Star Ford

Essays on lots of things since 1989.

“Leveling up” as a societal design pattern

Americans are not used to living in a well-ordered nation. Stemming from the federal system, the history of the wild west, and the longstanding tension between individual and community needs, we tend to complicate things and then believe that they must be complicated. In France by contrast the country is divided into 18 regions, which are neatly subdivided into departments, which are further subdivided into communes. Each level delegates down to the next, and there’s not a lot of overlap in powers or in geography. For example you wouldn’t find a department that spans multiple regions, and all the schools and other organizational systems are more aligned with the departments and communes. But in the US it is typical to have overlapping jurisdictions, such as a school district or a water authority spanning parts of multiple municipalities. The districting of congress, the state legislature, the post office, schools, churches, and businesses rarely fall on the same lines.

The situation results in a feeling of being unitless, by which I mean not having a known basic unit of organization. If we want to solve a neighborhood problem, who are “we”? – what are the boundaries that define the people who can solve the problem, and what authority do we have to solve it? There’s often no clear answer because of widespread unitlessness.

I’ve argued before for jurisdictional alignment (19 years ago!) so in this paper I’ll take up the related but more elusive concept of “leveling up.” Leveling up is defining the relationship between a function of society at one level and its subordinate level, particularly defining the escalation of problem resolution upwards and delegation of authority downwards.

Here are 6 areas of organization with a discussion of leveling up for each one.

1. Justice vs legislation

Under democratic rule of law, an established pattern is that legislation deals in universals and justice deals in individuals. The leveling-up concept related to this is that individual cases need to be judged by a larger body (at a higher level) than that which made the law in question. For example if a town council decides to let students out of school for a religious holiday, but a particular family who doesn’t observe the holiday contests the decision, the trial should be held at the county or state level, not by peers at the same level as the town council. This is because human nature prevents us from being impartial regarding decisions about people immediately around us.

Laws made at extremely small local levels tend to be prejudicial concerning individual people even if names are omitted. For example “the village will permit tractors to use route 509” might really mean that Sam Jones can drive their particular tractor; alternately a law banning tractors might really be a way for people to get back at the nasty things Sam has done. A local judgment of whether the law is just turns into a contest of who is on Sam’s side; this is a basic failure of rule of law when done all at the same level. But a judgment at the state level would look at tractors in general, not just at Sam. Likewise, cities and states are more likely to enact racist laws even if they omit names of groups as a way to divert attention from the racist aspect. It’s more difficult to do that nationally. Human nature allows us to be impartial with strangers. The larger the unit is, the more people rulings apply to, and the more impartial the rulings tend to be.

2. Wild and human habitat

North America has a range of human density running from extremely sparse such as remote Alaska where people are incidental to the natural habitat, all the way up to big cities where nature is incidental to, and more completely under the control of people. In the latter extreme, land is first completely denuded of nearly all life, then a nature-substitute is designed and installed by professionals. There’s a continuous range of expression of that relationship between the extremes, including towns, suburbs, and vast areas of “managed” land, in which there’s a balance, and often a gradual increase in human control over time.

I’m not arguing against the extremes; despite being a nature lover, I concede that in big cities it can make sense to install a nature look-alike atop and between the areas of pavement.

In my mind the problems are more with the middle range. The first problem is the presumption that all land by default is “ours” with the exception of defined regions of “protected” land. So in the American mental model of land, there are dots (foreground) of “nature” on a background of human-managed land. In some cases the dots are connected by wildlife corridors, but many are not. We need to reverse that concept so that the “dots” are human settlements on a background of all other habitat. This is not by itself an argument for less overall developed land, but rather for a pattern of organization that condenses our development into the “dots” and leaves the rest of it in an interconnected continuous mesh of habitat for all other species.

The diagram below shows an abstract representation of green dots on a developed background (left) versus development dots on a green background (right).

naturedots1

The second problem with the middle density range is how much of it there is. Some people say the suburbs are the best of both worlds – country and city – but in other ways they are the worst of both: they lack the efficiency we get from the compactness of cities and also lack any true escape into nature. By sharpening the edges of the dots and making them more compact, then it’s possible to get the best of both worlds and use less land for human settlements overall. Furthermore if the edges of the settlements are highly reticulated, not simple squares or circles, then a great majority of people can be close to real nature, not stuck in vast suburbs.

Agriculture as the largest land use would do the same thing, only the dots are bigger. Fences would have to be discrete shapes enclosing pasture or human activity, not connected continuously to other fences as is the pattern now. Fences could no longer be used to “fence out”; they would only “fence in”.

(Of course I get this is just an ideal of the distant future, but it’s worth thinking about.)

There’s a couple ways this “dots on background” idea is a kind of leveling-up proposal. First, it sets the earth as the higher authority and puts all of our levels below that. Second, it creates place (dispels unitlessness) and consequently creates natural jurisdictions, which then lend themselves to orderly subdivision.

3. Transportation land

The land devoted to transportation is vast – more than half of all urban land. That includes roads, airports, parking, and rail-yards. The roads we use are classified by level – a state road, a county road, and so on, although often it doesn’t matter or it is not always apparent why the classification is made. There’s a lot of complexity and absurdity in the system. For example a road with lots of houses and businesses on it could be a state route and be slow and mainly serve local residents, while some other municipal road might be faster and mostly serve long distance travel; the jurisdictions that make decisions might not represent the main users. Roads can be reclassified, and organization can be rigidly imposed over a history that doesn’t fit.

One of the knottiest problems that ensues with all this is when an individual resident, say a family with children, seeks protection from their previously peaceful road becoming a dangerously fast highway with noisy trucks. It’s impossible to serve both needs well – the legitimate needs of residents, and the legitimate needs for travel in the broader region. It might be counterproductive to everyone to balance the needs through compromise. For example, trucks limited to 40 mph instead of 60 doesn’t really address the family’s concerns, and it slows travel for everyone.

Leveling up to the rescue! We define a continent-wide lattice of superhighway corridors, airports, train lines, etc, and move that land ownership and all its decision-making to the national level. This is a tiny fraction of all land, but it is nationally significant. This land is built above or below the ground level where it crosses between human settlements, so that the background of natural habitat is not dissected. Then, we can decide as a country how to manage that land and its systems to work across the country, without primary regard to local needs. (There’s plenty of other land for local needs.) I get how this is expensive and certain people lose out, and that we have to seize property to make this happen, but ultimately I think it makes more sense because the level of government that is designated to solve a problem has the authority and resources to solve it.

The same concept applies then to the remaining state land: states make a more fine grained lattice of state owned corridors and leave the reminder to the lower levels.

Funding does not need to be collected at higher levels and re-granted to lower levels; each level can manage its own fees and taxation itself by whatever method makes sense to that jurisdiction.

4. Transportation systems

Following from the leveling of transportation land and funding, we can then imagine how transport systems can evolve more rationally without jurisdictional gridlock.

Here’s a technology picture that makes more sense than what we are doing now:

  • At the national level we acquire very straight corridors, and create supersonic evacuated-tube transport to supplement highway and air travel and freight. The federal level rids itself of regionally significant infrastructure, focusing only on long-distance travel. The cost savings and added focus allows us to shift towards renewable-powered high efficiency tube transport and away from the more dangerous and polluting modes. Because of the high speed, all of the systems are isolated from people – none of them would permit bicycles or pedestrian crossings.
  • States acquire a lattice of corridors of statewide significance, including much of the crumbling infrastructure that is deemed not nationally significant. States seize and release land over time as needed to create straighter routes between major population centers, and as with the national system, they focus on regional-speed travel such as maglev and other automated networks to supplement highways. Over time travel shifts greatly towards the safer, efficient modes.
  • Major cities do the same thing at a city scale. For example they acquire and release land such that the city owns a grid of arterials over time, so it can plan and execute efficient city wide travel on bus and surface transit, automated networks, and suitably restricted roads. (By restricted I mean they wouldn’t allow arbitrary number of left turns or connections with local roads, and may not permit pedestrians, or would have signalized pedestrian crossings.)
  • Neighborhoods, towns and boroughs then control the remainder or the developed land, and can focus on slow transport that serves all destinations. This is a very different problem than transport at the higher levels, and deserves creative solutions that fit just that level. For example, the entire local circulation system could consist of 5-foot wide one-way paths limited to 20 mph, so that neighborhood vehicles, electric taxis, bikes and pedestrians can safely share the surface.

The proposal is to think and design for distinct levels rather than a mix or balance; we don’t invest in widening a certain local road just because more people are using it for commuting; instead we route traffic through the corridors that have been designed for regional travel.

There have been many concepts for cities of the future, that generally depict the ground level to be greened up and free of congestion, pollution, utility poles and so on. The main problem with them is that we have already invested trillions in infrastructure, and many of those concepts rely on rebuilding everything from scratch. In reality, creating safe and sustainable transport systems is more urgent than the 100-year lifetime of buildings, so we need approaches that gradually improve what we have towards those greened-up visions. The leveling-up concept provides that mechanism: neighborhoods won’t have to consider speed and distance in their decisions, and the higher levels won’t have to consider access and pedestrians in their decisions. Eliminating the impossible task of balancing unbalancable needs opens up creativity to solve those levels separately and better.

There is also the market aspect to thinking about these transport systems. If the jurisdiction owning the corridors can set up a market for private providers to compete in the traditionally-public modes, then we can take advantage of innovation in those modes like we’ve been able to do with cars. For example, a neighborhood electric robo-taxi can consist of a fleet from multiple competing providers.

5. Utilities and infrastructure

Physical distribution of pipes and wires to millions of endpoints and the connecting grid is a system that parallels the transport network, and would also benefit from some leveling-up concepts.

The reason we have the utility model for some businesses (which is a regulated public-private hybrid business type) is because of the root problem that market competition cannot be effective when it comes to endpoint-oriented infrastructure. It is not reasonable for a variety of gas companies to run a separate network of pipes to every house in order to have consumer choice. Without consumer choice there can be no market, hence the problem.

Leveling-up solves the market problem like this: there are large scale providers of gas, electricity, and data, providing distribution from the global level down to a neighborhood interface. The neighborhood interface is where the private and public sides of the system connect. Neighborhoods provide local connectivity from each endpoint to the interface. While there is just one public network inside the neighborhood, there are one or more privately controlled grids at the higher levels.

This model preserves both market advantage and democratic control in two ways:

  • The regional and national utilities compete for consumer business, and they can reach all consumers without having to build duplicate endpoint networks.
  • Builders of local networks compete for the business of setting up and managing the local networks. Because there are thousands or millions of neighborhoods, they form a consumer pool which allows for market competition.

This radically simple system also applies to shipping: different long distance carriers don’t need to drive separate trucks into each neighborhood; packages transfer at the neighborhood interface, and the neighborhood manages the local distribution. Trash collection is a parallel problem that can be handled the same way as shipping.

6. Everything else

I have a tendency to want to engineer everything according to my extremely egalitarian views, but at the same time I find most renderings of future green cities to be eerie, and have an overly sterile regularity. Here’s an example rendering of a city concept that may have lots of great points, but it doesn’t feel like real people could live there.

greencity

I think some people approach the problem of improving human settlements with an assumption that it will be centrally planned like Soviet apartment towers, and that is what gives it the eerily unreal flavor. I’m more interested in freedom, diversity, and small democratic units, which would yield a future that can’t be rendered in a picture like this because the places would be all different from each other.

Everything else besides the way we use and connect space is important too – that is, policing, education, health, taxation, and so on. But if feels like if the physical organization and transportation aspects were first, other forms of organization could follow more easily. All those things could be run on the level at which they make the most sense – so things like education would not need to be absurdly centralized. Those things would become easier to improve because the units would be clearer and the power to accomplish things would rest cleanly within the unit.

As a final topic, why should we care about any of this when there may be more pressing concerns? I feel like it is important to care about all of these:

  • The concrete topics on a progressive agenda like deforestation, climate change, poverty, crime, and equality (to name a few), and..
  • ..The power structures and power holders that block or promote those agenda topics, and..
  • ..The principles of organization that give rise to the power structures.

Leveling up is one of the principles that, if in practice, would power different power structures than we have today. The structures we have today partly block the human-centered political agenda in America, which is why we have so much worse performance than other countries in things like literacy, health, crime and energy use, despite being wealthy and partially democratic. I don’t think the bad performance is because we’re different than other people culturally; it’s because we organize in a way that twists democracy, and the fragmented federal system of overlapping jurisdictions gets leveraged by minority power holders to overpower majority values.

So that’s why we need to care about it.

Leave a comment »

North Gulch Mystery

“North Gulch Mystery” is a role playing mystery game for exactly eight players. It should take 1 or 2 hours. All you need is some envelopes and scissors and the printout of the game sheets.

North Gulch Mystery game sheets (PDF)

Leave a comment »

How Trump can be a better candidate

It’s election season in 2016. Of course we are all aware that Trump is a dangerous narcissist, but remember that Clinton is also imperfect. It sometimes is hard to tell which of two candidates is better when neither is ideal. So I made this diagram to explain how Trump could be the choice of so many Americans.

trump_values

The diagram shows how I imagine America rates men and women from absolute virtue at the top to absolute evil on the bottom. It clearly shows Trump at a slightly more venerable position than Clinton. What other evidence do you need?


Kidding aside, I think that even if there was a scale of virtue like this, the lowest women category exists in the minds of some men only – there is no one actually in that box. This is a depiction of the worst slice of our slut-shaming misogynist culture.

If women didn’t have the vote, Trump would win in a landslide; but even scarier is that millions of women are voting for him – a majority in many states. The only way I can understand that is that millions of women see the world the way the diagram is shown, with women having greater innate sin. If anyone thinks we don’t need feminism any more, consider the internalized misogyny of those millions, and all the forces that are keeping up this social-values map alive in the national consciousness.

Drawing the diagram and writing “slutty” was hard for me to do, and I feel dirty, and exposed to fire from all sides. I’m pushing past that and posting it anyway because I think it is part of the value system in America and it does help explain why the election is going as it is. In fact I think it’s an essential ingredient to understanding what is going on.

I’ve never seen weirder and more massive mental programming than what is going on now. Maybe the scale of the calamity shocks us into mindless compliance somehow. I can’t even find words to express the sadness of the loss of heart, the loss of dialog, sanity, and reason. I feel there is a gigantic shift in perspective happening that is so great that we are no longer even standing on the ground. But that’s just a tiny bit of what I’m feeling about it; I have no way to say more. I pray that others can find words to say the thing more fully, and that the people hurting from the shaming will find ease and vision somehow, to pull ourselves back to grounded reality.

1 Comment »

Legal arguments on birth

When does life begin? At conception, or nine weeks thereafter? When the baby is born? Or maybe after it gets its first master’s degree? Or never? Personally I think it’s never. Life reorganizes; it does not begin.

I saw a nun praying outside Planned Parenthood the other day. My urge was to pray with her, not against her. Instead of wondering what her thoughts were, or what she was for or against, I felt the power of her upholding that life which does not begin. It felt like there were not two opposing sides at that moment; her energy felt unifying.

1. Abortion

I grew up with the semantically twisted stance that killing babies before birth was not really “killing”. But when my heart softened about “abortion” (a sanitized word), I admitted it was killing, and I couldn’t be “pro-death”. Instead I wanted to uphold mother and child, to protect and strengthen all of us. When we sit to feel and consider abortion in the abstract, we need to honor the strengths and mourn the losses of the mothers. We should not be stuffing down the feelings of loss simply because we hold a political view of choice. Politics has a way of making abstract ethics central and extreme, and suppressing mercy for each individual circumstance. We should use the word “killing” because that is honest, but using that word doesn’t make it a blanket wrong. Read the rest of this entry »

Leave a comment »

Pie

Olivia Lipkin appreciates pie the way a fish appreciates water. The enigmatic explorer does not usually meet with journalists, but something I said on the morning of the interview must have given her an opening, or maybe it was the August breeze that stills the heart with its reassurance that the most oppressive part of summer is over, and that the day will be long enough for all things. We sat on the shaded veranda of town’s only cafe, her berry-stained white blouse fluttering as she revealed, always close to tears, her story.

Star: So, tell me about your last pie.

Olivia: Oh I can still taste it now! I hardly know how to describe it except to say it was magic. It brought me face to face with the essence, as if time stopped and I melted with the first bite into a dream. You know when you’re full of doubt and then you taste pie and everything settles? You go to this special place, your whole world self-organizes, then you come out in peace. That was that pie.

S: Wow, what kind of pie was it?

O: It was the kind that holds all of summer, and speaks quietly but reveals adventures if you listen carefully. It was not a simple pie, quite complex actually.

S: But I mean what was in it?

O: There was a certain panic or maybe heartbreak from the experience making it, but love of course, full of love. Sorry I think I’m going to cry thinking about it. I can’t even believe it’s gone. I ate it all!

S: You certainly loved that pie. But, was it a cherry pie or what?

O: No, blackberries! There’s a patch I had known about and last month I couldn’t wait any longer and I just needed to go pick them.

S: Tell me about how you made the pie.

O: Well, I got all my gear together and made the trip. There I was, facing these thorns all alone – millions of thorns. I started around the edges, tentative at first. All that was going just fine, but I felt this intense calling.

S: Not to go inside?

O: Yes, I had to.

S: What equipment did you use?

O: I had brought my bowl, but I didn’t think to bring food and water, can you imagine? Luckily as a girl I used to devour survival literature, so I remembered to bring rice.

S: Rice?

O: Yes, I put the grains of rice in a line so I could find my way out. I had picked almost the whole bowl full, and was getting deeper and deeper in. There were thorns everywhere and I just remember things started swirling and I couldn’t distinguish berry juice from blood. I was actually inside the beast! – the beast that intoxicated me, and I couldn’t find my way out.

S: Oh no! What about the trail of rice?

O: I guess Gretel’s technique was not actually so effective now that I think of it. No one heard my cries of pain, and I thought I was going to die there. But on the third day I had a startling epiphany that would ultimately save my life: I could eat the blackberries themselves in order to survive.

S: Good thinking!

O: That definitely gave me strength. What probably kept me going the most though was the love of that future pie that was already being conceived through this harrowing experience. And I never gave up hope that there would be uncharted waterways that would make rescue by boat possible.

S: Did you get rescued in the end?

O: No I just kept going, being stabbed endlessly from all directions, wishing I had remembered to bring shoes, and finally when I was close to giving up, I saw light.

S: A testament to perseverance. How long was the journey?

O: It’s anyone’s guess – but I’ll always insist it was at least 18 feet.

S: And now that you have recovered, do you have more adventures planned?

O: Not til the pie calls me. I’m just the servant.

 

Leave a comment »

a bit about autism for crisis line volunteers

(This paper concerns crisis lines, such as suicide hotlines, rape crisis lines and so on. I’m volunteering for such a line now.)

Autistic people are not woven into the fabric of families and social groups like other people are; our way is to be independent instead of enmeshed – and this point is close to the very definition of autism. Unfortunately for us, that extreme independence can make supportive relationships out of reach, and even push us out of society to the point of being friendless or homeless. Thus, while autism accounts for only about 1% of the whole population, among callers to crisis lines the rate may be a lot higher. Crisis line staff can benefit from identifying autistic traits and some helpful ways to communicate.

Perhaps the easiest way to detect autistic tendencies in a call is when they seem unusually literal. If you ask “are you sad?” they may just say “yes” – only the literal answer to the question without accepting the implied invitation to say more. If you ask “May I ask you a couple questions?” and proceed to ask one question, then later in the call, they may still expect you to ask the second question (because they interpreted that you had exactly two questions). If you ask “How did you sleep?” they may interpret the question to be about the technique rather than about the quality of sleep, and they might answer literally: “I just got into bed and waited.” Or they might say they don’t understand the question, because they interpret the question to be literal and precise, when it might have actually been just a general way to keep the conversation going.

Autistic people have the same range of feelings and the same needs for love and connection and safety as everyone else, but our communication is different. Communication is interpreted more according to strict dictionary definitions of words, and the adage that 80% of communication is nonverbal may not be true for that kind of caller.

One way to be effective is to realize that your tone of voice may not communicate much, and their apparent tone can be misleading. If they are calmly stating “I am angry”, believe the words and not the misleading tone. An autistic caller may always use the same tone and not modulate it for different feelings as other people do. Try to find specific words to convey meaning and don’t assume they get much from your tone.

You can ask open-ended questions, but to communicate that your question is open ended, be literal and don’t rely on softening phrases or anything vague. If asking “What about your relationship?” elicits confusion, try saying “Describe the good and bad aspects of your relationship”. An autistic caller might understand “What are all of your feelings about that?” better than “How is that for you?” If asking “Were you ok after the fight?” results in a one-word answer, try requesting that they tell the whole story of recovering from the fight.

Autistic problems can be specific. If a caller says “I didn’t get to finish a Minecraft construction project before class”, you might wonder if Minecraft is a misplaced target or a symbol for some hidden, deeper problem. But there may be less focus on relationships and the seemingly trivial issue of Minecraft could be the literal problem. The person might be using a tool like that to help structure their thinking and memory, and someone prevented them from using it. Although the problems are diverse, one common thread in the problems reported by autistic people is the lack of agency (control over our time and environment). Our drive is to be independent, but when other people control our money, our belongings, or time, that can be the crisis.

 

Leave a comment »

On collaboration

Things that make collaboration hard

Collaboration is hard. In all my efforts to work in volunteer groups in the past, so-called “collaboration” has felt like slowly wading through mud with people who don’t seem to be proposing anything specific, but they also don’t like or understand my ideas, and we’re doing something that isn’t really aligned with what I want to do, while everyone seems to overreact to very minor issues, and my patience wears thin.

In most of my attempts in the general (nondisabled) world, one or more of the following happens:

  • Someone decides “there is conflict” and we need “healing” before we can do anything. I never have any idea what they mean and I sense it is usually a delay tactic. I feel like we all always need healing, but it can never be complete.
  • We get people who want to study the situation forever and others who want it to be done immediately, with not much flexibility between the two groups. In one youth coalition I was in, the young people were really good at springboarding off each other’s inspiration and they wanted to decide things in rapid fire, while the older people seemed to miss that level of communication completely and they wouldn’t agree to anything. The young people had a sense of now, and not of the distant future, while the older people were only concerned with the distant future and could not do anything now. (Since at any moment, it’s always now, I guess they never did anything.)
  • Half the people who show up have the main objective of just using the meeting time to socialize or get attention, or they have no intention to do anything. Therefore, the longer it drags out, the better. Others want the meetings to be a short as possible.
  • Certain people who are used to having more than their share of social power intentionally try to foil democracy, so they’ll agree to democratizing procedures reluctantly, but then skirt them. Others try to make things equalizing and transparent, and that difference in interests tends to make discussions about internal procedures rather than about what the group is doing.
  • Someone will declare that before we can do one thing, we must do another thing. For example, before we can decide what to write in a letter, we need to decide what are objectives are. Or, before we can determine our objectives, we have to write the letter. There is no way to satisfy everyone’s sense of the proper sequence of events.

Parts of collaboration

I think there has to be room for three kinds of activity in “collaboration”:

1. contemplation – brainstorming, venting, listening, and anything unstructured – This takes the most time.

2. business – structured processes for deciding on actions

3. taking action

Any attempt at collaboration probably needs all three of these in some balance.

Autistic collaboration

I think it could take more patience to herd autistics than other people, or even to decide to collaborate. Some day maybe I’ll write an ethnography of our subculture, but for now, here are some unstructured points that maybe it could help to be aware of:

  • Autistic people tend to get triggered; most of us have some level of PTSD, and have extreme responses to situations that seem innocuous to others. So in a group, it’s reasonable to assume that at all times, someone may be getting triggered by something.
  • We’ve often been excluded, so we can get bitter and bring associated baggage to groups.
  • When the topic of collaboration is autism or disability, the fight for power over the conversation often becomes fiercely directed against autistic people. Groups that deal with other topics (transportation, environment, etc) might be more accessible, whereas groups that deal with disability could be more likely to turn us into tokens or “others”.
  • We may not have as much experience with collaborating effectively as others. If being in a group as an equal is very new to me, I might not know how to stay on topic, for example. I might not be aware of what is meant by the various words used to organize, like agendas, minutes, and petitions.
  • We tend to build up our own mental universe of “obvious” truths, which is not as shared with others as we think, and then we’re amazed that other people are so “dumb” because they don’t know what we know, or didn’t read our 10 page essay on the subject.
  • We tend towards “if this is not exactly 100% in line with what I’m trying to do, then I’m outa here”.
  • We sometimes assume that others are acting as a bloc when they are not, or that they are all followers of a certain leader. So if I put forth an idea and the leader is opposed to it, I might assume that everyone is acting as a bloc and they are all opposed to it. That’s discouraging.
  • Most of the people trying to organize autistic people are not themselves autistic at all, or they are a socially effective subtype that is not very representative of the rest of us. So even in groups that are supposedly for us and by us, we might still be excluded.
  • We have issues pretty often with energy level and commitments. I might offer to do some of the needed work, but then life could take a turn and I might not be able to do what I said.

I don’t have any answers, but I’m pretty sure effective autistic (or inclusive) collaboration would look different from effective allistic (or exclusive) collaboration.

1 Comment »

The trait square

Here is a little therapeutic trick you can do with a piece of paper, whenever you think badly of yourself. First you name your “bad” trait and write it in square #1 of a figure like the one pictured here.traitsquare_conceptThe four steps going around counterclockwise are:

  • Write the “bad” trait in square 1
  • Write the opposite of that bad trait in square 2. This should be a good trait.
  • Write the negative restatement of that in square 3. This should be the same trait as in square 2, only the extreme or negative form of it.
  • Write the opposite of that negative in square 4.

You should end up with a positive restatement of what you wrote in square 1.

Here’s a simple example:
traitsquare_ex1To walk through this one, my negative trait might be “lazy”. So I think of the opposite – what would the person most unlike me be? So I write “energetic”. But that trait could also be seen in a negative light, if one is too energetic, so I write “hyper/manic”. Then I think of what the opposite of that bad trait is, and I write “relaxed”. That reveals that I could choose to see myself as relaxed rather than lazy.

 

You can also get more descriptive about your issues. Here’s one about me that shows some of my associations:

traitsquare_ex2In this case I used “she” as my fictitious opposite, and I think if I were my oopposite, I’d be in danger of being proud or manipulative. Your associations might be different so your opposite might be something else. Ultimately the restatement of my “bad” trait does not deny it (I might still be ugly), but it shows things that I might also be because I’m not the opposite – humble or genuine.

Seeing “humble” come up like this doesn’t feel quite right so I might go do another one using “pride” as the starting bad trait.

Some people practice direct contradiction as a therapeutic technique. For example if I believed or feared I might be ugly, I would say (out loud) “I’m beautiful”. That’s a powerful technique, but it can be so contradictory that some people cannot say the contradiction out loud. The trait square is different. It does not contractict or deny the original negative thought; it only reframes it. It widens the trait you are looking at to include a more balanced view of positive and negative aspects of that trait.

 

 

Leave a comment »

Moving along

This piece is simply letters to people I visited on my recent driving trip as far as Maine, with a letter to me at the end.

Dear Mother,

joanneI don’t know what to do. Most adults either eventually make peace with their mothers or cut them out entirely. Making that choice frees a person to go forward in her own life. But with me, I’m walking a complex line of trying to keep going between those two poles, not knowing why, and it is so sad and tiresome after all these decades of cold war. I know how to communicate in at least two ways: the polite verbal way I use for strangers, and the quieter emotional way with friends. But within this family I’ve only been able to communicate as with strangers. Everything I’ve ever done is wrong. I can’t imagine the ice melting, not ever; even when you are dying, years from now, I can only imagine you will use your last breath to remind me how wrong I am.

On this short visit, your judgments went to a new level and became an embarassing self-parody. When a six year old asked you (referring to me) “why do you call her a ‘him’?” your answer placed the shame on me instead of admitting to a mistake. Invalidating your own child’s life at every turn is the norm, but this time you made it a project of yours to convince an impressionable young person that my experience of my life is invalid, and only your judgment matters. It should not be a mystery why the visit was so short.

On this trip I saw many people moving forward, even while working out their childhood trauma. They all have their issues, but none seem to be as unable as I am to make the mother inside let go. None have lived so long as I have without picking one way or the other. You actually matter – way too much.

Read the rest of this entry »

1 Comment »

Advertising as way to fuel inefficiency

Humans are omnivores mainly by culture, not in the same innate way that other species are omnivores or carnivores. If you consider the innate desires of puppies and other meat eaters, you see that they get excited about eating their prey, they pounce on it, and tear it apart and eat it raw. Humans don’t have the hunting skills or desire to do any of that. The only way most of us can eat animals is by having them killed by someone else, cut up, and cooked so that the disgust that we would otherwise feel at seeing dead carcasses is as far removed from the dinner table as possible. If we were innate animal eaters, we would not feel disgust – we would feel happy and excited about tearing into living creatures. Yet a lot of people really want to believe that we’re innately omnivores. I believed it for a long time, until I learned otherwise.

The fact that I had always accepted that we were innate omnivores only proves I’m human, the only creature that can be so deluded about what we are by manufacturing beliefs and replicating them on a massive scale. When I think for myself, I find it is more gratifying than just adopting the beliefs transmitted by culture. There is a certain grace in the cessation of stupidity that I occasionally experience: things become so simple; I see them as they are without the imposed lens of culture. But I feel very silly for allowing myself to be deluded by the culture around me for so long on the question of eating animals. What kept me in the dark?

Generally speaking people replicate the beliefs of the people around them, except maybe the autistic, who, to various degrees, do not. I’ve experienced both extremes: thinking like everyone else, and being unable to think like anyone else. Another example is using toothpaste, which I’ve heard is unnecessary, but it never really seemed important enough to find out or even form an opinion one way or the other, so I just found it easier to go along with the toothpaste-using culture that I’m in. So I’ve gone through many tubes of toothpaste and eaten lots of animals because … most people do. On other other hand I’ve reinvented things, and it wasn’t because I was too obstinate to do it the normal way. It was because I couldn’t detect the normal way, or the normal way had so much apparent inconsistency or waste that it didn’t feel adoptable to me. I suppose people who acculturate even less than I do would copy fewer beliefs, and they would end up reinventing more things independently, or just failing to do a bunch of normal things.

The highly inefficient system of converting solar energy to nutrition circuitously via other animals is just one of many industries that thrives on waste and socially constructed needs. A lot of the media, pharmaceuticals, makeup, sports, cars, and sugar are in that same category. These are products that people have no true need for, and therefore do not even want innately. People want these things based on convention, but not innately. We have to learn to want them. Because of our inherited culture, we spend a great deal of our lives in highly wasteful pursuits that don’t actually make us happy or fulfill any true need.

Something has to work to keep us in the dark, and keep the waste going. If there was no force sustaining the waste, it would dwindle over time and we would adopt more efficient ways to meet our needs. We would harness the sun to heat buildings rather than drilling for oil and all the complications that go with that. I mean we would do this out of sheer laziness, not for any ethical reason. If the reason for doing the complicated and inefficient thing were to go away, that habit would extinguish. This is similar to a fundamental point in genetics: If the advantage of a trait goes away, then the trait will gradually extinguish. Nothing sticks around indefinitely for no reason.

My proposition then is that all these inefficiencies are sustained in large part through money and advertising, which are the socially constructed means to keep power imbalanced, and falsehoods alive, respectively.

I’ve wondered a lot about advertising because it doesn’t seem to work on me, and so I’m surprised that it works at all. But when I found out about autism, it started to make sense, because non-autistic people believe things simply because they are repeated so many times. And to some degree I do to (like the idea of being omnivorous) but noticeably less.

Advertising pairs something that people innately want with something that costs money, creating an association. For example, it pairs a field of wildflowers on a spring day (an innate attraction) with an oil company. Or, it pairs sex with a car. The main things appearing in ads are either (1) something you already want, or (2) something they want you to want.

Ads also exist for things that people truly need, like food, shelter, and exercise – and are just claiming that one supplier is better than another. To some extent advertising is just part of the information exchange needed in a market system. But consider a tomato. The tomato gets a starring role in so many food ads, yet it is hardly ever the product being advertised. That’s because it is something we already innately want – so there is no need to push it. Instead it is used as the innate need that pairs with the hamburger or other food being advertised. You see the tomato (an innate attraction) and a hamburger (a culturally constructed, highly inefficient means to meet your needs), and the brain makes an association between them, so with enough repetition, you want the hamburger. When you were very little, you probably didn’t like hamburgers – little kids are often not attracted to meat. If you like them now, it is because your tastes were molded by cultural learning, and importantly, the tomato continues to play a lead role in reinforcing that association. Without a force sustaining the cultural, non-innate, and inefficient habits, they might gradually extinguish.

Here are the top advertisers in the US, starting with the highest spender: Procter & Gamble, General Motors, AT&T, Verizon, Johnson & Johnson, Time Warner, Toyota, General Electric, Ford, and Pepsico. Procter and Gamble makes a lot of things, like toothpaste, makeup, razors, detergent, and diapers. The other companies sell cars, communications, pharmaceuticals, media, appliances, and sugar. Other top ad categories are for meat/diary, cleaning products, and alcohol and other drugs. In general the things that are advertised the most are actually needed the least.

I wonder what would happen if those vast concentrations of power could somehow be evaporated. The forces maintaining cultural beliefs in the necessity of all these products would be weakened, and the desire might gradually extinguish. Is it possible that by simply not telling everyone day in and day out to consume sugar, that our taste for it would gradually be forgotten? Would movies fail to entertain us if we weren’t told over and over to watch them?

1 Comment »