Short Film: The Human Cost of War

The tragedies of war have been is endlessly discussed, debated, and lamented about since the dawn of humanity. But in this collaborative short film presented by The Atlantic, photojournalist Kate Brooks teams up with the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) to add yet another powerful and poignant contribution to our understanding of warfare.

In this short film, producers Leandro Badalotti and Simon Schorno powerfully weave together an interview with the photographer and images from over the course of her career. Brooks discusses the motivation behind her work, the moral dilemmas photojournalists face, and the importance of documenting the non-military lives that are affected by these wars. “One of the things that I love about the greater Middle East is that it’s the birthplace of ancient civilizations and world religions”, says Brooks, “but over the past decade it’s become a region of rubble and broken lives”. While many of the photographs can be difficult to view, the film serves as an ever-important reminder of the consequences of war, and the accompanying cycle of violence that many politicians seem to forget.

The film is well worth nine minutes of your time, so check it out here. You can visit Brooks’ website here, or producer Badalotti’s here, for more great work.

The Power of Stoic Indifference

The truth is, indifference really is a power, selectively applied, and living in such a way is not only eminently possible, with a conscious adoption of certain attitudes, but facilitates a freer, more expansive, more adventurous mode of living. Joy and grief are still there, along with all the other emotions, but they are tempered – and, in their temperance, they are less tyrannical.

— Lary Wallace, “Why Stoicism is one of the best mind-hacks ever“, Aeon

If you want to better your understanding of one of the world’s most enduring and influential philosophies, then read the rest of the article here. It dispels the myth that Stoicism is an apathetic and dispassionate mindset, and unveils the versatility of the Stoic approach to almost every circumstance. Even slaves and prisoners of war have been counted among its adherents and promoters.

The real hero of Stoicism, most Stoics agree, is the Greek philosopher Epictetus.

He’d been a slave, which gives his words a credibility that the other Stoics, for all the hardships they endured, can’t quite match. He spoke to his pupils, who later wrote down his words. These are the only words we know today as Epictetus’, consisting of two short works, the Enchiridion and the Discourses, along with some fragments. Among those whom Epictetus taught directly is Marcus Aurelius (another Stoic philosopher who did not necessarily expect to be read; his Meditations were written expressly for private benefit, as a kind of self-instruction).

Among those Epictetus has taught indirectly is a whole cast of the distinguished, in all fields of endeavour. One of these is the late U.S. Navy Admiral James Stockdale. A prisoner of war in Vietnam for seven years during that conflict, he endured broken bones, starvation, solitary confinement, and all other manner of torture. His psychological companion through it all were the teachings of Epictetus, with which he had familiarised himself after graduating from college and joining the Navy, studying philosophy at Stanford University on the side. He kept those teachings close by in Vietnam, never letting them leave his mind even when things were at their most dire. Especially then. He knew what they were about, those lessons, and he came to know their application much better than anyone should have to.

Of course, you do not have to be a POW or human chattel to appreciate the merits of Stoicism. No matter your lifestyle or circumstances, the Stoic response is applicable. Difficult to maintain, yes, but nonetheless beneficial and life affirming.  Continue reading

Think Like a Philosopher With Daniel Dennett

Big Think has a collection of five short videos featuring Daniel Dennett, a renowned philosopher and cognitive scientist who addresses how humans can be better thinkers — and thus better people. They offer a quick and digestible guide to avoiding logical pitfalls and exploring the world with more clarity. If you can spare a little less than thirty minutes, I highly recommend checking them out by clicking the above hyperlink.

Feel free to share your thoughts below.

Wikipedia’s Rival, And What It Teaches Us About Expanding Human Knowledge

As many of you know, I am a big fan of, and regular contributor to, Wikipedia. I love it as much for its immense breadth information as for its ambitious mission to help make the entirely of human knowledge accessible to all. But I also absolutely love another website with a similarly audacious goal; the only encyclopedia that actually gives Wikipedia a run for its money when it comes to being an accessible and reliable source: the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

Spanning almost 1,500 entries, the SEP manages a respectable one million views a month, which as Quartz writer Nikhil Sonnad notes, is quite an achievement, “given how many entries there are with titles like Tibetan epistemology and philosophy of language or Peirce’s theory of signs.” According to the American Library Association, it is “comparable in scope, depth and authority” to the biggest philosophy encyclopedias in print. And did I mention that it is free?

Most crucially, the SEP has managed to accomplish the one thing that Wikipedia struggles with most of all: being a consistent and reliable source on all the topics it covers (although in fairness, Wikipedia spans a lot more pages and materials — close to five million in its English edition alone). Continue reading

The Philosophy of Albert Camus

Open Culture, an excellent source on intellectual and educational media, has an excellent article on French absurdist philosopher Albert Camus, one of my all-time favorite figures. Camus has greatly influenced my approach to life, addressing the very common modern problem of finding happiness and meaning in a seemingly uncaring world.

Among the great videos featured in the article is one by philosopher Alain de Botton, whose School of Life project is an excellent resource on all sorts of relevant social, moral, and philosophical topics. It offers a pretty great rundown of Camus’ life and philosopher in under ten minutes.

I find Camus’ solution to existential challenges to be spot on. Life may be meaningless, and the universe cold and unloving, but so what? That is all the more reason to live this one life we have to the fullest, to make the most of our hopes, dreams, relationships, and experiences. Camus presents a rare beacon of hope and encouragement in what is an often cynical and despairing quest for meaning. What do you think?

To see more great videos on other philosophers and ideas, visit the School of Life’s YouTube channel here.

Teaching Philosophy to Children

I have shared arguments for why philosophy should be made a greater part of public life, including primary school curricula. But what would teaching kids philosophy look like? Would it really be feasible for such young and still-developing minds? Freelance filmmaker and philosophy teacher Giacomo Esposito thinks it is both desirable and perfectly manageable to teach philosophy to primary school children.

A member of The Philosophy Foundation, which advocates for and facilitates philosophy courses in school, he makes his case in The Guardian, first by outlining how he goes about it.

…While the number of jobs with the word “philosophy” in their title may be limited, the skills and techniques I learned at university have continued to benefit me since I left – hence why the idea of teaching them to children appealed.

The sessions I run usually begin with a story or short “stimulus” which draws on a traditional philosophical problem, but reframes it to make it more engaging for a younger audience. The story then ends with a question, and a discussion ensues. Throughout the class, I try to take a backseat; I’m there to help draw out the children’s thoughts, but it’s really for them to decide where the discussion goes and, crucially, what they think. In fact, rather than teaching philosophy, a more accurate description of my job is “doing” philosophy with children.

And contrary to popular belief, children are far better suited to embracing and understanding philosophy than their ages would suggest. Indeed, the subject is a natural fit. Continue reading

The Need To Re-Think Capitalism

Hedge fund manager and philanthropist Paul Tudor Jones II challenges American businesses to incorporate “justness” and ethics into their corporate model. A self-described lover of capitalism, he believes that the economic system has lost its way and is becoming corrupted by greed and a lack of social responsibility — hardly a novel observation, but definitely an interesting one to hear from a wealthy beneficiary of said system.

His ten minute TED Talk below is highly informative and dense with charts and data showing just how much the nation’s business elites have become out of touch and self-serving.

Jones II’s message appeals to both self-interest and compassion: his contention is not only that it is more ethical to utilize vast profits to do more social good — through corporate charity, better wages, etc. — but that making capitalism fairer and more beneficial to society is the only way to prevent less desirable (to capitalists) alternative means to that end — namely higher taxes, revolution, and war (implicitly socialism or some other Leftist movement would be a threat, but it would allegedly operate through any or all of those). Continue reading

The Psychology of Misunderstanding

Misunderstanding someone, and being misunderstood in turn, is an indelible part of the human experience. So it is not surprising that there is a deep psychological basis for this inconvenient — and often times even dangerous — tendency to mutually misinterpret each other.

Business Insider and The Atlantic report on research that is getting to the bottom of why humans seem inherently unable to read one another’s feelings and intentions (or conversely, clearly convey their own). The reasons — and solutions — are pretty interesting:

First, most people suffer from what psychologists call “the transparency illusion” — the belief that what they feel, desire, and intend is crystal clear to others, even though they have done very little to communicate clearly what is going on inside their minds.

Because the perceived assume they are transparent, they might not spend the time or effort to be as clear and forthcoming about their intentions or emotional states as they could be, giving the perceiver very little information with which to make an accurate judgment.

“Chances are,” Halvorson writes, “how you look when you are slightly frustrated isn’t all that different from how you look when you are a little concerned, confused, disappointed, or nervous.

Your ‘I’m kind of hurt by what you just said’ face probably looks an awful lot like your ‘I’m not at all hurt by what you just said’ face. And the majority of times that you’ve said to yourself, ‘I made my intentions clear,’ or ‘He knows what I meant,’ you didn’t and he doesn’t.”

In other words, we have a blindspot with respect to our own behavior and communication. We fail to recognize, let alone see, that we might be coming off a certain way to others than we mean to. This goes a long way to explain another common human failing: hypocrisy.

While many hypocritical acts are no doubt deliberate, a lot of times it is accidental — you genuinely do not notice you are acting contrary to your intention behaviors and values. The transparency illusion applies as much to ourselves as to our external communications with others. We think our principles and values are clear, and thus fail to be vigilant or aware of any instance in which we violate them. After all, it is neither instinctive nor feasible to be methodically analyzing each and every action or statement. Hence we tend to just assume we are consistent and principled as we think we are.

All this touches on the next conclusion of the study, which looks at our perceptions to one another (and towards ourselves):

The perceiver, meanwhile, is dealing with two powerful psychological forces that are warping his ability to read others accurately. First, according to a large body of psychological research, individuals are what psychologists call “cognitive misers.” That is, people are lazy thinkers.

he perceiver, meanwhile, is dealing with two powerful psychological forces that are warping his ability to read others accurately. First, according to a large body of psychological research, individuals are what psychologists call “cognitive misers.” That is, people are lazy thinkers.

According to the work of the Nobel Prize winner Daniel Kahneman, there are two ways that the mind processes information, including information about others: through cognitive processes that Kahneman calls System 1 and System 2. These “systems,” which Kahneman describes in his book “Thinking Fast and Slow,” serve as metaphors for two different kinds of reasoning.

System 1 processes information quickly, intuitively, and automatically. System 1 is at work, as Halvorson notes in her book, when individuals engage in effortless thinking, like when they do simple math problems like 3 + 3 = 6, or when they drive on familiar roads as they talk to a friend in the car, or when they see someone smile and immediately know that that person is happy.

When it comes to social perception, System 1 uses shortcuts, or heuristics, to come to conclusions about another person. There are many shortcuts the mind relies on when it reads others facial expressions, body language, and intentions, and one of the most powerful ones is called the “primacy effect” and it explains why first impressions are so important.

According to the primacy effect, the information that one person learns about another in his early encounters with that person powerfully determines how he will see that person ever after.

For example, referring to research conducted about the primacy effect, Halvorson points out that children who perform better on the first half of a math test and worse on the second half might be judged to be smarter than those who perform less well on the first part of the test, but better on the second part.

In contrast to System 1 style of thinking, which is biased and hasty, System 2 processes information in a conscious, rational, and deliberative manner. Whereas System 1 thinking is automatic and effortless, System 2 thinking takes effort.

Thus, System 2 acts as a check on System 1. It helps evaluate and update first impressions, prejudices, and other brash thoughts. It is basically a backup for when your thoughts fail you.

But as I alluded to during my tangent about hypocrisy, this sort of deeper, conscious thinking takes time and mental energy. In fact, it is rarely ever engaged in without some sort of external trigger or reminders — such as someone pointing out that you misunderstood them or read a certain situation wrong (even then, egotism, face-saving, or just plain arrogance might leave you resistant to sincere self-analysis).

But as the article points out, humans are otherwise too inclined to be “cognitive misers” to go much further beyond System 1. Hence why misunderstandings and miscommunications alike are so common.

To make matters more complicated, there is more to interpersonal conflict than a shortcoming in our thought processes. A lot of other variables — albeit as just as psychologically inherent — are at play, too.

Perception is also clouded by the perceiver’s own experiences, emotions, and biases, which also contributes to misunderstandings between people. As Halvorson puts it, everyone has an agenda when they interact with another person. That agenda is usually trying to determine one of three pieces of information about the perceived: Is this person trustworthy? Is this person useful to me? And does this person threaten my self-esteem?

How a perceiver answers those questions will determine whether she judges the other person in a positive or negative way. Take self-esteem. Researchers have long found that individuals need to maintain a positive sense of themselves to function well.

When someone’s sense of herself is threatened, like when she interacts with someone who she thinks is better than her at a job they both share, she judges that person more harshly. One study found, for example, that attractive job applicants were judged as less qualified by members of the same sex than by members of the opposite sex. The raters who were members of the same sex, the researchers found, felt a threat to their self-esteem by the attractive job applicants while the members of the opposite sex felt no threat to their self-esteem.

In a sense, there is something reassuring about a lot of our misunderstandings being rooted in flaws that are mostly beyond our control. It is not that most people have bad intentions or are purposefully being obtuse, unclear, or inconsiderate — it is that our minds and cognitive capacity make us inherently prone to faulty thinking, nearly always without us realizing it.

Given all these obstacles to accurately perceiving someone (or conveying yourself to them), what do people have to do to come across they way they intend to?

“If you want to solve the problem of perception,” Halvorson says, “it’s much more practical for you to decide to be a good sender of signals than to hope that the perceiver is going to go into phase two of perception. It’s not realistic to expect people to go to that effort.

Can you imagine how exhausting it would be to weigh every possible motivation of another person? Plus, you can’t control what’s going on inside of another person’s mind, but you can control how you come across.”

People who are easy to judge — people who send clear signals to others, as Halvorson suggests people do—are, researchers have found, ultimately happier and more satisfied with their relationships, careers, and lives than those who are more difficult to read.

It’s easy to understand why: Feeling understood is a basic human need. When people satisfy that need, they feel more at peace with themselves and with the people around them, who see them closer to how they see themselves.

In a recent discussion about this article with some friends, it was brought up whether or not humans should somehow be altered, perhaps with cybernetic implants or something, so that they can think and communicate more clearly. Setting aside the precise means and mechanics of it, the hypothetical suggests that we if somehow eliminate our tendency to misunderstand and miscommunicate with each other, the world would be a better place overall.

Humans would be less prone to anxiety, less likely to fight with loved ones or make wrong assumptions about strangers, and refrain from the sort of violence that is often predicated by misunderstanding.

But this would raise questions about how fundamentally different human behavior and society as a whole would be without this barrier between us. Our individual and collective psychology is shaped by this constant and fundamentally human inability to communicate or understand clearly. As a species, we have developed all sorts of ideas, rituals, approaches, institutions, and even art forms to get around this problem, or to express ourselves in alternative ways. What would happen to all of that if we removed this inconvenient yet familiar issue?

It is a bit of a tangent, but it touches on the overall point expressed in this research and many more about how biological, psychological, and evolutionary limitations shape our existence and affect our conditions. What are your thoughts?

The Centennial of the Armenian Genocide

Today marks the 100th anniversary of one of the modern world’s first genocides, in which 800,000 to 1.5 million Armenian men, women, and children were systematically slaughtered by the Ottoman government. Here is an excerpt from Wikipedia:

The starting date is conventionally held to be 24 April 1915, the day Ottoman authorities rounded up and arrested, subsequently executing, some 250 Armenian intellectuals and community leaders in Constantinople. The genocide was carried out during and after World War I and implemented in two phases: the wholesale killing of the able-bodied male population through massacre and subjection of army conscripts to forced labour, followed by the deportation of women, children, the elderly and infirm on death marches leading to the Syrian desert. Driven forward by military escorts, the deportees were deprived of food and water and subjected to periodic robbery, rape, and massacre. Other indigenous and Christian ethnic groups such as the Assyrians and the Ottoman Greeks were similarly targeted for extermination by the Ottoman government, and their treatment is considered by many historians to be part of the same genocidal policy. The majority of Armenian diaspora communities around the world came into being as a direct result of the genocide.

Though once overshadowed by the better known and more well documented Holocaust, the Armenian Genocide has in recent years been one of the most studied and publicized organized mass killing in the 20th century. Much of that can be attributed, ironically, to successive Turkish governments refusing to recognize the event as a genocide, instead downplaying the death toll and ascribing it to wartime conditions and concerns:

The Republic of Turkey‘s formal stance is that the deaths of Armenians during the “relocation” or “deportation” cannot aptly be deemed “genocide”, a position that has been supported with a plethora of diverging justifications: that the killings were not deliberate or systematically orchestrated; that the killings were justified because Armenians posed a Russian-sympathizing threat as a cultural group; that the Armenians merely starved to death, or any of various characterizations referring to marauding “Armenian gangs”. Some suggestions seek to invalidate the genocide on semantic or anachronistic grounds (the word genocide was not coined until 1943). Turkish World War I casualty figures are often cited to mitigate the effect of the number of Armenian dead.

Nevertheless, twenty-three countries have thus far officially recognized the mass killings as genocide, which is the consensus among most genocide scholars and historians (including many in Turkey).

As evidenced by my reliance on Wikipedia, I lack the time to devote myself to this issue as it deserves. Instead, I will link you to some great sources beyond the well-written Wiki article.

The Guardian offers a quick rundown of how the genocide transpired and the current controversy regarding Turkey’s official denial. Vox goes a bit more in-depth with both the genocide and the subsequent campaign of denialism. NPR has an interesting story about one of the last Armenian-majority villages in Turkey and how it is faring, while the New York Times similarly explores the complex identity issues facing descendents of the genocide who still live in Turkey; the Times also has a collection of accounts from survivors or their descendents, including a couple by Turkish civilians who tried to help Armenians (as many certainly did).

I encourage everyone to do their part to learn about this human catastrophe, and for that matter to be aware of the many other genocides, before and since, that continue to blight our species to this day.