Are US Voters a Group of Brats?

I was struck by a Eugene Robinson commentary in today's Washington Post about the electorate as a group of spoiled brats.  He says, "In the punditry business, it's considered bad form to question the essential wisdom of the American people. But at this point, it's impossible to ignore the obvious: The American people are acting like a bunch of spoiled brats."

He then goes on to explain that politicians must promise easy and quick fixes to problems, yet once elected they will not be able to provide the same.  Our problems (local, national, international) are complex and interlinked.  I want to point out that what Robinson is saying means he is either already an integral thinker, or rapidly becoming one.

To the integralist, fixing one "problem," like illegal immigration for example, with the desire "simple solution" only produces problems elsewhere.  Real solutions depend upon looking at problems from all sides, taking incremental actions over time, and changing course when we discover that our unintended consequences are worse than the problem.

Historical examples of this would include the "eradication" of malaria in the US through DDT spraying of mosquito breeding areas.  The unintended consequences were devastation to the bird population.  The resulting change was to use smaller amounts of less toxic (to avians) pesticides.  Similarly, proposals to "get tough" with illegal immigration do not realize the negative results to the US as well as to the home countries of the immigrants.  Returning large numbers of unemployed people to countries with no jobs for them is a recipe for violent change. 

May we grow in integral understanding as individuals and as a society!

See Eugene Robinson's entire article at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/02/AR2010090203992.html?nav%3Dhcmoduletmv

Lalia

How Important is Type?

The Integral Model of Ken Wilber postulates five independent variables: state, stage, line, quadrant and type. Type is frequently overlooked by Integralists as being “obvious,” yet it is overlooked by Pluralists, Rationalists and Traditionalists for other reasons.

Pluralists tend to disown any hierarchy, any difference of ability, in the big illusion that we are all “equal.” Ken Wilber speaks a lot about that fallacy, so I’ll only mention here that being equal means having human DNA and deserving respect and dignity in treatment by society. It says nothing about a person’s ability to contribute to society, or whether he is so blocked by lack of intelligence, health, or training, that his ability to contribute is limited.



Rationalists, when they ignore type, see people as needing only good educations to bring them all to the same level. Certainly a good education is useful for all, but it will not make an individual with a proclivity for logic and spatial awareness into a superior linguist, nor his verbally gifted sister a good mathematician.



Traditionalists see individuals as needing to follow a common moral path. If only… everyone followed the One True Way, they would all turn out to be good.



Type, that way of differentiating humans (types apply in all systems , but I’m focused on humans today), explains differences left when you have individuals at the same state, stage, line development, quadrant perspective… They are still not the same. Among type systems, male-female is one that continues to be useful. The Myers-Briggs system also explains differences. Astrology would be another system, in use from ancient times. But the enneagram is a system that Ken Wilber upholds, so it is what I will use here.



I recently offered an Enneagram training to a local organization with which I’ve been associated for fifteen years. My offer was declined for two reasons. One was expressed by several people who had had Myers-Briggs trainings at work and felt that the system was used to pigeon-hole individuals and to justify holding them back in their advancement. Another reason came down to this: that classifying individuals made some into worker bees and others into queen bees, and thus got people out of their fair share of chores!



To ignore type is to fail to optimize any human system! Type is vitally important. If you have an organization (and families are organizations) that has varied enneagram types, why would you not recognize and capitalize on that? Each type brings strengths to the table. No type has everything, although any type at the highest level of consciousness and health will be highly functional in most situations.



Let us examine some types and how they can optimize or destabilize an organization.



Type One, the Perfectionist, is assertive and constantly looking to make things better. Perfectionists never seem to think things are at their best, and are always ready to offer suggestions or criticism, whether solicited or not. Perfectionists do make systems better. They can make themselves unpopular in the process.



Type Two, the Helper, is warm, friendly and wants to help you. Helpers jump right in and take some of your load. They follow directions and follow other’s leadership. Helpers can lose their own selves in the process of submerging themselves in a family or organization. They also may blind themselves to the big picture.



Type Three, the Achiever, is dynamic and focused on performing. Whatever the field, the Achiever is working to succeed. Dynamic goal-seekers, Achievers are many times the leaders of families and organizations. Yet they are not known for stopping to think or to smell the flowers along the way.



Type Four, the Artist, lives in a world of creative impulse. Highly emotional, Artists need to be faithful to their muse. This impulse is rewarded by society at large, and frequently misunderstood and deprecated by personal contacts.



Type Five, the Scientist, lives in a world of reason. Logical, constantly examining the world of objects and ideas, Observers can lose touch with the human community entirely. Yet Scientists’ abilities to focus on things and abstractions make modern life possible through technological developments we all use.



Type Six, the Skeptic, lives in a world of suspicion. They make good reporters and advocates, wanting to personally verify the facts before making commitments. Skeptics, also known as Loyalists, are good allies to those who have earned their trust. Once a Skeptic has made a judgment regarding a person, place, thing or idea, though, changing his/her mind is unlikely to happen.



Type Seven, the Adventurer, lives in a world of excitement and optimism. Adventurers are naturally drawn to the new and exciting, and tend to ignore the tried and true. Adventurers bring fresh air to any gathering, as they are out-going, optimistic, and always have new adventures to share. On the downside, Adventurers dislike the same old routine.



Type Eight, the Boss, takes charge. Driven to control all that surrounds him/her, Bosses have one way, their way, of having the organization run. Human feelings take last place in the world of tasks. In any survival situation, Bosses are the people who can act quickly and see the big picture.



Type Nine, the Peacemaker, sees all perspectives. Peacemakers are slowly absorbing the vibrations of all the individuals and the facts, too. They will take into account contributing factors that include heart, mind and body. Yet their dislike for confrontation will make them hang back and fail to contribute or follow-through.



Clearly there is an organizational niche for each type. Some types have more flexibility in their ability to contribute. Some organizations preferentially seek and need certain types.



What is your type? How are you best able to help the planet evolve?



Lalia

Thinking Integrally about Immigration

The US public arena has been in an uproar about "illegal aliens" entering the country.  This is a political hot potato that has been tossed around with great anger during the last 18 months, coinciding with economic depression, job losses and reduced wages for citizens and immigrants.

The standard responses are to enforce immigration laws, to stop "illegals" at the border, and so forth.

What if we did something completely different?

To begin, allow anyone in who arrives at the door.  (We may choose to exclude known terrorists and those few categories of felons and disease carriers who are presently excluded, even if otherwise qualified.)

So, a person arrives at the border crossing.  All he needs to do is to identify himself, without needing documentation, and have his photograph, fingerprints, and DNA taken.  In return he gets a smartcard ID, and his photo and information are encoded on that card.  Unless he is one of the excluded categories above, he gets his ID card within minutes and can go on with his visit. 

All people entering the country would go through this process (though we may want to allow American citizens with documentation to bypass the process).  If he already has a card, it just goes through a card reader and his thumbprint is scanned for a match with the information on the card.

Should he not have a card, he simply goes through the process again.  It does not matter if he even gives the same name as before.  Once his information--photo, fingerprints and DNA--are in the system, they will be flagged when he comes through again.

What does this give us?  First, we will know exactly who is entering the country.  We will have fingerprints and DNA to match any crime scenes.  Further, with the DNA, we can now determine biological relatives, and thus highlight many criminal associations which are predominately formed from related individuals.  Having that information, we can trace activities of groups of individuals from their countries of origin, through their paths of migration, to their communities within the US.

This immediately substantially reduces the costs of border guarding.  Most money will just be for welcome centers where individuals will go through the ID process.  Remaining money can be used for projects to improve economic opportunities in the countries sending us many migrants.  These would include improved education, infrastructure, legal changes to encourage economic development and creativity, and so forth.

All of the information collected from the migrants will be available to US Federal, State and Local law enforcement, as well as for various medical and academic research programs.  Among the DNA possibilities, would be establishment and routine use of "near miss" DNA matching, now done in the UK, to allow law enforcement to see if crime scene DNA came from a relative of anyone in the immigrant database.  (Which would likely provide ways to track and apprehend the guilty party.)

While on the surface this shift to easier entry into the USA will seem to open the door to unpleasant rises in criminal activity, or other negative consequences of free immigration, its longer term consequences will be greater understanding of and control over criminal behavior.  This especially applies to criminal gangs, who will no longer be "under the radar."  Their associations will be highlighted through these new tools.

Lalia

Viewing the Law as Expressions of the Memes

Hi Again,

The Meme, in the sense used by Beck and Cowan, is a whole conglomerate of ideas and values that self-perpetuate and cling to each other in a somewhat consistent worldview.  Individuals begin life in a primitive or Archaic meme, and grow through the Tribal and Warrior memes as they mature in developed nations.  Adults are mostly at the Traditional meme, the Rational/Modern meme, or the Pluralist/Post-Modern meme.  Some have advanced to the Integral meme or higher. 

When a group of people is at a given meme level, they tend to associate with each other and create institutions that perpetuate their meme.  This is true in the area of law as it is in other systems of life.

The Traditional meme sees the world as pretty black and white and wants everyone to live by the rules.  They tend to favor religious institutions of law.  It is easy to observe in other cultures, where we can point to Sharia (Islamic) law for example.  However the remnants of this religious worldview are present in most American courtrooms today.  (And courtrooms elsewhere that I've seen depicted.)  Just sit in a courtroom, or look at a picture.  Erase the people.  Then look at the room.  You have the altar, the chancel, the altar rail, the pews...  Yes, in all but name, it is a traditional Christian church!  And after seeing the architecture, it should be no surprise to recall the fervor over posting the 10 Commandments in Courthouses, and other inclusions of Christianity.

(While looking for an image to accompany this blog, I came across this interesting syllabus which focuses on the transition from the Traditionalist to the Modernist meme, http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://academic.shu.edu/honors/James%2520I.jpg&imgrefurl=http://academic.shu.edu/honors/2103.html&usg=__8fAkSqviDTbGJaiDF01d_GAIYTs=&h=450&w=330&sz=25&hl=en&start=97&um=1&itbs=1&tbnid=hs7U_I3axYIbaM:&tbnh=127&tbnw=93&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dlaw%2Bimages%2Bfree%26start%3D80%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN%26rls%3Dcom.microsoft:en-US%26rlz%3D1I7GPEA_en%26ndsp%3D20%26tbs%3Disch:1 )

The Modernist/Rational meme sees all the downside of allowing religion to be in charge of civil affairs--including law.  Here the emphasis is on having rules that are independent of religion and stand on their own.  The US Constitution was created by Modernists.  However, there are also downsides to the Rational view.  Among them is the adversarial nature of the law.  Having Capitalism as their economic model, with an implied economic darwinism, it was natural to again favor competition as a model for legal disputes.

Enter the Pluralists.  While Traditionalists are satisfied with God having predetermined rules and judgments, and Modernists want the parties to compete, Post-Modernists want the parties to be satisfied with the outcomes of legal processes.  This is a driving force behind mediation, but the Pluralists do not limit themselves to mediation.  Basically Pluralists maintain that everyone deserves respect and input into their outcomes, even if they are the admitted guilty party. 

As a reader, I hope you can see how one worldview/meme grows into the next.  The Traditionalist view--putting God in charge--really is superseded by the Modernist view, allowing impartial judges and juries to determine the outcome of the legal fight.  Both are smaller than the Pluralist ideal of having all parties grow and gain from the dispute.

Today there are so few people operating above the Pluralist/Post-Modernist level that I cannot say what social systems, including legal systems, will be coming in our future.

Lalia

Critical Thinking Exposed

I've always been a bit taken aback by the term "critical thinking."  After seeing yet another piece bemoaning the internet generation's lack of critical thinking, I have arrived at why I abhor the term.

Critical thinking is an educational term used to describe a methodical, logical, rational approach to the world which consults known authorities in the respective fields of knowledge.  Thus, a critical thinker, wanting to know more about sinus problems, would consult the National Institutes of Health website--a source of respected information that comes from accepted scientific studies.

While that is not a wrong way to look at the world, it is a meme-specific way to look at the world.  Since it is closely tied to the Rational/Modernist/Orange meme, it is something we grow in to and subsequently grow out of!  And we have (among adults in the developed world) high populations of Traditionalists/Amber/Blue meme, Pluralists/Postmodernists/Green meme, and a developing group of Integralists/Yellow/Teal meme.  The Pluralists and Integralists both hold "higher" ways of assessing the world than the critical thinking espoused by the educators.

I am taken aback by anyone who sees "critical thinking" as the highest way of assessing the world and see the complainers as lacking in meme development themselves.

What do you think?

Lalia

Link to Barnett's recent comments on globalization

Greetings,

Thomas Barnett, one of my heroes, is an enthusiastic proponent of globalization.  Here he explains why...

http://thomaspmbarnett.com/weblog/2010/05/enlightennext_interview_text_n.html

Lalia

The Integral Response to a Big Quake

How does an integralist respond to news of a major earthquake with loss of life? With compassion and with concern to avoid future losses.

Many earthquake deaths are avoidable. Consider these numbers. US quakes in the last century were of greater magnitude but far smaller loss of life. This is because of taking care in city planning and construction to make buildings safer. Consider these facts:

The Big San Francisco Quake of 1906, occurring on 18 April 1906, with a magnitude of 7.9 had about 3,000 fatalities. The number of dead includes those dying of subsequent fires and those in the entire Bay Area.

The Great Alaska Quake of 27 March 1964 was a magnitude 9.2 (more than a hundred times more powerful than the recent Haitian quake). There were 131 deaths, most from tsunamis, and the damage was over $2 billion in today’s dollars.

The Loma Prieta or World Series Quake, which had a magnitude of 7.1 and occurred on 17 Oct 1989, had 67 fatalities and caused $2 billion in damages.

The 26 Dec 2003 quake in Bam, Iran, was a 6.6 magnitude and had 26,271 fatalities.

The 12 January 2010 Quake in Port-au-Prince Haiti was a magnitude 7.0. Current bodies counted are 170,000. Damage totals are not yet available.

The loss of life in Haiti, as in Bam, Iran, was due to cement-slab construction methods. Engineers know how to make construction safe. To avoid future tragedies, several pieces need to be in place. One, construction standards need to be set to avoid earthquake damages and other foreseeable risks. Two, construction practices need to be upgraded so that buildings are actually made safe. Three, engineers, architects, builders and construction workers need to have the education required so that they can build safe buildings. Four, countries and peoples need to learn from each other.

It has been painful for the US to acknowledge the superiority of Japan in earthquake damage avoidance, yet US architects and engineers studied what the Japanese had learned from painful experience and used that knowledge to avoid preventable deaths here. Similarly, those in Haiti could have seen that quakes were possible in their country. They could have avoided many of the deaths that have recently occurred. Yet it would seem that (as is true in many places) Haitians felt it could not happen there.

The press emphasizes what a poor country Haiti is. Yet what the press is not saying is that the middle class was the primary victim of the quake. The poorest Haitians, living in shanties, did not have tons of construction raining down upon them. It was the middle class that suffered. They could have had better construction.

Engineers have analyzed which buildings failed and which survived the 1906 San Francisco Quake. It turns out that almost all one-to-three storey wood frame buildings survived. (Because they can flex a bit in a quake.) Many of those buildings are still standing and in use.

Knowledge of how to do construction is not state secrets. There is information available to architects and engineers if they only look for it. It is time for building standards everywhere to be set for the safety of the occupants.

Moving away from building standards and building practices to culture, keeping people safe is a universal human value. No one “deserves” unsafe buildings.

Since there has been a large demolition project in Haiti, courtesy of Mother Nature, there is an opportunity for urban planning and thoughtful new endeavors which will serve all Haitians. May it be so!

Lalia