Rejection

Why do we want to be accepted and hate rejection so much?  After all, rejection is quite logical.  In most scenarios there are more people trying to achieve a goal they will not reach.  For example, you might want to be a star athlete but there are only so many places on professional teams for you to obtain.  Moreover, just achieving professional status, hard as that is to do, doesn’t guarantee stardom.  You might want to be successful musician or a writer, or the CEO of a Fortune 500 company, but the vast majority of people seeking those positions will not achieve them.

It’s true that anyone can start a band, write a book, or form a company, but to make it a success is something else entirely.  The odds are against us.  Still it doesn’t hinder some of us from reaching for the stars.  Hope springs eternal.

There are many who embrace the logic of rejection and don’t try to reach hugely ambitious goals, but they will face rejection from friends and potential romantic partners.  Even if you don’t want to be a corporate titan, most of us are not content to remain on the same rung of the ladder forever.  So even if we shy away from giant goals we can’t completely inoculate ourselves from rejection. 

Are we supposed to become accustomed to not achieving our dreams, and settle for the possible – to surrender to cynicism?  To sneer at those who try?

We seem destined to search for unconditional acceptance in a world where we face constant rejection. 

We know we are not perfect and so we need acceptance in spite of ourselves.  Close family can provide this to a certain extent, but our family members are often just as imperfect as we are. 

If there were a perfect person would they be disgusted by us?  Or would a perfect person be so gracious that only they could overlook our many flaws and accept us nonetheless?

If I were a truly “perfect” person I would likely console myself better that I was better than everyone else as I maintained splendid isolation. 

The Bible tells of a perfect God coming to live with hugely flawed people, some of whom couldn’t stand Him so much that they wanted Him dead.  But He offers acceptance – no matter what we have done.  That is good news.

For some thoughts on whether we are good people click here.

CSI Effect?

Radical skepticism and unquestioning credulity are strange bedfellows in today’s society.  We can’t rely on our own recollections because sometimes we make mistakes.  We don’t trust the testimony of others.  It’s not that we necessarily think others are liars, it’s just that everyone has their own perspective on the world – their personal narrative.

But at the same time we are experiencing the triumph of scientific knowledge, often to the detriment of other types of knowledge.  Science is concerned with accuracy, verifiability, and certainty.  And science is indeed magnificent.  The problem is that other types of knowledge have been downgraded.  If scientific evidence is triple A rated, other forms of evidence have junk status.

The CSI Effect

Criminal lawyers have commented on the existence of what they have termed the CSI effect.  They have theorized that juries have been influenced by the rash of criminal forensic T.V. shows such as CSI, and now expect heightened scientific evidence to be presented at trial.  Jurors prone to the CSI effect are also theorized to be more likely to dismiss other forms of evidence such as eyewitness or circumstantial evidence.

Sickness

This week a particularly nasty stomach bug has infiltrated our home.  I will spare you the details, but it has not been a pleasant experience.  I spent most of yesterday trying to summon the energy to get out of bed, which I managed to do a couple of times, immediately regretting the decision each time.

The illness that I am experiencing this week is annoying but not life-threatening.  Unfortunately, not all illness is so easily recovered from, and some diseases have no recovery. 

While we are healthy we don’t think about sickness.  We sometimes pause to reflect on our wellness when we see others suffer, but for the most part sickness seems alien to us.  Something is wrong.  We know it happens, and it could happen to us, but when it strikes, it seems so unfair.

Winning Through Negativity

I assume that negative political advertisements work – otherwise why would they be paid for?  That is, if they didn’t work we would be rid of them by now.  But do they convince or merely cement the opinions of those already inclined to the position being advocated (if the negative ads can be described as advocating).  This kind of discourse is not going to bring about positive change. 

To change someone’s opinion requires that person to make a choice.  It cannot be forced upon them.  It also requires openness to new ideas, especially those we might not be accustomed to entertaining.
   

Civilization is the willingness to listen to others, trying our best to keep our prejudices and preconceived ideas in check.  That is not to say that all ideas are equally valid, I firmly believe that truth is objective and not subjective, and that reasonable persons can get to it.  If history has shown us anything, it is that ideas can be the most dangerous things of all.  But all ideas deserve a listen until we figure out their value.

But, the exchange of ideas without civility can have the opposite effect.  If we go beyond the bounds of legitimate persuasion towards coercion, we may get our way for a while, but resentment of those forced to toe the line will grow and we will find ourselves in a worse position than before.

Cometh the Hour, Cometh the Man

Three minutes and 20 seconds into added time.  Manchester City were about to finish behind Manchester United.  Their first change to win the English league title for 44 years was slipping away.  Worse, their city rivals, Manchester United, were about to win it in their stead. Pain was etched on the faces of the City supporters.  Many started to leave.  Then to use a sporting cliché, “cometh the hour, cometh the man”, Sergio Aguero, goal.  Manchester City were champions.

Where does this phrase come from? This idea that the hero will appear at the right time to save the day, or that when the time comes someone will step up and become the hero?

This is a sporting cliché, but it resonates with us.  Could we live with the idea that there will be no hero?  That when things are at their very darkest, no one steps in  (well, as a Liverpool fan, I’ve witnessed that scenario a few too many times this season).  That we are all standing by watching helplessly as everything goes to pot.

We look to heroes who promises that will lead us to better times.  Just look at the euphoria of President Obama’s election victory.  In France, President Hollande has promised to ease the European economic crisis without crushing austerity measures. 

Interestingly, we see potential heroes fail, or at least fail to deliver on their promise all the time.   For example, I don’t think that anyone, no matter what side they face politically, would deny that Obama has not delivered all that he promised in 2008.  Similarly, Hollande may struggle to painlessly ease the French and the wider European debt crises.

But we still believe.  We still hope.  We may even pray.

Why?

Sometimes We Need To Draw Lines

The recent announcement by JP Morgan of a $2 billion trading loss caught a lot of people’s attention and caused financial stocks to drop globally.

Was the trade at JP Morgan Chase wrong because of the unnecessary risks involved or wrong because it failed?

What would have happened if the trader in question had made money on the trade?  It definitely would not have made the news, or affected global capital markets.  But, would it have been criticized at the bank? What I am asking is whether the trade was wrong because it failed or wrong because an unnecessary risk was taken.  Of course this is speculation on my part.  Here is a quote from JP Morgan CEO Jamie Dimon:

It was a bad strategy, it was badly executed, became more complex, [and] it was poorly monitored,(i)

However, news reports suggest that Dimon was not taken by surprise by the trade, but that alarm bells began to ring when it became clear that the trade was not going well. (ii)  So, it seems likely that the problem with the trade was that it lost money.

Nothing New Under the Sun

We have advanced greatly in knowledge, but this problem of meaning is no nearer to a solution. The ancient writer of Ecclesiastes, thought to be Solomon circa 970 B.C., highlighted the meaningless of life; that life has no meaning if there is nothing to it besides being born, living and dying, and attempts to find meaning in success are doomed to fail. Success is fickle and fleeting, and as the ancient writer points out, it never satisfies.

“Meaningless! Meaningless!” says the Teacher.  “Utterly meaningless! Everything is meaningless.” (i)

And

I denied myself nothing my eyes desired; I refused my heart no pleasure. My heart took delight in all my labor, and this was the reward for all my toil. Yet when I surveyed all that my hands had done and what I had toiled to achieve, everything was meaningless, a chasing after the wind; nothing was gained under the sun. (ii)

Millennia later existentialist thinkers such as Jean-Paul Sartre echoed the ancient lament of Ecclesiastes that life is without meaning. Sartre pointed out that we then have to make our own meaning in such a world without equality or fairness or direction.

I exist, that is all, and I find it nauseating. (iii)

However, the ancient philosopher pointed out there is a meaning. There will be equality. God will judge all actions. Jesus stated that in His Kingdom “first will be last and last will be first”.  (iv)

Sartre, himself recognized that without belief in the supernatural there can be no meaning to life. He rejected belief in God as “bad faith”, but his solution that everyone make their own truth is hardly any better. If we each labored under the guise of our own truth, society would break down. If no one recognized the truth of standards such as criminal laws or the rights of others, the world would be a horrible place.

There is a choice in front of us. Is life truly meaningless because it is unfair or can we find solace in the fact that God will usher in a world of fairness – the world we want to live in?

(i)  Ecclesiastes 1:2 (New International Version).
(ii) Ecclesiastes 2:10-11 (New International Version).
(iii) Jean-Paul Sartre, Nausea.
(iv) Matthew 19:30 (New International Version).

Looking Down

It never finished raining

But something was happening

The day the answer never came

A doorbell and a bird with a broken wing

A time for remembering

That to get this far was not without suffering

Or joy, relief and lesser miracles

If they can be written off in a minor key

I have not reached the top

But I can look down

And see the winding paths below

That I stumbled over not so long ago

Some Thoughts on “Civilization: The West and the Rest” by Niall Ferguson

I’ve written quite a bit lately that a shared concept of truth is necessary to establish trust in society; and that a shared sense of trust leads to a better society. In particular, in personal and business relationships it is imperative that the counterparty or friend can be trusted at their word.

Reading Harvard historian Niall Ferguson’s latest book, Civilization: The West and the Rest, I was struck by this yet again.

In Civilization, Ferguson objectively examines why so-called western nations have been so successful over the last five hundred or so years. He points out that in 1500, China was far ahead of western countries by any standard of measure.[1] He proposes that the western use of what he calls “killer apps” - competition, science, democracy, medicine, consumerism and the work ethic were the source of this rise of western countries.

At the end of the book Ferguson looks at the reasons why the western countries are now losing their way, while nations like China are rising.

Ferguson does not list Christianity as one of “the killer apps” of western civilization. But that is perhaps because it is deeper than that. He points out that capitalism and consumerism without limits can be equally destructive. Much of the western world has spent itself broke. He points out that Christianity encourages competition and entrepreneurship coupled with asceticism. That is to say, one can work hard and generate profit, but still have a firm belief that personal gain is not the end goal. He writes that in China the explosion of capitalism going hand in hand with a high personal savings rate is a key to the rise of China.

This is my Truth - Tell me your Narrative

Tell me your truth and I’ll tell you my narrative.  The idea of one person’s truth trumping another’s is surely passé – a little presumptuous.  But, the difficulties that ensue when objective standards of truth are abandoned, was brought home to me yet again as I listened to the radio this past Saturday evening.

I was listening to “This American Life” the popular National Public Radio show that retells strange but true stories that highlight the extraordinary things that happen to ordinary people – proving that fact is indeed often stranger than fiction.

Ira Glass, the host, began the show with an apology:

This American Life are not happy to have done anything to hurt the reputation of the journalism that happens on this radio station every day. So we want to be completely transparent about what we got wrong, and what we now believe is the truth. (1)

In one of the most popular episodes ever of This American Life, contained a report by Mike Daisy, a writer and actor, on the practices of Apple suppliers.  Mr. Daisy has been performing a stage monologue supposedly based on his visit to various Chinese manufacturing plants that supply Apple.  The NPR show used excerpts from his monologue, taking them to be true factual accounts, which they later found out to be fabrications.

This American Life found the Chinese translator who had accompanied Mr. Daisy on his trips to the Chinese factories, and on most points her account contradicted Mr. Daisy’s.  Veteran journalists also found many of the details in Mr. Daisy’s account hard to believe.

You can listen to the show or read a transcript here.  But, what interests me most is Mr. Daisy’s responses when pressed by Ira Glass about the glaring inconsistencies in his story.  Here is a short extract from the transcript where Glass is taking Daisy to task for not disclosing that some elements of his stage monologue used by "This American Life" were not factual: