30 Sep 2016
a few days ago, my good friend and writing buddy, erin, put down some good thoughts:
“We live in the time of “truthiness”, where people seem ready to simply believe that something is true, rather than investigate it. See Rush Limbaugh’s interview about feeling that urban crime is increasing despite data proving otherwise. Despite opening access to information and data to the masses, the democratization of media and information (aka the internet) also gives an equal mouthpiece to misinformation. You can find anything anywhere on the internet to back up any idea, even if it’s totally bogus.”
“All of this (combined with the rise of Trump, anti-intellectualism, and the ridiculousness that is our current news and conventional wisdom discourse) makes me think that (good) leaders can’t depend on “truth” or data at all. Perhaps they need to combine facts, history, science, trends and data along with tools like charisma, emotional narratives and a little Machiavellian strategy – or else face power that is essentially fueled by insanity.
And/or: maybe we need to focus on dialogue, discussion, argument and consensus-building in our public school system.”
i think he’s dead-on. now that the internet exists, as soon as a human has even the most basic grasp of written and verbal language (and all you need is one), that person gains access to essentially all of human knowledge (past, present, and future). you can even use the internet to get better at your language, learn other languages, and translate things from languages you don’t know into ones you do.
given that reality, schools as hubs of knowledge and information transfer is outdated. the education field has been wrestling with this for a while and many people talk about it (there’s a whole series of ted talks on it).
that said, public and private schools have massive physical capital and that doesn’t have to go to waste. so what are schools still good for?
as erin put it, school are places to learn and practice dialogue, discussion, argument, and consensus-building. group settings are still the only places where we can really learn and practice those things. of course there are whole fields of research that have to do with communication, but reading and writing will never replace the ability to have a face-to-face conversation with someone. in fact, some people (sherry turkle, for one) have posited that over-emphasis on virtual and digital communication actually undermines empathy and the ability to have meaningful, face-to-face conversation where we really and genuinely listen to each other.
so. schools need to shift focus or get out of the way. when students “have problems focusing” maybe it’s less because they’re broken students and more because they know how much time they’re wasting listening to someone “teach” them something they already knew or could look up in ten seconds on their smartphone.
about a year ago, i stopped drinking coffee past noon.
initially, i was following the lead of my director and friend, danielle coates-connor. she had a “no coffee past 2p” rule and it seemed like a good idea. since then, i’ve become religious about not drinking coffee in the afternoon. why? better sleep, fewer caffeine headaches, and a positive impact on my time/energy/mood management strategies.
better sleep. how do i know i sleep better? the same way i know pretty much everything about myself: i experimented and gathered my own data. i used an app to track my sleep (sleep cycle) and i created two variables that i could toggle: drank coffee and drank coffee in the afternoon. i then tested out different scenarios over a series of weeks. turns out i sleep the best when i don’t drink at coffee (but my morning productivity is lower), i sleep slightly worse than that when i only have morning coffee, and i sleep the worst when i have coffee in the morning and afternoon. (there are many other things i could have tested - like how much does the volume of coffee affect my sleep, but i felt like i had enough data to move on).
fewer caffeine headaches. when i only have one cup (iced) per day, i noticed that i had fewer caffeine (withdrawal) headaches. i also try to take the weekends off from coffee altogether to reset my system and keep the caffeine potent. overuse numbs any system.
more strategic time management. i know that caffeine makes my brain work faster. now that i know that i really should only drink coffee in the mornings, it incentivizes me to put the work that needs my highest brain functionality in the morning instead of saving it for the afternoon and relying on a second cup of coffee to get me through it. obviously the second cup would help me finish the task, but it undermines my long-term overall productivity because of the negative sleep impact.
“the keepers of wisdom in our culture are the people who have experienced the most difficult things in their lives. the view from the edge is a clearer view then the view that most of us have.” (paraphrased)
for a long time i’ve operated under that notion, but i’ve never heard this idea articulated in the way the she did. growing up in the church, being disillusioned with mainstream christianity, and then becoming increasingly interested in radical christianity, it was apparent to me that caring for the poor, untouchable, broken, and/or marginalized people was central to the faith.
what i didn’t realize back then was that for Jesus, caring for the marginalized wasn’t just a good thing to do; it was actually critical to understanding the true nature of the systems and social structures in which we live.
this truth is quite apparent in some ways. for example, everyone knows that getting advice about a relationship situation is a good idea. someone who isn’t inside the relationship can much more easily discern what’s happening and then provide helpful advice on how to move forward.
so why wouldn’t the same be true for society?
i think it is. and those who have or are falling through the cracks of our systems are where the most valuable knowledge for fixing them should come from.
some number of months ago, a dear friend, ofer, taught me how to handle spontaneity. his advice, in not so few words: put it in a box.
in our conversation, he talked about how he handled self-care time. he set a number of nights per week that he would only spend time with himself. sometimes he moved the night around during the week, but he made sure to get every night he allotted. i took that system and ran with it.
on my calendar, i have two three-hour blocks of time essentially labeled ‘wildcard.’ they serve the purpose of holding time to be spontaneous with. i have an ongoing battle with spontaneity (i mostly don’t like it), but allotting time for it allows me to (think i) have some control over it. if something comes up, say a friend needs to talk or go on a walk on a personal night, i might swap that personal time (also a three-hour block) with the wildcard time. that way, i know i’ll still get my personal time and i still get to be “spontaneous.”
the most important part of this (which i almost forgot to write) is that once i’m out of spontaneous, that’s when my ‘no’ muscle goes to work. this system has allowed me to say no to random events (even really cool ones) like nbd. it is so so helpful to have a framework for this.
some friends have said this is obsessive. that’s possible. i’m a man of extremes. can’t help it.
this post is just a MASSIVE word vomit. sorry in advance.
so lately (all the time), i’ve been thinking about power and oppression. there are so many different oppressive power regimes (sexuality, gender, race, class, age, physical ability, etc.), and all of them have had significant energy put towards breaking them down. and yet, all of them still persist.
why?
*shift*
curtis, my systems thinking guru, often quotes someone (reference) that says when systems are broken, what they need is more connection to themselves, not less.
*shift*
some months ago at work, i attended a really interesting meeting about one particular network our org had worked with for 5+ years. as the network grew more connected, the periphery of the network was increasingly involved in the decision-making process. this involvement seemed to actually result in more equitable decision-making.
it showed up very specifically at one point when the network was hiring some contractors. the higher-ups had hired a specific contractor, but when the contractors started to do their work, the periphery folks were extremely offended by the way the contractors worked. the leadership team had visceral connection to the negative outcomes of a decision they made. when it was time to hire the next round of contractors for that work, the leadership team knew that they should not be the ones who decided who the contractors were. they then handed over decision-making power to the periphery people in the network.
imo, feedback caused a shift in power.
*shift*
there are many quotes, especially in social justice circles, about how power isn’t given, it’s taken. this one wokémon meme is a popular one.
but if i’m honest with myself, i really struggle with that statement. if power is taken, not willingly given, why have all of the attempts to take power resulted in extreme backlash and re-entrenchment? michelle alexander writes about this extensively in her book, the new jim crow. for as many years as people have been fighting to end racism, it still exists, and by some metrics, it’s getting worse because it’s getting increasingly hidden (dog-whistle politics).
when power is taken, it seems the oppressive systems just morph.
if all of these things are true, what does that mean for how we move forward together?
*shift*
audre lorde said “the master’s tools will not dismantle the master’s house.” taking power (particularly by using violence and fear) seems to be a tool of the master. if that is the case, that approach is doomed to fail.
*shift*
but i certainly hear that waiting on those in power (rich, white, men, cis-gendered, able, etc.) to willingly give up their power is an impossible ask. telling someone who has been oppressed to wait is a thing that should never be done.
and yet, here we are, still working towards freedom. if none of us are free until we all are free, how do we get there? and, as my colleague, cyndi, asked in that meeting, “can we get to that stage [where people in power recognize that their liberation is also in the destruction of oppression] faster?” people are dying. now. we don’t have time to wait.
*shift*
some african communities measure change at the 500 year scale. so what does that tell us about wanting change to come quickly?
