In an age of internet-assembled philosophies...

"Those who hear the warnings of this curse should not congratulate themselves, thinking, 'I am safe, even though I am following the desires of my own stubborn heart.'” (Devarim 29:18)

The verse speaks of individuals who, despite hearing the warnings of the Torah to those living an immoral life, are convinced that they are the exception to the rule; the smokers who feel they can beat the statistics.

The human personality’s natural ego considers itself immune to popular critique; we find unique ways of justifying our hypocrisy and validating our inconsistencies.

In an age of internet-assembled philosophies, we tend to think of ourselves as sophisticated and well-read, whereas in reality we have only replaced genuine self-assessment with over-inflated self-congratulations.

In the lead-up to Rosh Hashanah, a time when we try to contextualise our lives, perhaps it is opportune to develop humility. Not the humility of the self-effacing type, but rather the humility that seeks to understand before developing an opinion.

Tolerance

Last week I participated in an interfaith dialogue between members of the Jewish, Christian and Islam faiths.

The event was both insightful and fascinating; being amongst people from such a culturally diverse spectrum seeking to find common ground during a time where religion is so often used as an excuse for separation.

In our groups we were asked to suggest ideas for promoting dialogue and fostering tolerance. Each group shared their views, a conglomeration of the group’s tri-affiliated co-religionists.

One of the groups claimed that as a prerequisite for promoting tolerance was the removal of the ‘Abbot’ government.

How ironic that the promotion of tolerance necessitates an intolerance towards those positions unaligned with my own.

I think there’s a term for that...intolerant.

Correlation is not causation!

Anyone who has taken an intro to psych or a statistics class has heard the old adage, "correlation does not imply causation." Just because two trends seem to fluctuate in tandem, this rule posits, that doesn’t prove that they are meaningfully related to one another.

Correlation is a statistical measure that describes the size and direction of a relationship between two or more variables. 

Causation indicates that one event is the result of the occurrence of the other event; i.e. there is a causal relationship between the two events. 

Causality is the area of statistics that is commonly misunderstood and misused by people in the mistaken belief that because the data shows a correlation that there is necessarily an underlying causal relationship.

A good example is that the rate of drowning on Sydney’s beaches is positively correlated to the sale of ice cream.

An incorrect conclusion is that “the consumption of ice cream leads to drowning”. More likely the reason would be that both drowning and ice cream sales are positively affected by hot weather; more people are at the beach and more ice creams are sold- correlation does not imply causation!.

A few examples from recent articles and headlines:

“Spiritual people are more likely to be mentally ill” -The Daily Mail 

 “...children whose parents smoked were more likely to exhibit delinquent behaviour”- The Guardian

“People who have large weddings are less likely to get divorced”- Psychology Today

“Men and women who eat more of the sweets are also likely to be depressed”-LA times

“Coffee may prevent depression, scientists say”-BBC

Don’t be duped by Facebook trends- correlation does not imply causation

Addicts and Codependents

The world of addictions is a scary one to witness. The addict is a con-artist extraordinaire. He has to be as his survival depends on it. It isn't that he wants to lie, it's that he cannot not lie. The truth is too scary and too painful. Admitting his addiction is half the problem.

But every story of addiction has another story of co-dependency- " a helping relationship where one person supports or enables another person's addiction, poor mental health, immaturity, irresponsibility, or under-achievement."

The codependent prolongs the addictive cycle; he makes excuses for the addict, bails out the addict and defends the addict. The codependent ensures that the addict need never take responsibility for his actions.
They show kindness when harshness is needed, they open their arms when their arms needed to be folded. 
Their reluctance to be perceived as the 'bad guy' dupes them into becoming the bad guy.
Addicts are not the only ones who need to be in therapy...they are just the obvious ones.

Can legends be true?

"In the Chinese language, the word "crisis" is composed of two characters, one representing danger and the other, opportunity."  -John F. Kennedy, Speech at United Negro College Fund fundraiser,April 1959.

In researching this quote I discovered that it is a mistranslation of the Chinese character for opportunity.
But does it really matter? Is the concept of crisis presenting an opportunity wrong?
If I can learn a true idea from a faulty proof or feel inspired by a fictional story- does it make the experience any less authentic?

Is the truth less valuable if the proof is faulty, flawed or fiction? Maybe the truth is in our conclusion?

When you trust someone...

How were referees introduced into sport?

Surely the earliest form of games developed out of a sense of healthy competitiveness. Two or more individuals or teams, pitted against one another in a battle of strength, skill or wit.

Games were based on trust and therefore the adjudication and fairness of a particular play or move were left in the hands of the players themselves.

With the development of the games came a corresponding raising of the stakes for winning or losing, whether financial or just for prestige. Suddenly there was an incentive to cheat.

Quickly, our honesty was questioned and we doubted the testimony of our opponent. We stood to lose too much, and our adversary gain too much. We could no longer trust or be trusted.

To reinstate fairness into the system, we introduced a neutral third party. These arbitrators would act as objective outsiders, incorruptible and fair. This ushered in the age of the referee ‒ policemen for sport.

Trust is at the core of every relationship. If you have it, the relationship will flourish; if not, it will perish.

In religious circles, trust was supported by using God as the referee.  One would take an oath or pledge using the name of God;  the fear of taking His name in vain would serve as an insurance policy, protecting against fraud and deceit.

It seems, however, that God's status as a referee has become inadequate even in religious circles. An oath in the name of God has lost its value.

If players no longer respect the referee, then the game loses all its integrity. If civil society can no longer trust one another, then society will cease to be civil.

The risk of trusting is being deceived.

The risk of not trusting is far greater.

Cases of mistaken identity...

First there’s a man who says he’s a woman

Then a black woman who is really a white woman

And now a white woman who thinks she a sick woman

The first case won support, the second ambivalence and the third scorn.

All cases of identities misunderstood, misconstrued or ill-conceived.

It seems that the once obvious question of identity is no longer obvious....