NO MORE BS: Indifference

Sympathy v Empathy v ApathyMilitary commanders are taught there are two great sins in planning operations; one is waiting, and predictability and the other is indifference.  Today, business leaders are instructed well by academics about the problems with waiting to make a decision, failing to act, and the costs of blown opportunities from taking too long to make a decision.  But few have ever considered the costs of indifference.  I intend to close this gap in education, using some recent examples and some history to reflect why indifference is a corrosive acid on the souls of men.

Indifference

Indifference is all about a lack of interest, not having or showing concern, and refusing sympathy.  Webster has also referred to indifference as unimportant.  When discussing the sympathetic aspects of indifference, please remember, sympathy is part of the emotions of ruination.  Many people continue to become lost in showing empathy and sympathy when choosing not to emote or become involved in the feelings of others is a better course of action.  Lacking sympathy might not be a terrible thing in a particular circumstance and does not reflect indifference.

What is the distinction between choosing not to emote and indifference?

Not Passion's Slave - Emotions and ChoiceLet’s take Robert Solomon’s position that emotions are a choice, a judgment, and a social event. Indifference is not distinguishable from other emotions and remains a choice, a judgment, or a social event.  Except one is not left trying to distinguish between indifference as emotion and indifference as lacking interest or caring.  More to the point, if indifference was simply an emotion to choose, then indifference is apathy, and apathy is another emotion on the path to ruination.

Hence, there must be more to the concept of indifference to make the separation between indifference as emotion and indifference as an action.  Let us pause here for a moment mentally and keep one principle firmly in mind, indifference, or the activities that reflect indifference, are a choice, a decision, and judgment about the social situation.  Choices have natural consequences that cannot be escaped.  The consequences of choosing indifference cannot always be controlled or directly understood as lines of congruence from the choice of indifference to the consequences of indifference.  These principles remain valid for all emotional choices expressed by humans.  Worse, the valuation of the consequences can vary wildly from person to person, creating additional consequences that snowball into major social events quickly.

Emtional Investment CycleSolomon makes a classic point in tying indifference to defensive mechanisms used in choosing emotional interactions for social situations.  Indifference can reflect envy, resentment, hate, disdain, and the “opposite” of these emotions: love and respect—indifference embodying the individual’s psyche through emotional choices.  When angry, frustrated, or time-pressured, how many times has the words “I don’t care” slipped out as the position when at another time the decision would not have been indifferent?  Is the defensive aspect clear?

Please note, when using the term opposite, I am trying to be easily understood.  The problem when discussing emotions is that there are no clear-cut opposites to emotions.  For example, the opposite of light is dark; but light shades include darkness to set emotional states or moods.  Opposite always depends upon the context, e.g., the social situation of human interactions.  Another aspect of emotions is the transformation from one to another, the speed of transformation, and the social context forcing a change.  Thus, making distinctions between emotions remains ambiguous and always will depend upon context and the social environment.Apathy

Finally, please remember that positive and negative are valuations of consequences, not emotional choices.  The emotional choice will have consequences, and the social situation, the judgment, and the choice will be reflected in the consequences experienced.  The emotion itself cannot be judged without the consequences, and the valuation of the consequences is deeply personal.  Hence trying to characterize an emotion is simpleminded and detrimental to all aspects of emotional valuation.  The emotion cannot be evaluated or valued, but the consequences from that emotional choice must be considered and given value.  Does this make sense?

People seeking to control social situations employ emotional sophistry to plasticize the emotion and the consequence into weapons to force those they select to either come closer or move further away.  Where indifference is concerned, the aspects of defense remain the most influential aspect of emotional choices leading to action.  The cost and constraint of emotion are all found in the consequences of that emotional choice and social environment.  Defense mechanisms work to protect, but as the axiom goes, a good defense is supported by a good offense.  The best defensive drivers drive offensively and defensively, balancing the offense and defense to protect themselves, as a continuous string of decisions while driving.Plato 3

I realize this was a long explanation, but understanding the consequences of choosing to emote, choosing to be indifferent as a defensive position, and employing other emotions in social environments to judge others, are all connected emotionally speaking.  Remaining interconnected and the failure to describe these relationships does not produce the understanding for evaluating the situations around us properly.  Let me be clear, the difference between choosing to emote and indifference is the defensive aspect of indifference when applied to a social situation.

Indifference in Action

Consider the teenager who, when given a choice, screams, “I don’t care.”  When they calm down, who will care a great deal but are stuck inside their choice and consequence cycle because they chose to defend when they needed a different emotional response to a particular situation?  My wife, when we got married, discussed how to decorate the home.  I decided that the home looks and the decorations making a house a home were beyond my purview, realizing I have no taste in furnishings and am happy with bare essentials.  This decision has aggravated and grated on my wife for our entire marriage (20+ years), but I refuse to budge.Plato 2

I am not indifferent to what the house looks like, but I have no interest in the minutia of decorations and decorating.  Hence, my simplicity is not indifference, as my wife has judged, but a recognition that there are more important aspects to life than choosing colors and styles of curtains, where furniture goes, or how to light a room.  My consequence has been that sometimes I might not like her ideas but live with them due to the consequences of my choice to stay out of decorating decisions entirely.  I have also had to move furniture I did not particularly like because she prefers a style and shape.  My decision has also led to a host of other consequences.  Since I refuse to budge on helping to decorate, I remain indifferent to how the house looks and push all credit onto her while accepting the blame for anything out of place or undesired in her home.

WhyPublic examples of indifference abound; one of the most obvious was the Beer Summit.  President Obama’s indifference to police officers during the Henry Louis Gates arrest debacle in July 2009 reflected poorly in a socially political aspect for all his faults and all his other decisions.  Thus the “Beer Summit” was held to improve the appearances of indifference towards police by the sitting US President.  Except, the “Beer Summit” was as empty as the calories of the beer consumed for the next time a police controversy arose, the sitting US President went out of his way to blame police before all the facts were known.  Leading to the question, what is President Obama defending by showing indifference to police officers?

Another aspect of indifference has been the Federal Response to individual states legalizing cannabis, a trend that took off under President Obama.  The executive in charge, the sitting US President, reflected indifference towards states broadening the “state-approved legal” use of cannabis.  Was the sitting president indifferent due to a defensive position due to his history of drug use?  Are the stories true that President Obama smoked cannabis in the White House?  Is there a connection between indifference showed by the US President and the rise of states legalizing cannabis?

Question 3President Trump was criticized for caring too much about war zones and problems outside the United States, while the infrastructure crumbled and the poor suffered.  President Obama was criticized for his refusals to enforce “Red Lines” being crossed with impunity and where internationally illegal weapons of mass destruction were employed.  Which one was a reflection of indifference?  Why?  I am not getting into political discussions here; the topic is indifference, and recognizing indifference and the consequence from indifferent actions remains crucial to improving decision-making.  Both presidents inherited situations where American Troops were in harm’s way, and these troop conditions rightly took priority in decision-making short and long-term.  Yet, which president was indifferent?  Why?  Does indifference change solely because of political leanings?  Why?

President Biden was criticized for being indifferent to National Guard Troops sleeping in parking garages during his ascension and confirmation as US President in January and February 2021.  When the political appearances could no longer be sidestepped, token measures were taken to improve troop comforts.  What is President Biden defending where US Troops in the US Capitol are concerned?

Knowledge Check!Indifference surrounds us in every social situation, every day.  Do we understand the role indifference is currently playing in obstructing development, hampering growth, and destroying lives?  Since Feb. 2020, the globe has witnessed governments running away with stealing freedoms and liberties from the citizenry, issuing mandates and restrictions without due process, all because of a “health emergency.”  The indifference to science by the politicians stealing liberty has been deafening.  The indifference to the citizenry and the judiciary has also been deafening.  To fight indifference, we must first understand what we are witnessing and then address that indifference at the source.  We must realize our own indifference and determine why before we can begin to understand the larger applications of indifference and force change.

Reference

Solomon, R. C. (2007). Not passion’s slave: Emotions and choice [Kindle 6]. Buy your copy here: https://www.amazon.com/Not-Passions-Slave-Emotions-Passionate/dp/0195179781

© 2021 M. Dave Salisbury
All Rights Reserved
The images used herein were obtained in the public domain; this author holds no copyright to the images displayed.

Advertisement

NO MORE BS: M.I.C.E – The Driving Force for Politicians

ApathyM.I.C.E is an acronym I first discovered by reading Tom Clancy and representing Money, Ideology, Compromise, and Ego (MICE). Tom Clancy used this acronym for the reasons why spies become spies, I find MICE equally describes those seeking political office in democratically elected societies.  Frankly, I think it is time to shift the paradigm on how and why we select politicians to represent us.

Money

There is a lot of money buying influence in politics.  Interestingly, the money earned by a political representative is not the main reason for getting elected.  The money these representatives are looking for and desiring is the purchase of influence.  Consider Speaker Pelosi (D), 2018 she had assets of $257 Million, with $97 Million in liabilities, meaning that she has $1600 Million in assets.  Speaker Pelosi (D) makes $223,500 annually.  Pres. Biden has similar disparities between income and assets after liabilities.  Many of America’s most infamous politicians have the same disparity between income and assets after liabilities.  Purchasing influence is a massive business in politics.  Does anyone still remember all the influence-peddling the Clinton’s did and continue to do?  Even before they came to the White House, their influence-peddling was infamous!quote-mans-inhumanity-2

Ideology

Ideology, according to Webster, is “a system of ideas and ideals, especially one which forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy.”  What ideological processes define a Republican?  What ideological processes define a Democrat?  Are these ideological beliefs stable, or are they changing like dirty socks for clean socks?  What can you observe about how ideology predicts behavior in the politician?

These are serious questions, as too often we, the American Citizen voting, cannot tell the difference between a Republican and a Democrat.  Worse, how often is what is said on the campaign trail thrown away the second the vote totals indicate a win?  Sen. McCain (R) is a perfect example of this; his ideology and spinelessness led many of his constituents to ask why the difference between actions on the campaign trail and actions in political office.

Want to know how someone will act long-term; ask them to define their ideologies, for there is nothing better to predict behavior than ideology.  How do you spot a thief in a crowd; ask them where they stand on taking a pen from a cashier after signing a check.  Ideology is the penultimate method for predicting behavior, and not enough ideological emphasis is being placed upon politicians seeking office!Government Largess

Compromise

Speaking of Sen. McCain (R), he was a legend on compromising.  Unfortunately, Sen. McCain’s definition of a compromise included throwing the baby out with the bathwater.  Compromise officially is defined by Webster as a method of settling a dispute through mutual concession [emphasis mine]!  Each side makes concessions to reach an agreement that benefits both parties equally.  As a point of reference, it is often said that a good compromise leaves everyone mad and disappointed.  Yet, politicians continually abuse this word, manipulate their voters, and chaos ensues in the name of “compromise.”

Next time you hear a politician discussing compromising with the opposites on the side of the aisle, ask them what was given up reaching a compromise; if the giving was one-sided, it was NOT a compromise!  Take any recent legislation, and you will find no compromise, lots of hands getting greased to purchase influence, and a ton of abused and injured voters!Life Valued

Ego

The official psychological definition of ego is “the part of the mind that mediates between the conscious and the unconscious and is responsible for reality testing and a sense of personal identity.”  However, the only people using this definition are missing the point.  For the rest of the population, our definition of ego is much easier to understand.  The ego is a person’s image of their own self-importance, and where politicians are concerned, narcissism (a thoroughly overinflated ego) describes a politician perfectly!  Ego has been synonymous with self-conceit forever, and herein lies the problem where political leaders have been selected for too long.

Detective 4Canada’s President Justin Trudeau, Germany’s Chancellor Angela Merkel, US President’s Barack Obama, and Joe Biden, France’s President Nicolas Sarkozy, and so many other world politicians fill the ego bucket with self-conceit and narcissism that we could run out of ink trying to print a complete list!  Therein lies the answer, those desiring to hold public office should understand that ego plays a role in defining ideology, and ideology predicts future behavior.  The natural order contains natural consequences, for these bitter self-conceited people hold onto power long after their ideas have turned to destruction, the harm they cause has reached epic proportions.  The citizenry is numb from all the problems created by the egotistic politician.

While the book, authored by John Steinbeck, “Of Mice and Men,” has little to do with this post, it does proclaim this post’s sentiment.  There are MICE, and there are Men.  MICE who desire to be controllers of their fellow men and men and women who resist and continue to strive to see justice done in their name by elected representatives.  None of those for whom MICE applies should be allowed to hold elected office.  The only way to ensure a change occurs is for voters to demand more information on character, ideology, and ego and watch carefully for selling influence.

Millstone of Designed IncompetenceIt is past time for people to gather, stand, and insist upon better government representatives, including improved behavior from current sitting representatives.  I weep for Germany’s neighborhoods destroyed by Merkle’s policies.  Canada not only deserves better representation but cannot afford the government blight thrust upon her.  France, Greece, you will have to change, fundamentally change, or your countries will be lost to history as failed experiments.  America, what can I say that has not been said before; you need to understand what a Republic is, why a Republic is better than a Democracy, and you need citizens to awake and arise to the power they possess in cutting the strings to the millstone about your neck.  The millstone of government is killing you, and if you die, the world will be lost!

© 2021 M. Dave Salisbury
All Rights Reserved
The images used herein were obtained in the public domain; this author holds no copyright to the images displayed.

NO MORE BS: Diversity, Equality, Inclusion, and Assimilation

Public Service Announcement:  The following article is probably longer than desired.  However, I am trying to cover a lot of basics where tyrants have invaded and are attempting to gain control.

LookLet me be perfectly clear; I do not care what you look like, your handicaps, abilities, or disabilities, or frankly, anything other than how you do your job and live your life to not interfere with other people’s freedom.  Hence, when the discussion inevitably turns to diversity, equality, and inclusion (DEI) in the workplace, I fully believe that you are the number one driver of equality and inclusion in the workplace and society.  You choose to become offended if you feel not included at work.  You decide to feel marginalized, and in choosing to feel marginalized, your choices and consequences are solely yours.  Except, you demand your consequences be the problem of the business and community.  That behavior is childish, selfish, and reveals your ignorance!

Does discrimination occur, absolutely; but discrimination does not disappear magically when a diversity, equality, and inclusion workplace initiative is launched!  Discrimination does not disappear because someone passed a law.  Your attitude, actions, and decisions are all choices you make that come with natural consequences for you.  You drive your ability to be included the majority of the time.  Individual choice and consequence are the reality never spoken of during DEI initiatives.  Failure to include personal choice, assimilation, and consequence remains a glaring hole in DEI training topics.

quote-mans-inhumanityAssimilation

Assimilation is the act of assimilating, and assimilating is all about taking in and understanding something fully.  The Borg from Star Trek gave assimilation a bad name.  Worse, some people erroneously proclaim that when you assimilate, you give up pieces of yourself.  Assimilation is all about taking the best of you, adding to the best of us, and making the whole stronger than the individual parts.  Yet, every DEI training I have been forced to attend has been pessimistic about assimilation and assimilating into a stronger whole.  Assimilating is also about absorbing and integrating into a wider society or culture.

For example, a balanced diet includes non-favorite foods, but those foods are good for you.  Your body assimilates the good and the bad foods consumed, eat enough poor nutritional foods, and the body suffers physical and mental health problems.  Eat too many good foods, and your body will assimilate foods differently and possibly begin to reject certain foods.  Hence, balance is needed to properly diet and strengthen the body.  Extremes in food, like attitudes, are bad for the body as a whole.  The same choice and consequence cycles that drive the assimilation of foods into the body are the same choices and consequences when applied to workplace assimilation into existing cultures.  Extremes are hazardous to health!

Editorial - Educational TruthDiversity

Diversity is all about variety and including variety in a social environment.  Diversity has been stretched to become a practice of including people of various backgrounds, ethnicities, and other societies into a greater community.  The problem with the plastic second definition of diversity is the assumption that a variety of different people are automatically not wanted or desired in the social environment currently.  History has never been kind to different people in a society.  This is true of ethnicities, cultures, disabilities, and abilities, and nothing will change discrimination in any organization made up of human individuals.

A friend invited me to a bar; I was not accepted into that bar’s culture as I am a veteran and do not share other lifestyle choices of the bar’s dominant culture.  Discrimination happens; if you choose to become offended by the selection of diversity in a community, that is your problem.  I did not become offended at the other patrons in a bar and demand that they accept me, it did not matter to me one way or the other if I was accepted or not, and this should be the same stance everyone should be taking!

Life ValuedEquality

Of all the terms we are discussing, equality is by far the most plasticized, twisted, deformed, and dangerously laden with unnecessary baggage!  Equality is all about a state of being equal.  Equality comes from the “Rule of Law” and the application of “The Rule of Law” for all in society.  Except, equality is not what is desired in the term equality when speaking of DEI, but “Social Equality.”

Social equality is a state of affairs in which all people within a specific society or isolated group have the same status in certain respects, including civil rights, freedom of speech, property rights, and equal access to certain social goods and services.  Essentially, social equality is all about twisting “The Rule of Law” into exceptions for specific socially acceptable groups; instead of equality, social equality is all about bringing all onto unequal grounds before the law.  There is no equality in social equality, ever!

Andragogy - The PuzzleInclusion and Discrimination

Inclusion is all about the practice of being included.  That’s it, the whole enchilada; inclusion is all about being included.  However, what does it mean to be included; here is where ideas like fit, temperament, desire, and choice and consequences enter a social group, community, or organization.  Where DEI is concerned, inclusion is all about shifting the margins, dropping the individual decisions, and forcing all to be lumped together regardless of personal desire.  Worse, inclusion is forced with the power of law without regard; hence all are injured in an attempt to be “socially inclusive.”

Discrimination is the unfair or prejudicial treatment of people and groups based on characteristics such as race, gender, age, or sexual orientation.  Except, discrimination happens all the time, and efforts to be more “inclusive” have done nothing to reduce discrimination.  I was hired for an inside sales position with a 90-day trial period.  My wife dropped off some equipment I had left at home one day.  The bosses learned my wife is older than I am; from that day to the end of my trial, when I was released without cause, the attitude towards me was significantly and tangibly different.  Skin color, ethnicity, gender choice, sexual bedroom choices, and every other possible thing can be the source of discrimination, and nothing will change this facet of human behavior.

Admitting that discrimination is happening is not being defeatist, nor am I suggesting that discrimination laws should be scrapped.  I am relating a truth about human behavior and why the law cannot dictate moral behaviors!  Demanding inclusion does nothing to reach the core roots of the problems with discrimination in society.  Which is another truth for certain that must be recognized and discussed.

Andragogy - LEARNExclusion

Exclusion is the opposite of inclusion but also represents a risk.  The risk of exclusion is found in the legal arguments from discrimination, not the risk of being omitted.  More, exclusion has stricter requirements than elements of inclusion ever will.  For example, insurance policies have specific criteria that exclude coverage as a means for controlling risk.  The same thinking on insurance policies is the same as what occurs in social environments when a person is actively excluded.

For example, in the US Army, my platoon sergeant and my squad leader had a group of people they were comfortable with both on and off duty.  I was not welcome because I hit more of the exclusion criteria than the inclusion criteria.  I did not enjoy sports, wasn’t a drinker, a womanizer, and several other items.  Off duty, this wasn’t that big of a deal.  On duty, this exclusion caused me tremendous problems as I learned to be a soldier.  Still, the choices for inclusion or exclusion came down to preference and accountability.  As the First Sergeant and the Commanding Officer allowed these discriminatory practices to exist, I had no right to complain, and my mistakes were my own.  It was a difficult period in my life, but I survived and was stronger for the challenge.

Literary FiendIndividual Identity

Who are you?  What makes you an individual identity in a socially expanding group?  The United Nations has declared your culture, gender, sexual preferences, and race are all personal choices as part of a unique identity created, changed, and designed for and by the person making the choices.  What the UN fails to mention are the consequences.

In the US Navy, I served with a woman who was as white as the freshly driven snow, but she identified as black.  According to the United Nations, this is acceptable.  This sailor spoke, acted, and identified culturally as black even though she was white, blonde hair, blue-eyed, and the antithesis of cultural black identifying characteristics.  I am not one to judge and, frankly, could have cared less how she identified herself.  But the command through a total fit when she showed up to morning quarters with dredlocks.

Remember, your identity is your choice.  I care less about your identity than I do about a fly.  How you work, what you do, and your respect for others’ rights matters to me.  But, do not make your choices to be an individual affect my life.  Do not thrust your identity into my world and demand respect; I do not care about your identity!

CourageGroup Identity

Group identity is the melding and assimilation of identities and behaviors needed to work together effectively.  That’s it; the whole casserole!  Take any sports team, any sport, and you will find the same in winners and losers, those who choose to assimilate the group identity gain success.  Those who refuse to assimilate will lose every time.  Pick a sports movie; here are a couple of suggestions where you will see for yourself the truth of the power in assimilation:

        • We Are Marshall
        • Friday Night Lights
        • Glory Road
        • Hoosiers
        • Invincible
        • Miracle
        • Radio

Group identity requires sacrificing individual identity for a cause bigger than oneself.  Yet, for DEI training, when is this ever discussed?  Winning business organizations cannot be successful without individuals sacrificing their individual identity for group success.  How have we forgotten this rule of nature?

Lever UpSubordinate Culture

Subordinate cultures, micro-networks, ol’ boys network, whatever you call it, subordinate cultures are designed around those who refuse to assimilate and make their choices the problems of managers and leaders.  Consider those who hyphenate their cultures, Indian-American, Russio-Chinese, Irish-Israeli, etc.  You will find someone who refuses to assimilate and cannot understand the need to be whole culturally and who could be more without the hyphen.

In the US Navy, I met more than ten first-generation Americans from Jamaica, Africa, Cuba, Brazil, Puerto-Rico, and other places.  Not a single one of them would consider hyphenating their status as American.  Yet, too often, people who have been in America for multiple generations feel a need to hyphenate to identify themselves.  Why establish a subordinate culture?  A subordinate culture is assumed to be lower in status than a dominant culture.  The subordinate culture is treated of lesser importance, deemed under the control of something else, and all because of the hyphenation.  Is being subordinate desired; if so, why?

President AdamsDominant Culture

The dominant culture is the most powerful or influential culture in an organization.  Essentially, more people assimilated and sacrificed for the success that the organization is enjoying than refused.  Yet, in DEI training, dominant culture carries negative baggage and is not allowed as it could be misunderstood.  Seriously, the concept peddled in this training blew my mind.  What happens if the LGBTQ+ community became the dominant culture in a country; would it be accused of the same claptrap the LGBTQ+ community currently claims they suffer?

Why did Rome fail; they lost the “Rule of Law,” and the subordinate cultures took power and could not unify the majority of people when invaders came.  One of the greatest Republics in the history of man is responsible for improving millions of people’s lives.  Failed and fell an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle over the same issues every single business and democratic country in the world is facing right now.

Grit is a MarathonIndividual Choice

I was part of a first-day introduction activity for new hires (2016), and one of the new hires made an individual choice to identify themselves in the following manner, “I am John Smith, I am non-binary queer with a passion for anal sex.”  What does this have to do with the position they were hired to fill?  Which audience member in a professional setting needed or wanted this information?  The declaration automatically put the entire audience on the defensive; the Human Resources representative was placed into a difficult position and called a 10-minute break to regain composure and finish the introductions.

How you choose is your business!  I will respect your ability to choose as you desire; keep your choices to yourself, as I will keep my preferences to myself.  Believe it or not, we can work together really well without disclosing our personal choices and lifestyles outside of employment.  But, when you make your preferences my problem, I will deal with them the same as I deal with that pesky fly, ignore!

Content of their CharacterConsequences

Self-awareness, curiosity, and empathy are what I was told today that will make DEI work, and through learning and unlearning, DEI can make an organization stronger.  I agree the learning is vital, curiosity is always a valuable tool, self-awareness is important, but empathy is dangerous, divisive, and deadly!  Failure to recognize the need for assimilation and sacrifice places the burden onto people who have enough on their plate with their responsibilities in their work.

quote-mans-inhumanity-2Imperative to the improvement and liberation of thought and the power of people is the eradication of litigated moral behavior.  We, the individuals who make up our communities and businesses, must recognize the 800# gorilla in the room, mandating inclusion, refusing assimilation, denying the need to sacrifice individual identity for group success; these must be enshrined into our cultures, again!  Let us embrace these truths and design our “Liberty FIRST Cultures” around a single “Rule of Law,” where people are respected and freedom blossoms!

© 2021 M. Dave Salisbury
All Rights Reserved
The images used herein were obtained in the public domain; this author holds no copyright to the images displayed.

NO MORE BS: Apathy, Empathy, and Sympathy – Chapter 2

Never Give Up!It never seems to change; the powers that think they run the world want everyone drinking the Kool-Aid of emotional entanglement.  August 2020, I wrote the first chapter on apathy, empathy, and sympathy; unfortunately, the events of this past week have shown that a return to this topic is both necessary and urgently needed.  What worries me is that too many still feel they must share emotions to prove their care towards something or someone else, an idea that is 100% false!

What is Apathy?

ApathyApathy is all about a lack of enthused concern.  Being apathetic is a choice to show no concern, emotional connection to an issue, or interest.  The choice to be apathetic is personal and does not indicate that a person is heartless; simply that the person being apathetic is making different choices where emotion is concerned on a topic.  Choosing a different emotional response to a situation is a good thing and reflects intelligence in understanding emotional pitfalls and emotional problems leading to problems and chaos.

What is Empathy?

Empathy v ApathyEmpathy, of all the emotional pitfalls, empathy is the most devious of this list’s emotional responses.  Empathy is all about acting like you understand another person’s emotions, and you have a personal desire to share those emotions.  Empathy is fake; empathy is a choice one exercises in the attempt to control a person or situation through emotion.  Being empathetic is a skill set learned as a manner of defense or, for the more nefarious, to control others.  Empathy is nothing more than faking concern.  By encouraging empathy, a person with authority is looking to steal control over enough people to contain a group through that group’s emotional connections.  By choosing to be empathetic, control over the cognizant emotional choices is given away to someone else for momentary social gains.  Shift the social environment even slightly, and empathy becomes foolish.  Still, people will continue to look for something to emote about, even after being caught feeling ridiculous about being empathetic for social gain.

What is Sympathy?

Sympathy v Empathy v ApathySympathy is a process of coming to a common feeling in a social setting or group.  The emotional pathway journeyed by people or groups to feel the same emotions for someone else’s emotional state.  Sympathy is the most dangerous of the emotional tools on this list, not for the one experiencing the sorrow or misfortune, but for those who jump in with the person feeling the sadness or experiencing adversity.  Understand, the sympathetic person attracts other sympathetic people, like moths to a flame or lemmings to a cliff.  I have met people who were so sympathetic with another person in my travels that they thought they had contracted cancer, become pregnant, or had an addiction to dangerous drugs.

Examples of runaway emotional hysteria.

Detective 4The 800#-Gorilla in the news is COVID-19; the corporate media is using sympathy and empathy to garner support for the government to continue the lockdowns, the mask mandates, the economic decline, and to refuse and refute those governors in the U.S. who want to return to business as usual pre-COVID.  Sympathy for the dead, empathy for the families left behind, sympathy for those in hospitals, empathy for those first responders struggling with COVID cases, and so much more.  The logic is never equal to the emotional marionette strings, and heaven forbid someone approaches the media with facts.  Want more proof that the media is only interested in the emotional gamesmanship of sympathy and empathy; look to historical records of Ebola in the US, Swine-flu, Avian-Flu, SARS, MERS, annual flu outbreaks, and other viral outbreaks.  You will find headlines blaring a need to sympathize, empathize, and emote in a specified manner, or you are considered heartless, uncaring, and a host of -isms that make no sense, except to those demanding an emotional response.

Consider the “influencer culture” that has gripped the world for more than two decades as social media has swept the world.  In case you missed the definition of “influencer culture,” it is all about people with above-average influence on an audience.  The best influencers have built their reputation online for being an expert in some particular niche or are cashing in on their popularity through sports, politics, or Hollywood. They are similar to key opinion leaders but usually have gained their reputation more informally through their online activity.  Consider the emotional diatribes regarding Lady Gaga’s dogs being stolen.  Heck, I don’t even know who or what a “Lady Gaga” is, but I know a dog theft is not that big a news item.  Yet, how many days has your newsfeed been filled with this story?  Worse, BBC and Time have run follow-on stories about dog thefts and tried to raise “public awareness” of a problem, demanding empathy and sympathy from the audience due to influencer culture.

Baby Blues - Good AnswerI saw a headline in my newsfeed that had me laughing, “What the U.S. owes Iran?” authored by Ryan Cooper.  My answer was first a low-yield nuclear bomb, at about 150’-agl, and a smile!  My second answer is not fit to print.  My third and fourth answers were similar, but to have the author advocating for the fraudulent President Biden to “budge first” was an absolute farce!  Still, even on this topic, the author begs the audience to have sympathy and empathy for Iran’s citizens and political structure before America and the rest of the world, who have been victims of Iran’s tyranny and terrorism over the last several decades.  Is the pattern clear; when emotions of empathy and sympathy override common-sense and logic, control of the audience is no longer individually held but collectively controlled.

ParadoxMy newsfeed has been clogged by some spoiled brats who fled a palace in the United Kingdom for fame and fortune in America and some stupid interview with Oprah.  Beyond that, I have no clue what their pampered beef is and could care less.  Yet, this entire week has been filled with demands from the crown for sympathy and empathy, cries for sympathy, and empathy for the runaway pampered couple in California.  As well as cries for Oprah who is not a big enough girl to stand criticizing memes and people who use her as a meme are “digital blackfacing.”  Digital blackfacing, what a plastic term of useless indignation which is masquerading as a call for sympathy and empathy.

How do people move forward?

The following are suggestions; I employ them for my own sanity.  I make my own choices and live with the consequences, and I urge you to consider the same:

      1. Restrict the media flow into your life. I do not watch TV, listen to the radio, or allow any specific corporate media channel to infest my digital devices or computer.  I have five specific news provider applications, but it has taken a lot of time and effort to stop being a news junkie!Not Passion's Slave - Emotions and Choice
      2. Robert Solomon wrote, “Not Passion’s Slave: Emotions and Choice.” Make some time to read this book.  I am not saying everyone has to follow everything Solomon claims; I am saying that being more informed about the role of emotions and conscious choices is empowering, sanctioning, and liberating.Emtional Investment Cycle
      3. Are you aware of your emotional investments? I have two people I respect, but they hold opposing views and emotional investments.  Both have grown children, but one allows their children space to act as independent agents.  The other tries to be a helicopter parent for the kids who now have kids.  Worse, the helicopter parent cannot catch the hint that the kids do not want anything to do with their parent.  The helicopter parent is so emotionally involved that they have physical health problems from the emotional wasteland’s stress and anxiety between the kids and the parent.  Thus, I ask, do you know where your emotional investments are?  What is your return on investment for emotionally investing?

Image - Eagle & FlagI promise as you review and reduce your emotional investments, you will experience a feeling of liberation like you have never known before.  Stress levels drop, time becomes available for other activities, and a more conscious choice of emotional investing makes you a better person to be around.  Stop giving away your emotional liberty to those who would control and destroy you, be they children, friends, employment, media, politics, etc.; you can be free of emotional chains.

© 2021 M. Dave Salisbury
All Rights Reserved
The images used herein were obtained in the public domain; this author holds no copyright to the images displayed.

Apathy, Empathy, and Sympathy: The Emotions of Ruination

Of all the titles I have been branded as a professional, one that holds the most truth is that I am heartless.  I do not share your emotional choices; thus, to you, I am heartless, and I will not invest my time to dissuade you otherwise.  Emotional outbursts have somehow become popular, and it is my intent to reduce the amount of emotional blather found in the workplace, as an extension of real emotional intelligence.

Empathy v ApathyApathy is all about a lack of enthused concern.  Being apathetic is a choice to show no concern, emotional connection to an issue, or interest.  The choice to be apathetic is personal and does not indicate that a person is heartless; simply, that the person being apathetic is making different choices where emotion is concerned on a topic.

Empathy, of all the emotional pitfalls empathy, is the most devious of the emotional tools on this list.  Empathy is all about acting like you understand the emotions of another person, and you have a personal desire to share in those emotions.  Empathy is fake; empathy is a choice one exercises in an attempt to control a person or situation through emotion.  Being empathetic is a skill set learned as a manner of defense or, for the more nefarious, to control others.  Empathy is nothing more than faking concern, justifying the emoter’s emotional responses.

Sympathy is a process of coming to a common feeling.  The emotional pathway journeyed by people or groups, to feel the same sorrow for someone else’s misfortune.  Sympathy is the most dangerous of the emotional tools on this list, not for the one experiencing the sorrow or misfortune, but for those who jump in with the person feeling the sorrow or experiencing misfortune.  Understand, the sympathetic person attracts other sympathetic people, like moths to a flame, or lemmings to a cliff.

Sympathy v Empathy v ApathyHere is the problem with all three emotional tools above, they are emotional responses to external situations.  Jean-Paul Sartre is quoted thus:

For the idea which I have never ceased to develop is that in the end one is always responsible for what is made of one.  Even if one can do nothing else besides assume this responsibility.”

Robert Solomon made Sartre’s quote above more meaningful when a person considers that, “Emotions involve social narratives as well as physical responses, and an analysis of emotions is an account of our being-in-the-world.”  The freedom to “make of one” does not include showing no emotion, nor does it mean that one must partake of every emotional current that swirls and eddies around a person during a typical day.  Solomon continued by empathetically stating, and supporting that, “Emotions are not occurrences and do not happen to us… emotions are rational and purposive rather than irrational and disruptive, are very much like actions, and that we choose an emotion as we choose a course of action” [Emphasis mine].

Therein is the crux of the entire argument, the summum bonum (the ultimate goal according to which values and priorities are established in an ethical system) if you will where apathy, empathy, and sympathy are concerned; emotions are as easily selected.  Emotions are as purposefully chosen as the clothes we wear, the food we eat, and every other course of action undertaken.  Emotional selection is always cognitive, and represents a system of beliefs and personal desires, which includes appetites, hopes, expectations of reward, behavioral standard programming, and has as a core an object to emote about.

Girls ListeningConsider the announcement that someone’s cat has died.  What does society say one should do in this situation; take visual cues and match the emotions of the person whose cat died to the environmental situation, and respond in a similar manner.  Feel sad the cat died; why it was not your cat that died.  What if the owner is feeling relief because the cat had suffered from health or physical defects; do we still emote sadness?  What if the owner inherited the cat and is relieved they never have to clean the cat box again, step in wet hairballs, or take as much allergy medicine; do we emote sadness when the owner emotes joy?  Thus, one can more easily see, and understand that emotions are a choice, and empathy and sympathy are emotional traps.

Carrying the dead cat analogy one step further, what if the owner is only reporting their cat died to gain attention?  Emotional responses from others in the social environment feed the control this person now has over the group.  If the cat owner reporting a cat has died uses the situation to get out of mundane tasks, is this acceptable, warranted, or allowed; if so, the control through emotional responses is complete, and the behavior will repeat.  Hence the danger and deviousness of empathy and sympathy as emotional tools in social settings.  Solomon reports on this topic that the cognitive nature of emotions allows for pride to remain intact.  Thus, we conclude that emotions are formed around beliefs and judgments, just like the atomic particle must have neutrons, protons, and electrons.

By comparing emotional creation to the atomic particle, it is not reducing the human emotion to a mathematical formula, nor does it demean any true emotional response to a situation.  The comparison is simply acknowledging the complex nature and elements that are required when the emotion is selected.

Pride 2Pride, is an interesting element of emotional response and centers around self-elevation and enmity (being actively opposed or hostile to someone). The proud person will say, I am better than someone else and be violently opposed to any influencers who are perceived to threaten the superiority of the person emoting pride.  The proud person will always use emotions as a tool for controlling others, which is one of the most compelling arguments against the current business fad, emotional intelligence.  Pride, with its underlying core of enmity, is the root of the common conception of, and popularity for, emotional intelligence. Real emotional intelligence recognizes the cognitive, judgmental, and social aspects of emotions, and works to control oneself.

My best friend has no appreciation for jokes, puns, wordplay, etc.; in fact, my best friend has such an interesting sense of humor, one can often ask why they laughed and receive a logical and cognitively reasoned response.  Yet, my best friend has never been called heartless, unemotional, or the reverse emotional, apathetic, empathetic, or sympathetic.  People interact with my friend and always leave knowing they were listened to, cared for, and appreciated for the good they perform in the world.  My friend has spoken with governors and politicians, homeless people, the sick and afflicted, the whole and happy, and all are treated equally.  How does my friend do this; buy not taking the easy road of emotional connection, but forming a truer relationship through logic, as a cognitive choice.

CourageConsider the anger people chose over the death of Rayshard Brooks earlier this year in Georgia.  Many people chose to be angry and then expressed that anger in burning down a Wendy’s restaurant franchise, rioting, lootings, clogging traffic, stopping commerce, and other actions considered acceptable expressions of anger by the media who reported the events.

In no specific order, the following must be recognized in the Rayshard Brooks event.  First, the expressions of anger were chosen and were considered acceptable by a third party in a social environment.  Second, the actions (visible signs of anger) were an outward display of an inner emotion that was also chosen cognitively as a response to a situation (Rayshard Brooks being shot).  Third, the third-party involved, the media, expected to see these types of actions to justify their time in reporting the incident.  By being a vocal third-party, cheerleaders, if you will, the third-party fed the expected response.  This accelerated and expanded the violence and other deprivations, the same as what occurs in any sports contest where fans are invited to watch and participate vicariously through cheering their team on.

The problem with using my friend’s pattern of living, where the same anger could have been communicated but without all the violence, looting, theft, destruction of private property, and a better community would have ensued, is that of control.  The media would not have reported this event because they could not be a vocal and invested third-party feeding the emotional actions and receiving a return on their investment of time and other resources.  Thus, added to the emotional atomic particle analogy, are the elements of social acceptance, social expectation, and a vocal third-party to justify the actions taken in the name of the emotion granting those actions acceptability.

On a smaller, and thus more socially acceptable scale, the same can be witnessed every day, where the justification for emotional responses, is granted by a third-party expressing sympathy or empathy for those emoting.  Leading to a question, what does the third-party gain from justifying another person’s emotional responses; the power to control.  The emoting person will return to the third-party for justification after each emotional outburst for approval until the third-party deems the actions are no longer acceptable at that given period.

Emotional OutburstFurther emotional outbursts and increased levels of emotional criminology might occur later.  Still, at the moment, those actions have reached the limit of justification and the emoter will choose differently to gain favor and approval from the third-party.  As witnessed in the Missouri riots that spawned the political group “Black Lives Matter (BLM).”  Further, the third-party that controls the justification can turn-on and turn-off those emoting at will, by telling them how they should be responding to a given situation.  The third-party possesses considerable power through the justification of emotional outbursts, the same influence as exerted by an owner or a league over a sports team.

Thus, the paths and dangers of emotion.  Hence one can see the connections between emotions as a choice, a judgment, and a tool.  The sword of emotions is more dangerous to the wielder than to those affected by the emotional outburst, for those wielding emotions are never free of the control-justification cycle, and will remain subservient until they individually cognitively choose different emotions and emotional responses to social situations.

The danger in America right now is that of a vocal and invested third-party, and the justified actions of the minority by the third-party for political ends.  The overabundance of emotions, emotional responses, which include apathy, empathy, and sympathy, and the deprecation of logic and reasoned responses, are doing significant harm to the society called America.  Too much emotion is driving road rage incidents, mobs, destruction of private property, looting, theft, and so much more.  The solution is two-fold, not in any particular order of priority:

  1. Hold the vocal third-party accountable for the actions their minions are taking.
  2. Recognize the cognitive power in choosing emotional responses differently as an individual.

America can heal from these events and be stronger for it, provided we first capture our emotional responses, and eradicate the cheerleading section who grants justification for emotional outbursts not tolerated in children.

Not Passion's Slave - Emotions and ChoiceFor more on the connection between emotion and choice, please read Solomon’s book, “Not Passion’s Slave: Emotions and Choice.”  It is a masterpiece of logic and aids the cognitive person in choosing their emotions more purposefully and intentionally.

© Copyright 2020 – M. Dave Salisbury
The author holds no claims for the art used herein, the pictures were obtained in the public domain, and the intellectual property belongs to those who created the pictures.
All rights reserved.  For copies, reprints, or sharing, please contact through LinkedIn https://www.linkedin.com/in/davesalisbury/.