Home
Aug 02
2017
2 Responses
Comments
Helen Whitten
Posted In
Tags
I personally hope we will all turn over from Channel 4 on Thursday evening and not watch the programme on the Princess Diana tapes. It seems to me such an intrusion of privacy and likely to cause hurt and harm to those close to her, namely her sons. We already know that she was a flawed human being but then surely we are all flawed to some extent, aren’t we? Don’t we all make mistakes? Don’t we all, over a lifetime, do the odd thing of which we are not proud? Maybe say something we shouldn’t have said, pass on gossip we should have kept to ourselves, mixed with someone we know we should have kept a distance from? Don’t we all spend a little time of our lives in the wilderness? Would we want our dirty linen aired in public – and especially in front of our children?
Of course she was part of the Royal family and so there are aspects of her life that are in the interests of history but is how often she and Prince Charles had sex really that relevant for future historians? The interest feels like prurience to me.
In my experience, in my own life and in the lives of those with whom I have had the honour of working, we tend to make more mistakes when we are unhappy, or lonely. I think there is plentiful evidence that the moment Diana walked into the Royal family she was isolated and unsupported. Her family life at home was fragmented and so where were her anchors? I don’t find it at all surprising that she looked for love in other places and often in the wrong places.
A key principle of cognitive-behavioural psychology is to accept that we are all fallible. That there is no perfect life, no perfect person, no perfect way of being or living one’s life. The principle is that there are many shades of grey, in life and in people. Rather than black or white judgements we seek to help clients to find perspective and balance, so as to be able to forgive themselves and others and move on with their lives in greater confidence and strength.
There is no hero or heroine alive now or in history who did not have a dark side as well as a light one. Diana inevitably had strengths and touched many people around the world. Perhaps we can also accept that she, like any one of us, had faults but that doesn’t take away any goodness she might have done. It just makes her human.
I was in Venice with my two sons the day she died. They are a couple of years older than William and Harry. The nature of her death shocked us all and, as a mother of sons, seeing the young boys grieve while having to remain public figures was poignant. Their and the Royal family’s confusion at the outpouring of grief was visible and unsurprising. It was an extraordinary response. People were crying, pin-striped suited men carried flowers to Kensington Palace, you couldn’t walk across Kensington Gardens for flowers and candle vigils. I shall never forget the atmosphere in London in those weeks – a silence seemed to take over the City, a stillness. It was a strange feeling that I don’t think can be explained easily other than that something in her death and the bereavement of those boys touched a part of our own grief. These feelings were mirrored across the world.
But her public persona doesn’t give us a right to her private life. Whether you were moved by her or not surely we can respect any human being sufficiently not to want to expose their deepest secrets? She did not make those tapes for publication. William and Harry have already been exposed to Prince Charles’ tapes and the slanging match of divorce. Anyone who has divorced knows that there is a period of time when one tries to justify one’s own position. Most of us wouldn’t want these intimate details to be shared in public and especially not to our children.
Those young men experienced the trauma of losing a mother, a sudden tragic death. Can we not respect and empathise with them enough now to request that Channel 4 not show the programme on Thursday? And if they continue to do so, then simply to switch off?
Jul 28
2017
2 Responses
Comments
Helen Whitten
Posted In
Tags
I’m not going to pretend I know the reason why women’s salaries are lower than men’s but over the 25 years during which I coached both men and women, and was a woman running a business, I did become aware of some of the trends that would have led to these outcomes still being commonplace. The headlines commenting on the BBC salaries and the apparent inequality of income between its male and female presenters has led me to think again about gender roles, prejudice, unconscious bias and value. It has made me reflect on my own life and the experiences of women my age and younger. It has reminded me what a tricky journey it can be to rise to the top as a woman, when working within what has been a history of a male-dominated environment. So I am going to share a few of those thoughts and as always will be interested in your comments.
Cultural gender legacy
Firstly, it has made me remember the social culture in which I and other older women have grown up. This is not intended in any way as a whinge as I am not one to believe in that. It is intended to help us remember some facts about the environment in which girls grow up.
When I grew up in the 1950s the boys were often treated as if they knew best, even if they didn’t, and this is still the case in some families and cultures. Parents were more lenient with boys in terms of domestic duties. As girls when we went to parties we had to risk being wallflowers, waiting for a boy to ask us to dance. If girls got pregnant they would be shamed while the boys could go off with their honour somehow intact. It gave girls the message that men had more power and can still do so.
At dinner parties in the 60s and 70s men would quite often talk over us, as if we had nothing to say because, after all, they were so important in their working lives that they couldn’t imagine that we had insights they might never have. I grew up with teachers who assumed that I would be a nurse or secretary rather than doctor or boss. In the 60s, when I started work, men were in charge and often asked you to make the tea or coffee for your seniors, whatever your qualifications. It was the rare determined girl who would see herself beyond this, rather than muddling through and then making it to the top despite the put-downs and stereotypes.
As a married women I would receive cold calls to the home where a sales rep would immediately ask to speak to my husband, or say “is Mr Whitten there?” rather than consider that I could be intelligent or responsible enough to make a decision about a purchase myself.
Even in my generation of Baby Boomers I knew some husbands who did not want their wives to work – perhaps because their attention might be called elsewhere than from on them but also due to a potential sense of loss of pride. After all, if their wives were working it might suggest that they themselves were not earning enough to keep their family. That same kind of husband might also spend more money on sending their son to a good private school and not their daughter. Certainly women frequently felt guilty and exhausted by trying to juggle work and family.
It was less than 100 years ago that women got the vote on the same terms as men. It was only in the early 60s that women were able to take control of their bodies and lives through contraception. Throughout history and into the 21st century, wife-beating and domestic violence occurred frequently. These are facts and should not be forgotten. It leads many women to experience being undervalued as a norm in society and especially in the workplace.
All this created the backdrop to the environment in which women of my age grew up. Inevitably this shaped our sense of self identity and esteem. Unfortunately it probably also had an impact on our daughters – we hoped to provide them with a world where there was real equality between the genders but sadly, as the BBC revelations show, things have not changed as much as we had hoped.
I don’t suggest that women should think of themselves as victims. I don’t believe that an identity of victimhood does anyone any good. It certainly doesn’t empower them to make changes.
No, these experiences were what they were. They need to be accepted as historical facts. It was a different world and men felt they had the upper hand . They did and, in many ways, if you look around the world, still do. Many women bought into this too. Our beliefs and opinions are influenced by the norms of the society we grow up in. Our brains are shaped by the messages we receive from parents, teachers, community leaders. We can be duped into thinking something is right when it patently evidently isn’t. Women in other parts of the world and in other cultures can still be treated as having a lesser status than men. Boys are often still brought up to think they are special, more powerful. It is parenting that needs to change, alongside expectations in school and the workplace. We need to bring boys up not to feel intimidated by bright girls so that they don’t feel the need to put them down. We need to show them that to treat women with respect does not make them less of a man. This isn’t a win-lose situation, we are looking for a win-win.
Women’s perception of self
Over my years of running Positiveworks I coached many bright, ambitious and capable women who couldn’t see the point of endlessly promoting themselves or pushing for higher salaries in the way that their male colleagues did. At the same time I noticed a hesitancy, a doubt about whether a woman felt she deserved an increase – not with all women, of course, but with a majority of those I coached. And HR departments report that women only go for a job if they feel they have 100% of the skills required whereas men will go for a job sometimes even if they have only 60% of the necessary skillsets. In my own work I had to constantly adjust my fees if I became aware that male consultants were charging more. I have to admit that thinking about fees was not my top priority.
We need to remember too that in the early part of the 20th century, so not so long ago, women were frequently resented in the workplace. They were accused of taking male jobs. After having contributed much to the war efforts they were nonetheless sent back to the kitchen in the 1950s. Women were forced to resign when they got married. So perhaps it isn’t surprising that when women got jobs they would sometimes feel grateful and not wish to make a fuss or cause trouble by being demanding about pay or promotion.
In surveys women tend to rate themselves as equivalent to co-workers but 70% of men would rate themselves higher. Where a working woman has a family I found that she often felt guilty and was also made to feel guilty by family members such as mothers, aunts, grandmothers, for working alongside parenthood. She could feel stretched, leading to a sense that she wasn’t doing any job well. Even when a woman was the main breadwinner she would often have to be doing the thinking about what was needed in the home. Even though her husband or partner would help, it was her who had to do the planning and take the initiative to address domestic chores and needs. All of which could be tiring alongside a demanding role.
Attitudes and behaviours in the workplace
As late as 2005, when I was running Positiveworks, I remember a call coming through to my male assistant. “I’d like to talk to your Managing Director,” the male caller told him. My PA passed the phone to me and I said “Hello, what can I do for you?” at which the caller said, very irritably, “I asked to talk to your Managing Director!” I asked him “What makes you think you aren’t talking to the Managing Director?” The caller huffed and puffed and said “Well an MD is usually a male”.
I found that a woman would be judged more harshly than a man. In appraisals a man would be rewarded for the success of a team whereas the feedback of a woman would be that she had “great team support”. Sadly also male managers would avoid appraisals all together as they feared an emotional response from a female staff member. They could manage anger, a more male response, it seemed, but they couldn’t manage tears. Therefore they would postpone appraisals and the female employee would therefore not receive the encouragement and development feedback she needed to succeed.
Success criteria has been defined by men and expectations in the workplace and outside have been shaped by social norms. The idea that men make better leaders is historic and bought into by both genders but I hope that now we see Trump as President in the US and think back over the disastrous male dictators of the past we shall alter this perception!
Even now though, in many departments, a sense that the way men do things is the ‘right way’ and so women try to fit in. Although a woman will bring as much skill as a man to a role, the way she does a job or leads a department may be different and sometimes they can feel that this difference means it is the ‘wrong way’ which can lead to a sense of isolation.
Most companies these days promote the concept of diversity. It just doesn’t always result in a willingness to practice the consensual listening skills and discussions that really optimise diverse perspectives in terms of creative problem solving. I believe governments and organisations would benefit from learning to practice this kind of debate more frequently. This idea is backed up by a Catalyst report that showed that mixed-gender boards outperform single-gender boards. However, one token person of the minority gender is not sufficient to influence the group.
There are plenty of excellent women in the BBC and beyond who deserve parity when their skill and experience have been proven equal. I’d like to think of my granddaughters growing up in a world where their sense of themselves is equal to that of their male peers and where their managers acknowledge their achievements. I would like them to accept that their way of working and communicating may be different but is as justified and valuable. For this to happen we need to encourage the view that women may not promote themselves with so much noise but can be every bit as competent and deserve equal status and pay.
Values
I question whether women traditionally have put as much importance on monetary income. I am not convinced that money and status has had the same impact on their sense of value in themselves as it does for some male colleagues. I have noticed that having an interesting, fulfilling and balanced life is often what women seek. Reports demonstrate that women bring a social and ethical sensitivity to the workplace, alongside achieving the qualifications and skillsets that match males.
But women obviously do want to be valued and acknowledged, so there needs to be more understanding from managers and leaders that they deserve to receive equal pay for an equal role. I remember one female manager saying to me that she noticed her male peers demanding large annual increases but she felt she had an extremely good salary and would not have asked for more had they not all been doing so.
My hope for the future
We need women’s voices and perspectives in the world of business and government. We have a long way to go before we have equal numbers of men and women at the top which, in my view, is the ideal balance of energies and perspectives for good leadership of the world. We can’t change the past but we need to realize that there is more work to be done. In today’s world young women are being undermined through body image, sexual objectification through the porn that young boys are watching, and an aggressive macho-boy culture that has built up in some communities and organisations.
So we can’t be complacent. We need to continue to support our daughters, grand-daughters, nieces and great-nieces to feel as powerful as their male peers. We need to encourage them to feel confident and believe they have as much right as others to speak up, to demand equal positions and equal salaries. We still have to question society’s bias.
I’m sorry, I said to a friend this week that I would write shorter blogs – I haven’t succeeded but as you might guess I feel rather strongly about this issue!
Jul 18
2017
5 Responses
Comments
Helen Whitten
Posted In
Tags
Listening to the news, on the Today programme this morning, of squabbling in the government, I began to feel I had woken up inside the Mad Hatter’s Tea Party. Riddles, rudeness and incivility, along with pipe dreams of Treacle Wells post-Brexit, sounded remarkably like the Mad Hatter and the March Hare sparring with Alice in Wonderland. I envisaged Philip Hammond as the Dormouse, finally waking from sleep and speaking up, only for the Mad Hatter and March Hare, in the form of Boris Johnson and David Davis, to plot to stuff him firmly back into his teapot. Perhaps Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell will push them all aside with a cry of “Off with their heads!” Meanwhile, Theresa May, if she is Alice, takes herself off to a garden in Switzerland to escape the posturing.
It made me think about how our future in the UK, and the future of the world, is in the hands of besuited egotistical [1] men, and sometimes women, strutting their stuff. And it makes me anxious. Through history men have operated in hierarchical systems, each vying to be top dog and fighting those who challenge them. It’s a win-lose game rather than a win-win game. The stability of the world and its trade rests in their hands but narcissistic [2] leaders can and have caused havoc and worse in the past.
Some humility would be helpful right now, I think. Some indication that our leaders are seeking ways to work together for the good of the world would be comforting. But when I look at the reports of the negotiations in Brussels, or the latest news from Washington, Moscow, Paris, Hungary, Poland, the Philippines, North Korea or Turkey I don’t see much sign of it. And it makes me remember the March Hare yawning and saying “Suppose we change the subject…I’m getting tired of this” . And I feel like burying my head in the sand . Certainly I find myself sleeping much better when I don’t watch the late night news.
Are those in charge thinking about their own position, pride, career and agenda or are they thinking what is best for the world? Are they holding a focus on the needs of those millions of people they represent or are they just hungry for power? Who can tell whether they all say what they mean or mean what they say?
Ego is an interesting drive one has to learn to manage. Too little of it and one limits one’s life and what one might contribute creatively in the world. Too much of it and it can do untold damage.
In the book Where Egos Dare, the Untold Truth about Narcissistic Leaders and how to Survive Them by Dean B McFarlin and Paul D Sweeney (Kogan Page, 2002), they define a narcissistic leader as having the following characteristics:
- Reliance on manipulation and exploitation
- Impulsive and unconventional behaviour
- Excessive impression management
- Poor administrative practices
- Inability to recognize a flawed vision
- Failure to plan for succession
I am sure we have all met at least one narcissist in our own lives, and witnessed the damage they can cause to an individual, organisation or nations. I find it extraordinary and disillusioning to realize that, having got this far through history and seen what such a leader can inflict on others, we have not yet found a way to prevent them pushing their way to the top. Is it wilful blindness or fear that inhibits peer groups of politicians and employees from standing up to the ruthlessness that characterises the way such people rise to positions of power?
So far, the threat posed by today’s rulers has been managed enough to prevent nuclear holocaust, though Kim Jong Un is intent on frightening those close to the borders of North Korea. The problem is, as we can see with Donald Trump, that when one challenges them one can get hurt. They are not easy to manage. Rages, tirades and tantrums are part of the arsenal of an egotistical leader. Divide and rule is a common behavioural response. Sacking or alienating those who criticise them or do not agree with their policies gradually ensures that they are surrounded by sycophants.
I think that the institutions of government in the UK will hopefully protect us from a dictatorship or authoritarian leader. I am less optimistic about other parts of the world.
And of course we all need to reflect, too, on our own ego and how we manage it. In my work as a coach I found that the majority of those I worked with were battling self-doubt and needed to bolster their self-confidence rather than damp it down. Some philosophers and psychologists state that the ego is always a destructive force but personally I think each of us needs enough of a sense of ourselves to have the courage and confidence to make the most of ourselves, to express ourselves, to innovate and break through outmoded practices or create something new.
I find that people in the UK have traditionally been nervous of sharing their successes. Teachers at school drum into us not to show off or bully and this follows through into adults who fear it is arrogant to tell others what they have achieved. But, as ever, it is about balance. You can surely talk of an achievement, and how you attained your goal, with modesty rather than boasting, and by doing so help others learn ways to achieve their own goals.
It is when someone brags and puts others down, insisting on higher status and rejecting any critical feedback that one realizes that such a person might benefit from being made aware how their behaviours impact others. In the cases when I have worked with an egotistical person, male or female, I concluded that they had little understanding of the feelings of others. Indeed sometimes they did not care about others but at other times they found it difficult to put themselves in the shoes of those with whom they related. Role-play exercises encouraging them to be at the receiving end of the behaviours they were meting out brought some insight. Sometimes this worked to change their behaviour; other times the me-first behaviours were too entrenched to alter.
Looking back on my own life, I have, like all of us, learnt some valuable lessons about keeping my sense of self strong enough to be confident but not so strong as to be boastful. I am conscious of the continuing need to be watchful of egotistical tendencies. I became aware of having to manage my ego when I was running Positiveworks as I had to bolster myself up to stand up in front of successful professional people and imagine I could teach them a skill or help them develop. I remember some excellent advice that I was given early in this career, when I mentioned a concern about whether I looked stupid, my hair looked a mess, or I wasn’t wearing the right business outfit during a training course. My mentor firmly reminded me “it’s not about you! It’s about the message you have to give.” Brilliantly enough, this not only helped me move away from any narcissistic preoccupation but it also helped calm my nerves, as if you are focusing on the message you have no time for feeling anxious about how you are delivering it!
There’s another adjustment of ego I am finding, that happens when one retires. A “who am I now?” moment – no longer a Managing Director, or a lawyer or doctor – and a moment to reflect on what this means in terms of identity. Just a man or woman, a mother or father perhaps, a friend, a sibling, maybe a grandparent. The status and position removed. And so how does the ego adjust? Often, I think, with some difficulty. It seems to me a time to return to oneself without ego where possible, to accept one’s place in life and allow the younger ones to make the world their own but to share any words of experience or wisdom one might have gleaned over the years. It’s probably my ego that’s writing this piece … And right now I am looking forward to reading Alice in Wonderland to my granddaughter rather than watching the shenanigans being played out in the House of Commons.
- The prefix ego refers to a person’s sense of self, or self-importance. To be egotistical is to have an inflated view of your self-importance — basically to think you’re better than everyone else. You might express this egotism by constantly reminding your friends that you have a fantastic figure or a magnificent mind.
- Narcissism: having or showing an excessive interest in or admiration of oneself and one’s image and physical appearance.
Jul 10
2017
1 Responses
Comments
Helen Whitten
Posted In
Tags
I don’t think I am the only one who has been discomforted by the handling and reporting of the Grenfell Tower fire. Until we receive the outcomes of the criminal and judicial investigations into the fire we cannot know or understand all the facts that led to this tragedy. Despite this there are many who are making assumptions about who is to blame and what caused the fire, as well as critics of the management of the fire. It is undoubtedly a tragedy and there were certainly many things that need detailed review to ensure that such a fire does not happen again and that there is adequate emergency support after such an event. But surely we need to be suspicious of verdicts by assumption?
There has been extensive coverage of the anger that this fire has generated. It has become a political football, hijacked for political gain. John McDonnell has accused Conservative Councillors of ‘social cleansing’ and of being ‘murderers’. Within seconds this was reapplied to accuse Theresa May and her Government of being murderers. Conservative MPs have also been threatened. But murder is a serious accusation and would have required someone taking a match and deliberately setting fire to the building. To turn grief and anger into a march of hatred seems to me both cynical and unhelpful, particularly while the detailed police and judicial investigation is in process.
We have a system in this country that demands that we are treated as innocent until proven guilty. Let’s not reverse that to allow trial by the mob, politicians, media interview, or social media. We should not believe something that has yet to be verified. It may be that there has been negligence or, indeed, criminal or corporate negligence, but the police and a judge are the ones to decide this verdict, based on facts and evidence.
The difficulty has been that facts about the fire have been hard to come by and will take months to reveal, including the number and identity of those lost. There are thousands of tons of rubble to sift through, in a fragile building. It is dangerous work and, as with the Didcot Power Station explosion in February 2016, can take many weeks of careful investigation. The last body was not taken out of Didcot until seven months later. It was very painful for the families but there was no conspiracy, as has been hinted at but not proven, in the Grenfell Tower fire.
The commentary about the fire has concerned me. Reports have focused on blame, on assumptions of guilt, on conspiracies and on the negative consequences and bad management of the fire to the extent that I suspect I am not alone in imagining that absolutely nothing had been put in place to support the surviving residents of the block.
For example I only recently discovered that the Westway West London Sports Centre had been set up as a help centre for the Grenfell Tower survivors, with desks available to service questions about lost driving licences, finance, passports and other concerns. Also that a key social worker was allocated to every family and finance made available. That a Government website was published on 15 June, the day after the fire, see https://www.gov.uk/guidance/grenfell-tower-fire-june-2017-support-for-people-affected. Despite regularly reading The Times, Guardian, Observer, Sunday Times, occasionally the Telegraph as well as following television, radio and on-line media reports, I had not read about these support centres. Had you? I had got the impression that next-to-nothing was being done. Of course whatever is put in place will never fill the terrible void of losing family, friends, home and possessions and in that context realistically nothing can ever be enough to assuage such grief.
Assumptions have also been made in criticising the appointment of the judge to oversee the investigation into the fire. There is, as I understand it, a due process by the Lord Chancellor’s office to suggest a judge to oversee an enquiry and a Prime Minister signs off the appointment. I don’t know Sir Martin Moore-Bick and am not standing up for the appointment as I am not qualified to do so, but equally I don’t feel it is right to judge a lawyer on the fact that he is white, middle class and male. This surely is prejudice. Most judges, barristers and lawyers have not lived the lives of those they represent but they represent them in the law nonetheless. A judgement is made on facts and evidence but that does not necessarily mean those involved lack empathy or compassion. In this instance, where emotions are so high, having a technical thinker to investigate the engineering decisions leading to the fire had the potential to calm the situation. But press reports immediately suggested that he would be unable to deliver justice, despite being well respected by those who know him. In the midst of these allegations it will now, I suspect, be near impossible to gain the trust of residents and survivors.
So where do we go to find a balanced perspective to check the accusations that are being shared by politicians, in the press, and on social media? After all, there are many buildings, in Europe as well as the UK, under Labour-led councils and NHS Trusts , that have also been fitted with the same cladding. Are we hearing accusations to those council leaders of deliberate cost-cutting to put poor people’s lives at risk? I haven’t, have you?
This tragedy appears to be an indictment of building regulations and property management but again this is an assumption and we need to await a detailed technical report on the fire. I am not convinced that it was a conspiracy (by any of the councils) against the poor. I have lived in two private blocks in the same Borough run by private management companies. In each case there have been issues where smoke alarms were not fitted, where fire extinguishers were not inspected and where fire exits were difficult to access. This despite endless letters and emails from us private, and reasonably well-off, residents. We are treated with the same disregard.
The construction and management of property does appear to require a massive overhaul. They need to be more aware of their responsibilities to the residents who will inhabit the blocks they build and manage. Their actions can make the difference between life and death. Theirs are the decisions around fireproofing as they must advise councillors of building regulations and this advice will go into the mix of how a Council will choose to spend taxpayers money, which they have a responsibility to spend wisely.
I cannot, personally, understand how a tower block can pass building regulations without adequate fire safety measures being put in place. It is also beyond me to understand how architects, builders, governments of all colours and councils have been allowed to build tower blocks with only one staircase. As in the case of other tragedies – such as the Space Shuttle Challenger – it has made me wonder whether people feel unable to speak up against the groupthink of their seniors?
In the meantime emotions are being whipped up and I worry that this is driven more by a political agenda than by kindness to those involved. We have to remember that there is an energy of the mob and that it isn’t always correct – look at the followers of Hitler, Stalin or Chairman Mao. Emotions are infectious. Too easy to lose one’s head in a crowd.
And so, until the criminal and judicial reports are complete, we are left with assumptions not facts. And I am left with the question of where to find the truth of a situation as each source of news has a conscious or unconscious bias. If we only read one paper or listen to one news programme we will not get the whole story. It was only when I talked to someone living close to the West London Centre that I discovered the good work being done there. I didn’t read about it.
Jun 22
2017
3 Responses
Comments
Helen Whitten
Posted In
Tags
“I might disagree with your opinion but I am willing to give my life for your right to express it.” Voltaire
Much has been written in recent weeks about how communities have come together in the face of terrorist attacks and tragedy. Young and old, black and white, Muslim and Christian, rich and poor, have shared practical support, financial contributions and empathy. Where all too often politics, religion and media headlines can divide us, our humanity can bind us.
At the same time there have been the voices of division, inciting one group against another and this is dangerous as it so often leads to violence and alienation.
Throughout history certain sections have endeavoured to tell other groups that theirs is the ‘right’ way, the right ideology, the right belief system. It is a form of one-upmanship that seems to be Darwinian. You see it in every culture or tribe and you see it in the animal kingdom. It leads to a sense of self-righteousness and places the other group in an apparent lower-status, apparently not ‘enlightened’ enough to realize the value of the ideology or belief.
The UK lacks leadership that unites us. Both the media and politicians are tending to catch on to emotional headlines and, instead of calming the situation with reason and authority, they ramp up the drama.
But division helps none of us and can even lead to civil or religious war. There is talk of a clash of civilisations, a clash between rich and poor, a clash between young and old, between one class and another, between one religion and another. Personally I am more for evolution than for revolution. The former creates reform over time, the latter generally involves violence, suffering, poverty, incarceration and murder. We want to avoid that at all costs. It would, in my opinion, be more helpful to highlight what unites us rather than what divides us.
So what can we do about this? Surely we can focus our minds on our commonalities rather than our differences. Our daily experience is partly up to government but mainly up to us as individuals. Whether we behave respectfully to ourselves, others , the community, the institutions of government, and the environment is within our own control. It is where we can, each one of us, make a difference. If we lead our own lives well then society flourishes. If we drop litter or abuse others we disrupt society. If we harbour prejudice and judgement we divide one another on ideological grounds. As Voltaire said “Prejudices are what fools use for reason” .
Having run a business called Positiveworks I guess it is not surprising that I feel it works better to focus on what we can do with the situation we have been given rather than disempowering ourselves by feeling hard-done-by and divided. Encouraging a victim mentality seldom helps to motivate someone to action that will improve their lot. And interestingly by suggesting another person is a victim makes their rescuer feel better about themselves – they are one-up and can be therefore be bountiful. When we place another in the role of victim we have to challenge ourselves about the payoff we are receiving from our charity or patronage. We need to ensure that we are truly motivating the other person to feel that they can improve their lot and not, consciously or unconsciously, keeping them stuck in it.
Politicians and the media are speaking of generational division. Yes, the young have challenges today, certainly, but equally these challenges need to be seen in perspective. My grandparents and parents experienced two world wars, economic depression and bombs. In other parts of the world the young are being threatened by Boko Haram, sold as slaves by ISIS. We watched the movie Woman in Gold the other night, telling the story of how the Nazis stole Gustav Klimt’s painting from a Jewish family during World War II. The film depicted the familiar terrifying scenes of families being rounded up and treated inhumanely. I thought how lucky (so far) my generation and the generations younger than I have been not to know war, communism, or occupation or dictatorship. I lived in London during the IRA bombings. Today’s young are threatened by Islamic terrorism. We have to get on with life, pull together and have a vision and strategy for a better future.
Things don’t always get better. It is, I believe, unhelpful to set expectations that they do. It didn’t get better for my parents who married in 1939 and were thrown into 6 years of war. It didn’t get better for those in Europe. It didn’t get better for those who experienced the Wall Street Crash. You get my drift. We need to encourage resilience in the young and not allow them to imagine that the situation they face is any worse.
My generation of Baby Boomers have been fortunate in some ways but it would be erroneous to say that it has all been plain sailing. There is a suggestion that we have deliberately kicked others off the ladder but I haven’t been aware of this in the groups I have grown up with. In fact, as the V&A exhibition Revolution described, our generation have been active in equality movements, CND, Anti-Apartheid, organic foods and environmental projects.
Inevitably, as with any generation, there have been those who have acted for good and those who haven’t. But I don’t believe we have sought to incapacitate the young as seems to be suggested by some. After all, we have our own children, grandchildren, nieces and nephews so why would we wish to sabotage their lives? Indeed the bank of Mum and Dad are now major donors helping young people. I don’t believe most of us want to saddle the young with huge debts or force them to pay for our old age in any way that is unreasonable. I personally am perfectly willing not to receive a winter fuel allowance and to pay for some of my care if it allows for those more needy than myself to be given more generous allowances.
So it surely doesn’t help to make young people feel victims of some conspiracy or to insinuate that the situation they face today is without hope. Expectations shape emotions. Emotions shape behaviours. Let’s give young people the respect, belief and trust that they are capable, that they are not necessarily facing anything that is any more insurmountable than their grandparents or ancestors faced, and let them get on with it. Let’s trust that they have the resilience to manage the challenges they face and do not need to be constantly reminded of how hard-done-by they feel. Let’s put their situation in perspective and not incite division between them and the older generations of their parents and grandparents. I don’t believe it is helpful to anyone. Every generation have had their own challenges and the majority of people within that generation manage to overcome them. Let’s assume that the majority of today’s young are just as capable.
As people have short memories and history is not always taught then it may help to remember that we Boomers have lived through the Cold War, the Cuban Missile Crisis, high inflation, interest rates of 17%, the winter of discontent, the AIDs crisis and the IRA, the hole in the ozone layer and doctors and many others who, before the 35 hour week, regularly worked over 90 hours a week. Most of those I know of my generation have worked incredibly hard.
There is also divisive rhetoric around the ‘rich’ insinuating that the wealthy are all greedy tax evading monsters that were somehow born with a spoon in their mouths. I spent a short time yesterday afternoon reading the Sunday Times Rich List and was impressed by how many of these people had made their money since the year 2000. They were not all bankers or hedge fund managers, as seems to be the assumption. There were businessmen and women who had started a cash-and-carry or an internet company. There were those brought up in hardship – in Barnardo’s homes, as refugees and immigrants. Those who had a good idea and worked incredibly hard and with determination to make a success of that idea such as J K Rowling. Many of these are giving back through philanthropy. We need to be very careful not to make generalised assumptions about the rich. We need to encourage wealth-creation and aspiration. The UK is full of enterprising and entrepreneurial individuals who can create products and services that can be benefit to us all. Give them hope.
So it must be about each of us, as individuals, playing our part to maintain and create a cohesive society in the midst of uncertainty and change. I was shocked recently when I went into our small GP surgery in Hampshire last week and saw a notice recording that 51 people had not attended appointments during the month of May. When I commented on this I was told that this was a fairly average statistic. When you consider how this is multiplied around the UK both in GP surgeries and hospitals it becomes clear that while people talk emotionally about ‘our NHS’ they are, at the same time, abusing it. A terrible waste of money, time and resources .
We need to respect and value the institutions we are fortunate enough to have in this country – that means being responsible for one’s part in the relationship, not taking these services for granted, not assuming that government have to pick up all the pieces. If we have rights we have responsibilities and we need to encourage all members of our communities to contribute. As JF Kennedy said “ask not what your country can do for you—ask what you can do for your country.”
We can transform the rhetoric of hate, division and hopelessness. We can talk of optimism, of opportunities, of what we can do rather than what we can’t. Our politicians are unlikely to be able to resolve all our problems, so surely it is time to consider what we can personally do to protect and support the privileges that our parents’ and grandparents’ generations have fought for. Let’s remember that how we think and what we talk about changes lives and the lives of future generations. Positive works!
Jun 13
2017
0
Comments
Helen Whitten
Posted In
Tags
The Need for Reason in a Soundbite World
I was standing next to an elderly lady at the newspaper counter yesterday and she commented “we probably can’t believe a word of what we read but I still buy a paper every day”. How do we make sense of what we read in a newspaper, hear or watch on the media or search on the internet in this post-truth era? Information is expressed in 140 characters. Continuous global news, with sensationalist headlines, is repeated every half-hour with little detail provided. The manner in which information is shared in the twenty-first century leads to people making snap judgements on events and situations. Views are shaped by a fast emotional response to information, not an analytical one. It is difficult to judge fact from fiction and this can be stressful as there is a sense that there is no firm ground on which to build truth or opinion.
My intention in this essay is to demonstrate that the generations living in today’s world of the global internet, and especially young people who have known little else, need to learn more about the inner workings of their brain so as to apply both intellect and reason, as well as intuitive emotion, when making judgements and decisions on what they are reading or seeing. This would include developing self-knowledge, identifying bias and prejudices, becoming aware of the impact of peer pressure and learning how to distinguish false news from fact. In essence, to learn the skills of rational thinking. This will not necessarily help them make a perfect decision but it may enable them to make a more informed one.
Thinking is difficult, so most people judge” Voltaire
We have learnt a great deal about the mind through psychology and neuroscience in the past thirty years. This knowledge can enable us to be discerning when analysing information. Daniel Kahneman in his book Thinking, fast and slow [1] describes how the brain works on two systems. System 1 is fast intuitive thinking where people often jump to conclusions emotionally before they know the facts. This can lead to erroneous solutions or premises. System 2 is slow deliberate thinking where we take time to summon evidence and analyse the information before coming to a conclusion.
The pace of life has accelerated in many ways. In my own business of professional training we used to run five-day residential leadership courses for executives. Nowadays one is expected to transmit the same information in a morning. On the internet people tend to be in fast-thinking mode as they submit or respond to data online. The brain is programmed to latch on to new information as it may alert us either to opportunity of sustenance for survival, which excites the brain, or alternatively to a threat. The brain becomes aroused and the autonomic system provides the physiology required in order to respond appropriately either to potential or to risk. This survival process works well in times of physical challenge but is unhelpful when reflective thinking is required, such as to analyse information and reach the detail beneath what one is reading. It can be helpful to understand this process as it is being activated every time a new email or tweet pings into our inbox.
The brain adapts to the situations it experiences frequently. Young people are being exposed at an early age to video games so their brains become shaped to expect fast interaction. Computer interface could be influencing the worldwide increase in cases of Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder as the brain becomes acclimatized to speed of information and finds it difficult to concentrate when information needs to be processed more slowly. The neuroscientist Susan Greenfield [2] argues that video games and the speed of data retrieval on the internet can lead to addictive behaviours similar to gambling, by activating the reward system of dopamine which is stimulated by results, and inhibiting the frontal cortex that is considered to be responsible for planning complex cognitive behaviour, moderating social behaviour, and decision-making. The top ten video games are violent ones. There is evidence that this creates the danger that the brain is likely to respond more aggressively after watching or playing such games. Screen-based interaction only applies two senses, sound and vision. Our brains become less adapted to the holistic chemistry of human communication through eye contact, conversation, body language, pheromones. We see characters on screen as icons rather than emotional beings. This may be a factor in a measured decrease in empathy in college students over the decade from 2000-2010. [3] The icon on screen does not have an emotional history, we don’t know about their relationships or feelings: they are just a moving image, so we are less likely to care about them.
We are witnessing the malevolent result of this lack of empathy through the experience of students in school, where two-thirds of teenage girls report that they have been sexually harassed at school by boys. [4] This is affecting their self-esteem, wellbeing and academic performance. The viewing of online porn, which large numbers of young boys now watch regularly, can have an intimidating effect on both boys and girls. [5] Cyber-bullying, sexting and revenge porn add to these problems and both genders are viewing material that suggests that relationships mean little but body-image and sexual gratification mean much. How do the young make sense of this world of image and illusion?
“Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd” Voltaire
There is a trend to revert to previous idealised times. Opinion polls suggest that people imagine there was a time when the world was more certain. Change seems to be both unpopular and also unexpected. We see this mirrored in the Brexit and Trump votes where people could be heard to say “we want our country back” . The implication is that things should not change, despite the fact that both the UK and US have always been in a state of flux. That is the nature of life. We cannot roll back the tide of history but we can challenge expectations to check that they are realistic. We need also to ensure that people have the skills to manage the life they are facing.
Expectations shape our experience and how we respond to events and information. They impact both emotion and behaviour. For example if we think our boss will give us a £200 bonus and we receive a £250 bonus we shall be happy and probably act more loyally to him or her. If, on the other hand, we are expecting a £200 bonus but only receive £150 then we shall be disappointed and may consider looking for a new job.
Checking whether expectations are rational and realistic enables us to stop and question whether we are making ourselves unhappy by imagining that life should be other than it is. There is a sense today, reinforced by media comment, that the world is a far worse place than it ever was, that any suffering must be wrong and that when anything does go wrong someone must be blamed – often the government. There is an uproar when accidents happen, when people lose their jobs or when there is an apparent injustice, followed by a demand that someone pays – again, often the government. But these expectations may well be unrealistic. There is no law of the universe stating that life will be fair nor to say that we should not suffer. Life can be unfair and it is doubtful that whatever a government tries to put in place to address a problem, their policies will be perfect or infallible. We live in an imperfect world and the people who govern us are human and therefore of necessity fallible. The expectation that all should go smoothly is unrealistic and upsets us. We need to be able to react to endeavour to improve situations when they arise and yet have the resilience to recognise that life has always provided challenges, and always will.
A blame culture leads people to look outward for answers rather than look inward to ask “what can I do about this?” Such an attitude disempowers so it is not surprising that there is an overall consensus among young people of a sense of powerlessness. A student from Sheffield University, reported that news leaves her feeling uninspired about the prospects of not only the country but also her own personal future. But are students accurate in feeling so helpless to shape their own future? The Millennials have been described as the “snowflake” generation and some would argue that life has never been better or more full of potential.
News and information has to be investigated carefully to balance up the narrative and check whether it is true or false. We have to check whether false hopes and entitlements have been dangled before us. Also whether things truly are as bad as the media suggests, when in fact millions of people have been taken out of poverty in the last decade, world hunger reached its lowest point in 25 years, global malaria deaths have declined by 60%, life expectancy in Africa has increased by 9.4 years since 2000, the proportion of older US adults with dementia, including Alzheimer’s, declined by 11.6% in 2000 to 8.8% in 2012, 93% of children around the world learned to read and write, which is the highest proportion in human history, and despite IS we are safer on a daily basis than at any other time in history. [6]
“Prejudices are what fools use for reason” Voltaire
The internet gathers people into homogenous antagonistic groups of prejudice where one presents itself as pure right-minded thinkers while dismissing another group as corrupt, power-hungry or evil. This can apply in many areas of life but examples are bankers, Brexiteers, Trump followers, the so-called wealthy elite. It becomes tribal, resulting in a form of group hysteria against certain parties as we have seen mustered against Caroline Criado-Perez in her project to have Jane Austen depicted on bank notes, and Gina Miller in her court fight regarding Brexit [7]. Both have been threatened online with rape and murder.
Abuse is played out every day on the internet as people take positions on subjects about which they often know very little. It is the equivalent of hurling stones; not dissimilar to the market square of previous centuries where people gathered to throw rotten tomatoes at some unfortunate person in the stocks. However, as we saw with the Arab Spring and Brexit, the group has not necessarily given sufficient thought to the detail, nor identified an outcome. There is a focus on the negatives of what they don’t want rather than a planned vision of what they do want. This can lead them on the road to nowhere.
The network groups that form online can provide a place where people feel included. Belonging is a basic human need and networks bring together individuals who support one another. The danger here is that the group simply reinforces confirmation bias. It is a cosy feeling to read views that support your own and often people choose to expose themselves only to information with which they agree. Network groups can also normalise anti-social behaviours such as paedophile groups, porn or jihadis because it is so easy to find like-minded others online. This enables them to collaborate below the radar, in ways that jeopardise our safety.
“I might disagree with your opinion but I am willing to give my life for your right to express it” Voltaire
Headlines shout about judges being “the enemies” of the country, tweets trend on issues from greedy bankers to Brexit, Trump and the elite. We are reading and listening to opinions about situations and yet seldom know the source of that comment. Who are the journalists, tweeters and bloggers? What do we know about them? Are they people to respect or not? What is their political bias or prejudice? Through whose lens are we being judged? What are their values? Are they speaking with ethical intention? Just because someone is a celebrity does not necessarily mean that they are informed on a particular topic.
It is easy to pontificate about a subject without researching the detail but it can also be ignorant. To judge others spontaneously without knowing the full story is unprincipled. The skills of critical thinking enable us to question more deeply what we are reading or hearing. Fast thinking easily leads to what I would describe as group un-thinking or group hysteria. Slow thinking leads to individual opinion but requires time and reflection.
Emotive words are used to divide. Instead of discussing and exchanging facts and opinions people are reverting to personal abuse such as “racist, bigot, Little Englander, Remoaner”. Negative news is used by the media to sell papers and also by governments and charities in order to emphasize a problem and gain funds or support. It can give the impression of a brutal world where jobs are scarce, despite the fact that unemployment figures are low. There are headlines about “greedy bankers” despite the fact that the 2008 crisis was a result of mistaken policies of politicians, lax regulation, individuals borrowing more than they could manage, sub-prime debt, as well as the bankers. There is complexity beneath the headline. [8]
Teaching and applying the principles of simple logic is particularly relevant in the internet-age. For example the logic behind “some bankers are greedy therefore all bankers are greedy” is erroneous and makes no more sense than saying “Philip Green is wealthy and behaves badly towards his employees so all those who are wealthy must therefore behave badly “. This is faulty thinking. There is some truth but we must distinguish between a fuzzy generalisation versus the specifics of a situation.
Currently there is anti-elitist rhetoric but the narrative seldom defines what is meant by an elite other than an apparent hatred of experts. This could sabotage the success of the next generation in that all countries require an elite to drive forward economic stability and knowledge. It requires rigour and research to differentiate those who have become elite due to corruption or ‘celebrity status’ in comparison to those who have achieved a position through knowledge. ‘Elite’ is defined as “a select group that is superior in terms of ability or qualities to the rest of a group or society.” [9] An example is an elite of Britain’s armed forces.
One wouldn’t question the concept of elitism when wishing to see an expert consultant in the NHS, nor a lawyer, chemist or engineer. Those who study and work hard within an area inevitably become elite, as experts within their own field. We need these minds and have been addressing for many decades now the difference between inherited versus meritocratic elitism. There is more to be done but we cannot afford to turn the young against the concept of an elite by connecting, with emotionally-charged headlines, wealth with greed rather than effort. People need to be encouraged to stop and think more carefully what is meant by a term before making a judgement as to whether something is good or bad, or maybe a mixture of both.
No country can afford to turn people off the concept of wealth-generation. Wealth in itself isn’t an evil. It can lead to employment and philanthropy. Bill Gates has spent much effort in reducing malaria deaths, Warren Buffet made a Philanthropy Pledge in 2006 in which he pledged to give away his Berkshire Hathaway stock to philanthropic projects and he has brought together many wealthy individuals who are pledging to give away some fifty percent of their wealth to good causes. The Sackler Foundation gives large sums to the arts and many of the major financial industries and entrepreneurs sponsor cultural exhibitions. Starting a business and building it up takes guts and risk and can benefit many, both those employed and those who supply or purchase goods or services. The tendency in the media and online to repudiate those who are wealthy is ignorant. The key is surely ethics – encouraging people to build their life and work on wise values and good intention.
What is needed is perspective. Rabble-rousing tweets and headlines skew the facts that some wealthy people are greedy and others generous, that some bankers are unethical and others honest, that some politicians can be trusted and others can’t, that some economists can predict the future and others can’t. We can’t necessarily reach a wise judgement unless we explore the complex detail that exists within these contexts.
“No problem can withstand the assault of sustained thinking” Voltaire
Surveys suggest [10] that young people are feeling gloomier about the future than at any point in the past eight years. One in four youngsters between the ages of 16 and 25 report that they do not feel in control of their lives. Low levels of self-confidence are leading to 45% feeling stressed about body image and 37% stressed about how to cope at work and school. The numbers of students seeking counselling for exam stress [11] is rising and more than a third of teenage girls in England suffer depression [12]. Are their anxieties realistic or have they been shaped by the negative headlines that bombard them on the media and lead to disappointment? If the population is so stressed how come Euro 2016 and Pokemon Go were the most Googled questions in the UK in 2016? This doesn’t suggest deep concern about the political or economic realities people are facing.
But are the young receiving sufficient balanced information for them to appreciate how life has improved in the last fifty years? Are they being prepared to manage the world they will face? They are growing up in an era of idealistic and relentlessly positive news on the one hand where there is celebrity and where, on Facebook or Instagram, people only post their good news. On the other hand there is doom and gloom spread by the press and politicians. There is little middle way. They are besieged by images of stars and models. Social media results in the young comparing themselves to these figures but they are generally trying to measure up to a false or unachievable photograph, where the model’s image has been edited to unrealistic proportions.
All is certainly not what it appears. Young people, when asked, state that they want to be famous. But famous for what? In previous generations when students were asked what they wanted to be they would reply “a lawyer, teacher, doctor”. Fame in itself may not be a rational goal. Many celebrities end up in The Priory or in addiction. Yet the young don’t seem to make the association that fame and wealth are not necessarily going to bring them happiness. Celebrities suffer anxiety as much if not more than anyone else. They grieve when they lose a child or parent, and struggle over very public divorces. Many people are famous but possibly not for the skills one really admires or wishes to emulate – for example Hitler or Jack-the-Ripper.
To be meaningful, fame needs to be based on values, so we need to support children to ground themselves on the personal values that help them live life well and make good decisions. These don’t have to hinge on some religious premise or book. Simple principles such as treating others as you would wish to be treated yourself, seeking to do good rather than evil, not to hurt others, can all guide more collaborative rather than divisive behaviour online.
Are we giving this generation of “network young”, as they have been termed, the moral leadership that underpins constructive behaviour? Are we helping them analyse and make wise decisions? They aren’t seeing it from their political leaders who seem to be able to tell lies or knife a colleague in the back then shrug it off when found out. The term “post-truth” can give children the impression that it is ok to tell lies in today’s world. But of course it isn’t. Moral leadership comes from all those involved in raising children – parents, extended family, friends, teachers, community, government and beyond.
Parents and teachers alike seem nervous of offending or upsetting children but is this providing them with the resilience skills that young people need to manage the world of soundbites? If our universities are anything to go by, we appear to be producing students who demand ‘safe space’ rather than debate, and who appear unwilling to tolerate contradictory opinions. [13]This doesn’t bode well for our future as this type of thinking can lead to fundamentalism, fascism and even dictatorship. [
It is important that we provide a realistic picture of what it takes to manage life and work. We need to help students identify what success means to them. Employers report that young people are unemployable as they don’t have the work ethic or social teamworking skills to succeed. We read of young boys believing it is not ‘cool’ to succeed at school. If they watch The Apprentice [14] they could gain the impression that being ruthless will get them to the top of business with little effort.
But overnight success is extremely rare. Most CEOs, entrepreneurs, writers, painters, pop-stars or actors have put in many hours of practice and grit to gain success. It takes determination, failures and hard work. If students feel it will come easily they will be disappointed. We need to enable the next generations to develop the emotional and practical ability to manage the complexity of a flexible global workforce. Specific examples of hard-won success can inspire them as they set out on their careers in an uncertain and challenging world. It is particularly useful to provide case studies of those who have come from poor or difficult backgrounds, have worked hard and made a good life for themselves. It is also important to enable young people to see that the greatest success of all is happiness on a daily basis, which often starts with self-acceptance and loving relationships in the home.
“It is said that the present is pregnant with the future” Voltaire
If young people are indeed so anxious as surveys demonstrate then we need to act swiftly to empower them to feel that they can influence their own lives and manage the challenges they are likely to face in this competitive global environment. This includes managing their own emotional as well as mental state online and in the real world.
Accessing the ability to think calmly and rationally about what they are hearing or reading requires that they have the tools to move themselves out of a stressful state. The mind cannot think rationally when hyper-aroused, as the emotional brain hijacks reason. The practice of mindfulness can be beneficial as a first step. This is the practice of training the brain to pay attention on purpose in the present moment so as to be able to focus the mind. It can direct the mind and body to relax so as to enable the person to think coolly and objectively about a situation.
Once the mind is calm the individual is in a position to question their anxiety or disturbance:
- Am I taking things too personally?
- How does failing this (exam or project) make me a complete failure?
- How important will this problem be in six months?
- What’s the worst that could happen?
- Is my belief helping me achieve my goals?
- How else might I think about this situation?
- How could thinking differently about the situation or information impact the outcome?
- If someone has written something unkind or nasty about me does it make it a fact? Do I respect the person? Does it matter? Are there others who say kind things?
- What skills do I have to manage myself and my future?
This process leads the mind inward. Instead of being influenced by what is on the outside, whether it be on the net, radio, television or gossip, we are encouraged to draw on our own resources, connect with our own values and make judgements and decisions based on what we choose rather than being led by the voices of the media or the mob.
To manage life in today’s world we can support young people in developing self-acceptance, giving them the understanding that they have rights and needs that are equal – not greater nor lesser – than those with whom they interact. Self-knowledge and self-reflection are key to this learning and self-development. Basic principles include:
- Accepting that you are human and that humans are fallible
- Recognising that making one mistake does not mean that you are stupid
- Recognising that everyone needs to be sensitive to their impact on others
- Taking responsibility for yourself and understanding that you won’t be loved or approved of by everyone. Nor will others
- Focus on strengths, learn and adapt to put your weaknesses in context and build on achievements
- Seeking excellence and not perfection
Providing models to analyse personal responses to situations gives individuals the understanding that they may not have a choice regarding the situations they face but do have a choice as to how they respond to the situation. They can learn the interaction between thoughts, expectations and how they shape their emotions. That if they think a situation “must” go a particular way they will inevitably be disappointed if it doesn’t. That if they blame another person in thinking “they ought” to have understood how their behaviour hurt me and “should” have treated me with more consideration, then it is important to question themselves as to whether they informed the other person of their preferences. Also to question whether they themselves have behaved similarly, resulting in them hurting others in the way they have been hurt. The underlying thought, belief or expectation of self, others and life situations shapes the emotional response. The emotional response shapes the behaviour that follows – for example if a boy feels they have not been treated with the respect they were expecting they may hit the person whom they perceive treated them badly.
The role of hormones in shaping behaviour is also useful information for young people. Testosterone has been associated with violence, autistic-spectrum, and risk-taking. It rises when listening to loud music, watching one’s team win or watching porn. When elevated there is more likelihood of an outcome of behaviour that the person may well regret after the event, whether it be a sexual assault, car crash or gang violence. The understanding of the mind-emotion-behavioural process is essential information for any human being and the earlier we can teach it the better.
“Think for yourselves and let others enjoy the privilege of doing so, too” Voltaire
To make sense of complex information requires good questioning techniques. Socratic models of challenging beliefs and situations can influence a student to question what they are reading and look beneath the headlines. They can become familiar with how their mind works when operating on System 1 fast-thinking and choose to switch to System 2 slow-thinking methods to analyse the facts so as to make evaluative judgements as to what they personally believe about a situation. For example they can be trained to question the phrase “all the evidence shows” which is often used by those in the scientific, academic, medical or economic world but ignores contradictory evidence. This was witnessed during the 2008 financial crash where neither Treasury officials nor economists all foresaw the crisis and where several economists held directly opposing views as to its provenance and impact.
The divisive black-and-white statements frequently used by politicians, trolls and the media disguise the complex grey areas underneath. Students can learn to notice generalisations such as always, never, no-one, everyone and investigate the specifics, to discover whether statements are accurate. They may discover that phrases such as “everyone says this is a great movie” actually relates to one person who happened to comment on the movie to a friend.
Good questions enable us to check whether our brain is working on fast processing. For example:
- What is the evidence behind what I am reading?
- Who is writing and what might their agenda be?
- What are their sources? Do I respect them?
- Is my belief about this information logical?
- Might I be exaggerating the importance of this problem?
- Who says so?
- Am I concentrating on the negatives and ignoring the positives?
But thinking is time-consuming and requires effort so many numb out instead. This includes watching video-games, surfing the net or spending hours on Instagram talking to friends. We feel we have no time but the key is to notice where we are focusing our attention when there is so much attractive diversion available.
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities” Voltaire
The start of 2017 has seen many examples where people are responding quickly and spontaneously to sensational headlines rather than stopping to question whether the information is accurate. President-Elect Trump has been tweeting that the FBI were wrong in their assessment that Putin and the Russians have been manipulating the American election results before he had even met with FBI representatives to hear the details of their report.
In Germany there have been warnings from politicians about the increase in fake news after the ultra-conservative Breitbart party website spread false information that a church had been set on fire on New Year’s Eve by a group of 1000 men shouting Allahu Akbar. In fact a firework set a small area of netting on fire but Breitbart had used exaggerations and factual errors to create an image of Islamist aggression.
There have been reports of hackers in Eastern Europe, Russia and India being paid to spread false news, including hackers being paid to ‘like’ tweets or share stories that support the sponsor’s agenda.
We all need to make sense of this as the alternative is that there is a mob hysteria on an issue that could lead to civil war or vigilantism. The need is always to question the sources and intentions of what we are reading.
“Opinion has caused more trouble on this little earth than plagues or earthquakes” Voltaire
No-one could have predicted how the internet and continuous global news would shape our lives and our minds. We all need to feel empowered to manage the challenges of a fast-changing method of receiving information. We need to understand our own minds and its biases in order to be alert to the mistakes it might lead us into. The ability to connect with the rest of the world is both exciting and overwhelming. It encourages us to make quick judgements on issues rather than research and investigate the complex facts of a case. There has never been a more important time to learn how our brain processes information and creates reality. We can train ourselves to think more rationally and critically in an era that Charles Handy once described as The Age of Unreason. [15] We can also harness the internet to build collaborative groups that benefit the world.
Fast and slow thinking responses can be related to Aristotle’s theory of acting through voluntary and involuntary action, whereby a young child might act involuntarily whereas a wise and rational adult will make a decision through deliberation, as a result of significant reason and thought. Aristotle continues by differentiating an “incontinent” person, who acts spontaneously and emotionally, with the “continent” person, who acts through objective decision, not appetite.
In an era of false news and misinformation we would all benefit from seeking to become the continent individual who observes, reflects, analyses and bases their judgement on evidence, self-knowledge and personal values. These skills can be taught.
5280 words
Written January 2017, Longlisted for the Notting Hill Essay Prize
References:
1.Daniel Kahneman: Thinking, Fast and Slow (Allen Lane)
4.Girl Guide Survey: https://www.girlguiding.org.uk/social-action-advocacy-and-campaigns/research/girls-attitudes-survey/
- https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/sex-lies-trauma/201107/effects-porn-adolescent-boys
- https://medium.com/future-crunch/99-reasons-why-2016-has-been-a-great-year-for-humanity-8420debc2823#.94r75drkw; Stephen Pinker: The Better Angels of Our Nature (Allen Lane); Johan Norberg: Progress (One World); Never Forget that we Live in the Best of Times (Philip Collins, The Times, 23.12.16)
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caroline_Criado-Perez https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gina_Miller
- http://businesslibrary.uflib.ufl.edu/financialcrisesbooks
- https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/elite
- Survey, Princes Trust Youth Index 2016
- BBC News, 30.9.15
- The Guardian, 22.8.16
- What’s Happened to The University: Frank Furedi (Routledge)
- BBC series The Apprentice
- 15.Charles Handy: The Age of Unreason (Random House)