Persistencism

I’ve been trying to define the core element of Donald Trump’s socio-political approach.

Many have just been saying “Trumpism” but I’d rather have it derive for one of the components of the approach.

Finally got it.

Persistence.

If you Google it persistence you get this:

noun: persistence

1. firm or obstinate continuance in a course of action in spite of difficulty or opposition.

This perfectly describes his basic strategy. Make a statement and then repeat, repeat, repeat.

No matter what.

And the sad thing is that as a technique Persistencism works quite well.

It plays off some basic neuro-cognitive mechanisms.

Hearing something from someone you trust makes it seem more believable. And hearing something over and over makes it seem more believable.

Persistencism

Likely a lasting force in American politics for the foreseeable future.

Superior

We need to stop using the term: racist.

It’s being misused.

The issue is much broader. It’s a big tent issue.

Plain racism is about ancestry. The belief that those with a specific biological ancestry are superior to those without that ancestry.

There are other terms extrapolated from racism, mostly dealing with historical contexts that have produced some form of lasting inequality.

But the emphasis on ancestry is currently dissolving and pupating into something different. Something more dynamic.

I would use the term: ethnocentrism.

This term can have a few different interpretations as well so here is the specific definition I am using: the attitude that one’s own culture is superior to others.

This is similar to a belief in superiority based on ancestry but with a progressive inclusiveness interwoven. So even though racism may still lurk within the current emergent movement of ethnocentrism, the movement is ultimately evolving past it.

The emphasis in ancestral racism is that something biologically superior has been inherited from parents at birth.

The emergent ethnocentrism emphasizes that something culturally superior has been inherited at birth.

That is why this movement is so much broader. The ancestry of the person is not relevant; they inherit the superiors from the cultural norms and practices of those around them. Or, even more intriguingly, outsiders can inherit that superiority by converting, by adopting the superior culture.

As much as racist views and practices may still permeate some aspects of this movement towards ethnocentrism, the movement is definitely in the process of shedding the racism.

The movement is stronger in its reach because it can recruit more individual without having to birth them.

Irreconcilable

All this talk about

“Coming Together”

“Finding Common Ground”

“Uniting the Country”

I get it, I understand the motivation for unity. But it’s not happening.

Can we reconcile the view that abortion is acceptable with the view that it’s acceptable under certain circumstances? Sure. At least there is the potential for a compromise.

But we absolutely can not reconcile the view that from the moment of conception forward all abortion is murder with any view that some form of abortion is permissible.

There is no middle ground to be found there, the 2 views exclude the possibility that the other can be accommodated.

We might say “well those are extreme views”. Quite right. And in this country those with extreme views are the most politically motivated and they are more likely to shape the makeup of the government.

Same applies with LBGTQ+ stances.

The people who want to be welcoming but not quite affirming could potentially find some common ground with the people who are affirming. Maybe.

But there are those who believe every issue pertaining LGBTQ+ is purely about personal choices and that all of those choices are inherently wrong and evil. They can never reconcile with the affirming.

There is no middle ground between the LGBTQ+ are evil and the LGBTQ+ should be affirmed camps.

Same with many others.

The views cannot accommodate each other.

Our country has been building to this confrontation for a long, long time. Failing to acknowledge this will prolong the current hostility and escalate the final confrontation.

Nick vs Carrie

There is a distinctive split emerging between American Christians when it comes to COVID-19

The split is apparent on many issues to be sure

But the simplest way to distill it is:

The Carries vs The Nicks

On the one hand you have the Carrie Underwood “Jesus Take the Wheel” response

On the other hand you have the Nick Offerman “Say a Prayer While You Steer Into The Skid” response

I know which response I would have when my car started spinning out on a slick road

Choosing a Heritage

It tells all you need to know that the monuments being defended are of pro-slavery figures rather than those constructed to honor the long legacy of southern aboltionism and individual abolitionists.

Pro-slavery figures and abolitionists are both part of southern heritage.

It’s a choice to honor the pro-slavery figures.

It’s a choice to honor the heritage of slavery instead of abolitionism.


Epistemological Crisis

2932038F-BA97-489F-BC62-13E714F9A486

We are in the midst of an epistemological crisis.

A crisis of what it means to know something

A crisis of what it means to have a justified belief

A crisis of trust that I’m starting to feel will create a permanent divide that cannot be reconciled. And maybe shouldn’t be reconciled.

I’ve seen this crisis building and I imagine you have as well, regardless of your ideological bent. Until now though I’ve been seeing it through a lens of good will.

Because all have our own opinions and interpretations of the world. Our experiences and circumstances influence how we form our beliefs. So it’s natural that our beliefs differ.

No big deal.

And for a long time I’ve believed it was possible to reconcile our differences through dialogue.

Enter the epistemological crisis.

Right now people are revealing that they don’t care to have a justified belief. They’ve revealed that they’re not interested in the foundation of their belief being based on some semblance of objective reality.

Before now I imagined that to be something that only happens on the fringes. But it is not on the fringe. It’s directly in the mainstream of our society.

No better example than those who share memes that contain false information that would be easy to check if the person cared to.

Not only has it become clear that people don’t care to check if the meme they care is true before they share it, if you challenge them to check it after they share it they will refuse.

Because they don’t care if it’s true.

They care that it supports their beliefs to the exclusion of evidence.

The worst part is that it’s just a meme. A picture with a few sentences attached to it. No one should base their beliefs on that:m. No one should trust that as a true and valid source of knowledge.

I’ve come to realize that this is a new development in what it means to lie. Maybe an application of the biblical prohibition on gossip.

Because if you’re going to share information then you are responsible for knowing if it is true. The obligation is on you to verify accuracy.

So sharing falsehood is a malignant lie that spreads more falsehood on a broad scale, resulting in far reaching damage that is much more destructive than an interpersonal lie.

And I’m not talking about people making mistakes or not having all the facts. That’s unavoidable, we all have the potential to make mistakes when we’re not informed by evidence.

The even more perturbing phenomenon is the denial of evidence. Not just denying the evidence presented in an argument, but the denial that evidence even matters at all.

The quintessential example is the moment in a social media post that I’d call the unconfront-able truth, where a person makes a post with a comment to the effect of:

Here’s the proof that I’m right and even if this proof turns out to be false, I’m still right

It’s not that I disagree with people on one subject or another that’s a problem. It’s that we’re approaching a sharp divide on what it means to know something at all.

Christian of a Down

4288C3C4-2F5B-4E8A-BFFB-D394CA7DBD53

I find it quite fun to talk about what Jesus really looked like. And my advice to everyone is that your base template, the general phenotypical example to start with, is Serj Tankian from System of a Down. Using him as a template you can then branch out into the numerous variables that would have likely applied to Jesus.

So to start, no one knows what Jesus looks like. But we know where he is said to be from so we can make a lot of solid guesses.

Jesus came from a region around the Mediterranean Sea or Mediterranea if you like (I do). And Serj’s family roots are in Armenia, just up in the right corner of the map below.

4E3EF523-6EFF-495C-981D-779DFC47C6A8

And many of the peoples in this regions share common ancestry. That ancestry is basically the result of people moving around this region constantly & reproductively intermingling.

Groups like Phoenicians who were great at traveling by sea are prime examples but also just people migrating around on land. When traveling peoples interact with each other there is a nearly universal set of interactions: they trade and/or kill and/or have sex with each other. So the different groups went through numerous combinations of these different interactions over long periods of time. Some more so than others but the result was inevitably a sharing of genetic traits with a lot of unpredictable variation.

Serj’s appearance was likely influenced by multiple interactions and reproducing from a number of these different groups making for a mish-mash of traits from all over the Mediterranean Basin. At some points the genetic evidence suggests more affinity with Europe and at other points more affinity with Asia or Northern Africa.

But regardless you’re more likely to find some traits than others.

You might come across mild to moderate to darkly pigmented skin for example. Most likely darker hair, most likely dark eye pigment, and a high incidence of curly hair.

Hair is particularly interesting because it’s just determined by the shape of the hair follicles. The more ovoid the follicle, the more curl. The more circular, the straighter the hair is.

Serj exemplifies these traits perfectly.

He’s got dark coiled hair

"Souls, 2005" - System of a Down Benefit Concert

Jesus would almost certainly have had similar hair. It might have a been a bit darker or light, maybe a bit more curly or straight. But not too much, just slight variation.

Serj also has quite darkly pigmented eye color.

F3D0F18E-27C4-4B8A-A87D-5CA1375DA778

The same rule probably would have applied as hair color. There’s some room for variation in his eye color for sure. Jesus could’ve had a bit lighter or darker eye pigment but not too much in either direction.

Now we come to skin color. Which I have to say, people with lighter skin pigment are REAL hung up on this one. To be charitable Jesus could’ve had light skin pigment as Serj does…

D014AC4F-8CC7-4753-82ED-99462E4251D0

But it’s not likely. He was born into a population much further south than Serj’s most recent ancestors probably were. So Jesus’ skin pigment would almost certainly have been darker.

Even if it wasn’t though, even if he was born with less skin pigment, he was some sort of carpenter or builder. Depending on how you interpret the specific working, maybe even something like a modern day general contractor or handyman. He almost certainly spent a lot of time outside working in the sun.

Another trait these Mediterranean populations would’ve passed around to each other would’ve been an ability to tan much more efficiently than peoples further north.

By working in the sun Jesus would almost certainly have developed much darker skin tone by his early 20s. Even if he didn’t work outside, during the ministry described in the Bible he spent a lot of time outside walking and speaking and boating around so that would’ve contributed to increasing his skin pigment.

So when it comes to artistic depictions of Jesus, if we want a semblance of historical accuracy we should use Serj as our template.

FDA7553D-F2A1-4E55-97BD-23B907C46FBB

Take some artistic license here and there, skin that’s moderately darker or lighter, give hair more curl or a bit more straight. No big deal. But don’t deviate too far or it becomes grossly inaccurate. Then you’re just remaking God in your own image.

Painting, movies, graphic novels, whatever. Know the region you’re working from and know the general appearance of the people there. It’s not hard.

The way we perceive someone like Jesus, a historical figure who has had an enormous impact on our culture for both the religious & non-religious, makes a difference.

How we see him in our imagination informs how we perceive others, informs the way we think about the broad variety of features we see in the people around us.

When you think Jesus, think Serj 🤘

Patriots

3DDD8F19-E1EC-4BF6-B015-4CC8712756BA

I love that people think they get to tell me what it means to love my country

So I’ll tell you what it means

When you love someone you support them and accept them

You also encourage them to examine their past

to be better than they’ve been

to make right their wrongs

to confront their sins

to address their complacency

When you love someone

you help them grow

you help them take hold of their potential

you help them fulfill their goals

you help them learn from their mistakes

When you love someone you don’t excuse their misdeeds and sit idly by while they perpetuate patterns of abuse

And that’s how I love my country

Convergence of Evidence

4B0CA317-1D02-499B-BCC9-D8A9418B0CA0Some say we need to teach young people how to use a check book. I say we need to teach them (and everyone else) how to measure the validity of a claim based on evidence. One of the most important aspects of doing so is understanding the convergence of evidence. Like in the picture, in real life some lines of evidence will not align perfectly on a single point. Because there are outliers, situations where mitigating factors lead to slightly different outcomes. But there is a convergence where most of the lines come together. That’s what it takes to form a trustworthy understanding of a subject. Looking at multiple lines of evidence and establishing the area of convergence is how you can have confidence that we’ve developed a persuasive understanding of any subject. You can’t pluck one line out of the bunch that you happen to like and form your beliefs on that single line. You also can’t pick the first line that shows up and form your conclusions until you can corroborate with other lines of evidence and find the convergence

For example

You can’t pick this one study about a single asymptomatic subject

One subject

And then ignore this study of eight asymptomatic subjects

Eight subjects

You have to find the convergence to draw a conclusion 

Scarsick

I was reading some reflections and rage posts from a hospitalist working in New York who came from out of state to work in the overtaxed NY healthcare systems. And the way he described his experience and how it’s changed his perspectives made realize that you can make a very stark compare & contrast with 9/11.

To work in the heart of this crisis, not just in New York but also places like Detroit, and then come back to the world to hear people downplaying or denying crisis feels the way it would’ve if the first responders to 9/11 came home to the news broadcasting a sizable and loud contingent of the population saying that 9/11 wasn’t really that bad. Or the death toll was being exaggerated. Or that the first responders themselves were bringing empty body bags out of the wreckage. It’s true that a myriad of conspiracy theories popped up afterwards but at least to my knowledge, none of the ones that caught on denied that the events actually took place or suggested that the first responders were somehow in on a scheme to stage the attacks.

Healthcare professionals right now are seeing the devastation of this virus all over the country and the world.

Healthcare workers that aren’t even directly involved and in harm’s way are seeing it play out, with direct knowledge of and evidence for the devastation.

I believe that we are in the process of creating lasting or even permanent hostility between a segment of the healthcare community & those who deny and/or downplay this crisis.

If this happens I think there’s a good chance it’s going to be a deep and ugly scar in the fabric of our society.

I think the spite is trickling out into the general population.

I think it’s the kind of division that will never fully heal.