described this gap, I can describe another gap between the ‘poor’ middle class and the truly poor. For the truly poor, they can’t buy a home, and so their rent does not go towards any equity. Their wages only go to survival. An unexpected debt of just a couple thousand dollars can be enough disrupt the balance and cause homelessness, or force the need to take out a high interest loan… because the poor are a risk to default and so they pay a premium on debt. Then payments for that debt become the focus of wages, but there is no house, no equity made on that debt, it’s purely an expense.

For the truly poor, the wealth gap is a an inescapable chasm. This is the gap that matters most in our world, the one that keeps people at or near poverty levels. This is the great divide that really matters, and it’s one that should be addressed by the leaders of our world in the same way that they are approaching climate change. It matters not just to the poor, it should matter to everyone. Because in this amazing world we live in, there is no need for the poverty we see to exist.

Downward Spiral into the mud

My grandfather had a saying, and I’ve shared it often, “Never wrestle with a pig, you both get dirty but the pig likes it.”

The pig has some success no matter what. This is something that I think is playing out with anti-vax and conspiracy arguments… they have some success every time we argue. The reason for this success is that they are operating from a fixed mindset, their minds are made up… but they are often arguing with people who have a growth mindset and are open to some level of persuasion. It’s a guaranteed downward spiral, with some of their fixed and misguided ideas seeping into the consciousness of people who try to factor all things in to their understanding.

An example of this is when the twin towers fell in New York. There were all kinds of conspiracy theories that started with the premise that ‘steel towers can’t crumble like that just because a plane crashed into them’. Spoiler alert, they can. But at the time we had no examples to go by, no science to support the possibility, and so just raising this concern could put doubt into a reasonable person’s mind. Then came the videos. Google something like “twin tower conspiracy video” and you’ll see what I mean. These videos are well crafted and convincing.

If you are someone prone to the idea that there is some cabal that has a master plan to rule the world, the fall of the twin towers easily fits that narrative. However, if you are someone who looks at evidence and makes sound decisions based on the information you have, too much of this convincing misdirection and misinformation could influence your thinking. In other words the spread of well constructed fake news has influence on all parties… meanwhile simple logic and boring facts only work on those with growth mindsets willing to do the research work.

The pig wins the moment you engage you in the fight. They get you dirty. Here is a study done at MIT, ‘Does correcting online falsehoods make matters worse?‘, which looks at how pointing out mistakes doesn’t help the argument:

Not only is misinformation increasing online, but attempting to correct it politely on Twitter can have negative consequences, leading to even less-accurate tweets and more toxicity from the people being corrected, according to a new study co-authored by a group of MIT scholars.

The study was centered around a Twitter field experiment in which a research team offered polite corrections, complete with links to solid evidence, in replies to flagrantly false tweets about politics.

“What we found was not encouraging,” says Mohsen Mosleh, a research affiliate at the MIT Sloan School of Management, lecturer at University of Exeter Business School, and a co-author of a new paper detailing the study’s results. “After a user was corrected … they retweeted news that was significantly lower in quality and higher in partisan slant, and their retweets contained more toxic language.”

And the article goes on to say,

“We might have expected that being corrected would shift one’s attention to accuracy. But instead, it seems that getting publicly corrected by another user shifted people’s attention away from accuracy — perhaps to other social factors such as embarrassment.” The effects were slightly larger when people were being corrected by an account identified with the same political party as them, suggesting that the negative response was not driven by partisan animosity.

Now in this case the ‘evidence’ will often degrade, and so it may not be too convincing, but research like this suggests that the conspiracy or fake news spreader is very unlikely to change their minds given sound evidence against their ideas… but when their false ideas are well crafted and instil doubt, the same can’t be said for thoughtful people who aren’t fixed in their opinions.

Social media engagement is more likely to influence people towards believing aspects of fake news that to promote facts and sound evidence. It’s a downward spiral, and it’s getting us all a little dirty.