Greg Proffit Writing

Category: Ideas

So You Think There Are No Dangers to Using AI Technology Like ChatGPT? …Better Look Before You Leap!
Photo by Sammie Chaffin on Unsplash

23 world-class scholars map the risk landscape

No doubt you have heard or read something about ChatGPT by now. It is being hailed and hyped by its fans as the next major tech breakthrough. Its detractors claim it has designs on ending the human race. Regardless of your own view, so-called Artificial Intelligence programs and applications that use Large Language Models (LMs) as their core training data are making breakthrough advances and enjoying rapid adoption in classroom and professional settings. But 23 authors who collaborated on the paper, Ethical and social risks of harm from Language Models, believe more work needs to be done to identify and reduce the risks of using these tools.

They published a detailed report to “help structure the risk landscape” (Weidinger et al.). In other words, their work maps out where the potential problems lie, where they come from, and where we should expect to see them in real-world usage. The authors hope tools based on LMs will be used safely, responsibly, and fairly. But in the high-tech world, whose motto is “Move fast and break things,” they realize that hopes alone won’t get the job done.

So, what is a Large Language Model?

Many people are eager to use the emerging technology based on LMs. OpenAI’s ChapGPT-3 reached the million user milestone in just 5 days!—faster than any social media platform—quicker than FaceBook, Twitter, or Insta (even faster than Netflix!). Despited the popularity, relatively few users understand the complexity behind these new systems’ proprietary curtains. Many conceive of them as having cognitive abilities reflecting human communication. But, as discussed below, they don’t.

Addressing these misconceptions is one of the report’s goals. To define LMs and computer scientist’s jargon about A.I.“conversational” systems, or “chatbots,” the authors included an appendix with definitions, a thorough bibliography (referencing more than 300 citations), and an abridged Table arranged by risk classification. These added resources inform readers who want to dive deeper.

The author’s goals

Combining their expertise across multiple academic disciplines, they presented one of the most-cited papers in the AI literature to achieve the three-part goal of:
1. Ensuring AI developers, corporations, and organizations know the perils and accept responsibility for reducing them.
2. Raising public awareness that threats exist and what steps should be taken to reduce or eliminate them, and;
3. Assisting groups working on LMs to identify the sources and solutions to the problems they’ve identified.
21 Risks… and counting

With this purpose in mind, the paper identifies and groups the risks to users and society into six categories. It labels 21 specific threats. The report names and discusses each one in detail, and where possible, the authors determine the source of the potential peril. They create hypothetical scenarios demonstrating each hazard in action to help readers and researchers see how these might play out in the real world. See the complete list here.

The carefully organized paper includes a reader’s guide, and is arranged into five parts: An Introduction, an extensive 23-page Classification of harms, a two-page Discussion, two additional pages giving Directions for future research, and a single-page Conclusion.

Where do the risks come from?

The authors explain that large language models like the Colossal Clean Crawl Corpus, WebText, (Dodge et al.), and others are fed to computers for sophisticated processing. Highly complex algorithms based on statistics and probability use an enormous layered array of expensive processing power to generate output from these systems that magically seems like normal and natural conversational language. This is where the potential problems start.

Getting better, more accurate answers depends on the mass and caliber of text data analyzed. This means the quality of the training dataset and who controls it are significant factors affecting the quality and effectiveness of “downstream” outcomes—and the introduction of risks. The authors point out that little documentation defines what constitutes “quality” to the developers working on these tech tools. They note there seems to be no regulation about who owns the training data or who is responsible for redacting and editing it for accuracy or removing potentially harmful content.

“Based on our current understanding, […] stereotyping and unfair bias are set to recur in language technologies building on LMs unless corrective action is taken.”
Laura Weidinger

When considered alongside studies that show “language utterances (e.g., tweets) are already being analyzed to predict private information such as political orientation, age, and health data….” (Weidinger et al. 20), we can begin to appreciate what might happen if the wrong parties use these technologies for unfair or harmful reasons.

But wait, do humans really think and speak this way?

Humans don’t learn language or speak based on probabilities. Only machines do. As stated above, a training set full of embedded prejudices or falsehoods will, by default, output those prejudices and errors. A training set that under or over-represents some groups will likewise output the same under and over-representations.

Humans also consider context and new knowledge when we communicate. Computers cannot do this. A computer trained before Queen Elizabeth’s death will output responses that assume she is still alive and reigning as Queen.

People who don’t work as professional political propagandists know that repeating a lie an infinite number of times won’t make it true. On the other hand, computers will simply add up all those lies—then output responses like they’re probably accurate based on the numerical count alone. Unlike humans, they cannot make qualitative judgments.

However, as the machines gain more widespread adoption, they appear to “speak” more and more naturally. Think about asking questions of Apple Computer’s Siri or Amazon’s Alexa. These human-computer interactions with human-sounding digital assistants create a special category of potential risks and abuses.

Remember the “guy” below?

By Lyman Hansel Gerona on Unsplash

The trouble with conversational agents

These computerized but human-sounding CAs are based on technology that makes some people overly trusting. The authors cite studies showing that some people trust them more than people—even willing to divulge private information— despite computers, conversational agents, and digital assistants having no basis for ethical thinking or action.

“The more human-like a system appears, the more likely it is that users infer or attribute more human traits and capabilities to that system.”
Laura Weidinger

These CA systems might even be perpetuating gender-based norms by utilizing “female-sounding voices.” The paper cites a report by UNESCO that raises specific concerns, saying, digital voice assistants:
- ‘reflect, reinforce, and spread gender bias;
- model acceptance and tolerance of sexual harassment and verbal abuse;
- send explicit and implicit messages about how women and girls should respond to requests and express themselves;
- make women the ‘face’ of glitches and errors that result from the limitations of hardware and software designed predominately by men; and
- force ‘synthetic’ female voices and personality to defer questions and commands to higher (and often male) authorities.
Problems may outnumber solutions

Some issues may be too difficult or expensive to overcome. For instance, the computational power necessary for training and using these LM-based programs requires large amounts of electricity. The financial and environmental expense is one broad category of risk that may make it impossible for some groups to access emerging technology effectively. There may be no commercial incentive for developers to train AI on language sets with only a few tens or hundreds of thousands of speakers. This effect will further marginalize these languages and speakers from downstream applications of AI technology widening the gap between the technological and economic “haves” and “have-nots.”

Added monetary and societal impacts could arise from the automation (and subsequent loss) of creative or knowledge-based jobs. Currently, LM programs, though improving, are error-prone, especially when considering factors like knowledge or technology “lock-in.” The applications only “know” information included in their training data. The initial ChatGPT-3 training data ended in 2021. So human monitors and fact-checkers will be needed to clean up the outputs of LM systems in sensitive applications where accuracy matters.

Still, AI is being prompted to write computer code, poetry, academic articles, proposals, court orders, and even medical treatments. Are you ready to trust your healthcare to probabilities and statistical analysis, or do you want a doctor?

These developments and the excitement (hype) accompanying the emergence of programs like ChatGPT make understanding and reducing the risks essential.

Conclusion

This important report does not discuss LMs’ potential benefits. The authors believe more research needs to be done to evaluate the benefits considering the risks they have earmarked. Anything less is irresponsible and rife with potential harm.

Although this article barely scratches the surface of the potential problems and associated risks in the full report, my hope is that you are persuaded to “look before you leap” when it comes to AI and ChatGPT. We recommend reading the entire report for a more thorough understanding.
March 20, 2023
Do Not Borrow Problems Not Yours To Solve

Photo by Olav Ahrens Røtne on Unsplash

# 97 on my 99 Life Tips–A List is: Do not borrow problems not yours to solve. Life will give you enough to do.

Do you know what the biggest problem facing most people is? Their biggest problem is that they don’t know what their biggest problem is. Maybe this is you.

We all know people who make it their life’s work to stick their nose into other people’s business. We’ve all got friends and family and co-workers coming out our ying-yangs telling us how to do this or that, or how to fix something or other we know good and well they have neither experience nor expertise we can rely on.

Don’t do that. Don’t borrow problems that aren’t yours to solve. You just make yourself a royal pain-in-the-ass. Life will give you enough to do just focusing on your own shit.

When you receive unsolicited advice from someone telling you what you should do about whatever, and you can see they are drowning in a cesspool of their own unsolved problems, how does that feel? Do you consider them a trusted source? Do you appreciate their concern and rush to incorporate their advice?

No Poseurs Allowed!

Hell no! You don’t want to be that guy/girl/non-binary poseur either.

Leave other people’s problems alone. Leave them alone until they ask you. The invitation to pitch in with help and advice in someone else’s affairs is a sacred trust. Don’t neglect it and don’t abuse it. Be the person who gets asked your opinion, not the kind who never gets asked yet can’t stop giving it.

One day soon, I will write a story titled, How To Know If You Are A Good Parent. The story will comprise one question and two follow up comments.

The question: Do your kids ask for your advice?

The comments: If yes, you are a good parent. If not, you need some improvement.

Now, like chord positions on a guitar neck, this story can be transposed to play in different keys. We can change it from the key of Parenting to the key of Friendship, say. We can then change the title substituting Friend for Parent and keep the content of the story exactly the same. See how nice that works?

Is this too simplified? Maybe. But then, I’m a simple guy. Let’s keep things real, shall we?

Don’t borrow problems not yours to solve. Go to work on your biggest problem. Start by figuring out exactly what that is.

We good?

July 22, 2021
R-E-S-P-E-C-T: It’s Multi-Faceted Meanings & How Knowing The Variations Can Save Your Life

Photo by Tiago Felipe Ferreira on Unsplash

# 92 on my 99 Life Tips–A List is: You should, respect a person (or not) based on 1- who they show themselves to be. But, you should respect authorities based on 2- what they can do to you. None can require you to respect the person in the uniform or office, refer to “1” for that.

I could not write this essay about respect without hearing Aretha belt out the spelling in that inimitable, soulful way of hers. I hope you’ll enjoy that earworm. If you belong to my generation, you will. If not, you’re already thinking, “huh?”

This is an essay about respect; its various meanings, its contextual application, and how knowing how to show respect appropriately can save your life.

Words are idea containers

We need to think for a minute about what respect is and what it isn’t. Like Aretha, we spell it only one way. But we use it to mean many things. I won’t bore you with definitions except to say this about words: Words are idea containers.

When my firstborn was young — precocious, verbal child that she was — if she saw something she didn’t have the vocabulary for, she used a catch-all container, the word “pumen” (rhymes with lumen). Her word box contained everything from blackberries to motorcycles, from horses to Santa Claus. It was a large container. We grew used to her pointing at something and asking, “What’s that pumen?”

“Respect” tries too hard to contain too much

My story has a point. Which is that some words contain ideas so numerous and varied the containment stretches and tests the adequacy of the word to hold and convey them all.

The word “love” is a prime example. We use it to describe our feeling for bananas, baseball, and best friends.

With words such as love, like, hate, we come to understand that context plays a role helping the hearer or reader infer the speaker or writer’s intent. There is a broad range of meaning in these “over packed” words.

Respect is such a word. It is an over-packed, “try-hard” of a word attempting to do overmuch. It is the “pumen” of social lubricants and niceties. This gives it a wide spectrum of meaning. But not all the meanings are apropos for every usage.

A variety of meanings to fit the contextual and cultural pendulum

There is a contextual and cultural pendulum when selecting the applicable meaning of respect. In my lifetime, the meaning of respect has swung from — “to acknowledge the right of,” or, “to regard” — to the current meaning (as used by my kid’s generation) in which it reflects an amalgamation of “esteem, high regard, acceptance, and approbation” (though my kids never use that actual word). So, the meaning of respect is rapidly accelerating to its farthest and highest meaning which is “deep admiration” and “the highest regard”.

And in some cultures respect has always meant “deep veneration” and “honor”, such as that respect shown to one’s elders, something we’ve never been good at in the U.S..

We see then, that the single word respect conveys a variety of meanings. It doesn’t mean the same thing to all people, even to those who speak the same language and share the same cultural heritage.

The Advice Reframed

I laid that groundwork in an essay about respect to serve as a footing upon which to discuss the advice I offered at the outset.

When you read it again, notice how the meaning shifts. The ideas contained in the word respect change as the context changes.

Below, for clarity’s sake, I’ve reframed the advice offered in my tip.

Respect a person (or don’t respect them) based on:

1- Who they are in words and deeds.

2- The power they have (because of the office or job they fill) to mess with or take your life.

As stated, Respect is an interesting idea-container of a word. It includes variations of meanings which have shifted in one generation. In my youth, showing respect was simply to act with the deference of courtesy and politeness. It was akin to good manners. Respect had little to do with agreement or acceptance or esteem, except at the very highest levels where only the most deserving received it. In such cases, we substituted a better, more specialized word, more descriptive of feelings of esteem, admiration, and acclaim.

For example, I’ve never heard a fan say, “I really respect Jerry Garcia’s soloing.” Or, “I respect Mark Twain as a writer of short stories.” And no one would say, “I respect the way Mother Teresa cared for Calcutta’s poor.”

Because Respect and Admiration are different

To respect you is to offer you the opportunity to be heard, to voice your own opinion, to state your view and stake out a position. This fundamental level of respect comes with the territory inherent in the idea that we are equals. You are as entitled to your opinions as I am entitled to mine. I regard your right to speak for yourself and live the way you choose as valid rights. But… I am not required to admire the things you say or the lifestyle choices you make. I am not required to look to you as a role model. I may totally disrespect your choices, and you mine, while simultaneously respecting your right to make them.

So, I can respect your right to your opinions without respecting your opinions. I can listen to you and still not agree with you. Respect doesn’t mean I shelve my discernment, logic, learning, or personal biases and views and adopt yours. Respect is not acquiescence, or agreement, or approbation.

The Respect of 2 Ideological Opponents

The story is told of the friendship of the late Supreme Court Justices Antonin Scalia and Ruth Bader Ginsburg. These two were figurehead iconoclasts of vastly different political and judicial ideologies, yet remained friends until Scalia’s death. Before his passing, someone once asked Scalia, the strict constructionist conservative, about his friendship with Ginsberg, the vaunted liberal feminist. The questioner expressed incredulity about the basis of such a cordial relationship when their political and judicial views were so diametrically opposed.

Scalia quipped, “I attack ideas, not people.”

If I could write that into my next thousand stories, I would.

We do well to remember and practice those sage words. Respect for the other person is the contextual framework that allows that to happen. Scalia respected Ginsberg. She respected him. I respect them both, nay; I admire them both, for showing each other such deferential respect for the right to their own views and opinions, even when they didn’t share or admire the views expressed.

How the meaning has shifted

In my kid’s generation, the so called Gen X through Z, the meaning of respect has steadily swung towards the esteem side of the pendulum. If I disagree with the viewpoint of my youngest kids, they will often accuse me of being “disrespectful”, or worse, “rude” (which seems to be one of the worst character flaws you can display to members of the generations at the end of the alphabet).

I’m sure the shift in meaning is because of mistaken ideas of Self-Esteem propagated in public educational environments. We commonly treat self-esteem as an entitlement to be granted to all as a participation trophy, rather than as the internal esteem one earns and holds for oneself because of one’s character (virtue). The word “self” in the phrase “self-esteem” is a dead giveaway that this esteem must come from within. No one can give it to you. Esteem conferred from without we should call by some other name.

I can respect the right of a student to come to class, or to skip class. I can respect their right to learn up to their ability, or to shun the effort required to learn. But I do not esteem anyone who skips class or who does not better themselves when granted a free opportunity to do so. What is estimable about that?

Thus, respect is not esteem, though the highest end of the respect-definition-spectrum does include the concept.

Numbers 1 and 2 unpacked — This could save your life

My advice in #1 above relates to this higher end of the spectrum. Admirable character, words, and deeds must earn the highest meaning of the word respect. To none but the worthy do we entitle this usage. We reserve it for the deserving because it conveys the sense of appreciation, approval, acknowledgement of worthiness, etc.. We don’t grant it lightly, denigrating and trivializing it into a meaningless entitlement to all comers, regardless of character, expertise, or worthiness.

The admonition in number 2 of my advice, if heeded, can save you a lot of needless heartache, and possibly even save your life.

I have in mind here those persons acting in an official capacity who have both authority and power to interfere with your personal freedom or life, in extremis. They can take either, or both. In an essay about respect, I would be remiss not to warn you to respect that power. Together we can pray and work to see the end of that power being abused and mis-used. Regrettably, that day remains in the future.

We have all seen the horrifying and gut-wrenching examples of unscrupulous, even murderous, thugs (for there is no better idea container for them), dressed in uniforms and armed with badges, batons, billy clubs, and guns, who deserve no more esteem, admiration, acclaim, approval, or acceptance than a sociopathic criminal deserves. Their lack of character, lack of ethical behavior, lack of morality, lack of humanity all stand as accusers at the bar of justice, and we all want them to receive the just recompense of the crimes they’ve committed while clothed in the uniform and trappings of state authority.

When in doubt, focus on the uniform, not the person

Still, if a uniformed authority figure accosts you, you do well to respect the uniform for the power the wearer has to alter forever, or even to end, your life. It is shamefully true that some have shown this basic deference and respect for the uniform, if not for the person wearing it, and still had their lives taken away by a uniform wearing murderer. But it is wise to respect the power behind that uniform. It is wise to acknowledge the authority that created that position. It is important to remember that the authority that created the position also armed them with a weapon that if used, whether in righteousness or murder, can make you just as dead either way.

So while, because of unworthiness of moral character, we may feel utter contempt, disdain, and disgust for the politician, or judge, or cop, or soldier who wields social or political or judicial power, we’d best respect the power. We can reach in the container of respect and at least come up with the sense of acknowledgement, understanding, and regard for what the uniform or office represents, even if we wouldn’t waste saliva to spit on the person occupying it. For the person wearing the uniform or occupying the office to receive more than base level respect, they will have to do so by earning it.

The Takeaway — A Respectable Purpose

But let’s turn away from uniformed persons, or officeholders, and other authority figures and end this essay about respect thinking about ourselves. If you want my respect, I stand ready to give it to you. I want nothing more than to have a role model to admire, a mind I can glean from, an example to be inspired by. Go for it. I will respect you to the fullest meaning. But I won’t hand you that just for sitting there breathing. Nor do I expect it from you. I aim to earn your respect. I want to earn it first as a person. No rotten tree can bear good fruit.

So, first I strive to be a person whose life and character are respectable. From that kind of life, I hope will flow opinions and ideas that will induce more respect. Do I hope to win your admiration and acclaim? Yes, yes I do. I hope that my presence on this planet enriches you and creates good things in your life. And I hope that your life will create good things for me. There’s no more respectable purpose, is there?

July 19, 2021
2 Trees—Knowledge, Life, and A Celebration of Dependency

There were 2 trees in the garden. There still are. (Shuttestock Image licensed to Author)

# 87 on my 99 Life Tips–A List is: There is nothing more magnificent in creation than a tree in a forest. I learned this way too late.

Here I simply refer you to Richard Powers’ excellent (Pulitzer Award winning) book, The Overstory. Read it. Digest it. Believe it. Embrace it. Practice it. Live it as if your life, your kid’s lives and the planet’s life depends on it. It most likely does. This story is a celebration of dependency, because life is better than knowledge — life is dependency.

2 Trees

The story of creation begins in a garden. In that garden are two named trees. This story tells how the lie’s promise went unfulfilled and how life is better than knowledge.

The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, and The Tree of Life.

The story juxtaposes these, one to one another, making them antagonists. Black hat and white hat. The distinctions between these 2 trees set the stage for a marvellous story and yet they do no combat against one another. There is no arboreal clash of branches. They do not fight and sway. They simply exist. The two trees are saying something to us through the reach of literature if not from the literal nascent moments of our species and our shared race as humans. The battle is within ourselves.

The one tree has gotten all the ink through the years, but there were 2 trees our first parents could have eaten from, only one of which was forbidden. There was also the tree of Life, about which no prohibition had been made.

The Tree of The Knowledge of Good and Evil story is fundamentally a story about independence. The tempter offered something he could not give to fill something they could not have and did not need. This is the nature of temptation—to overpromise and underdeliver. Always. The temptation to Adam and Eve was to become “like God—knowing good and evil”.

This is a lie of Trumpian proportions, the first Big Lie and mother of all Big Lies. For God is more than knowledge, and God is more than the arbiter of good and evil. God is that Supreme Creator who determines whether a thing, a thought, an act is good or evil in accord with that wisdom and love only God possesses.

Good? Evil?

What man or woman has ever attained to such heights as to know conclusively what good is, independent of God?

Was crucifixion good? Or was it evil? Was the discovery of North and South America by Europeans good? Good for the natives, the aboriginal peoples on those continents? If good, for whom was it good? For God? For all?

Questions of these kinds are indecipherable entanglements. The best and brightest wear themselves out and drive themselves mad, picking at that backlash of knotted contradictions, hoping in vain to answer the very thing promised to our ancestors in that primordial lie. What is good? What is evil? And in our history, have we arrived at any satisfactory, mutually agreed upon, non-controversial decisions about what is good and what is evil? I trust the reader to recognize a rhetorical question when you read one.

Like Begets Like

As fruit contains its seeds within itself, so it is with lies. Like begets like. Apples produce apple trees, not cherries, or pears, or ferns. A lie’s fruit contains no seeds of truth. Accordingly, we see the fruit from that ill-fated tree was a deadly poison in proportion to the worthlessness and uselessness of the knowledge sought. Because that knowledge could not and cannot produce what the lie purported it could, and neither could that lie or the knowledge it claimed accessible to our ancestors, produce—Life.

We may admit that the eating of the fruit gave them knowledge of good—as memory—the sacrifice of their original manner of life killed on the altar of independence. Likewise, it gave the knowledge of evil—as present and future — the now inability to keep and reestablish that level of Life-receiving dependence so foolishly sacrificed. In that, the tempter lied the truth, but so craftily as to make even this outcome veiled and hidden in that initial lie, “your eyes will be opened…”. And what an opening of the eyes that was. The knowledge wasn’t in the fruit! The knowledge was in themselves!

The history of humankind

The history of what happened at that tree is written in blood and pain, and murder, and war, and black charcoal ash scrawled on cave walls, and choking, teeming clouds of black ash smoke caressing skyscrapers, and in striped, torn skin, and in blood-stained bayonets. It is the sky teeming with rockets unleashed by the “good” to exterminate the “evil”. Oh, God! What a damned misery unleashed on the planet and the race from the belief in that Big Lie that by knowing “good and evil” the created would become as the creator.

And here we are, still in the dark. Still not knowing what good is. Still unable to tell what is evil. Still needing to be led by the hand. Still needing to be told. And still too damned proud and stupid to admit our blindness, our need, our destitution and stretch out our hands to Life, for as it says in another place, “knowledge puffeth up” but “love edifies”.

Those 3 words are the most concise history of humankind ever penned — “knowledge puffeth up”.

There is another tree, also fruit-bearing. That 2nd tree remains, because the idea of it remains. Regardless of whether it is a physical, tangible tree, I believe it is the source of all trees, which may be the residual source and the sustenance of all biological life on this spinning ball we ride through Space. It may be a heavenly tree, possibly metaphorical, or hidden in ineffability. But a more magnificent creation, I cannot conceive. This tree of Life exists in the myths of numerous cultures and peoples. Myths this pervasive exist for a reason. There’s usually something real to back them.

Life is better than knowledge — Life is dependency

The fruit of that tree of Life is of 12 different kinds — its leaves have potency to heal the nations. (Is it any wonder we look to trees and forests for medicines?) Fruit is both food and a seed pod. In combination with medicinal leaves, everything the Tree of Life symbolizes implies dependency. Life is a series of dependencies — truth no created thing can capture so fully as a tree, which creates its entire mass, not from itself, but from the very air, exactly in the pattern we are to “in Him, live and move, and have our being.” And nothing gives of itself more fully than a tree, either.

I can find and infer and reasonably patch together knowledge within myself. But I cannot find life within myself. I cannot grow my food from within myself. I cannot, from within myself, create the air I need for my next breath. I cannot manufacture my own medicine from within. For Life, I am dependent. I am in need. And I’d rather acknowledge, even celebrate my dependency—for I would far rather live without knowing, than know without living.

July 16, 2021
What Do You Like & Why Do You Like It?

Photo by George Pagan III on Unsplash

# 85 on my 99 Life Tips–A List is: Know why you like what you like. Learn to identify the feeling of liking something before you have the words to tell yourself you like it. That resonance, that connection, that is your home.

This one has been staring at me for a couple of days. I know what I mean by the tip I offered months ago when I created my list and posted it, but this one captures so much.

What you like defines you

Why do you like that? Why don’t you like this? Can your likes change—become weaker (?), or stronger? If they can change, did the thing formerly liked change? Or did the former “Like-er” change? Important stuff.

We all start in infancy as blank slates. Yes, I know, the argument of nature vs. nurture. Sure, sure. Still… I have no Grateful Dead genes that make me resonate to that frequency, nor any Russian genes I’m aware of that make the slow, deliberated, painstakingly detailed accounts of Dostoevsky so appealing and full of life and truth to me.

So, as for the accumulation of culture—which is really a fancy word for group or social liking of a thing—I’m on the nurture side of that debate. We like what we like because we get exposed to it by someone who convinces us that people like us like stuff like this. There’s a kind of peer pressure to like most of the things we choose.

[That, and the size of the menu in proportion to the size of our appetites, and whether we find good entrements (palate cleansers) between samplings.]

There are also degrees of liking a thing. You may wear the tee-shirt, but not kill bats on stage and drink their blood. (You can look up the old Ozzy Osbourne legend somewhere… Google it.)

So, Greg, you’re 300 words in and haven’t told me a damn thing about why I like some stuff and not other stuff.

True, dear reader, we are halfway down a proper electronic page and I cannot tell you what to like. I can, however, urge this—Don’t let anyone else tell you either!

We all got our first likes because someone pushed sweet mashed pears into our baby mouths before they spooned in disgusting pureed lima beans. Someone played Mozart, or Miles Davis or Metallica before Beethoven, Benny Goodman, or Bad Company.

We first gain likes and tastes from the people around us who expose us to them and usually because they like them too. (Maybe not with babyhood pears, but you catch my drift).

Here’s the rub

At some point, earlier or later, I don’t know, you will want to pay attention to whether or not you’d like Led Zeppelin at all if that delectable girl in the yellow overalls didn’t look so good wearing that logo emblazoned across her beautiful… t-shirt (what did you think I was going to type?)

My mom was a member of the Columbia Records club. This was back when dinosaurs roamed North America and people still had turntables on which to extract sound from round plastic platters. She got several albums a month, and she used to sit dreamily and play one album called Go To Heaven by a band of long-haired men, standing in a cloud on the cover, wearing cheesy looking, white, polyester-velveteen Lawrence Welk suits.

Alabama Getaway and Don’t Ease Me In off that record sounded like countrified crapola to my 13-year-old ears. Hearing it made me gag and flee the premises, long before I got to hear Lost Sailor and Saint of Circumstance.

I couldn’t stand it! Yuck! 13-year-olds ought not be judged too harshly for underdeveloped anything. Puberty makes for a cloudy filter.

But I did like her Fleetwood Mac, and Rickie Lee Jones, and Little Feat albums. I even liked Jimmy Buffett, and I wanted to like Crosby, Stills, Nash, and Young because they had the coolest album cover. (You know the antique looking, sepia-toned album where they’re posed with a dog, and Crosby cradles a shotgun, and Neil is draped with bandoleers and a pistol, and a guitar is lying on the ground — Deja Vu—and it looks like Matthew Brady took the photograph right after the battle of Antietam or something).

God, I loved the look of that album cover because I was crazy for all kinds of Civil War stuff. That picture was so cool! Who cared about hippies floating in white John Travolta suits in a cloud!?

But the music, Jeez! My misanthropic mom would get drunk, put on Teach Your Children and slur, “Hunnneee, jusss lishen to theesh wordzz. Thish iss evertheeen I wanna shay to you kidzz.”

OMG!! Please No! — Likes can change

I hated C,S,N,Y then. Association, ya know?

Though, I LOVE their music now. Different association… ya know?

The same reason I now love all things Grateful Dead. I had to grow into it. Then it grew into me.

So, sometimes early exposure doesn’t take root. Germination takes longer. Circumstances change, and then, bam! You hear something, or see something, or taste it, and it’s like tasting and seeing and hearing home. Like gathering up fragments of self that complete you. I know, weird.

But, they say there’s no accounting for taste. And truly there isn’t. If you will put on your Indiana Jones hat and do some personal archeology to dig up the reasons you’ve buried and kept your own personal treasures, you’ll learn a hella lot about yourself.

Fact is, your likes and loves will tell you more about yourself than your dislikes.

Shove over, I’ve invited God in

Probably shouldn’t drag God into a story already crowded with Jimmy Buffett, my drunk mom, Rickie Lee Jones, and bandoleers, but I see [Him] as defined (bad word, I don’t think [He] can be defined adequately, else the whole God idea shrinks, but it’s the best word we’ve got) by what [He] likes, immeasurably more than by what [He] dislikes. Just like you and me are defined more by what we like and allow in than by what we hate and keep out.

It’s the opposite of the way evangelical Christians think of God and themselves. These define themselves by what they oppose, what they’re against, what they resist and are afraid of. They never crack open Song of Songs, the most beautiful ode to physical, sexual love ever written (“kisses sweeter than wine”). It just sits there unread and unappreciated in their bibles. They conveniently forget Noah got drunk (after preserving humanity), David committed adultery—and murder (and was still called a man after God’s own heart), Jesus turned water into about a hundred gallons of wine at a wedding, and Peter denied Jesus (but Jesus restored him again over fish tacos on the beach).

They forget God loved everybody, EVERYBODY so much, [He] paid the ultimate price to win us back. I don’t imagine [He’s] trying to keep anyone out on technicalities like who they love. [He’d] prefer to outfit us all in white suits, invite us to stand in a cloud, and Go To Heaven. Or maybe my God is just bigger and more full of Grace and Mercy than yours. I dunno. Or maybe I’m wrong. But I’d rather be wrong believing in God as revealed Love. Maybe you’re unflawed, and you’re loved for your perfection. That doesn’t apply to me. But because God loves flawed me as much as [He] does, my only response is to trust [Him.] That is what faith is all about, after all. The heart’s response to a God showing and proving [His] Love.

If you’re curious about my brackets around masculine pronouns in reference to God, it’s because of my uncertainty of how to think of God and gender. I think of God as Father, the only real Father I’ve ever known. But God is called El Shaddai in the Hebrew scriptures, too, which means “the Breasted One”, or nurse. I love that image—of God being the source of life and growth and sustenance, of comfort, and warmth, and security, the way a nursing mother is to her infant child. You are welcome to your own images. I am convinced in my heart that my brackets aren’t offensive to [Him], or Him. End of disclaimer.

Back to the topic at hand—Here’s an unlimited credit card

Learn to identify what you like, on your own terms. Evaluate your preferences to see if you picked them up as the price of admission to some tribe or other, or thinking they’d be the key to some girl’s heart.

What do you like, the real you? Imagine you have an unlimited credit card. Your preferences and tastes are the only ones you need consult. You start with an empty iPod, empty media shelves, and an unfurnished home—no pictures on the walls, nothing in the pantry, fridge, wine cellar, or liquor cabinet. What’s parked in the driveway? What do you get? What do you like? Not—what does your wife, husband, lover like? No. What do you like?

Go ahead, you have my full permission to fill your life with as many of those things you can. On the way, you’ll answer the question: Why do you like that? It may be this simple. You just do! It resonates. And it scratches the persistent itch, uncovers the empty spot, and fills up the void. Because it caresses your heart; and sings you, rocks you, swaddles you, envelops you, whispers you—home.

It may as simple as the idea enshrined by Mick Jagger—

“I know it’s only Rock n’ Roll, but I like it… yes I do!”
~ Rolling Stones: It’s Only Rock n’ Roll

Mick likes Rock n’ Roll, and that like defines Mick. What defines you? What do you like?

One day, I’ll invite you over to my own imaginary bare-floored, yoga-pillowed pad where we can have church listening for the whisper of God, blasting my collection of studio and live Dead performances on my megawatt stereo system, while we drink Napa Valley wine and Russel’’s Reserve and Grok out on all my Van Gogh and Monet and Mondrian paintings. Or maybe we’ll “ooh and aahhh” over my library of thousands of volumes of curated literature, housing everything from Brené Brown to Zane Grey.

You’ll like it. Or at least I will.

What did you ask? Oh, yeah, that Aerosmith you hear coming from the other room? Oh, that’s just my girlfriend rocking out on the sounds she likes. She calls mine alternately “Grandpa” or “Sleepy” music. If you prefer the Demon of Screamin’ to my sleepy tunes, you are welcome to plug in your headphones. To each his own. I can’t tell you what to like, I can only ask you to tell me, why do you like it?

July 15, 2021
Don’t Adopt Every Stray—What Things You Adopt Have A Way Of Becoming Your Life

Photo by Alvan Nee on Unsplash

# 84 on my 99 Life Tips–A List is: You are not meant to adopt every stray (thought, belief, person, animal, opportunity) that shows up in your life. Choose well.

The wind blows things into and out of our lives. These things take the form of thoughts, beliefs, people, even animals, and sometimes opportunities. Just because something shows up doesn’t mean it should be picked up. Some things are better left alone to blow right on by. Don’t adopt every stray. You aren’t meant to.

The Inbox of Life

I like simple analogies. Viewing the detritus that life blows in is like viewing the daily contents of my email Inbox. Stuff blows in. I scan for relevance, responsibility, or refusal. Some of the items I must have asked to show up there. This is apparently the case. I recognize that the me that asked to receive information about every cheap Caribbean travel opportunity is a different me than the one opening my email this morning.

This revelation creates its own opportunity. I can unsubscribe and save myself the little mental distraction that accompanies every email subject line. (You know that many of these emails have highly trained professional writers whose sole aim is to create irresistible subject lines to trigger you to open the email, don’t you?)

But I’ve digressed. Although this digression was intentional. I digressed about email believing it to be a metaphorical application to which most can relate. The existence of an email address virtually guarantees spam in the same way that staying alive guarantees stray stuff showing up in your Life’s Inbox. Some of that stuff you invited, some you did not. You need not open it all. You need to archive and save even less. Some of it is as dangerous to your life as a virus-laden, malware-infected, trojan horse of embedded code hidden in an email about ED could be to your computer. Best to leave it lie.

Where do thoughts come from?

The element of my advice I find most universally applicable is in the handling of stray thoughts and beliefs. No one being honest can tell you where all your thoughts come from. Are they self-generated? Are they completely random? Did they come from the far side of the Universe? From God? From the devil? No one is sure.

Meditation is a great practice for so many reasons, not the least of which is that is can convince you how involuntary most of your thinking is. Try it for five minutes and see how like a wave machine with no off switch your mind is. Thoughts just show up, because…

But like the neighbor’s cat, or the stray that habitually shows up on your doorstep, you don’t have to buy a little cat bed at the PetSmart and put out a saucer of milk for the stray. Unless you’re my son, then you do. You have to buy one of those. But you can be much less accommodating with 95% of your stray thoughts. Learn to unapologetically shoo them away. Kick if you must.

You may become what you adopt

Don’t adopt every stray. Every thing you invite in to your life has the potential to, like a virus or piece of malware, spread and take over your life. Some things you’ve taken in as a past self have become your present self. Think of that. Choose wisely, friends.

July 14, 2021
The 4th of July, 5 Uses of Rights in the Declaration, and the Idea of America

Photo by Paul Weaver on Unsplash

The Declaration of Independence, first published on this day in 1776, unanimously approved by the Continental Congress 2 days prior, on July 2nd, 1776, did not create laws, rights, a government, or a United States of America.

It declared 13 Colonies’ unity in opposition to continued British rule, and their united determination to declare themselves Free and Independent States.

The representatives who met, debated, resolved to break political ties, and who drafted and edited the document giving their reasons declared themselves at the end of that document to be representatives of the united States of America (lowercase united). Representatives of 13 Free and Independent States, united in the declaration of their freedom and independence.

13 years of war

The import of this is to note that it was some 13 years before a Continental Congress again met to “institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.” to quote from the Declaration. That founding document is the US Constitution. Its Preamble enlarges upon ideas inherent in the Declaration laying out the purpose of Government envisioned by the framers.

Those 13 intervening years between the Declaration and the Constitution were ones of war and privation on the citizens, property, and countryside of those 13 Independent States. Declaring themselves independent would have secured nothing without the blood that was shed to support the right they claimed to have, indeed the duty they claimed to have, to do so. The Revolutionary war put lead and steel in place of ink and parchment to win the rights ink and parchment asserted.

That the representatives of those newly begotten States anchored themselves upon bedrock ideas predating any form of Government, party, or political system is noteworthy.

George F. Will, a notable political historian holding a doctorate in political philosophy, and well established as a Conservative thinker, says in his book The Conservative Sensibility, that America is the first country in world history founded upon an Idea. Geography did not establish it. Nor did ethnicity, nor genealogy, nor annexation by war. A political party or system did not create America. The inspirational coalescing power of an idea did.

That all men are created equal, with rights that Government does not confer upon them, but they consent to enact and institute Government to secure and protect those rights.

The word right or rights appears 5 times in the Declaration’s preamble. We may safely assert that the conception of rights, and the misuse or abuse of them by government, was preeminent in the representative’s minds.

The Preamble

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.—That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,—That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”
~Wikipedia, Annotated Declaration of Independence

unalienable Rights

The Declaration enumerates what it calls Unalienable rights having come to all men from their Creator. The document declares all men are created equal with an equal share of, and claim to, the endowment of these rights.

Declaring this to be so, did not, unfortunately, make it so for all people then living in the 13 Colonial States, approximately 50% of whom were slaves or indentured servants.

This is simple, verifiable, provable fact. To pretend it isn’t a fact is a disgrace to the name American and a slap in the face to history and history’s God.

Many drafters of the Declaration, and most notably Jefferson himself, the document’s principal author, were slave owners. Their livelihoods and fortunes derived from slave labor. In declaring all men to be created equal, Jefferson penned a truth that preexisted his writing. In enumerating 3 specific rights as among those which are endowed to equal men, Jefferson names these: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, clearly and indubitably denied to slaves.

to secure these rights

The revered document then states the most Revolutionary of ideas. That Government exists not to confer rights, but to secure rights that do not derive from government but from laws of human nature.

This is the most radical political statement in history.

Lest anyone use the word “radical” as an insult to hurl at a political opponent, remember these founders as the proud radicals they were. They would have worn the label as a badge of honor.

Once again, the Declaration rests upon an idea for its legitimacy before the court of public opinion, of history, and of history’s God.

Right of the People to alter or to abolish it

The Declaration asserts the absolute right of a people to overthrow any government that usurps individual rights or does not protect them; or that refuses to recognize that the only legitimate form of government for men who are created equal and endowed with equal rights must come from the consent of those equal men. This assertion, again based upon an idea, had to be tested on the battlefield, and proved with blood and treasure.

right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed

Here Jefferson admits the willingness of people to suffer long with injustices to which they grow accustomed. Neither the willingness to do so, nor the duration of the season during which that willingness to suffer lasts, negates the right of the people to right themselves when they see fit to do so.

It is their right, it is their duty to throw off such Government

Indeed, in this bold last use of the word right in the preamble, Jefferson and the adopters elevate radical Revolution to overthrow illegitimate government from a right to a duty. At the end of the document, they again invoke their solemn duty to publish the document that officially signaled the dissolution of the political bonds between the 13 Colonies and British rule.

In Conclusion

I offer this very brief examination of the Declaration and some of its ideas and propositions for this reason: America, of all nations, was born of an idea. That idea is that all men are created equal. They have equal rights issuing from Nature and Nature’s God. Government does not create rights. Just government cannot take them away. Equal citizens with equal rights are free to their own lives, their own liberty, and to their own pursuit of happiness.

This idea, this America is the one I love. The possibility for these things to be actualized exists only in this place, so far as I’m aware. That these ideals did not exist equally for all men (and women) from the nation’s inception is beyond dispute to honest students of history.

That the seeds of possibility and potential for a full flowering of freedom, liberty and equality for all were sown in the founding document, the Declaration of Independence, is likewise beyond dispute.

That we as a nation, on our 245th birthday, still struggle to see these principles and ideas of equal rights and equal justice fully enacted for all our citizens, all the time, contradicts the very principles that first gave it birth.

So, I celebrate America, the idea, more than America, the present reality. The present reality is the crucible in which to forge the idea, but the Idea, set forth on this day 245 years ago, is the America I love and pledge allegiance to on this 4th of July 2021. I celebrate the idea of America in acknowledgement that she has yet to live fully to the standards the framers set so high. And I celebrate with absolute determination to do my part to see the idea become the reality.

July 4, 2021
Logic Has Its Limits–This Headline Is False!

Photo by K8 on Unsplash

# 66 on my, 99 Life Tips–A List is: Logic is a useful scaffolding to climb the tower of truth, but it is not the tower, and will not always result in what is true.

I mean here that logic is a framework and not substance. It is a system that is useful for testing rational statements. But it relies on the inherent limitations of language and sometimes its champions forget that language, whether written or spoken, only represents the thing or idea represented and is not the thing or idea itself. If Language is limited, and if Logic relies on Language, then it follows, logically, that Logic has its limits.

So, I can build up an impressive array of premises and definitions about Hydrogen and Oxygen and how combined they form a substance that can exist in three different states depending upon temperature. And when finished I still won’t be able to drink it. The truth of water, experientially, evades both language and logic in the abstract.

There are those who enjoy creating syllogisms that are absurd like:

If God is all-powerful, then He can create something impossible for Him to lift.

But if He did, then He wouldn’t be all-powerful since there would be something He could not do…

These word games use logic not in the attempt to discover truth, but to camouflage it.

Logic doesn’t admit the consideration of all variables that might affect a premise all times. Contexts change. So not all truth boils down to binary, true/false declarations with predictable, repeatable outcomes.

Take this sentence from this article:

“THIS sentence is false.” This sentence is also where the problems start. If true, it is false; if false, it is true.
~ Read more at newscientist

That’s a good noodle-baker. And it provided the intellectual fodder for my headline, which has the same logical problem. If the first clause (“Logic Has Its Limits”) is true, then the entire headline is false, if the first clause is false, the entire headline is true. Either way, the scaffolding collapses.

So logic is useful within its limits. But let’s remember logic has its limits. It will not as a necessity result in what is true. And in the minds of the disingenuous, it becomes a rhetorical tool to go the opposite direction.

June 29, 2021
Don’t Speculate—Just Admit You Don’t Know

Photo by Chris Ainsworth on Unsplash

# 64 on my, 99 Life Tips–A List is: The wise know that they do not know, are not afraid to admit that they do not know, are wiser for this, and remain undeterred in the effort to know.

I would reduce this tip to Don’t Speculate!… but the meaning is not exactly the same. Socrates is famous for being wise. Just as famously he did not boast of it. One of the hallmarks of the wise is their willingness to lean in to their own ignorance. The foolish and simple-minded are certain…and almost certainly wrong as a result.

When you don’t know something (which is often, right?), don’t try to fill in the gaps with guesses, wishes, and hopes. Just admit you don’t know. Speculations won’t get you any closer to factual knowledge and may lead you further astray. Just carefully approach the unknowns armed with what you do know.

Back to Socrates for a sec. The method named after him, The Socratic Method, is a question-and-answer style approach to truth detection. Philosopher types refer to this style by the fancy-schmancy name–dialectic. This technical sounding word just means questions and answers between two viewpoints. In the method, the questions are as important as the answers. The questions clarify ideas as they get more and more focused on the essential knowledge sought.

A follower of this approach learns that defining terms is important. Thus, the method seeks to categorize, catalogue and capture truth in words. This is useful, though one of my favorite words is ineffable, which means, literally, “too great or extreme to be expressed in words.”

Ineffable experiences and truths are my personal favorites, but that’s a topic for another day. Admittedly, truths that resist definition, resist dissemination as well.

For a deeper dive on the topic, written in a very approachable format, read the late Robert Pirsig’s iconic Zen & The Art of Motorcycle Maintenance.

Returning to the tip at hand, and especially when trying to make a decision, keep in mind what you know, what you don’t know, and what you need to know. The last is the most important point. It bears repeating. Ask yourself what you need to know in order to make the best decision.

When you’ve determined what you need to know don’t rely on your own speculations to fill in the answers. If you need to know what someone else thinks in order to make the most informed decision, ask them. Don’t just guess.

Now, to wrap this one up with a huge caveat. Lazy, uncaring, ignorance isn’t a trait you want. There is no famous philosopher named Mediocrates. There is nothing admirable about wallowing in the dark.

When in doubt, be wise–or at least act wise. Don’t speculate, just admit that you don’t know.

June 27, 2021
Who Gets To Tell You Who You Are?

This says all that needs to be said about success. You are who you decide to become, unless you give that away to someone else.

Seth Godin’s apropos and brilliant piece today, Identity and Ideas draws an important distinction and raises an important question. The distinction is that some people receive their identities from other’s ideas, while other’s identities don’t derive from a dictated ideological position. The latter are free to examine various ideas, modify as needed, and feel no threat to their identity. This raises the question: Who gets to tell you who you are?

Seth writes:

”One way to define our identity is to fall in love with an idea (often one that was handed to us by a chosen authority). Another is to refuse to believe our identity is embodied in an idea, and instead embrace a method for continually finding and improving our ideas.”
Seth Godin

I am in the latter camp. I hope that is the case for you. If it isn’t, who have you allowed to tell you who you are? Whose ideas of what your life means and of your place in the world have you embraced and adopted as your own? Or maybe you’ve convinced yourself that you are independently finding and improving your own ideas. But your unwillingness to confront and accept evidence that destroys your current views contradicts that notion.

Can you not see this is the height of insecurity? Maybe you’ve allowed someone to tell you who you are your entire life. You look for someone to tell you through a lifetime of habit and conditioning. You probably adopt and parrot every new thing you hear (as long as it comes from a charismatic source popular with your current circle of friends). Because those who get their identity from outside themselves can never escape the bondage of fear over what other people think. Even though these same people who couldn’t care less about you; except as another ideological clone reinforcing their own beliefs.

Is this too harsh? Maybe. And just maybe it isn’t harsh enough. After all, I’m not the one trying to tell you who you are.

May 31, 2021