Truth is an elusive concept

The truth is elusive.

You would think that it’s not. After all, something is either true or it is false. But it’s not all that simple. Consider the parable of the blind men and the elephant as recounted in Wikipedia:

“A group of blind men heard that a strange animal, called an elephant, had been brought to the town, but none of them were aware of its shape and form. Out of curiosity, they said: ‘We must inspect and know it by touch, of which we are capable.’ So, they sought it out, and when they found it they groped about it. In the case of the first person, whose hand landed on the trunk, said ‘This being is like a thick snake.’ For another one whose hand reached its ear, it seemed like a kind of fan. As for another person, whose hand was upon its leg, said, the elephant is a pillar like a tree-trunk. The blind man who placed his hand upon its side said, ‘elephant is a wall.’ Another who felt its tail, described it as a rope. The last felt its tusk, stating the elephant is that which is hard, smooth and like a spear.”

So what was the elephant like? A snake, a fan, a tree-trunk, a wall, a rope, or a spear? Actually, each description is true, but incomplete. That’s why a very important concept is vital to American jurisprudence: the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help us God. The key concept here is “the whole truth.”

And that lies at the heart of much of America’s current civil and political discord: selection bias. We are told one aspect of a situation, by a friend or politician or media report, without mention of other aspects. We accept that selective truth and come to believe that an elephant is like a snake.

But very often, not just occasionally, multiple aspects of a thing are simultaneously true. Supporters and detractors will select just one truth and use it to bludgeon their opponents. Here a few examples:

• Capitalism can create great disparities in wealth, but capitalism has lifted more people out of poverty than any other system.
• Automation (robots) will displace millions of workers, but will unleash untold new jobs and contribute greatly to economic growth.
• The stock market is of no concern of the common man, but the stock market is crucial for paying the pensions of teachers and cops and firemen.

These, and many other things, can all be simultaneously true.

Here is another little story for you. The Republic of El Salvador (“Republic of the Savior”) is the smallest country in Central America. It also has the highest rate of femicide in the world (women murdered simply because they are women). Women are dying by the thousands. The greatest source of this homicidal violence is pathologically vicious young males, most being gang members. The gangs exist because of a lack of law enforcement. Law enforcement is spotty because of government corruption.

Because of this violence, people are fleeing El Salvador hoping for asylum in the north, in America. They are willing to risk great travails in their journey. They cross the border, illegally, driven by haunting visions of home chasing them along.

As the migrants clamor for asylum, inclusion, acceptance, safety, a growing cadre of Americans are alarmed by what they view as an invasion. They suspect that gang members and drug runners are amongst the migrants. They suspect that the migrants, once in America and looking for work, will drive down wages for jobs they are competing for. They want a wall. Others view a wall as immoral, inimical to American values.

From this morass of views, keeping the parable of the elephant in mind, we might conclude that they might all be simultaneously true. So what to do?

If we assume that all of the above might be true, then a multi-pronged solution is the most effective response. For instance, and not limited to these:

• More effective border control to minimize illegal entry
• Greatly expanded asylum processing capacity to accommodate the flood of applicants
• Foreign aid to El Salvador to encourage the democratic process, rule of law, and gang suppression

This is the type of thinking that a truly bipartisan citizenry, directing their legislators, might embark upon. Too bad that this is only a pipe dream.

Why we work

As Christmas approaches, one must be blind to miss the enormous blitz of stuff for sale. Advertising permeates television, newspapers, magazines, and the phantasmal web. We are urged to buy in a frenzy of spending and wrapping and giving. Psychological studies abound as to why we do this. To show appreciation for others in our lives. To make ourselves feel good about our altruism. To improve our chances with a potential mate. The reasons are many.

But flip this on its head and consider that this deluge of stuff to be given must first all be made. Which is another even more basic human behavior – we are makers.

Consider our prehistoric ancestors. Busy all day, every day, no vacations. Gathering berries and mushrooms, snaring rabbits, hunting antelope. There was no cessation of these basic survival activities. But there was plenty of pride and satisfaction in a job well done, as it resulted in a full tummy for you and your family. The efforts were richly rewarded.

And then there was that relatively huge human brain bringing creativity to bear on the problem. Better arrowheads. More effective snares. Improved hunting strategies. Creativity is strongly intertwined with making.

This satisfaction of a job well done appears to be embedded in the primal, survival centers of our brains, because it is strongly experienced today. We take satisfaction in creativity. We enjoy doing a job well.

And while we no longer snare rabbits, we get that same thrill of success from a job well done, seemingly any job.

Swarthmore College psychologist Barry Schwartz, in TED talks and in several books, has researched and observed why we work. The need for money is almost never at the top of the list when people are asked. According to Professor Schwartz:

“Satisfied workers are engaged by their work. They lose themselves in it. Not all the time, of course, but often enough for that to be salient to them. Satisfied workers are challenged by their work. It forces them to stretch themselves—to go outside their comfort zones. These lucky people think the work they do is fun, often in the way that doing crossword puzzles or Sudoku is fun.”

Many have written of the importance of work. Studs Terkel wrote “Working: People Talk About What They Do All Day and How They Feel About What They Do” in 1974 and it resonates still today, a classic. Terkel interviewed many people, from parking valets to waitresses, steel workers to business executives, and captured their thoughts and feelings. His overall conclusion was that, while work can be difficult, it is meaningful and rewarding to many in all walks of life.

Mike Rowe, the well-known television host and narrator of Dirty Jobs and Somebody’s Gotta Do It, is a strong proponent of the dignity of work, any work, especially blue collar and the trades. Rowe would like to see more specific skills training and apprenticeship programs to match millions of potential employees with currently unfilled jobs.

In the end, we must recognize the satisfaction which comes from work. The dignity and pride which arises from serving a hungry customer well. Or mopping a floor properly. Or picking crate after crate of cherries. Or writing a block of code that protects a newly discovered network fault.

Work is important to us. It is visceral. It is primal. It gives life meaning. It gives us pride.

That is something that we need to remember when developing social programs. It is just possible that, for instance, an Earned Income Tax Credit, which encourages work, might be superior to a general cash disbursement, which does not.

Now, go forth, shop, and enjoy the holidays. Give all of those makers a purpose.