Conceiving Neo-AnthropoGenic Psychology

Ever wonder what it would be like if the science fiction of your childhood were real? Well, that’s the way it is for me and other members of my generation caught between the tidal waves of Boomers and Millennials. We didn’t have a war to rally behind or protest. Our war was Cold, and it was leftovers at that. We’ve generated few world leaders as yet who have risen to the heights of historical. Instead, we’re made up of a lot of impossible dreamers, weaned on Pong, PacMan and Space Invaders, and determined to get to Mars. Our future was laid out for us on the big screen in movies like Star Wars, RoboCop, 2010, and Blade Runner. And we took it seriously.

We were the dreamers turned explorers as we set out on ancient digital ships like the Commodore 64 and the Apple IIC, boards that would shake the confidence of any surfer today. We had no fear, and that served us well in navigating toward lands better left alone, trailing thread behind us, as we sewed together the Web envisioned by our forebear engineers. As more people came aboard, something wonderful happened. Instead of shrinking what was available, it only increased the possibilities. The framework may have been laid by others, but we built the Internet and an even larger “we” continues to define it today: A global intelligence. From this new speed-of-light collaborative intelligence have come new technologies across all fields that reach beyond the personal contribution. The possibilities in medicine, longevity, computer and space sciences, to name a few, have become whatever we can imagine collectively. We have taken control of our own evolution. And there are billions more waiting to join.

New technologies can increase physical and mental abilities. They can ease the rigors of life, and not only extend life, but make that extension more palatable and enjoyable. What it cannot do is accelerate the evolution of the psyche, or the mind. Understanding how these changes impact us as people is the central tenet of Neo-Anthropogenic Psychology. There have been decades of research devoted to the developmental bases of behavior, but somehow they forgot the chapter on the once-disabled, now-augmented super-human. Take Nigel Ackland. With a prosthetic hand that can hold an egg, turn 360 degrees, and shake (or crush) your puny human hand, it is hard to decide who is disabled. Perhaps as this technology progresses, there will be elective surgery for augmentation.

Neo-Anthropogenic Psychology seeks to understand why it is when we see a mechanical “dog,” we can alternately fear it and feel sympathy for it, despite its lack of resemblance to an actual dog. Further, after using drones and their partners on the battlefield, what happens when the robot soldier returns home from war? How do they find job satisfaction competing with other soldiers for jobs? There are calls for more autonomy in the field of war, yet are we ready to grant them their independence?

But NAG Psychology doesn’t concern itself with just the battlefield or the augmented human. There is also the prospect of the deep reaches of space, where many elements of new technology literally mean the difference between life and death. Even studying the impact of social media as the primary connection between a Mars-traveling spacecraft and their human family and friends at home can create a baseline of sanity necessary to complete the mission. As a species, we are moving further from the Earth in more than the literal form.

Technology is a fundamental learning, and building the foundation for what this does to our developing psyche can set us on a strong trajectory for this inevitable change. Ignoring it can leave our civilization open to the erosion seen onscreen only a short time ago, an erosion that cedes our temporary self-evolution to the machines we’ve built to enable it.

Does the buck still stop here? It depends on the President.

He took office in the middle of an unprecedented economic crisis the likes of which had not been seen since the Great Depression. Still, he kept the same economic advisers and Fed Chairman from the previous administration in the belief the plan going forward would lead to improvement with as little pain as possible. His first term saw unemployment get out of control, and a lot of derision for his economic plan, but he stayed the course. When the numbers began to improve just before the election cycle, a 2nd term looked more likely, but the one thing he got high marks on, foreign policy, took a huge hit that put everything into question. The President was Ronald Reagan.

On September 11, 2012, a US consulate outpost in Benghazi was attacked by militants killing the first US ambassador overseas since 1979, as well as 2 former Navy SEALS and an information analyst. Four preventable deaths lost in the line of trying to secure peace in the region. It took 2 weeks for the President Obama and State Department to get on the same page.

Nearly 6 weeks went by before a preliminary timeline was released by the Pentagon and CIA.

Though 1979 was the last year that saw a US ambassador lost in the course of performing his duties, there have been many others lost in comparable moments. In the year preceding the 1984 elections, when the economy had not yet turned the corner, President Reagan endured a round of challenges much more severe the events leading to the death of Ambassador Stevens in Benghazi on September 11, 2012.

☛ Car bomb at the US embassy annex in Beirut killed 22 people on September 20, 1984. Not only is this a similar date in proximity to the election, but involves over 5 times as many deaths. No retaliation or arrests.

☛ Lebanon CIA station Chief Buckley’s kidnapping in February, ’84 dying in captivity the next year. No retaliation or arrests.

☛ A-6 pilot shot down and captured by Hezbollah in December of ’83. Jesse Jackson to acted as intermediary to secure his release from Syria a month later.

☛ Bombing of our Kuwaiti embassy also in December of ’83 that killed 6 because it failed to explode properly & ignite a petro-chemical plant. Kuwait handled the response much as Libya is doing now.

☛ USMC Beirut barracks in October of ’83 killed 327, including 241 US servicemen. Four months after vowing to never give into terror and stay in Beirut, Reagan pulled the troops out. The US never retaliated or captured those responsible.

☛ Our Beirut embassy in April 1983 killing 63. We responded by giving more aid to Lebanon, and moving the embassy to a “more secure” location. The new location is the one attacked on September 20, 1984.

6 weeks later, Ronald Reagan won an historic 49-state victory over Walter Mondale for a 2nd term in the White House.

 

War of Words Offers Hope

Recently, someone asked me why we keep talking when each side does not move an inch from his point of view. It’s hopeless!

I answered with the inarguable point: “Because.” And I’m right, too.

There are many reasons why keeping two groups with intransigent and diametrically opposed viewpoints throwing words across the table–or virtual table, as the Internet replaces face-to-face time in conference rooms–at each other ad nauseum. The most obvious: As long as they are talking, they aren’t killing each other.

Now I didn’t say neither wants to kill the other, just that they’re too busy letting each other know why they want to kill each other to actually do so. If during this heated “hate exchange” they realize pummeling the other with words is hurtful, all the better. Clearly, if the goal is to hurt the other in the first place, it would be counterproductive to outright kill them. Thus, the suffering continues. And so does life.

Where there is life, there is hope, no?

You Put Your Hands Upon My Hip

Then you dip, I dip, we dip! All this talk of a possible “double-dip” recession got me thinking: Have we ever faced something so economically scary? It turns out we have. Many times.

Considering it has been 26 months since the current anemic recovery began, and fingernails are getting shorter with each new report on the economy, I checked for recessions in the US separated by less than 30 months:

• Depression of 1807-1810 followed by recession of 1812
• Recession of 1812 followed by depression of 1815–1821
• Depression of 1815-1821 followed by recession of 1822-1823
• Recession of 1822-1823 followed by recession of 1825-1826
• Recession of 1825-1826 followed by recession of 1828-1829
• Recession of 1833-1834 followed by recession of 1836-1838*
• Recession of 1836-1838* followed by recession of 1839-1843*
• Recession of 1839-1843* followed by recession of 1845-1846
• Recession of 1845-1846 followed by recession of 1847-1848…

*Taken together, these 6 years represented the longest Depression in history following Jackson’s short-lived pay-off of the debt.

Well, you get the picture. It goes on and on like this until the 20th century. Since the Great Depression ended, there have only been two instances of recessions recurring in a time frame less than 30 months. The first occurred as an 8-month recession lasting into 1958 was followed by a 10-month recession beginning in 1960. The second one is more interesting, though, given its similarity to the current circumstances.

The president residing over the downward turn in the economy inherited a terrible economy with little time for things to turn around as his precedent had only replaced the Fed Chairman, and thus monetary policy, 18 months before he took office. When things are a mess it takes a while to turn it around. This is why he decided to keep the preceding executive’s Chairman and policies like Obama did following his election when there had been only 6 months action before taking office since the “Great Recession” was not even acknowledged until nearly a year after it began. 

Unemployment was a little higher in the 2nd double-dip recession of the century than it is today, but still close enough to call it apples to apples. The country faced high energy prices and crises overseas, though no declared war, and government regulation of business was a center issue. American manufacturing faced a crisis and a government bailout was required to save the automobile sector.

If you haven’t guessed already, the last double-dip recession occurred under Ronald Reagan. Following the 6-month recession of 1980, Reagan entered office & decided to keep Carter 1979 appointee Paul Volcker, who had been implementing a plan of deregulation under Carter to nurture the economy away from approaching calamity. He also took a lot of heat for raising the federal funds rate to attack stagflation. In the end, his efforts worked to curtail inflation from a peak of 13.5% under Reagan in 1981 to 3.2% by 1983 and interest rates would follow it back down.

It took more than 3 years for Volcker policies to have enough impact to pull the economy into an extended recovery. Reagan decided to make a change in 1987 when Volcker thought deregulation had gone far enough and moderation was needed. That August he named Allen Greenspan, who was friendly to Reagan’s approach of removing most forms of regulation,  Chairman of the Fed.

Three years later, the first George Bush was dealing with a recession of his own.

They are Us: Protecting Our Plutocracy

Private Pluto-cracy (unrelated photo from Disney's "Private Pluto," 1943)

Robert Frank claimed in an article published on the first day of this month in the Wall Street Journal “…that the U.S. is becoming a Plutonomy—an economy dependent on the spending and investing of the wealthy.” I happened upon the Yahoo publication of the articlewhile finishing my recent entry on the 5th estate and invite you to read it. Should we worry our democratic nation is in danger of falling to the domino effect of an economy at the mercy of a small minority? After all, even if the economy falls into the care of the wealthiest 2%, they would still need to control the gates of political office for governance and have access to a viable military force. I’m here to tell you to stop all of the unnecessary worrying. It’s already happened.

Cracks, Crises and Cynicism

Opportunists follow any crisis. Here in Florida, for example, we witness price gouging after a hurricane and government efforts to penalize those unscrupulous few who take unfair advantage. Effective more in pleasing political constituencies than actually preventing gouging, market conditions are the ultimate deterrent. Who will do business with them after the crisis? What really should grab our attention in a crisis are systemic cracks in the foundation, those things fundamental to our system to which we pay little heed until we find ourselves trapped in the force of a storm surge. The wider the surge, the less we notice.

Politicians often find time during an election cycle to decry special interest groups and their influence on their more pliable peers who are typically members of the other party. If asked why they didn’t vote for the campaign finance reform bill, expect to hear the bill introduced would have the opposite effect while their efforts to produce a strong measure went ignored. It was no surprise when Sarah Palin said Obama received the largest contributions from BP, nor that both parties have members—including Palin—supported by BP and other corporations within the oil industry. Why wasn’t anyone shocked? We, the people, accept it as the cost of doing business in politics. The theatrics in a campaign are a cyclical event of denial and suspension of disbelief. Party candidates rally their constituencies with ideologically correct platitudes while the party faithful respond with convincing cheers. All the while, financiers still direct the action backstage with the actors entering and exiting on cue. Occasionally, a script revision is required and a promising understudy steps into the lead role. With the fanfare of a high school yearbook, the voter resigns their vote to the candidate “most likely to win.”

Nation Branding: “What, me worry?”

Why worry if corporate America has their hands in shaping the pool of viable candidates for public office? Seriously. Let’s take the “boogeyman” label off faceless corporations for a moment, and consider the evolutionary processes inherent in a capitalist economy. The best and strongest innovations are rewarded with greater market share. This formula  should work well for a nation in a global economy where its brand matters. Different emotions are stirred by the words “Made in the USA” or “Made in China,” and these brands need to be defended vigorously. National defense also benefits from competition.

After the Cold War, industry supplanted competing Superpowers. Mercenaries—hired combatants—have been around since the birth of our country and fill a role when troops are scarce. Today we call them private military companies (PMCs) and their combatant activity has increased tenfold since the Persian Gulf War. This might sound a few alarms, but think about it: If the government wages war and there is a way to reduce reportable excess costs and casualties to an American public that doesn’t want to hear it, isn’t this a win-win situation? Private companies means private casualty reports, a kind of “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy all their own. Those working in this industry are usually well-trained former military personnel from all over and expect a market price for their services. Our pool of applicants increases considerably. It’s probably best for US military personnel we don’t compare salaries. Oh, and before I forget, don’t let on that different rules apply to contractors vs. military vs. the civilian population.  Abu Ghraib and Order 17 are best not discussed in mixed company.

I don’t want to give the impression there are highly trained combatants with top-of-the-line weaponry out there without some affiliation and commitment to the good ol’ US of A.  These guys walked our streets in New Orleans next to members of the US military helping to secure neighborhoods and bring relief following Hurricane Katrina. The companies for which they work–at least 17 of them, anyway–also give generously to candidates running for public office. The wheel keeps spinning round.

Speak Now or Forever Hold Your Peace

Frank’s observation can hardly be seen as revelation as the plutocratic argument has circulated in various threads, and if I’ve recognized it, clearly many other more knowledgeable folk have also. In fact, I believe most either have difficulty getting past ideological rhetoric or refuse to take the signs of plutocracy seriously. One careless comment—think of Obama’s “share the wealth”—and the soundbyte becomes the argument, and the eroding power of self-governance continues until the next crisis reveals more cracks in the foundation.

Capitalism is on the defensive. “Socialism” and “nanny state” are used as pejoratives to invoke fear of bigger government among conservatives. Both parties, however, voted to rescue corporations that support their campaigns when capitalism weeded them out for extinction. Our tax dollars went to salvage failed corporations instead of entrusting successful companies with the cash necessary to step up and fill the void effectively. They didn’t just abandon a free market democracy, they declared their affiliation with the companies of choice. Each successive Congress and President of either party has promised to reduce government, and each has overseen its growth.

If size matters, shouldn’t you be concerned who’s running it?

UPDATE : One Year Later

Though this chart only goes through 2006, I think it worth noting that in 2011, when there are deafening arguments against increasing taxes despite a weak economy, aging infrastructure & historically low interest rates and tax brackets, that the policies leading to this imbalance among socio-economic groups are still in place with no sign of abating. If Einstein was correct in saying the definition of insanity is repeating the same thing over and over again expecting a different outcome, I wonder what next year will bring?

http://www.businessinsider.com/plutocracy-reborn

They are Us: The 5th Element

Increased influence heralds the emergence of a 5th estate. It is the unique collection of ingredients that separates it from the 4 other spheres of power: World Wide Web medium; social media; real-time accessible global within group and external interaction; net neutrality; and the 5th element–one distinguishing it from other attempts to define this group–distinctly unique voices. Referred to as “that mustard seed” contribution by each member in my previous post, this 5th element is seminal to the developing role as an additional player in self-governance and its evolved form today. The analogy refers to the ability and potential of the tiny seed growing to a large size no matter where it lands even if the results were not the intent. Once grown, its branches make well-hidden perches for many different birds.

A strong argument for the natural progression of an evolving 4th estate can be made since the invention of the printing press enabled its emergence as watchdog of the state. The ability to share secure information enabled each group to assert power, however, and increased literacy with access to information allows each to exist and grow; therefore the ability to communicate efficiently in written form enables one to belong to an estate, but does not distinguish a separate division. Further, the web enables the illiterate to engage by readily transmitting  audio and video messages. Social media sites like YouTube and Facebook cooperate to connect people and ideas that can be easily recorded, uploaded and available worldwide in minutes.

Social media empowers the 5th estate and allows the individual viewpoint to be heard interactively. However, again it is not unique to this group as other power groups become aware of its capabilities. These groups are not well-suited to influence members of other estates via social media interaction as the uniform message like that presented in the preceding link serve as a bread crumb trail to groupthink assertions. Further, the idea of live, interactive media is not new. Global social media is as old as the telephone and international dialing and the access to mass audiences through radio remains popular. Still, a telephone call is limited in its scope and a radio broadcast by time and the bias and censorship of the broadcaster.

Independent thoughts and ideas remain the key designator as they create the sum of mass conscience and wisdom. As tiny as a mustard seed might be or insignificant as a thought may appear, when collected among a group unaffiliated except for the access to the Internet and desire to be heard, it can evolve into something unintended, but ultimately reflective of the collective will of many. This mass assertion carries weight among those in a position to give action to those words, and unlike its counterparts, the feedback is both immediate and gradual as ideas are honed by little mustard seeds from the crowd until they grow to seed new ideas.

They are Us: The 5th Estate

 

Careful what you say. People will listen.

By way of introduction, Media Psychology: They are Us references the explosion of social media as a form of global communication complete with all the polarized viewpoints. It is my hope to engender conversation among individuals that find it difficult to contain their passion, yet have a desire to engage in dialog without the provocations found in media messages that attempt to disguise an agenda. Here is found a repository for sharing thoughts and exploring myriad ideas freely and openly. I will get the conversation going by posting weekly blogs on topics I hope will interest you, the reader. Strike that–you, the participant. Science has peer-reviewed journals that perpetually challenge research. Here, the peers are boundless and for each reader, a unique set of metrics applied that must only satisfy the standards they bring. I will include wiki links to point you to further research, and link more thorough findings when possible. My return on investment is an enjoyable and respectful debate; an understanding of different points of view and observations; and a collection of anecdotal data that supports my contention that social media is the next step in the evolution of self-government: the 5th Estate.

¿Por qué “La Finca quinto”

Estates of the realm originated in Middle Age Europe and defined class from highest to lowest ranking. After the fall of the Roman Empire & the chaos that ensued, the Church sought to consolidate power and re-establish order. Through alliances with the wealthy, and thus well-armed, they established rule anointed by divine authority that could only come from God. Who could argue with that? The first estate, therefore, included all clergy; the second included nobility & royalty other than the king; and the third, well, pretty much everybody else. Remember that part about divine authority coming from God? Turns out that spot was reserved for the king, hence the obedience to his authority. It seems in those days, checks and balances relied a lot on conscience and fear. We have to time travel to the 18th century to see another estate−the 4th−established as government evolved post Magna Carta into a more rigorously challenged entity:  The press.  Crossing an ocean, the US Constitutional form of government has 3 secular branches one might describe in terms of estates (executive, judicial & legislative) with the press’ role in the 4th estate firmly established by the 1st Amendment to the Constitution.

This brings us to the 21st and the emergence of what some argue is a 5th Estate. I am worthless advocate to the ideas shown in the preceding link as I only just found this reference at this writing. (This coming together of similar, but separate thoughts plays an important role to which I will return momentarily.) I will say several suggestions defining a 5th estate fall short, at first glance.

1. Trade unions operate as a political entity equivalent to the 3rd estate.
2. Pundits and media operating in opposition to the mainstream are still profit-driven organizations whose goal it is to become mainstream, thus they remain in the 4th estate.
3. Organized crime exists outside the laws governing society, a status antithetical to the idea of governance rendering them non-participants and thus unaffiliated.

This brings us to the remarkable tool called the Internet (not the 5th estate) that allows universal access to information that flows freely (almost there, but not quite); bloggers like me to self-publish (getting really hot); and real-time interaction with independent users (ding! ding! ding!). Add a touch of skepticism and curiosity, and you have the ingredients for a thoroughly cooked 5th estate. The great thing about connectivity to this living organism we call the World Wide Web is the ability to conceive of an idea, place it into the “cyber-incubator” that is social media, and watch it develop as it marries another person’s wandering idea, which in turn sires offspring that may never have been born had there not been this Internet dating service of sorts. Therein lies the singularly most important element of a 5th estate: Independent thought. Lots of it.

E pluribus unum

This Latin phrase recognized most often as the motto on the Seal of the United States has its beginnings in ancient Rome and has been attributed to artists and philosophers alike. “Out of many, one” is an appropriate allusion to the many colonies/states/immigrants/ethnicities that combined to make a nation. As its meaning has evolved, it only seems natural that it expand its reach in the 21st century on a global scale. Earlier I mentioned the importance of similar, but separate thoughts coming together. Social media accessed on the World Wide Web, the face of the Internet, does not constitute a 5th estate. The way we use these tools and how we present ourselves represents a newly emerging estate of power.

As the sum of all human knowledge gathers in a “cloud,” the concept of “original idea” is undergoing a thorough examination. By necessity, there is a portion of our creative thought we must simultaneously give credit to another and selflessly gift to the community writ large. What remains with us, however, is that tiny mustard seed that only our unique self can contribute according to each individual’s personal journey to the point of creation. This is the element−the 5th element, if you will−that must be arbiter of the words each commits herein and is necessary to define a 5th estate. The irony of this new estate is its existence depends upon its members being independent in thought; open to suggestion; skeptical of words; fearless in speech; thoughtful in voice; disconnected; unrepresentative; married to conviction; divorced of ideology; grounded in belief; and motivated by discovery.

In short, it must be you.