tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20163722624949592662024-03-14T04:38:10.041-07:00A Ranting Mad SaintJason M. Cherryhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10190522470368617594noreply@blogger.comBlogger17125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2016372262494959266.post-13375237834998953372014-09-28T00:43:00.002-07:002014-09-28T00:47:05.440-07:00How Relationships Have Shaped MeCopied from one of my forum posts elsewhere on the intertubes (feel free to track down the original if you like):<br />
<br />
I haven’t exactly had great role models growing up, at least not real live ones. My dad was physically abusive to me and my mom, my mom was emotionally abusive. The other adults around me were, at best, mediocre. Most of what I understand of ethics and morality I learned from television. Thankfully, my parents had an eye for good TV, which mainly included Star Trek. I’ve been an avid follower of the sci-fi cultural drama ever since, because it always questioned and was never quite settled with an easy answer.<br />
<br />
So I learned to always question, and was never settled with an easy answer. This did me well in school and has done me well in my career. I engaged with the sciences, the humanities, with politics, eventually settling in to an amazing role that blends many of my passions and interests into one. I’m fortunate to have a career I love, built from my sweat, blood, work, and tears. Something I can truly say is my own, through and through. In the ‘practical’ matters of life, I have succeeded far beyond what anyone could have expected from me when I was growing up. I moved from an isolated little kid from a broken family (parents divorced messily when I was 13) to one who stands on his own two feet, doing some amazing things, helping lots of people, and with a great future laid out.<br />
<br />
Yet, as with most things it seems, my price for this has been in my relationships. I have suffered bitterly with poor relationships. Over a decade of dating (I’m 31) and I have more broken hearts strewn in my past than I would wish on anyone. I’ve been gutted, through and through, with constant lies, abuse, manipulation, and even outright theft, by multitudes of women over the past several years. One broke up with me during her family’s new years eve party, another bailed on me because she wanted to ‘try things out with another guy’ and then came running back (unsuccessfully) when that didn’t work, another chewed me out extremely harshly for being too tired to spend more time with her after coming back from a cross-country interview. Countless others have just flat out lied about who they are, what they wanted, etc. and put the blame for that on me.<br />
<br />
And then there’s my ex-wife… *shudder* What she did is the stuff of nightmares, literally. The trauma she caused gives me sleepless nights, makes my mind wander, distracts me through the day, and that was over four years ago.<br />
<br />
Time and time again I try, looking for the problem. I’ve looked at the women I date, which covers a very wide range, and I can’t find the problem. I look at myself, but can find no problem there, even after cross-checking with friends, family, and otherwise. I don’t understand the problem, and I keep running into it, again and again and again.<br />
<br />
I *may* be just a very difficult person to match, I’m a phenomenally deep thinker, I regularly engage with philosophy, religion, politics, the ‘big question’ fields. I have my own personal sense of morality that I’ve constructed over the years. I lack a lot of the social conditioning that most people have (one of the quirks of homeschool), so I’m not susceptible to the same persuasions that most are. My interests are diverse, including theater, needlework, programming, law, astronomy, and dance, just to name a few. I’m proud of what I’ve achieved, and I recognize that I’m but a blip in the cosmos. I sometimes wonder if that uniqueness, which has so benefitted me in every other area of my life, is why my relationships suffer as they do.<br />
<br />
I’ve tried so many different things, raising and lowering my standards, different venues, different kinds of women, passive and active approaches, the results are basically the same all-around: I get heartbroken in some fashion, and often completely unexpectedly.<br />
<br />
I have a good life, a very good one in fact. This part of it, though, has suffered greatly, and I have many, many many many, scars from it. Nothing seems to work, and nothing seems to help. I’m, simply put, lonely. It’s hard to shake the feeling that the best I can hope to achieve is to bounce from heartbreak to heartbreak, or to just give up on it altogether and resign myself to loneliness. I bounce between both ends, determination and despair, far more often than I would like.<br />
<br />
I may be ‘only 31’, and really just facing a problem in one part of what is otherwise a rather idyllic life, yet it’s a part that drags all the other ones down. The worst thing about it, my happiest relationship memories are from my marriage, yet because of the character of my ex, I can’t say those were honest memories, given how I was lied to and manipulated in that relationship.<br />
<br />
What’s harder is being surrounded by people in happy relationships all the time. I often feel like Tantalus must have felt: eternally hungry, with food just out of reach at all times. Oh I understand surface impressions aren’t everything, and many ‘happy couples’ aren’t as happy as they seem. I still argue that they’re better off in this area than I am, and it’s torturesome for me to see that.<br />
<br />
I think these challenges are why I’m so drawn to Fredrick Nietzsche’s philosophies, the abridged version being ‘what doesn’t kill you makes you stronger’, and there’s no doubt that I’m a stronger person for the suffering I’ve endured. I’ve overcome the kinds of emotional stress that would completely cripple many people; I’ve endured countless sleepless nights due to the emotional trauma of my relationships; I’ve tested my character by not being vindictive on those who did me harm. Yet when is enough, enough?<br />
<br />
I don’t really know whom this is directed at, the universe maybe? As a plea for compassion? I’m tough enough to take this, probably tougher still, yet when I tell friends of the depth of my suffering, the only explanation any of them can come up with is that I must have dome some truly horrendous things in a past life.<br />
<br />
I’ve made some remarkable things out of this life, why am I not allowed to share it with someone? *sigh*. I’m not really looking for advice, I’ve gotten so much, and found it all rather worthless in my situation (not that its worthless advice, it’s just worthless because nothing seems to work). Compassion is appreciated, but fleeting. I guess I’m asking for prayer, that something will change for me, and somehow I’ll find myself with someone to share what I’ve built with.<br />
<br />
- JasonJason M. Cherryhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10190522470368617594noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2016372262494959266.post-23304698575716475392014-09-25T20:55:00.001-07:002014-09-25T20:55:01.526-07:00Understanding PrivilegeI think it's pretty clear I've had a lot on my mind lately. Funny how having free time does that.<br />
<br />
I wonder a lot what exactly 'male privilege' means. I think I understand how privilege works in sociology: having an advantage due to characteristics that aren't related to one's actual skills and abilities. Whites have a privilege over Blacks because of multiple generations of being the owners of production, rather than its servants (I use that word very loosely, as slaves is just as valid). Over time this generates far more capital among Whites, which gets passed generationally to more Whites.<br />
<br />
There's a lot to this though. Inter-racial families are an unfortunate rarity, despite the advantages (I'm speaking mainly genetically here). Is it fair to say that Whites have 'privilege' in this case, when there's other factors that are required to sustain that privilege beyond just the existence of the initial advantage. I think this is one of the reasons that privilege gets treated as a systemic problem.<br />
<br />
It goes beyond just capital though, in post-modern societies there's particular paths, behaviors, and interactions that give one an advantage. How one presents, what skills one has, who one knows. Granted these are things that are (generally, but not always) within the control of the individual, though where does one learn what are advantageous ways of presenting, skills to have, and people to know? I'd argue that a lot of that comes from the environment that an individual is raised in.<br />
<br />
I'd also argue that context matters significantly in which combination of presentation, skills and social ties are most advantageous to the individual. For example, I come from an upper-middle class background. Both my parents imparted in me the value of the traditional education system. They were preparing me to find advantage in the world they knew: the upper-middle class world, where I could find an advantage by pursuing and achieving a college degree.<br />
<br />
They weren't wrong either, I have many of the advantages I do because I achieved that degree. The value of that degree, however, was imparted by my parents value of education. Yes, I bring much of my own unique individuality to that, however if not for my parents imparting their beliefs, I would have had nothing to start with.<br />
<br />
I believe, and I think sociological theory would support me, that the same process happens for many, if not all, children. They learn from their parents, and their early environment, what behaviors, skills, and connections provide an advantage. The problem is, it's limited to their environment. I doubt my fancy-pants policy degree would matter worth a whiff in Richmond, CA though.<br />
<br />
For those who don't know, Richmond, CA is one of the roughest neighborhoods around San Francisco. Oakland gets a lot of the attention, but it's really Richmond that houses the most challenging environment. There's a particular part called the 'iron triangle' (due to how the rail lines cross the area) where violence and death is not uncommon. I have a friend who grew up there, and falling asleep to gunshots was a regular occurrence.<br />
<br />
Everything I got from my parents wouldn't matter a whiff in that environment. I was raised in an environment where the norms are vastly different than the iron triangle. In a lot of ways, it's a completely different culture.<br />
<br />
Traditional rhetoric would identify me as having 'privilege' over people who grew up in the iron triangle. I wonder though, what exactly that means? I have advantages in the upper-middle class environment, I was raised in it, and understand its nuances and subtleties. I am much better at 'playing the system' in the upper-middle class world than anywhere else, because I've been exposed to it much longer.<br />
<br />
But that understanding doesn't extend beyond that realm. It actually presents itself with a phenomenal challenge if I ever wanted to migrate outside of an 'upper-middle class' environment. That 'privilege' that I have here, in upper-middle class world, is lost as soon as I step outside of it. This applies not just to 'downsizing' my class status, but also to 'upsizing'. I don't understand the environment to survive as a wealthy individual any more than I do as a poor one.<br />
<br />
Yet the argument is that the rich are privileged in what they have over me. I find myself confused with that argument, as much as I'm confused by how I have privilege over the poor. In much the same way that I would loose my advantages outside my upper-middle class environment, so would others loose their advantages in their environment.<br />
<br />
Yet the common view of 'privilege' would have this top-down perspective of how I'm exploited by the rich, and how I exploit the poor because of these learned advantages. Ignoring how I feel on the matter (in some ways I do and others I don't) for the moment, as that's got a ton of bias in it already (which I touch on a little <a href="http://rantingmadsaint.blogspot.com/2014/09/sampling-bias.html" target="_blank">here</a>), let's think this through for a moment without my personal experiences on the matter.<br />
<br />
There's apparently a 'hierarchy' of privilege, with some at the top, middle, and bottom (all to varying degrees), and varying influences (gender, race, age, etc.) determining where a person would fall in this hierarchy. What determines privilege though? Yes, a poor person, with their experience, background, and understandings of what methods of presentation, value of skills, and use of social connections is most advantageous would do, on average, more poorly than someone like me in an upper-middle class environment, however it also works in reverse. Same applies between me and the rich. There's no inherent hierarchy in that chain.<br />
<br />
Often, though, along with discussing privilege is discussed power. Let's examine the power dynamics between different class groups then.<br />
<br />
Also, I realize I'm using only three class groups, divided among a subjective socio-economic status, which can be fairly criticized. It's a simple illustration that helps me draw into my larger point.<br />
<br />
Anyhow, So, what's the power dynamic between me and the poor? This gets super-complicated, but I think the main one is that I'm more protected from the influence of actions of the poor on me. Consider how the culture of the poor relates: it's more dangerous, more prone to physical violence. There are laws in place to protect people from that. I would argue to protect people like me from that, as in 'middle class' society, that's considered a disadvantageous way to behave (violently). However in poorer environments that could be an advantageous way to behave.<br />
<br />
The irony, though, is that middle-class behavior standards also apply to poor individuals, so they end up caught between middle-class authority, and the advantages gained in their environment by acting in that way. The same thing happens between middle-class and the rich. Middle-class constantly complain about how they're getting swindled by the rich, and in much the same way that's because the behaviors, standards, and whatnot of the rich are applied to the middle-class (I would say this is more due to the exceptions in laws, rather than their explicit intent, but the result is similar), creating the same basic dynamic, and therefore causing 'oppression'. It's more complicated and pervasive than just within the legal system, but I figured I'd start simple.<br />
<br />
So then, would privilege be to have been raised in the environment of a group with at least some power over other groups? I think there's more to examining this issue than just that definition, but it's a good place to start.<br />
<br />
Let's examine that power though, as one of the things I would argue is that it only exists within that group. This is somewhat self-evident as we're defining privilege as being in a group that can exert power over other groups, but I wanted to explicitly mention it, because as soon as someone falls out of that group, their power falls with them, and they need to re-calibrate their behavior to match their new environment.<br />
<br />
How does one stay in their group though? Generally by taking advantage of the environment of that group: by presenting in advantageous ways, by learning the most useful skills, and by knowing the right people. If someone doesn't do that, they fall out of the group, or lat least the amount of capacity they have in that group is rather minimum.<br />
<br />
Doesn't this inherently limit the range of behaviors and actions that those within the group can perform though? Doesn't that homogenize the behavior of the group? Oh sure things change over time, but as it changes, the group will re-homogenize around the new 'optimum strategy'. In a way, it's inherently limiting to be in that position. I would argue it works across all groups too, not just 'privileged' ones. If you want to succeed in a poor environment, you'll need to 'act poor', because that's where the advantages in that environment are.<br />
<br />
Doesn't that inherently trap people's behaviors within their class? Or, to put the argument more pointedly: doesn't that mean that the people in the most privileged positions are just as limited by the norms of their group as those who don't have that privilege?<br />
<br />
I won't dispute the idea that one group can have power over another, but I would argue that doesn't mean either group has more individual flexibility to operate outside of their group. There are rules, policies, guidelines, standards, expectations, and norms that are applied upon each individual depending on their group.<br />
<br />
I say this because there seems to be this interesting idea that people higher up on the privilege chain have more capacity to do more stuff than those lower on it. I would argue that we're all pretty equally stuck by the norms of our group, even if that group does give us power over other groups.<br />
<br />
Does this mean I'm stuck to forever live my life within the realm of middle-class America? Possibly, and rather likely too. There's always exceptions and I'm already an exception in other ways as it is. So, what does it really mean that I'm 'oppressed' and that others have 'privilege' over me? Basically that there's a group of people who can exert influence on my life whether I like it or not, and they can do it because they have a different upbringing than me.<br />
<br />
And what does it mean that I 'oppress' others and have 'privilege' over them? Same thing really, just in reverse. There's a group of people that I can exert influence on whether or not they like it, and that's largely because of my upbringing.<br />
<br />
There's a lot of discussion about breaking down this privilege, which I can only assume means either breaking the ability for one group to exert power over another (which I think is impossible), or by homogenizing everyone into a single group (which I have a multitude of objections to).<br />
<br />
I think, though, this rant has gotten long enough, and I've got more than enough food-for-thought already to work with for any future posts I put out there.<br />
<br />
Always welcoming of thoughts, feedback, ideas, and whatnot. I've actually got a Twitter account now (despite my distaste of social media) which would be a great venue to engage me on. I'm at @Calvin_xc1.<br />
<br />
Cheers everyone.<br />
<br />
- JasonJason M. Cherryhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10190522470368617594noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2016372262494959266.post-67670408458901624812014-09-22T19:47:00.003-07:002014-09-22T19:47:39.804-07:00Sampling BiasOne of the more interesting research concepts that's been on my mind lately is sampling bias, or put simply, what happens when your sample doesn't represent your population?<br />
<br />
This has been coming up a lot for me because of a few things:<br />
<br />
<ul>
<li>A good friend of mine that I have regular political conversations with has had vastly different experiences with the same group of people that I have had. I've found most liberals, feminists, and LGBT's to be rather moderate, rational (though not always informed), and highly capable of intellectual discussion. His experiences have been much more extreme.</li>
<li>The whole #GamerGate thing (and really any heated online discussion) paints a lot of rather... 'colorful' pictures of both sides of the discussion, yet when I actually engage someone 1-on-1, I find things tend to (not always) be more moderate, rational, and level-headed.</li>
<li>Since my job involves a degree of research design, it's a regular question I face professionally. 'who can we sample, and how are they different from those we can't?'</li>
</ul>
<div>
It's the first point that's really driven it home for me, as I'm more personally vested with my friend than I am with #GamerGate, or my job.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Side note: If you're not familiar with #GamerGate, Three of my more recent posts touch on different facets of the issue, <a href="http://rantingmadsaint.blogspot.com/2014/08/how-feminism-tries-to-dominate-multi.html" target="_blank">here</a>, <a href="http://rantingmadsaint.blogspot.com/2014/08/what-games-means-to-me.html" target="_blank">here </a>and <a href="http://rantingmadsaint.blogspot.com/2014/09/criticism-and-advancement-why-i-support.html" target="_blank">here</a>.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
I'm really starting to wonder exactly how much of our understandings, impressions, assumptions, and whatnot is framed by these inconsistencies of experiences. Naturally each of us is limited in our personal sampling frame to our personal experiences, but as any good researcher would tell you, that's (at best) a step above a convenience sample, and is unlikely to be representative of the group as a whole. Yet we still form our opinions based on this bias sample.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
So, I must wonder, if we're forming opinions based on our personal experiences as an override to something less bias, then how can anyone really trust their understandings of any group at all? This gets back to the idea of media bias, and the Orwellian nightmare. If the state controls what information we have, then that's creating a bias on our understanding of our environment and ability to come to broad-based insights.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Yet aren't we self-imposing the same kind of Orwellian nightmare on ourselves by functioning on personal experience? If our own personal experiences are as influential to how we perceive the world around us, and those experiences are based on bias sampling, then how can we help but form an improper concept of our world?</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Going back to the real-world examples: My friend has had very negative experiences with individuals of a liberal persuasion (thankfully excluding myself), to the point where his perception has shifted from the belief that there's different objectives between the groups, to the suspicion that liberals pose a real threat to him and those with his perspectives.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
My experiences have been radically different, with liberals and conservatives holding space for different views, debating each other, sometimes getting heated, but not being hateful or threatening (overall, there's always individual exceptions).</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
So, since both of our samples are quite bias (Mine mostly from the San Francisco, Boston, D.C. and Denver areas, and his mostly from South Carolina), where can an accurate picture of liberals be found? I'm not entirely sure, I can't say that my perspective is any more legitimate than his as I have no evidence, given that I have a rather limited knowledge of the full scope of the sampling biases involved.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Don't get me wrong, I *like* my perspective more, not just because it paints the group I associate with in a more positive light, but also because it's more positive in general. That's personal bias though, and doesn't make for objective generalizations.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Now, it's easy to take this concept to its logical conclusion and state that there's no way to get to an objective generalization of our perspectives. I would argue this stops short of a full analysis though, in that the goal is not necessarily to reach it, but to reach for it. It's similar logic used in the #GamerGate debate to support the idea that objective journalism is important (link <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bWoR_AFha5U" target="_blank">here</a>) as in doing so improves who we are and what we do. Complete objective generalizations is the perfect goal, reality gets in the way, and we still end up better off for the attempt than if we throw up our arms in nihilistic futility.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
That may be me just being overly Nietzschian though (-:</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Anyway, it's a food for thought.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Best thinking folks.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
- Jason</div>
Jason M. Cherryhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10190522470368617594noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2016372262494959266.post-8159366294044347452014-09-21T11:32:00.001-07:002014-09-21T11:32:23.233-07:00I'm TiredI'm tired. The world's been a cruel place to me. It's also been wonderful and amazing, but dishearteningly cruel at the same time. In much the way Tantalus suffered by having food to quench his hunger eternally in sight, but out of grasp. What have I done to deserve this punishment?<br />
<br />
I look around me and see people happily content in their relationships, or sometimes not quite so, but still in them. I try to find my own slice of that happiness, and yet it seems I'm forever locked at the gates of a relationship, never allowed to step in.<br />
<br />
The one time I was able to make my way in, I was brutally and savagely punished for it, as if having a relationship is something that is eternally forbidden to me and any attempt to have one is deserving of the same torment that those in Tartarus suffer for their crimes.<br />
<br />
Yet in trying to understand my ostracization I find nothing but lies, misdirection, and manipulation. No one can tell me what the problem with me is that makes me somehow unworthy of the land of relationship; when I ask I get nothing but half-truths, dissemblements, and dismissals.<br />
<br />
I feel like an outcast, good for little but exploitation from others and to be their emotional whipping post. I feel like my value is less than that of a slug, and I am cast aside by so many at that same level of value.<br />
<br />
*sigh* What am I to do about it? I've tried so many different things, everything but being as deceptive, back-stabbing, manipulative and dishonest as everyone else. They say that in the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king. What was left out was that the one-eyed man is king only of himself, as everyone else would have cast him out for being able to see.<br />
<br />
I'm so tired of fighting this alone, it's as if the whole world is against me. One of my favorite parts of Shakespeare's Hamlet is what I consider the most mis-understood part of all time.:<br />
<br />
To be, or not to be, that is the question—<br />
Whether 'tis Nobler in the mind to suffer<br />
The Slings and Arrows of outrageous Fortune,<br />
Or to take Arms against a Sea of troubles,<br />
And by opposing, end them? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/To_be,_or_not_to_be)<br />
<br />
Most see this as about death and/or suicide. I see it as a morality question: should one suffer the immorality (slings and arrows) of a comfortable life (outrageous fortune), or should one hold true to ones morals (take up arms) and challenge the overwhelming tide of abuse, loneliness and sorrow (sea of troubles) that comes from being resolved in one's morality? I've always chosen the latter as I refuse to let the impositions of what I see as an immoral society control my actions, much less my thoughts and feelings.<br />
<br />
I believe this is the root of my suffering in relationships. Because the cultural view on what a relationship is 'supposed' to be, and how I do not conform to it, I fail spectacularly.<br />
<br />
One thing I can say for sure is that it has served as an excellent filtering mechanism for people who are too caught up in social norms to actually see what's in front of them.<br />
<br />
I just hope there really is an extraordinary woman out there who can see what's in front of her, rather than just the filter that society tells her to see with.<br />
<br />
- JasonJason M. Cherryhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10190522470368617594noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2016372262494959266.post-86208023442413005112014-09-14T20:54:00.000-07:002014-09-14T20:54:56.152-07:00Criticism and Advancement: Why I Support Both GamerGate and Feminist FrequencyDisclosure: I do financially support Feminist Frequency, and after my rant here you may understand why a bit better.<br />
<br />
Let me say straight up that I'm rather fond of Fredrick Nietzsche's philosophies on how suffering, pain, and adversity is the path to growth and strength. As such it should come as no surprise that criticism, differing viewpoints, alternative perspectives, and even personal attacks are welcome (though challenging) experiences, because they help me refine my opinions, strengthen my rhetoric, and harden my proverbial skin.<br />
<br />
This is a big part of why I support GamerGate, and also why I support Feminist Frequency. These days a lot of people would argue that these two should be in separate camps, and that I'm some kind of abomination, hypocrite, or somehow mentally deranged or whatnot. A lot of this connects back to my very Nietzscheian perspective. Put another way, there's a wonderful piece of dialog in Star Trek: TNG (S2E21 "Peak Performance", about a minute in) that I'll draw from to give another perspective on it:<br />
<br />
<b>Data</b>: "For over nine millennia, potential foes have regarded the Zakdorn's as having the greatest innately strategic minds in the galaxy."<br />
<b>Worf</b>: "So no one is willing to test that perception in combat?"<br />
<b>Data</b>: "Exactly."<br />
<b>Worf</b>: "Then the reputation means nothing."<br />
<br />
Now replace a strategic mind and combat with pretty much any form of idea, concept, or whatnot. The same still applies, unless an idea is able to survive the rigor of being challenged by other ideas, it cannot be said to truly deserve any renown. Also, by going through the process of surviving that challenge it becomes more robust, more refined, and more capable.<br />
<br />
Unfortunately there's one thing that will kill the ability for an idea to survive these rigors: censorship. If there's no dialog to challenge an idea with, then how can it be challenged? If it cannot be challenged, then how can it be reputable?<br />
<br />
Using this logic it's pretty clear why I support GamerGate, I believe. Censorship limits the ability for ideas to be challenged, and also to grow. Using similar logic I support Feminist Frequency, as what good is gaming of we 'sacred cow' it and censor criticism of it? If gaming is truly to grow, evolve and improve then it most accept such criticism and respond, either through rebuttal or revision (or both).<br />
<br />
So, my ideology puts me at a rather interesting split between the more radical (I'll get into what exactly I mean by 'radical' in another post at another time), and more publicly seen, sides of GamerGate and gaming feminism. Both sides would accuse me of selling out to the other, GamerGate for supporting Sarkeesian, and gaming feminism for buying into a distraction from feminist issues. I would debate either on those points though, gladly, for exactly the reasons I've stated above. I support discussion, I support my ideas being challenged, I support being beaten down, because I know how to pick myself up and go at it again (-:<br />
<br />
Now there are moderates on both sides, and those like me who straddle the middle, who can completely understand what I'm saying here. I'm hoping this is the majority, though sadly I know it's not a vocal majority. Level-headedness and clear thinking doesn't tend to jive with being highly vocal. The voice of reason often gets crowded out in the open room.<br />
<br />
Regardless, I think there needs to be more people like Sarkeesian, bringing more perspectives on gaming, including critiques of Sarkeesian's work. I also feel the same about GamerGate, and something I've been appreciating the twitter feed for the diversity of opinions I come across on it, both the ranting scathing hateful stuff, the thoughtful contemplation, and everything in-between.<br />
<br />
Hopefully that provides insight into my stance on a few things.<br />
<br />
- JasonJason M. Cherryhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10190522470368617594noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2016372262494959266.post-8711098521650797182014-08-31T06:18:00.002-07:002014-09-22T19:53:31.987-07:00What Games Means to MeI've been a gamer for as long as I can remember. I started on an old Atari 2600 and a pre-windows PC. I remember competing with my mom playing Centipede, I remember playing the old text-based game Adventure, and it's Hall of the Mountain King. For context, I'm only 31 y/o, so I was easily single-digit age when I started gaming. Games have been more a part of my life than anything else, if I'm being truly frank her, even more than my family. It's something that's been a part of my life for over two decades, if not more (memories of my childhood are pretty fuzzy). So, what happens in gaming matters to me.<br />
<br />
I think that's why I can't seem to shake the Zoe Quinn thing. As long as I've been gaming I've also been consuming game journalism. I remember back when Gamespot was a fairly rag-tag site that I used to read on a regular basis. I eventually drifted away from it because the reviews weren't lining up with my tastes anymore. No biggie, that happens, at the time (mid 90's, if I remember correctly) gaming was diverging more towards multiplayer that singleplayer experiences, and I've always been a singleplayer kind of gamer. I drifted for awhile without any good professional feedback on games that I found useful, then I stumbled across a site I'm still fond of today: Ars Technica. I like their game reviews, and I've found that my tastes generally align with their reviews. More recently I've expanded that a little to include TotalBiscut's YouTube channel, and I absolutely delight on his game industry commentary. I can easily disagree with TotalBiscut's approach to gaming, and what he does/doesn't like (Dear Esther being the quintessential example), but I absolutely adore how he reviews games, as it gives me a phenomenal amount of information on whether or not I'd like the game.<br />
<br />
But, I digress, and probably over-provide context here. I feel that the core idea of the message I want to convey here is what games mean to me. I am a gamer, and I wear that badge with the same level of pride that I do all of the other ones that I assign myself (for anyone who knows me, I've got an ego that's hard to match, so there's a lot of pride in those labels for me).<br />
<br />
Over the years my understanding of my medium of choice has evolved. At first it was an entertaining challenge. I remember my first time playing the original X-Com and was totally engrossed with the complexity of the game, and how much I had to juggle at once to be good at it. I loved the challenge, and I still do today. As I started getting educated and more critical of my environment I got inclining of some of the norms in gaming that were rubbing me the wrong way. The most prominent thing is that gaming was popularly thought of as a 'guy' thing. This bothered me, I never considered women to be any worse at gaming than men, as my mom could regularly trounce me at centipede back in the Atari days. I wanted to understand why, so I researched it. Before that I was never very engaged in the online community of gamers, and when I got there I was rather shocked at some (admittedly not all) of what I saw. Misogyny was common, and women were being harassed out of the scene. Can I point to specific examples? Well, kind of, but my memory from that far back is pretty hazy (I think my memory is crap until about ~3 years ago or so, that's for another post though). I do remember one article I read talking about how in competitive gaming, one woman got sexually harassed out of a competition by her male contender, and afterwards the guy who had done the harassing said that such harassment was a 'part of gaming'. I seriously re-considered if I wanted to be a gamer at that point.<br />
<br />
But I persist in calling myself a gamer, not because I feel that sexually harassing women is a part of gaming. Heck, the same group can (and often does) mean different things to different people. I do think I share at least one thing in common with the harassing guy: we both love games. For me that's the essence of my identity as a gamer.<br />
<br />
So, I had recognized that gaming was a hostile environment to women, and I disliked that. It's a medium that's important to me, and anything important to me I have a desire to share. I shuddered at the thought that I may not be able to share something so important with most of the people in my life (It's always been for me that most of my friends are women). Most of the times I do share that, I get cynical feedback. I remember one instance of sharing the last bits of Brood War with a female friend, and as we were watching the ending cinematic the only thing she could say about the entire thing was to mutter "cyber barbie" about Kerrigan's appearance.<br />
<br />
Now, granted, this isn't someone who's been through the Starcraft campaign, so I understood the emotional connections would be absent, but I still felt hurt. Here was a character that I had seen through countless adventures, who I had watched fall to the Zerg and be reborn as the Queen of Blades, who had slain many other characters I had come to adore. This was a character I was emotionally vested in. What I saw at the end of Brood War was the culmination of all those experiences into one dark, dreadful moment. I wanted to share that dread, that sense of loss and sadness. All, it seems, I could share of that was "cyber barbie". My heart sunk, and I think that was the point I stopped sharing my medium with others. It wasn't something that could be understood by someone who wasn't already there.<br />
<br />
It's not to say that I didn't understand where my friend was coming from, games do oversexualize women (Dead or Alive, anyone?). I never saw that as an issue specific to gaming as I see the same thing in every other form of media as well. As my college education continued so did my ability to identify and critique it. I absolutely adore Bioware, and I still roll my eyes at their concept of the female figure. Sometimes my objection over portrayal of women in games pushed me to boycott certain franchises. Tomb Raider is the perfect example, I was just so turned off (ironically) by the physical representation of Lara Croft that I just turned away from the franchise entirely, up until the recent reboot.<br />
<br />
I was thrilled when Anita Sarkeesian started Feminist Frequency. Finally there was someone bringing that kind of analysis I was already familiar with (academic) to this part of gaming that I'd been critiquing in my mind in an unstructured and subjective way. Now I had an analytical framework to work with! Shortly thereafter started coming the indie game development scene, and some of the games I love the most today that came from it: Kerbal Space Program, Journey, FTL. Journey especially, as that's when I first started to really profoundly identify women's contributions to game development. Before that it was piecemeal, at best. I was seeing perspectives that I never had before, ways of engaging with my favorite medium that were new and refreshing for me. I still remember the first game I played where I felt that women weren't being blatantly objectified: The Longest Journey. As much as old-school point-and-click adventure games infuriate me (Wait, I need to get the deflated rubber ducky float, patch it, inflate it, and combine it with a pair of huge pliers and rope so I can get the key that's sitting in the subway, so I can open the power junction by the theater to distract the cleaning guy and get in the theater? *seriously?!*), I still love them. Call it an acquired taste (-:<br />
<br />
Then I saw something I was not expecting: Wil Wheaton, Felicia Day, The Big Bang Theory, game advertisements on television and in theaters. Gaming was becoming mainstream. I was thrilled! To thie day I still don't feel like I can really share my experience as a gamer with most people, but that's more to do with me. I was excited that more and more people would be having the experiences that I've had over the past few decades though. Yes, it is 'just a game'. It's also fair to say that games reflect ourselves, especially in the Bioware games (still annoyed about what I can only refer to as 'BioBoobs', though). I played through Mass effect as a good-ish character. I wasn't afraid of being an asshole if I felt it was necessary, or if something/one rubbed me the wrong way (I was a total ass to Verner).<br />
<br />
I also saw a step up of the vitriol that was coming from the kinds of gamers with the same attitude as that one guy who sexually harassed his competitor out of the competition. I couldn't help but resignedly sigh and accept that I was probably going to see more of that. I had become comfortable in my identity as a gamer, and moreso because I wasn't *that* kind of gamer. Certainly a degree of pride about that.<br />
<br />
Honestly I never really dug myself into the politics of gaming until I started listening to TotalBiscut. Given that I've got a degree in public policy, one would think this is something that would come up for me more frequently. I haven't been to a gaming convention in a long time (full disclosure though, I did volunteer for Arisia 2013), and it's been hard to find a group of gamers that I really connect with well, so I really haven't been connected well enough to know about any of this.<br />
<br />
So then I find out about this whole Zoe Quinn thing, and I rally shouldn't be as riled up about it as I am. Ok, yeah, she's something of a screw-up, that's fine. People can be screw-ups, that's just how it happens. I guess what's been spinning around this for me is that some of the things I've been noticing outside of gaming that I've been annoyed with when it comes to a feminist critique, found their way into gaming. As for those 'things I've been annoyed with', see items 5 and 6 in my <a href="http://rantingmadsaint.blogspot.com/2014/08/how-feminism-tries-to-dominate-multi.html" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">previous post</a>. Take those and apply them to other fields, it's something I've been noticing and critiquing. I play a dangerous game though, as in these critiques I tend to put some of my friendships at risk, because I do critique very emotionally-laden topics.<br />
<br />
And this is where I try to come full circle, I suppose. It traces back to one of my core values: the things that matter the most to us are the ones we should be critiquing the most, otherwise they have no method of improving over time. I am critical of games, as I've mentioned to the point of boycotting a franchise for awhile because of how I disagreed with it's portrayal of women (Tomb Raider). I even <a href="https://docs.google.com/document/d/1kze1ydizciYjcZnOpQePuUaJXXyMGbzKWitFVGv5Mgc/edit?usp=sharing&authkey=COLsmqwL" target="_blank">wrote a paper</a> that did a critique of how games present relationship options for the player character. I gave Mass Effect some good shit in that thing, and I absolutely love Mass Effect!<br />
<br />
Part of it is also that I think I needed a bit of hero-bashing. I'll come straight out and say that Wil Wheaton's been someone I've admired for awhile, especially given that he started his stardom as Wesley Crusher in Star Trek: TNG. He's really embraced the geek/nerd/gamer/whatever-you-wanna-call-it culture when he had every reason to turn away from it. I can't agree with his opinions in this matter, and I feel that his opinions reinforce the anti-criticism spirit that's been surrounding the entire Zoe Quinn issue. That's just something, being a person who absolutely loves games as much as I do and who values criticism as a vital part of how games will grow and evolve, that I can't condone.<br />
<br />
So, I'm in a weird and very isolating place, again, where I'm not sure exactly how to express what gaming means to me. In a lot of ways, I guess I'm, again, redefining what it means for me to be a gamer. What it'll morph into, I'm not sure. I do know that my values of critiquing the things I care the most about, and the people who work with/create them, will play heavily into it going forward, however.<br />
<br />
I guess to give a TL;DR version: I love games, they're meaningful to me, and I value them. That's why I care about our ability to critique them, as well as how they're made, who makes them, and how we as a culture perceive them.<br />
<br />
Cheers folks,<br />
<br />
- Jason<br />
<br />
Update (9/22/14): I've since moved the sites I get news from to The Escapist, GoodGamers.us, Niche Gamer, and Tech Raptor.Jason M. Cherryhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10190522470368617594noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2016372262494959266.post-67569543248285571792014-08-30T01:21:00.004-07:002014-08-30T01:21:58.405-07:00How Feminism Tries to Dominate Multi-Faceted IssuesThis has been something of a soapbox rant I've had stewing in my head for awhile now, and I think a situation finally came up that can allow me to articulate it in a more concise manner.<br />
<br />
First though, a bit of prior material is a necessity before I launch into this rant -<br />
<br />
http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2014/08/the-death-of-the-gamers-and-the-women-who-killed-them/<br />
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T82CGiI9Vb4&list=UUxXUQuvoiIAlpM2osoAitjQ<br />
http://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1s4nmr1<br />
http://themalesofgames.blogspot.com/2014/08/the-zoe-quinn-story.html<br />
<br />
I think this gives a nice overall of the general situation that I can start from.<br />
<br />
Secondly, full disclosure: I fully support Sarkeesian's work on Feminist Frequency, and am a funder to the show.<br />
<br />
So, let me see if I can first outline all the issues here:<br />
1) Zoe Quinn's ex airing her 'dirty laundry' publicly.<br />
2) The DMCA claim on MundaneMatt's video discussing (in part) what Quinn's ex aired.<br />
3) The misogyny directed at Quinn and (later) Sarkeesian.<br />
4) The lack of ethical standards within gaming journalism, highlighted by one of Quinn's relationships.<br />
5) The emphasization of the feminist aspects of this issue in a way that neglects other aspects.<br />
6) The double-standard of airing men's dirty laundry vs. women's.<br />
<br />
Ok, lemme see if I can go down the list here.<br />
<br />
1) Generally not a good thing for Quinn's ex to have done. Modern social norms differentiates the public and private spheres, and stuff isn't really supposed to cross from one to the other. Having been in a similar situation myself I can understand the motivation behind his action, but this still demonstrates a lack of good impulse control.<br />
<br />
2) So, because of the screwball way YouTube does DMCA claims it's impossible to confirm that Quinn submitted the claim. I'm inclined to believe she did, as the dirty laundry aired by her ex indicates she's got just as much poor impulse control as her ex does, and I'm inclined to believe the information her ex posted. Generally jilted lovers don't BS, and there's enough evidence supporting his story. So I'm running under the assumption it was her.<br />
<br />
Now, the claim was officially for using an image from the game, however I'm not inclined to believe that was the motivation for the claim, as if someone really wanted to push that angle, there'd be a LOT of DMCA claims one would have to go through. Timing also makes that motivation suspect. I'm inclined to believe that the claim was an attempt at censoring MundaneMatt due to what he was reporting on.<br />
<br />
3) From everything I've read, everyone but those who are directing the bile they are at Quinn and Sarkeesian agree that this is really shitty stuff to do. This is BS, and the people whop are doing this need to stop. Especially airing a person's private information like that, that breaks the public/private divide (mentioned in item 1), puts people in danger, and wastes public resources (police force, specifically). If you're throwing shit around, knock it off.<br />
<br />
4) Alright, this is the issue that keeps trying to get sidelined, which I'll discuss in item 5 (and will get to in a moment), but here's the basic jist: Yes, there's no clear evidence that there's journalistic bias because of Quinn's relationship, to focus specifically on that, however, misses a larger point: It's a rather common occurrence for there to be strong personal relationships between indie developers and indie journalists. Quinn's situation just happens to highlight that yes this DOES happen. Does it always bias journalism? No. Can it? Yes. Is there any mechanism to protect against this bias in place? No. It's that last bit that this issue is all about.<br />
<br />
5) This is the first of these points that really gets under my skin. First, I'm a declared feminist. It's been a major part of my academic studies, and I appreciate the critical perspective on gender that a feminist analysis brings to an issue. As such it REALLY annoys me when people 'cry feminism' in the way I see here. I reference the Ars Technica article (the first link) as the most mundane example where the non-feminist issues are barely given a sentence, and dig up some of Wil Wheaton's actions and statements on the issue to see the more extreme examples.<br />
<br />
I see this a lot, where there's a feminist aspect to an issue that tries to totally dominate the conversation. As if somehow because there's misogyny going on it somehow has to totally override any other issue present int he conversation. This is bad form, through-and-through, and no single issue should ever dominate a conversation. Everything in life is multi-faceted and it's totally legitimate for one issue to bring light on other issues, like how Quinn's dirty laundry highlights issues in game journalism. This is not a problem, so if you're telling people to stop talking about the issues in games journalism because of the shit that's being thrown at Quinn and Sarkeesian, knock it off. It may not be *your* biggest concern in the situation, but that doesn't give you the right to try and invalidate it for others.<br />
<br />
6) This is the other one that gets on my nerves. Basic jist is that when a man's dirty laundry is aired it's seen as a social triumph. When a woman's dirty laundry is aired, it's seen as a reflection of a misogynist society. I'm not saying that it should be lauded or condemned when this stuff happens, just that there's a clear gender divide here.<br />
<br />
Now, some interesting observations looking at this rather holistically:<br />
<br />
a) First, the public/private divide. Part of the feminist argument supporting Quinn is how this stuff should have never come to light. This is ironic because one of the core feminist concepts is "the personal is political," which makes sense if your a woman in a society that 'privatizes' women's abuse at home. It's an argument that legitimizes bringing what has been historically viewed as a private matter into the public sphere and being addressed.<br />
<br />
Now we have a situation that's the inverse of what the saying was designed for here. We have a woman acting in an abusive (will dig into this definition in a moment, bear with me) nature in a private context, and a man who's turning it into a public issue. This is NOT something that feminist should be opposed to, quite the contrary it's vital that the private light gets a public spectacle, otherwise harm that is happening in one's private sphere is ignored. I would posit that what Quinn's ex did is perfectly in-line with feminism, and should not be decried.<br />
<br />
I do feel the need to remind people that feminism is NOT about protecting women, but understanding the power imbalances between men and women, with an eye on re-balancing them. It's horribly inappropriate to take a feminist stance and claim that Quinn's ex shouldn't have aired her indiscretions, as doing so is perfectly in-line with "the personal is political."<br />
<br />
The challenge comes in with where do we draw the line in airing people's private lives. I believe most would argue that the line should be drawn around harm. If someone's being harmed, then the private should be public. What defines harm though? It's easy to make an argument that if someone's getting physically beaten in their relationship, that would qualify as harm. What about psychological harm though? There's plenty of evidence supporting that psychological harm is just as damaging, and likely moreso, than physical harm. Yet there's much less consensus that psychological harm is a 'valid' form of harm.<br />
<br />
Personally, I'm in favor of getting rid of the entire concept of privacy, as privacy ultimately only serves individual's delusions of security, and allows them to skirt accountability for their actions. My personal opinion though.<br />
<br />
b) I seriously think people need to stop listening to the loudest voices in the room. Every side here is responding to the minority of idiots who are screaming their heads off for attention. Gamers aren't total misogynists. Yes, our medium of choice is replete with misogynist themes, so is pretty much every other medium. To claim gamers are inherently misogynist would require us to claim that everyone is misogynistic, which goes well beyond absurdity.<br />
<br />
Also, and I think MundaneMatt is a good example of this, by and large people aren't trying to 'quiet' the issue about gaming journalism bias. Yes, there are some who are, but most people latch on to the perspective they're first exposed to the issue from, and assume other perspectives are 'just trying to distract' from it. It's a psychological bias problem, and I know I suffered from it when I first heard this story. MundaneMatt's 'rallying cry' arguments highlight the same degree of idiots on the feminist side of the argument as feminist do of misogynistic gamers.<br />
<br />
Now, to be fair, everyone's been fairly decent in recognizing that they're actually addressing a minority of the populations they're targeting, however their analysis tends to stop there. Simply stating that you're addressing a minority isn't enough, the perspective of the majority (or other groups if it's more divisive) needs to be brought in to really highlight that you're talking about a minority. Otherwise people *will* psychologically latch on to the example you provide, and externalize that to the larger group as a whole. In much the same way, the game journalism arguments are being just as blind as the feminist arguments.<br />
<br />
So, at this point I've started to run out of steam in soap-boxing on this. There's one more point I'd like to cover though, and that's about what ethical standards game journalists should be held to. Frankly I'm not sure. I do see bias as a huge problem. Yes, people go into an article understanding that the biases of the individual will be reflected in the article, however I doubt that readers fully understand the scope of those biases. TotalBiscut has some very good discussions about journalistic integrity that I think are a great starting point to figuring out what game journalism ethics should be.<br />
<br />
Ok, there goes my steam.<br />
<br />
Until next time folks.<br />
<br />
- JasonJason M. Cherryhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10190522470368617594noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2016372262494959266.post-87053084778772537082014-03-09T04:02:00.002-07:002014-03-09T04:02:27.028-07:00Mapping Poverty in CaliforniaHello everyone, and welcome back to my 'random tangent blog of stuff'. This time, with more 'stuff' and less 'random tangent'! This post is actually for completion of a project in my Geographic Information Systems (GIS) class. I conducted an analysis of poverty levels in my home state of California, specifically examining poverty by race and family type. So, before I go any further, lemme switch my writing style over from the casual regular blogging Jason to formal academic stick-up-my-ass Jason (-:<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
-----------------------------------</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>Analysis of Poverty by Ethnicity and Family Type in California</b></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
In 2012 California had over 6 million people in poverty, and was also one of the top states for rate of poverty (17%), as well as poverty rate growth (0.4 percentile growth from 2011 to 2012) [1]. Despite this, California still shows itself as the economic powerhouse of the nation, consisting of 13% of the US's GDP [2]. When examining California's GDP per capita, however, it comes out only moderately above the national average ($52,666 state to $49,587 national) [3]. As the 2012 federal poverty line is only $19,090 for a family of three, this means that 17% of the population of California is making about a third, or less, of the state's GDP per Capita. With California's notoriously high cost of living, this data hints at high levels of inequality within the state.</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<b>Methodology:</b></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
This analysis examines some of the characteristics of poverty in California, using the US Census Bureau's American Community Survey, 3-year (2010-2012) data at the county level [4]. Poverty is cross-sectioned within each county by ethnicity and family type.</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
Because of the high proportion of Hispanic's [5] in California (38.2% of the population) [6] data was broken out by Hispanic/Latino status. Unfortunately due to how the US Census Bureau's tables cross-tabulating poverty, ethnicity and family type incorporate race, only three ethnicity categories are available: White non-Hispanic, Hispanic, and Other. Other would include all other non-Hispanic/Latino races, such as Asian, African American, Pacific Islander and Native American. This does not allow analysis on African Americans separately from these groups.</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
Also due to how the Census Bureau collects data, family type can only be examined on three dimensions: gender of head-of-household, marital status, and presence of children. These three factors create the family type variable, with categories such as single female with kids, married couple without kids, etc.</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
The map data used is from the US Census Bureau's TIGER Shapefiles [7] for 2012. The counties within California were color-coded based on overall levle of poverty, and an icon was placed in the center of each county representing the race/family type combination with the highest poverty rate.</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
Because of the low populations in 13 of California's counties (Inyo, Mono, Alpine, Tuolumne, Mariposa, Calaveras, Amador, Sierra, Plumas, Lassen, Modoc, Trinity, Del Norte), they have no data associated with them.</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<b>Results:</b></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgufsA8H7dB0muf4W2GhUBAOnY5to1vqFZjTtgP-e1Garw5heZwlaoMQWnpRfGAw8i89ib_dQxpHaaXtf8c_5eVulqeUC3kMs1c5q6Juam3m94wrnOQbNIPjPI_Ftyvpvg6DfGvhNDd8gE/s1600/GIS+Map.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgufsA8H7dB0muf4W2GhUBAOnY5to1vqFZjTtgP-e1Garw5heZwlaoMQWnpRfGAw8i89ib_dQxpHaaXtf8c_5eVulqeUC3kMs1c5q6Juam3m94wrnOQbNIPjPI_Ftyvpvg6DfGvhNDd8gE/s1600/GIS+Map.jpg" height="640" width="496" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
The poverty rate runs from 5% in in San Mateo county to 22.0% in Tulare county, with the average poverty rate being 12.6%. Five counties had ethnicity/family type groups with 100% poverty rates, however in all cases the sample size for this group was under 35. Excluding those counties with highest poverty rate groups at 100%, 30 counties had Single Hispanic Mothers as the ethnicity/family type with the highest level of poverty, five had Single Other Mothers, three had Single Other Fathers, and two had Single Other Male w/o Kids.</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
County-level poverty was highest in the southern counties and those in the south central valley of California. The Single Hispanic Mother highest poverty counties are also concentrated in the southern parts of the state, however don't always match with the highest poverty rate counties. For example, the concentration of high poverty counties in the central valley (Tulare, Kings, Fresno, Madera, and Merced counties) have a mixture of Hispanic and Other race single mothers as their highest poverty group, compared to the shoreline counties which, below San Francisco, are all Single Hispanic Mothers as the highest poverty group.</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<b>Limitations:</b></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
Because the poverty rate is based on a fixed dollar amount, and county costs of living vary across the state, counties are not perfectly comparable to each other. The more rural areas of California, in the central valley, will likely show a higher rate of poverty due to the lower cost of living. This means that poverty in one county is not comparable to poverty in another county.</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
Also, the number of people relative to the county's population for the highest poverty group is not shown in the map, just the group with the highest poverty rate. This analysis also did not examine the distribution of ethnicity or family type within the state. This means that there could be (and in a few cases are) groups with very high poverty rates that consist of only a handful of people.</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
Lastly, because only the group with the highest poverty rate is shown, the poverty levels of the remaining groups is ignored. This could potentially exclude groups that have poverty rates that are very close to the highest group.</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<b>Conclusions:</b></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
Though the limitations of this analysis do hamper the ability to speak to California's poverty issue as a whole, because governance is divided by county (and city within county), this analysis does provide a perspective as to the political scope of poverty in California. With the large majority of counties facing poverty among Single Hispanic Mothers, this would be a very easy group to gain political traction in addressing.</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
Further study in this area could attempt to control for population distribution within the state, as well as including poverty rates for all groups of race and family type. This could be done with existing US Census data. This would give a clearer picture of what groups in California are in poverty. The unequal costs of living through California is a more challenging problem, and would require a county-by-county assessment to allow for poverty impacts to be comparable across counties.</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<b>References:</b></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
[1] US Census Bureau, Poverty: 2000 to 2012, http://www.census.gov/prod/2013pubs/acsbr12-01.pdf</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
[2] US Bureau of Economic Analysis, GDP By State, http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/regional/gdp_state/gsp_newsrelease.htmState, http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/regional/gdp_state/gsp_newsrelease.htm</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
[3] Author calculations from a combination of data from US Census Bureau, American Community Survey, Demographic and Housing Estimates 2012, http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml; and US Bureau of Economic Analysis, GDP By State, http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/regional/gdp_state/gsp_newsrelease.htm</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
[4] http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
[5] Please note that the Latino population is also included under the label 'Hispanic' for this analysis. As there is little consistency is how these terms are used in current literature, Hispanic was chosen as the Census Bureau puts that term first in its labels. This population includes people from Latin America and Spanish descent, such as Mexicans, Colombians, Brazilians, etc.</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
[6] US Census Bureau, Demographic and Housing Estimates 2012, http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
[7] http://www.census.gov/geo/maps-data/data/tiger.html</div>
Jason M. Cherryhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10190522470368617594noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2016372262494959266.post-62164180969730758052012-10-26T00:15:00.003-07:002012-10-26T00:15:59.168-07:00Environment and CircumstanceIt's amazing how things change over time, with compassion waxing and waning, belief shifting, absolutes turning murky The basic philosophical question is 'How do I live a good life?' and I really don't have a good answer for that anymore. I thought I did, but it's so challenged that I have nowhere to stand anymore. Can circumstances really make such a difference? I don't know.<br />
<br />
Where and how do I move from here? More importantly, do I even have a choice?<br />
<br />
Can I really heal?<br />
<br />
*sigh*<br />
<br />
Too many questions.Jason M. Cherryhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10190522470368617594noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2016372262494959266.post-66449777923892736492012-10-13T20:42:00.001-07:002012-10-13T20:42:10.016-07:00Elections, Political Parties and Thinking Outside the (Comfortable) Box<br />
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-size: 13.5pt;">I watched the first Presidential debate and the first Massachusetts Senate
debate this month, and after listening to the candidates in both Republican and
Democrat tickets, and listening to the kinds of scrutiny that friends, family,
and peers provided, that the questions that are being asked are missing an
important quality to elections, and an important line of inquiry that's been
observed as lacking in politics for quite some time now: Leadership skills.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-size: 13.5pt;">Often when people
think of leadership skills, the thought turns to how well someone is at
rallying people to their cause. We see people like Obama and Romney successfully rallying
their constituent base toward a goal, and point to leadership. Is
this truly political leadership however? What of the leadership that a
President needs to show in working with a hostile (read: of a different
political party) Congress? What of the leadership that a Senator needs in
working within such an environment? Isn't it the role of these positions to be
national leaders, not just leaders within their party?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-size: 13.5pt;">In watching both
debates, I see others critique policy and/or ideology between candidates,
reading between the lines to discern facts and data, to identify programs and
laws that may be at risk or may benefit, and to dissect rhetorical styles.
Despite this, the discussion of who shows leadership skills is absent from
these critiques. I would argue that for positions such as these it is probably
more vital for a successful President or Senator, or any
representative, to show leadership.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-size: 13.5pt;">I argue this with
the following logic: Is the president a data analyst? Sort of. Any
president must show an ability to understand information presented
and select among various options. I would argue that a President has
many staff who's job it is to provide data, and explain that data, so this is a
delegatable responsibility. Does the president make decisions impacting
programs and policies? Again, sort of. Outside of ideological reasons,
a President needs data to decide how to change programs, and that data is
supplied by... yep, that's right, staff members. There are also staff who make
program recommendations too, another delegatable task. Even if we have a
president who's acting ideologically, regardless of data, there still exists
two very big power blocks, Congress and the courts. Since government decisions,
and even political rhetoric, is very seriously data-driven, and politicians
aren't really coming up with data or recommended actions on those data by
themselves, it's safe to assume that any president has access to information on
all the various information and recommendations to make a decision.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-size: 13.5pt;">So then what of
that decision? Isn't that capacity to choose part of the reason we vote for a
candidate? Again, sort of. What about implementation? What about political
process? If it was just a matter of making the decision then there really would
be no need to speak of leadership beyond galvanizing the electorate,
that's the only group that would matter. This would also be consistent with
a parliamentary system, something we distinctly don't have in the
United States.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-size: 13.5pt;">Ok then, what
about implementation, what's required in implementation? This is where the
broader concept of leadership comes in. A President can't just say to Congress
'I want this legislation.' and it happens. This has been tried numerous
times unsuccessfully. Obama's administration is about
as repeat with this as can be. Since Congress serves as the first
gatekeeper for a President, then it makes sense that a President must work with
Congress in creating legislation (also since the President has the veto, more
on later). If Congress is of the same political party majority as the
President, this doesn't tend to be a problem, as the President's
already galvanized his own party behind him. What of the current
setup? We have a split Congress. Ut uo, now the President needs to work with
someone outside of the political party. Existing leadership fails here, and new
leadership skills are needed. This is the 'between the isle' leadership that is
often spoken of, but I would argue rarely seen.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-size: 13.5pt;">Let's start
dissecting leadership then, beginning with a definition: For simplicity's sake
I'll use a somewhat political, and fairly simple, definition. The ability to
bring together people and direct them towards a common goal. This
was exceptionally clear in Obama's 2008 campaign, he galvanized the
voter base for a very strong victory. The rhetorical style was addressing
Democrats, clearly, as that was his core audience. However it was also
addressing moderates in a persuasive way. One thing I can say with complete
confidence, it wasn't addressing Republicans. Obama wasn't trying to show leadership
with Republicans, just Democrats and moderates. The same can be said of his
competitor, McCain, in that he was trying to lead Republicans and moderates,
and not Democrats. This is clear in how issues are addressed ideologically,
stylistically, and what issues are raised within each group. Common themes
among Democrat rhetoric: Taxes on big business up, middle class taxes down.
Common Republican rhetoric: Military spending and job creation incentives for
businesses. Democrats respond much better to democratic rhetoric than
Republicans do, and vice versa. In many ways they're like different languages.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-size: 13.5pt;">That's where this
key point comes in with leadership. How does one lead both their own party, and
the opposing party? Since we're in a gridlocked Congress there's no way around
the need to address both parties. Likely over the next few years there will be
a similar gridlock, and in future presidencies this is unlikely to
change altogether that much. Oh sure a few may be all one party, but
that's more an abberation than a regular occurance. Well, building off my
previous example, how one communicates with a group helps to drive how much
leadership one is allowed to have. Yes, there are other qualities here, but
they all hinge on a single skill: communication.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-size: 13.5pt;">Quick dissection:
communication is the art of sending a message to a recipient, they translate
it, send a return message which you translate, and reply to their message. It's
cyclical, and dependent on the communication skills of both (or multiple,
the model is scalable) parties. The interesting thing about communication is
that both parties have influence to help the process at any stage. A sender can
work with a receiver in helping the process of translating the message, and
vice versa. This becomes more challenging the less effort and/or the less that
either party wants to communicate with the other, assuming that language
barriers aren't even a problem. Probably the most interesting quirk of
communication is how it rests outside of the realm of fact. Facts can be
brought in to a communication circut, but the communication is about the
exchange, not the information being exchanged so much.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-size: 13.5pt;">So, let's recap
for a moment here: Leadership's an established necessary component for a
President (and Senator, will get back to later) to have, and leadership is
contingent on communication. Well, let's see how our Presidential candidates
stack up in regards to this communication test. Based purely on face value,
after the first presidential debate it seems pretty clear that both Obama and Romney
have hit what can only be described as epic fail on basic communication.
Evidence: both parties made statements that the other refuted very directly,
multiple times, but was never addressed. Obama regarding the $5 trillion tax
cut, which Romney refuted multiple times, and Romney on the committee that
makes decisions on people's medical care, which was refuted by Obama
multiple times. Now let's set aside issues of what is the factually
correct information for a moment, this is about communication, not
fact-tallying.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-size: 13.5pt;">Again, I'm taking
this whole thing at face value, I'll get into another rant on the Presidential
debates another time.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-size: 13.5pt;">So, let's look at
this from a communication-based perspective, and qualify my 'epic fail' remark
earlier by creating something of a rubric. If leadership,
in galvanizing people in support of a common goal, is the objective,
and communication is fundamental to achieving this end, then it strikes me that
choices in communicating should reflect a furthering of the kind of
communication that will create leadership. Well, I could
just arbitrary throw stuff out there that sounds good, but let's be
more logical about this. In the most basic sense, communication fails as soon
as either party ceases to want to communicate, this can be a ceasing of either
broadcasting a message, or of receiving a message, or of putting effort into
translating the message, as any significant break in this chain from either
party will de-rail the conversational cycle. Or put more simply, in order to
even be communicating with you, I need to be willing to pay attention
to what you're saying, try to understand it, and say something back
to you. If I want to have a conversation that is successful on the most basic
level, then I should be saying something to you that
will motivate you to repeat this same process for me, and you will
want to say something that will motivate me to repeat the process
again for you. For simplicity's sake, let's call
this successful process conversation.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-size: 13.5pt;">Ok, we have a
rubric now, each party must not only be motivated to receive,
translate, and send information, but also must be willing to send information
that <u>motivates the other party to repeat the process for them</u>.
Remember how I said that the sender can influence the receiver's translation of
material? This is one way how.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-size: 13.5pt;">With this rubric,
let's go back to the Presidential debate. Obama talks about a $5 trillion tax
cut, Romney rebuts it, Obama repeats the same information about the
$5 trillion tax cut, Romney repeats the same information. Repeat about 3 or so
more times. Were I Romney I'd start to get pretty pissed off at Obama for not
responding to what I was saying, and would be discouraged in communicating with
Obama, at least on this issue. Fail: motivate continued
communication. It's a little harder to tell where the fail was with Obama, as
he clearly responded to other parts of Romney's responses but not that
one. It likely wasn't some sort of reception problem. Was there a translation
problem, did Obama not understand what was being said? Again, not likely, Obama
responded quite directly to other statements that Romney had made through the
debate. So the issue was likely in transmission, or put simply, Obama chose not
to respond to that issue. Once, maybe even twice, this can be chalked up to
random error. This was recurring within just a few minutes, so it's hard to
qualify this as just a simple mistake or error on Obama's part.
Erego, deliberate. This isn't a failure of transmission, but a failure of the
transmission in a way that motivates a response.
The deliberateness of it is what moves this from a simple
communication fail to the colorfully expressed 'epic fail.' It's one thing to
mess up a conversation, something else entirely to deliberately mess it up like
that.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-size: 13.5pt;">Remember though, Romney
did the same thing to Obama later in the debate. Yes you can argue post hoc,
but that's a fallacy I'll dig into another time.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-size: 13.5pt;">So, let's bring
this back around to the leadership issue. We have two Presidential candidates
who, on national television, deliberately messed up their lines of
communication with each other. This seems ominously familiar… I think I’ll make
a bit of a leap here and say that what was observed here parallels the same
dialog that has been occurring in Congress, and between the President and
Congress for as long as I can remember. Recollecting from many of the house
committee hearings I’ve had the (mis)fortune of watching, the same
communication snafu shows up regularly.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-size: 13.5pt;">So, let me bring this full circle here, and assert why this was a
such a big fail for both candidates. We have here two people who are
representing themselves AND their party, to the entire American audience, and
even world audiences. They are both role models, for those within their party,
and windows, for those outside. The common criticism is that politics have
broken down. I present to you the above analysis of communication in the
presidential debate as to a likely source of that breakdown: failure of basic
communication, and through that failure of a capacity for us to witness, in a
very real and substantial way, for the two people currently bestowed with the responsibility
of representing themselves and their party to the American people, modeling a complete
failure of across-the-isle communication skills.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-size: 13.5pt;">With the connection between communication and leadership, this
boils down to a failure of bipartisan leadership skills that are being
nationally modeled. The danger here is in assuming that either candidate even
has this capacity, which I can’t say there’s any strong evidence for through
the debate, either of their campaigns, or their political careers.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-size: 13.5pt;">I really shouldn’t have to explain why this is a bad thing.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-size: 13.5pt;">But wait, there’s more! Returning to the beginning of this rant, I
said I watched not just the Presidential debate, but the Massachusetts Senate debate
too! Lo and behold, much to my (non)surprise, the same pattern was there too.
Repeat everything I just said about the Presidential debate to the Mass. Senate
debate.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-size: 13.5pt;">*sigh*<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-size: 13.5pt;">So, what’s the solution? Well, this is where I change gears a
little, and start to move into problem-solving mode. I would first generally
state that I assert it’s important for scrutiny of a political candidate to
include an assessment of their leadership and communication skills to those <b>outside of their party</b>.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-size: 13.5pt;">Then, in addressing the actual behavior of the candidates: It’s
easy to jump to the conclusion that both of them have some sort of personal
defect, or ulterior agenda, and with their behavior outside of the debate, this
would seem supported. However, let’s remember that the Presidential debate is
one of the few instances where the candidates really do become much more than
just this speech here, or that proposal there. There’s a level of national
representation that the debate communicates to the nation, and the influence
that the candidates can have on the electorate is probably at its highest at
this point. I.E. it matters what they do in general, but it <b>really</b> matters during the debate. So
what can be done differently?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-size: 13.5pt;">Well, that’s where I have to draw in from elsewhere for inspiration.
The little known of Third Party Debate (thank you NPR! Link here: </span><a href="http://www.npr.org/2012/10/06/162438686/the-npr-third-party-candidate-debate">http://www.npr.org/2012/10/06/162438686/the-npr-third-party-candidate-debate</a><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;">). Here we have two people running for
President, rather seriously too (they’re both on the Mass. Ballot, and many
other states too), having a debate along similar lines (albeit much shorter) to
what we saw in the regular Presidential debate, yet what’s missing here? The
candidates aren’t failing to communicate with each other.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-size: 13.5pt;">This is probably why it goes so much faster than the Presidential,
and the Mass. Senate, debate.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-size: 13.5pt;">Ok, let’s be fair, that’s really a format issue. The questions in
the Third Party debate aren’t designed to solicit cross-talk between the
candidates. Is this really a bad thing though? They’re not modeling bad
leadership… just not modeling good leadership either.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-size: 13.5pt;">Let’s look at this from a broader perspective though: debate
format, especially around the kinds of questions asked. The questions in the
regular Presidential debate were intentionally contentious, asking specifically
about what the differences in policy were between the candidates. The Third Party
debate was just asking about the individual candidates policy. That’s quite a
difference in response based on a fairly small change in the question! (Survey
and interview researchers, take note here </span><span style="font-family: Wingdings; font-size: 13.5pt;">J</span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;">)<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-size: 13.5pt;">Well, it can be argued that it’s more to do with the character and
communication skills of the Third Party candidates. I’m skeptical on this, but
won’t refute that possibility straight-up. I’m not sure their communication
skills are any better than Obama or Romney, as they seem to actually be less
clear in some more basic mass-audience communication than either of them. Since
we don’t see cross-party communication, it’s hard to gauge there, but
considering there’s really only room upward from the examples we have elsewhere…
that they didn’t break format and turn it into a communication fiasco at least
gives some hint that there’s some communication aptitude there. Not really much
to go on, so I can’t really rule it out.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-size: 13.5pt;">In regards to their character, again I’m not sure, both candidates
speak with the same passion, zest, and enthusiasm as the major party
candidates. I’m not convinced here, but won’t rule it out.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-size: 13.5pt;">What’s that leave then? Well, what about motivation? Perhaps the
main party candidates had ulterior motives for communicating in the way they
did. This starts to get into Presidential debate politics, which could fill
more pages than I’ve written here, and as much as I’d love to get into it, I
must draw the essayist line somewhere, and address it another time. To
summarize my thoughts on this issue (for elaboration another time), I’m
strongly in favor that this is a major contributing factor to the reason that
the debates are showing such epic failure of leadership.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-size: 13.5pt;">I would return to my original thesis, though, that perhaps they
just don’t know how to lead from across the aisle, and/or the existing format
encourages communication fail. I can’t speak much to altering people’s
character, so perhaps then, a good start would be to consider alternative
debate formats? If the current format encourages poor cross-aisle leadership,
then perhaps a neutral, or positive debate format would at least not be such a
bad example for the nation?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-size: 13.5pt;">If nothing else, I really want to see some good examples of people
working together, not tearing each other to shreds. We see plenty of that
already.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;">-<span style="font-size: 7pt;">
</span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;">Jason
Cherry<o:p></o:p></span></div>
Jason M. Cherryhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10190522470368617594noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2016372262494959266.post-9347135092035294572012-09-19T17:28:00.002-07:002012-09-19T17:28:46.515-07:00A New Life, A New Me? Maybe, Maybe Not.So, I moved across the country and am now residing in Boston, Massachusetts. My life is totally different now, and I think it's for the better. This is definitely a life more suited to me, I will say that.<br />
<br />
It's interesting though, as I kind of expect to 'wake up' from this, and go in to work at my old job. It's something totally different here, but I'm not sure I'm any different. A lot of this could be because I have such a strong self-presence as it is, that external factors don't really change it. I'm not sure how to evaluate that though.<br />
<br />
With all I've been learning though, maybe I should design a research study to test it (-:<br />
<br />
I dunno though. I have more control on my schedule, and more unscheduled responsibility. I'm rather pleasantly surprised how well I've handled that as unscheduled responsibility (read: homework) has historically been a problem for me, but I seem to be keeping up with things very well this time. I'm reading more than I ever have before, and retaining it better than I used to.<br />
<br />
Yet many of the same problems I had before followed me here, naturally those dealing with relationships. I'm now at two busts, one friend-zoned, and one potential. Plus I'm still dealing with the emotional fallout from my marriage. *sigh*<br />
<br />
I guess in aggregate I have to say I haven't really changed, which isn't a bad thing, I really like who I am.<br />
<br />
- JasonJason M. Cherryhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10190522470368617594noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2016372262494959266.post-25371901316687227862012-05-20T05:29:00.001-07:002012-05-20T05:29:46.550-07:00A Crazy Idea on Prison Reform?I was just doing a mental exercise yesterday, and I ended up coming up with a prison system reform idea, lemme run through the exercise though. I was qualifying why I believe in the death penalty, and the circumstances I believe it's applicable. That was pretty straightforward: 1) subject is non-reformable, and 2) the net detriment from killing the subject is lower than the net detriment of letting the subject live.<br />
<br />
Alternatives to death penalty were A) let them loose, and allow them to continue inflicting social harm, or B) segregate them from society so they can't continue inflicting harm on society.<br />
<br />
After working with option B in my head for awhile, I started to contemplate the prison system as being treated like a segregated community from the citizen community. What are the rights and responsibilities of the citizenry towards prisoners in a case like that? Granted it's kind of how it is today, but what I was thinking was a little different. What I was thinking was that there was a large plot of land that was cordoned off from society, where prisoners could go and build their own society, with it's own economy and so on. Almost like a foreign nation. That way, being a criminal means 'deportation' to the prisoner nation, instead of to a resource-intensive prison. It's less resource-intensive, because the core expense of the prison system at that point would be, effectively, border patrol, as having guards go through the prison nation would be completely useless.<br />
<br />
Because the prison nation would have it's own economy and it's own citizenry, it would have it's own GDP, methods of production, and trade, including trade with the regular citizenry. Effectively international trade. Now, some things would be just stupid to trade for, like weaponry. This is a nation of criminals, and it's not exactly smart to give criminals weapons. However, if they're producing common goods and similar stuff, there's not much of a problem in trade there. The prison nation would have it's own laws and government and would (with trade support) be functionally a nation. Immigration would be irrelevant, as the point is to segregate from the main population.<br />
<br />
Then I started to think about what the equivalent of reform programs would be in this system, and that's where I started to get more flexible on the idea of immigration. Organizations could exist in the prisoner nation that train, mold and rehabilitate prisoners back into mainstream society. Because there's savings in the reduced cost of enforcement (now just border control), the remaining funds can be put on these kinds of social programs, providing an opportunity to migrate prisoners back to society. With an appropriately rigorous curriculum, it could work very effectively.<br />
<br />
An even more interesting thing is that the prisoner nation could have it's own prisoner nation, so the 'dregs of the dregs' could be similarly segregated. It's infinitely regressible too.<br />
<br />
Just a crazy thought while I was driving home from Reno today (-:<br />
<br />
- JasonJason M. Cherryhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10190522470368617594noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2016372262494959266.post-64041752555571941122012-04-23T06:54:00.002-07:002012-04-23T06:54:52.931-07:00Attempt at a HaikuBird stand atop ledge, staring into sunset.<br />
Breeze flows across my shoulders, through my hair and across my skin.<br />
Bird look at me, and say 'Coocoo, coocoo.'<br />
The warm air from the sun rolls across the valley, uplifting the land.<br />
Bird looks at me, staring intently.<br />
I feel the breeze, flowing across me, lifting me.<br />
Bird looks at me, and say 'Coocoo, coocoo.'<br />
Suddenly, I find myself embraced in the breeze, soaring in the sky.<br />
Bird looks at me.<br />
I have wings and I fly.<br />
In the distance I hear a faint 'Coocoo.'<br />
But I fly on.<br />
<br />
- JasonJason M. Cherryhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10190522470368617594noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2016372262494959266.post-64697296427442978312012-04-23T06:52:00.000-07:002012-04-23T06:52:15.809-07:00Freedom from Desires?For the first time, I can see my path without a relationship. It's a strange feeling having a family not being the end goal that I'm striving towards. In many ways it's more practical, but more relevantly: i'm content with it.<br />
<br />
Up to now my life has been lived based around the idea that I'm striving towards building a family. Now, though my direction is graduate school and a research career, I wouldn't say that I have control over my life. I had the good pleasure to grab myself a copy of Mythos III, the latest Joseph Campbell documentary talking about the construction of the western myth. To my shock and awe the Arthurian legends, and specifically my favorite character, Percival, play center stage. In much the same way that Percival let his horse guide him on the path, so to am I letting my path be laid by the nature before me.<br />
<br />
Will I change the world? Who knows, does it matter? Yeah, probably. Do I need to do it? No, not really.<br />
<br />
I do know that 20 years from now I will have a life, and it will be a good life. What it will be I have no idea, but I will have it.<br />
<br />
- JasonJason M. Cherryhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10190522470368617594noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2016372262494959266.post-35767151142423269092012-03-26T00:01:00.002-07:002012-04-15T11:38:36.804-07:00Moral RelativityI have to wonder about morality, especially in the untouchable realm of children. I was watching Showtime's <i>Shameless</i>, and in the show there's this 13 y/o Mormon polygamist gal who gets, I presume here, taken by the state from a Mormon 'cult community', something akin to the stereotypical portrait of Mormon polygamy, and placed with a couple on the series. Of course being raised in that kind of environment, the norms are quite different for women, and it's a show meant to shock and awe, so naturally they have that character offering to do chores instead of to just goof off and play like we, the audience, would expect a 13 year old to do. And of course they amp up the shock value when we learn she has a child.<br />
<br />
My mind, being the hyper-analytical that it is, went another route than the show's asking it to go. The reaction that the show expects from the audience, and is mirrored by the characters, is that of latent disgust with her upbringing and pity that she's been influenced in such a way to normalize such things. Yet let's think about it here for a moment. How different is that kind of judgement than European explorers charting African villages, finding out the natives eat bugs as a meal, and assuming they're malnourished? The scientific evidence is against it, yet the label remained for a long time.<br />
<br />
Now, the counter-argument to this comparison is that there are scientific studies that show what kind of impact that kind of family environment has on children, and how they don't grow up into well-adjusted adults. My counter to that: By well-adjusted, it's meant well-adjusted to 'this' society.<br />
<br />
Stew on that for a bit.<br />
<br />
What I came up with was this: There's an inherent bias in evaluating the impacts of any method used in a modern society, because we're in the society we're evaluating, therefore we're going to look at 'good' and 'bad' in this society based on the pre-existing lens that the society has.<br />
<br />
A colleague has a wonderful footer on her e-mail that helps example my next point: "It is no measure of health to be well-adjusted to a profoundly sick society." (Jiddu Krishnamurti) Why are we assuming our way is the best way, and why are we using that to reinforce behaviors and actions that we, as members of the society, already oppose as harmful. Movements like Occupy wouldn't exist if this wasn't the case to at least some degree.<br />
<br />
Now, does that make these child-bride Mormon polygamy communes any better? Probably not, but I'm not in them so I can't gauge if their society is 'sick' or not, I can only gauge ours. And this starts to get to my point: If I can't judge your culture because I'm not living in it, and you can't judge mine because you're not living in it, then to what standard are our cultures being held? There's many answers to this, varying from religious, to scientific, to metaphysical, to simple faith, to a refusal to believe, and so on. Again, it's a matter of consistency, as there isn't a universally agreed upon standard for which to cross-culturally judge.<br />
<br />
Here's the scary part: Without that cross-cultural standard from which to judge, this breaks analysis down into simple factoids. There's no longer any pro/con list, no capacity for asking 'is this good or bad.' It's just raw information, without value. And by value I mean that in both senses, value in the sense that there's no value-judgement being made, and value in the sense that it lacks a metaphorical 'this is valuable' component. I would argue that they are one in the same, but that's a rant for another day.<br />
<br />
So, returning to <i>Shameless</i>, if there's no universal standard to judge different cultures, then how can anyone legitimately judge the environment that anyone is raised in, be it a child we raise in our culture, or one raised in a child-bride Mormon polygamist culture? Well, I think there actually can be something of a guiding path on this, and I'm going to pull out everyone's favorite naturalist: Charles Darwin. Yes, I'm going to make an evolutionary argument in defense of Mormon child-bride communes, oh the irony!<br />
<br />
Consider that in any evolutionary system, all creatures/beings/organisms will develop a homeostasis that's adapted to their function and their environment. Darwin examples this on a genetic level, but you see this on a more immediate level too. Human brain pliability is quite extraordinary. How else do people adapt to changing circumstances? Regardless, ignore the minor tangent there for a moment. The point I'm getting to is this: <b>In a culture that supports women being homemakers and child-bearers starting from an early age, the function of women in that society will require the normalization of those functions. Those functions are <u>adapted</u> specifically for the roles within that society.</b><br />
<b><br /></b><br />
Simply put, they're doing exactly what they're adapting to do in that environment: survive. It's no different than what happened to the Native Americans after colonization. They adapted to our ways and our methods.<br />
<br />
Now, here's the piece that most civil revolutionaries will have issue with: If we take Darwin's evolutionary concepts a bit further, we must include the effects of mutation. <b>Remember, that the key to evolution is both <u>variation</u> and <u>selection</u>.</b> The process doesn't work without both. Within cultures there will be cultural variation, and a whole hell of a lot of it (hence why culture evolves faster than genes).<br />
<br />
Now, we, being outside of a Mormon child-bride community, would 'love' to interject our culture into theirs. We see it as too much variation for us to handle. We forget that <b>every</b> community has both variation and selection, not just selection, including Mormon child-bride ones. Who's to say that there's not variation within that community that won't change it over time, more organically, and with less displacement?<br />
<br />
There's two arguments I can make from this, so I'll start with the easy one: What I'm advocating for here is akin to Star Trek's prime directive: Do not interfere in the development of other cultures. I sense the logic behind that was covered here already, but this gets to the displacement I was talking about. What;'s wrong with jarring shifts like that? Why is it 'bad' or 'harmful' to 'tame the savages,' as it were? Well, the kind of shock that interjecting modern values into a culture that doesn't share them is akin to the GDP doing a hula-dance of vertical motion. Ok, yes there's progress, but there's also a lot of harm that's done during the transition.<br />
<br />
Yes, I realized I also just made a free-market argument for not 'blowing up' Mormon child-bride communities. More irony.<br />
<br />
So, back to my main thesis for a moment here, and I'll try to wrap this up as it's almost midnight and I'm tired. We, as individuals, are agents within our culture(s), but not within other's culture(s). I cannot have agency in Mormon child-bride land, and they cannot have agency within my mainstream american values land. <u style="font-weight: bold;">However</u>, that being said, both the Mormon child-bride polygamist husband and I can have common culture(s). Do you think it's impossible to find a Mormon child-bride polygamist who's not also a fan of Star Trek? If I do, there's cultural overlap, and there's a place that both myself and this example Mormon child-bride polygamist have in common.<br />
<br />
Ok, here's the big one, be ready for it:<br />
<br />
<b><u>It is my assertion that the most constructive, positive, growth-oriented, and less harmful shifts in any population are done in realms that both the shifter and shiftee have personal agency.</u></b><br />
<b><u><br /></u></b><br />
I may never get through to the Mormon child-bride polygamist in matters of broader cultural issues, but if they're a trekkie, you can damn well be sure that I can get through to them, and have a very productive cultural exchange, in that setting.<br />
<br />
Yes, I did use a '<i>reductium ad absurdum</i>' fallacy with my entire argument, however I would posit that this applies across ALL cultural divides, be they ethnic, gender, socio-economic, geographical, technological, age, job industry, etc etc.<br />
<br />
Make of it what you will, but I think it's an important concept, and one I'm going to stew on a great deal.<br />
<br />
- JasonJason M. Cherryhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10190522470368617594noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2016372262494959266.post-30360069448885501572012-01-02T06:09:00.000-08:002012-01-02T06:09:34.357-08:00Normative PatternsIt's an interesting trend that all my conversations about my success (or lack thereof) with women end up being discussions about my personal philosophy and ethics. They're so intertwined and dependent on each other. The values I have in relationships are the primary foundation of my moral reasoning. I have my illogical quirks - I'm terribly paranoid about breaching a person's physical comfort zone - but I consider my moral reasoning to be a pivotal part of my ability to behave responsibly, with an understanding of the full and complete ramifications of my actions.<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Modern relationships are built on deception, misdirection, illusion and delusion, To build something different, it must be formed differently. An honest and sincere relationship must do away with all of the illusory components of modern relationships, and instead be built on principles such as honesty, openness, trust and understanding. Yet, the irony of this is that in pursuing relationships in that fashion I am setting myself up for failure. The common woman (or perhaps all women, I've yet to meet one who deviates from this pattern) will expect modern relationship behaviors. When she doesn't get them, she will assume the relationship is invalid on some level and dispose of it. Since I will never start a relationship on lies, I will continually be considered to be invalid as relationship material.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Not a pleasant thought.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
It's frustrating because so many women profess to be beyond modern gender roles, yet when it comes to some basic interactions and expectations, it's a lie. Where are the courageous women? Those that bold to be who they are, outside of the ever-present gaze of society? Those who have the courage to question what society teaches them? Or has societies lessons become so ingrained that they've confused societies mandates with their own feelings? In that eventuality, are women so blind that they can't distinguish between an authentic feeling and a social meme?</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Sad, but I believe that the latter is the truth. Society has effectively brainwashed women into following an internal feeling that society itself has created. It's like the desire for independence, it's an artificially and socially imbued desire that people have acclimated to so strongly that the need to be independent has been normalized into the human condition, when instead it's a social meme.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
*sigh* where are the women who actually bother to look beyond the trivialities of what society imposes on them, and who dare to relate beyond social conditioning? This goes beyond the 80/20 rule, where 20% of a population is actually free thinkers. Then again Milgram's experiments were about much more radical deviations from the social norms, and not tests asking people to deviate frm the social norms. How must the experiment, and the results change if that criteria is changed?</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
*sigh*</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Ultimately it makes for one lonely Jason.</div>Jason M. Cherryhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10190522470368617594noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2016372262494959266.post-19451597602643736362011-12-11T22:48:00.001-08:002011-12-11T23:08:41.620-08:00The 'Alpha Gene'I guess as an inaugural post I should elaborate more on the purpose of this blog. This will be more of a personal diary. Public of course, and open to the world to see, that's just the kind of person I am. Less academia here, more raw feeling.<br />
<br />
So, to start off this one, I discuss the ever elusive 'alpha gene' in the male population. The rest of the nerd/geek world knows of what I speak. There's some characteristic, genetic or otherwise (probably a meme actually), that gives some men the ability to draw and interest women, despite whatever their character is otherwise.<br />
<br />
I definitely do not have it, and it hurts like hell to see women whisked away by that ineffable alpha-male quality. My principals dictate that I not behave as they do, it's too crude, manipulative and callous, yet it also works.<br />
<br />
Then again, considering the patriarchal/hierarchical structure of the modern world, am I at all surprised? No, not really. It's highly frustrating to live in a world like this. Of all the many thousands of years that homo sapien sapien has been around, why did I have to be born into this era? I'm not suited for this machismo BS. IT's what everyone expects, and it's what everyone does. The men seem to (largely) fall in line with it, and the women seem to find it unquestioningly attractive. This leaves men like me, capable, intelligent, strong, out to dry.<br />
<br />
There's really no escape from it. I live my life by my principles. Without that, my formidable intelligence would turn viscous. I don't underestimate it when I say that I'm capable of a great deal of evil. I have this wonderful gift, the gift of being clever, the gift of seeing how my actions affect things beyond myself, and how everyone's actions similarly ripple outward. I choose to use this for good, to let my ripples prove a positive force in this world by being principled, by being honest and open and just and compassionate. Even when I'm beaten down, even when I have everything I value taken from me by this harsh cruel world, I still stand up and continue to do good. I continue to help and continue to support and continue to give. I push myself beyond what most would consider reasonable, beyond what some consider even possible, to do this. I make myself weak to help others become strong. These are my principles, and I stand by them and believe in them, because through my actions more than myself can be strong. The sum of what I can give is much larger than what I can get, so I choose to give and give, because the net benefit outweighs anything else I could do with that capacity.<br />
<br />
Yet it is exhausting, it is tiring, it is wearying. I teeter on a complete emotional collapse on a regular basis, even more so as time goes on and I suffer the slings of the modern world. In a cruel irony, the very thing that gives me this great gift of giving, the very reason that I am so capable of doing so, is exactly what denies me the ability to have my need(s) met. Work isn't something I value, and though my schooling is meaningful to me, it doesn't really amount to much in the grand scheme of things. Love, compassion, caring, respect, intimacy and sacrifice, the same things I give freely, are the things I value the most.<br />
<br />
Imagine that, the very things I want for myself are the things I give away freely. That speaks of who I am, probably more than anything...<br />
<br />
Yet, my selfless actions deny me access to those things, because I live in a world where the malicious and self-centered are the loved and respected. People like me are tools, used an exploited because we can be, because we are so principled. Our greatest strength, our principals, are our greatest weakness. We value not money, power, sexy women, fast cars, firm abs. The values of the modern material world are irrelevant to such as us, and in that being the case we are exploited for it, because we truly believe that by not valuing those things, by valuing each other and what we can give, that we can make the world a better place.<br />
<br />
It's not sustainable, and eventually I will break. What that will mean, I'm not sure, I just hope I'll have been so expired by then that I can't do any harm with what power I will have left at that time, and maybe I'll have touched enough lives along the way in a good and helpful way that my net impact on the universe will have been good, and not ill.<br />
<br />
Or so I can keep hoping, for if not, I can always be satisfied that I held out as long as I did against the impossible.<br />
<br />
- JasonJason M. Cherryhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10190522470368617594noreply@blogger.com0