Emile Durkheim - the life and times, told in a class presentation.

For a course I'm taking, Challenges and Changes in Society, I had to act as a social scientist. I was picked to act as the father of sociology, Emile Durkheim. Here is my ultra-groovy script:

I was born for this, right? Anyway, at the 3rd paragraph, I went up to my friend who acted as Karl Marx the previous day for his social scientist presentation, and he was quite... shocked, I guess? Everyone was laughing. We all had a good time.

Why women should rule the world

As I was running down my usual routine of internet "check-up's" (Facebook, Hotmail, EthicalAtheist, ArmenianGenocide, and some others), I bumped into MSN's main page after logging out of my Hotmail account, and discovered an interesting article. It's called Why Women Should Rule the World, which is an exerpt from the book with the same name by Dee Dee Myers. Now, before I discuss this article in more detail, I have some questions pertaining to the title of this article: what does it mean to rule the world? Is it political power; the power to influence; military power; the power to kill; or is it the power to prevent the conception of children; to prevent human life on Earth as we know it from ever existing? Is it easier to kill, or is it easier to prevent life from entering into the world? Another thing we must note is that Dee Dee is a woman, who admits within the article itself in one of the bolded points below that she has a pretty good chance of being biased toward "girl power." Apparently, it's all a matter of leadership styles.

A Matter of Leadership Styles

All of which begs the question: Do men and women lead differently? Is there such a thing as a "female style"? A recent analysis of forty-five separate studies addressing the question found that the answer was "yes." Women are slightly more likely to be "transformational" leaders, collectively setting goals and empowering their teams to achieve them. And men are more likely to be "transactional" leaders, letting subordinates know what is expected, rewarding them for their successes and holding them accountable for their failures. Not surprisingly, most leaders did not fit neatly into one or the other of these categories, but there was, nonetheless, a measurable difference based on gender.

This is the common knowledge pointed out here: men tend to lean more toward being brutes than women do, and women are more sociable. However, women tend to be "soft" because of this sociability, and at times, softness isn't a good thing. Once people know you're easy to step on, they'll walk all over you. Perhaps this level of softness is what lead us to being more into helping others, and we all know that when you help somebody, they're more likely to do something for you. With that being said, people listen to us because there's an emphasis on closeness and warmth, and we give that. But, would that work in the military? I'm not going to imply that it wouldn't, because certainly, no military has applied caring and understanding as part of their policy on how they treat their recruits, soldiers, combatants, whatever the names are.

Now comes the kicker: Research also shows that transformational leaders --
especially those who also reward good performance, a positive aspect of
transactional leadership common among women - tend to be more effective,
particularly in the less-hierarchical, fast-paced, and innovation-driven
contemporary world. So not only do women have a somewhat different style; it's
more likely to be successful.

The point made here is that people will want to feel appreciated. Women give that feeling of appreciation.

To me, what's most important about that finding is not that women rule (though I obviously have a soft spot for studies and statistics that put us girls in the most flattering light). Rather, it's further evidence that there is more than one way to bring home the bacon and fry it up in a pan, that different leadership styles -- regardless of their gender bent -- can get the job done. And that gives everyone more options; it creates a more flexible, more adaptive and ultimately more productive workplace.

Sum: different strategies work best in different situations. Diversity increases productivity in the work process. I've no arguments with Dee here.

"By valuing a diversity of leadership styles, organizations will find the
strength and flexibility to survive in a highly competitive, increasingly
diverse economic environment," says Dr. Judith Rosener of the University of
California, Irvine.

Again, diversity rules.

Bringing up the topic of diversity, I have a scenario for you to think about: let's say the whole world was 100 people. You've got 30 women, who tells everyone what goes - they're the leaders. Then you've got 35 women who listen to them, as well as 35 men who listen to them, too. Is the leadership they're undertaking really diverse? Or, what if it was 30 men ruling everyone? Or better yet, let's say there are 15 men and 15 women leading the 70 others, who are also 50% women and 50% men. According to Judith's lean toward diversity, would that not make things better? Would that mean one group is better than the other at leading?

The answer to that question is no. Because there is an equal split, and because the leaders are as diverse as the subordinates, the needs of everyone, or at least the majority, are met as best-suited as possible. Now, back to the article.

Sally Helgesen, a leadership development expert, believes that because women
have rarely fitted easily into corporate molds not designed for them, they have been "forced to pioneer policies and strategies that are turning out to be exactly suited to the conditions of the new knowledge-based economy. In the end, women's greatest contribution to our changing world may be their insistence upon breaking the mold rather than just fitting in."

Challenges create struggles. Struggles create needs for solutions. The creation of solutions needs creativity in order for solutions to be created in the first place. Now, looking at this again, this seems to apply more toward a European or North American viewpoint. As a lady once discussed with me, there have been societies in time's past where men have been considered to be below women (like in several Native tribes), and thus, had more to struggle for.

Among other things, the line between work and home is fading, and people --
especially women -- are learning to invent their own positions. I more or less
invented my current "job," which I sometimes describe as "stay-at-home pundit."
It's an interesting and flexible mix that has included contributing to Vanity
Fair, giving speeches, yakking about politics on television, consulting on
politically themed-movies and television shows, and writing about stuff that
interests me. I work out of an office in my house, which saves me time commuting
(and I confess, on some days, showering). My children have (mostly) learned to
respect my closed door, and when they don't, I escape to the local public
library, conveniently equipped with free wireless Internet. The technological
innovations and cultural transformations that allow me to do what I do came
together just in time for me. While I realize that it can't work for everyone,
there's no question that opportunities to define a career path will continue to
increase -- a trend that I believe will be led by women.

It probably will be led by women, considering there's been, historically, more challenges, and thus more need for creativity for women rather than men.

The biggest downside to my current arrangement is the anxiety that I feel when I
face the "occupation" line on a school form or loan application. I usually write
"consultant" -- and then hope I don't get busted for I'm-not-sure-what. There's
also a certain guilt that comes from not having to leap out of bed before dawn
to unload the dishwasher, fold the laundry, shower and blow-dry and apply
makeup, get the kids ready for school, and burn rubber backing out of the
driveway at 7:45 a.m. I recently saw a cartoon that summed up my life. A couple
is sitting at the kitchen table in their bathrobes, drinking coffee. As the man
taps away on his laptop, his wife says: "You've blurred the boundary between
working from home and being unemployed."

This increasingly less structured, more flexible workplace suits women's
lives -- and their skills. "When you put together a thirty-person project team
[in the past], it was all people from Raytheon," explains Tom Peters, the
management consultant. "Now, the thirty-person project team involves people from eleven companies, seven countries, and three continents. There's no formal power or hierarchy. So we need a different set of relation-driven skills."

Again: women understand people better than men. Women have also been proven to be better at multi-tasking than men, so the range of flexibility works better for them than it does for men.

"This is why you want to hire women," says Pat Mitchell, a pioneer in
broadcast news and the current president of the Museum of Radio and Television.
"They are consensus builders. They really do look for different ways to resolve
things. They are innovative and creative thinkers. And they do act on instinct
and intuition."

Ending off on this article, it basically implies that women should rule the world. Well, should we? Do you feel appreciated when someone's ruling over you? And why don't women rule the world? Or, is this implying that we're subordinates, and we shouldn't be subordinates, but the superiors? In the end, it all comes to this: do you feel better being someone's subordinate, or having a subordinate of your own? Considering that people listen to others when they have a relation of warmth and closeness, having one over the other might diminish that warmth, and thus, make the idea of women having to be superior or men having to be superior worth as much as nil.

A Change of Heart

Meet Chris Johnston, a 49-year-old ex Minister who now works as a Loan Officer in the banking industry. We had an interesting interview on his move from faithful to faithless.

Hello, Chris Johnston! I believe you mentioned at some point that you were a minister for 15 years, but suddenly had a change of heart and turned to Atheism. Why did you pick Atheism over Christianity?

Wow, let's jump right in! Okay! Honestly, it's not like I put Christianity on one side and measured it against Atheism. The two are not in that kind of competition. And it was hardly sudden.

I became a Christian at the age of 14, and "answered the call to preach" at 15. It was one way to be different, to get some attention for a geeky, skinny kid. My first sermon took hours to prepare and the whole thing lasted ten minutes! I spent the next few years preparing for the ministry. I started out as a Southern Baptist (largest protestant denomination in the country at that time) but switched to independent Baptist after my first year of college. That meant I was no longer affiliated with Southern Baptists, but was a member of a church that was very loosely associated through a common string of doctrines. This was extremely fundamentalistic. In fact, to us, Jerry Falwell was quite a compromiser, the worst insult you could give to another Christian, in our eyes!

I spent some time at a now-defunct bible "college" in Tennessee where I met my first wife. In time we had two children, I finally graduated from an accredited college with a bachelor's degree in Theology and a minor in history. During that time I pastored a rural Mississippi church. As it turned out, the church members were so bigoted, they not only didn't want blacks, they also didn't want poor whites!

Following my graduation, I matriculated at a Southern Baptist seminary. About one year into my accelerated program, I realized I was in the wrong line of work. Somehow they were all talking about a relationship with Jesus as if it were actually a personal friendship, and I realized that I had never had that and didn't even know how it worked. I had been seeking for years for a deeper emotional and spiritual understanding, but somehow, there were no answers to prayer.

All this conflict gave me a great deal of difficulty with my personal life, so my wife took the kids home to momma and daddy, and we eventually divorced.

I continued as a seeker for some time, trying to find what I felt I had missed out on. I eventually discovered "Atlas Shrugged," by Ayn Rand. This led me to begin thinking about the nature of belief, faith, and evidence.

I realized that since 95% of the worlds' Christian church members actually live their daily lives as if there were no god, I would stop living the lie. I finally fully embraced atheism just two or three years ago, and came out in the last year or two.

How was it a way to get attention? Did you feel alone, and decided that, by becoming Christian, you'd at least have God to "keep you company"?
Tell us more about how you feel about Jerry Falwell, please.
How are "95% of the worlds' Christian church members actually live their daily lives as if there were no god"?

Good questions.
I was a geeky high schooler, 6'1" and 150 lbs, and didn't really fit in, in a small town where I had not been born. I had no athletic ability and our school was so small there was really only the "in" crowd and the hoodlums.

So my best friend and I were the "preacher boys," which got a lot of attention from the church and the older crowd. And no, it really had nothing to do with loneliness, I never really felt lonely growing up.

I didn't care much for Falwell and his "silent majority." This had more to do with what we considered his "doctrinal weakness" than anything else. We were more in the Bob Jones University crowd, although the "uppercrust" pretensions of that place were a little offputting for country boys who liked country and bluegrass music.

With time, I came to appreciate Falwell and others for what they are (were). Evangelicals who believe that it was their job to bring about Christian law. They pushed Scientific Creationism (that was its name in those days, not ID) and wanted to elect their kind of Christians to school boards and local, state, and national office. Eventually Falwell's popularity faded and I hadn't thought about him for years by the time he assumed room temperature.

Most Christians live their lives as if God did not exist. How else can you explain the response to Matthew 6?

25"Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat or drink; or about your body, what you will wear. Is not life more important than food, and the body more important than clothes? 26Look at the birds of the air; they do not sow or reap or store away in barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not much more valuable than they? 27Who of you by worrying can add a single hour to his life[b]?
28"And why do you worry about clothes? See how the lilies of the field grow. They do not labor or spin. 29Yet I tell you that not even Solomon in all his splendor was dressed like one of these. 30If that is how God clothes the grass of the field, which is here today and tomorrow is thrown into the fire, will he not much more clothe you, O you of little faith? 31So do not worry, saying, 'What shall we eat?' or 'What shall we drink?' or 'What shall we wear?' 32For the pagans run after all these things, and your heavenly Father knows that you need them. 33But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well. 34Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own.

And yet Christians go about their lives working, saving, paying for health insurance, etc. because it's STUPID NOT TO! It is against human life to take no thought for tomorrow, and this is what the Bible is teaching here.

There are a great many more passages that come to mind. Remember how Jesus is reported to have said things like "turn the other cheek," and "blessed are the meek?" When was the last time you went on a Christian web forum and identified yourself as a satisfied atheist? Lots of love there, usually about the time they realize they cannot win the argument!

Certain In-Laws who shall remain nameless are a good case in point. They love their church. They take discipleship classes. She fills in on piano. He teaches Sunday School. If we go to the lake to visit with them, it's always us disrespecting them because we won't go to church with the. In fact, you could say they never miss a Sunday.

Unless the Chiefs are in town (season tickets). Or they have a trip somewhere. Then they are blissfully unaware that churches exist and are in session on Sunday morning! Is it just me, or is something missing here?

This is a fun thing. It feels good to say some of these things. I just tried to access your blog, though, and got an error message. Let me know when you start posting some of it.

Good answers, Chris.

What is Falwell's "silent majority" and "doctrinal weakness," in your opinion? What's the "Bob Jones University crowd"? How do you feel about Scientific Creationism being pushed into schools?

I'd also like to add something. Would you say that the lack of dedication to Christianity on the part of Christians was a comparatively strong influencing factor in your move to Atheism, or was it comparatively minor as opposed to other factors?

Wow, did I say "silent majority?" That was a term coined by Richard Nixon in a speech from Novermber 3, 1969 at the height of the Watergate scandal.

What I meant to say, was "Moral Majority," an evangelical-leaning-toward-fundamentalist political organ founded by Jerry Falwell in 1979. Wikipedia has an excellent article concerning the Moral Majority. We were of a stricter stripe, doctrinally speaking, than Falwell's church. We thought he was a "compromiser," the worst thing our crowd could ever call someone who was, in truth, as close to us doctrinally as anyone could be. However, we were a little closer to "Hardshell" baptists than anything. A Hardshell Baptist is one who believes in Calvinist predestination, that God's plan all along was to create the world and everything in it, and plan from the beginning to redeem only his chosen few. Today I recoil at this idea of a god more than almost any other. It makes him seem like a petulant child as well as a sadistic thug.

Had I continued in that type of church, I shudder to think what may have happened. We were close to endorsing abortion provider murders, clinic bombings, and the like. In those days, a very slick and well-done video series was making the rounds: Francis Schaffer's "How Shall We Then Live?" He popularized the notion that abortion was a new Holocaust more terrible than the slaughter of six million Jews, not to mention millions of retarded, handicapped, homosexuals, and others.

Bob Jones University was founded in the 1920s by, of all people, an evangelist by the name of Bob Jones, Sr. Go figure! It's a fundamentalist institution which has added a veneer of classical culture. BJU (the University where you are likely to get a BJ but not tell anyone) graduates tend to have a condescending attitude toward graduates of other Christian schools, even fundamentalist ones. They liken themselves to Harvard. They look down on all manner of popular culture, including country and bluegrass music, preferring classical, etc.

Presidency of the university has passed to the fourth generation Jones under Stephen Jones, son of Bob Jones III. Of course god approves of this particular method of passing the mantle in order to ensure continuation of the legacy.

I'd rather think about it than feel about it. Feelings about it simply elevate emotionalism to the place that faith occupies in religionists. That being said, I am passionately against anyone attempting to appropriate a place akin to science for their mythology.

http://www.venganza.org/ is an excellent answer for the push to instill "Intelligent Design," (ID) which is "Scientific Creationism", which is the creation myth dressed up in scientific language. ID was being pushed in Kansas by the Kansas Board of Education. The method they were using was insidious. By redefining science, they hoped to make room for supernatural explanations for natural phenomena. The "Flying Spaghetti Monster" was an attempt to show how silly it was to take one supernatural explanation over any other. It has since become a cultural phenomenon, and you can see one of its posters at the top of my blog, http://faith-in-action.blogspot.com.

This was proven in court in the case of the Dover, PA school board. U.S. District Judge John E. Jones ruled that ID is not science and cannot be used in the public school. All of this is fascinating reading and should be required.

And I would say the lack of dedication on the part of Christians was simply an aggravating factor. I spent many years defying that trend, looking into mysticism, spending hour after hour praying for something more than I had experienced. I know now, that the prayers were never heard outside that room.

Speaking of Jerry Falwell and the Moral Majority, how do you feel about Pat Robertson's revival of the group under the name of the Moral Majority Coalition? How do you generally feel about Pat Robertson? Would you liken him to a terrorist such as Osama Bin Laden, like Ethical Atheist did, or not? Why?

Hmm... you said you were close to "endorsing abortion provider murders." I'm sure you meant "endorsing abortion-provided murders"? What'd you mean there?
Here's some things I'm going to assume about the BJU crowd, given the time and Christian standing:

Definitely an all-male university. Since they weren't allowed to have sex before marriage, that's why they'd commit homosexual activity "under the table," in reference to your BJ pun. They were tied up in the past, possibly with Gregorian music, and always deemed tradition to be better, even though they never gave modern music a chance.

Am I correct? Please tell me what I got wrong.

Anyway, back to the questions... can you give our readers an example of ID "preachings" dressed with science?

I think it's specious at best to lump Pat Robertson, who engages in offensive religious speech, with Osama bin Laden, who murders innocent men, women, and children in order to creat terror and achieve his political or religious aims. Do I think he would like to see a theocracy here in the U.S. under his own brand of Xianity? (Wow spell it like that and it sounds eerily like insanity) Of course he would. Would he stoop to terrorism to achieve it? Well, the man isn't stupid or crazy. Religiously, I believe he's about at the same level of fanaticism, except that Islam makes men like OBL heroes and the New Testament is a more passive document.

No, I meant what I said. At that time, killing an abortion providing doctor was being likened, in more extreme churches, to an act of defending the defenseless, where we would use lethal force to stop someone from raping a baby, for instance. It was a scary precipice.

Almost all of it. *Laughs* It's a co-ed christian university started in the 1920's by fundamentalists. Their hatred of folk, country, etc. is simply an affectation of culture. It's very off-putting. And the blowjob thingy has nothing to do with homosexuality. It's just that the culture is so very strict, it's easy to see where hypocrisy can creep in.

A Google search on "Intelligent Design" should yield plenty of instances.

So, Flora, I am enjoying this interview. I am curious to know more about you, too. I understand you are in high school in Toronto? And that you were born in Iraq?

What can you tell me about your life so far? Are you truly atheist? And I see a great deal of difficulty in your relationship with your father. Do you feel more free to resist since you live in Canada, instead of a Muslim country? And how has the tube of lip gloss thing gone? Did everything come out all right?

Can you give the readers a reason as to how it's not passive?
What do you mean by "an affectation of culture"? Do you mean a false hatred or dislike of sorts?
Seriously, Chris, that ID search almost made me throw up. Ramen!

Yup. Born in Iraq. No, I'm not taking school in Toronto, but very near there.
My life's going quite good. I'm working on a lot of social activist projects with a Christian service animator (believe me, she's a great lady), and a buddy of mine, who also happens to be named Chris. We're hoping to get our projects known on a global scale someday. He's really such a great guy, and he's only in 10th grade!
Yes, I am truly an Atheist. Funny thing is, people thought I'd be depressed after giving up my strong beliefs in God. But let me tell you, that was when my depression decreased on such a large scale. I've learned to live life to live, not to live life to hide. I can just be me, and go through life helping others without having to worry what's going to happen to me. And I can't wait to see the impact I have on other people's lives.
I do feel more able to resist. It wasn't about whether I'm a female anymore when we came to Canada - it was about the individual. Though women still have a path to walk here, it's way fucking better than being most places in the Middle East.
The lip gloss thing has gone well. Wow, I post everything about me at ATWKS, haha. But I thought it was funny and so I'd share it. But wow, it really was a drag. I don't want to go into details about HOW I managed to get it out.
And Chris, I'm really enjoying the interview too!

Modern terrorists take an active role in trying to achieve their aim. For the Islamist, I believe that aim is total Shari'a domination of the world.

Pat Robertson would like the same thing (except with his interpretation of the moral code, his brand of Xianity in charge) but would never stoop to blowing up innocent people to achieve his aim. I attribute that partly to the nature of the New Testament (even though he twists it when it suits him) but mostly to the secular society the United States has always had. We have always believed that we had to convince someone, not threaten them, to get them to truly convert.

The New Testament is a very passive book. In fact, it's pacifist. When jesus simply tells his followers to turn the other cheek, and pray for those who "despitefully" use them, it's obviously a pacifist book. How neoconservatives and the religious right make Jesus into some sort of warrior god is beyond me.

Funny, the differences between the teachings of Jesus (whose existence I tentatively stipulate as a holdover from so many years of indoctrination) and the teachings of the modern evangelica churches.

Jesus on public "righteousness"(Gospel of Matthew chapter 6):

1"Beware of practicing your righteousness before men (A)to be noticed by them; otherwise you have no reward with your Father who is in heaven.
2"So when you give to the poor, do not sound a trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, so that they (B)may be honored by men (C)Truly I say to you, they have their reward in full.
3"But when you give to the poor, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing,
4so that your giving will be in secret; and (D)your Father who sees what is done in secret will reward you.

Church practice: big deal about giving, huge deal about good works, everyone goes to church to see and be seen. Many churches preach about a success gospel that says if you are successful it is evidence God has blessed you.

Jesus on Prayer (Matt. 6):

5"When you pray, you are not to be like the hypocrites; for they love to (E)stand and pray in the synagogues and on the street corners (F)so that they may be seen by men (G)Truly I say to you, they have their reward in full.
6"But you, when you pray, (H)go into your inner room, close your door and pray to your Father who is in secret, and (I)your Father who sees what is done in secret will reward you.
7"And when you are praying, do not use meaningless repetition as the Gentiles do, for they suppose that they will be heard for their (J)many words.
8"So do not be like them; for (K)your Father knows what you need before you ask Him.

Church practice: oral prayers in public, prayers written down and read at public gatherings (including a recent Barack Obama gathering I attended)

Jesus on wealth (Matt. 6):

19"(Y)Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal.
20"But store up for yourselves (Z)treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys, and where thieves do not break in or steal;
21for (AA)where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.

Church practice: back to the success gospel, plus for instance the Roman Catholic church being the wealthiest nation (Vatican City-state) per capita in the world, amassing fortunes in gold, art, etc. looted from around the world (through the demanding of tribute from its churches and the looting of the new world gold in the 16th-20th centuries)

Finally, Jesus on the use of force (Matthew 5):

38"(AZ)You have heard that it was said, '(BA)AN EYE FOR AN EYE, AND A TOOTH FOR A TOOTH.'
39"But I say to you, do not resist an evil person; but (BB)whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also.
40"If anyone wants to sue you and take your [g]shirt, let him have your [h]coat also.
41"Whoever forces you to go one mile, go with him two.
42"(BC)Give to him who asks of you, and do not turn away from him who wants to borrow from you.
43"(BD)You have heard that it was said, '(BE)YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR (BF)and hate your enemy.'
44"But I say to you, (BG)love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,

Church practice: lawsuits, articles of incorporation, the preaching of armed conflict, even though Jesus specifically said a Xian should not defend themselves. Making Jesus to be some kind of avenging angel who leads armies on America's behalf. In this way many Xians are more rooted in the god of the Old Testament than in the New Testament.

What's the difference between the God of the Old Testament and that of the New Testament in your eyes?

Wow. Big question. I won't go into chapter and verse citations, but here are some high points.
In the Old Testament, he is an angry God, jealous and petulant about his followers' attentions. This is a basic cultural ideal from millenia ago, "Our God is better than your god." Many places in the OT, Yahweh is considered the best god, but the existence of other gods is not called into question. He smites unbelievers, conquers his enemies, and calls for wholesale slaughter of men, women, and children when conquering. This is still cited in evangelical churches as being a healthy thing for Israel.

Where God's power is wholesale in the OT (parting the Red Sea, making the sun stand still, flooding the earth, etc.), in the New Testament, his miracles are retail, through Jesus (healing the sick one at a time, making fish and loaves feed a multitude). One wonders why, if Jesus could do these things, he didn't just end suffering altogether.

Where the OT God is very similar to other gods of the time, i.e. warlike and with a great deal of human failings (anthropomorphism), the NT God is a "God of love." "God is love." In the NT, the claim is that Jesus paid for the sins of the entire world, including all in the past and everything going forward until the end of time. Kind of an odd deal. God makes the rules that we cannot keep, which makes us evil and sinful, then pays the price for us. Hmmm sounds like a gospel sermon but the oddity of it all just makes me wonder what I was ever thinking to be involved with it.

If it had to make sense or require evidence, it wouldn't be faith, would it?

Interesting answers.

Any last words for our readers?

I guess my final word would be an exhortation to reason. We must, in the final analysis, think for ourselves and make our own decisions. One great way to do this is to ask better questions. What if I haven't necessarily been taught the truth? What would happen if I changed my mind?

Demand evidence. Think it through. Make up your own mind.

Flora, thanks for the opportunity to vent!
Chris

Chris has a blog called Faith In Action and a website on bonsai.

Intelligent and slavish imitation

"Imitation" is often associated as a bad thing as a whole. However, as James Surowiecki once stated in his book, The Wisdom of Crowds (which you should run to libraries/bookstores to get if you love business and sociology), there are two forms of imitation: intelligent imitation and slavish imitation. The difference between the two, as may easily have been guessed, is that slavish imitation refers to blindly imitating something/someone, while intelligent imitation is imitating with a basis. Say for example some random stranger tells you that Barack Obama is a horrible election choice without giving reason. Imitating such a person would be slavish imitation at it's purest form. However, say you follow the aggregated opinion of many politically-aware people who share your values and beliefs, and who follow a similar lifestyle to yours. Imitating such people's political decisions would be a much more intelligent form of imitation than the one in the former example.

There's the argument that any kind of imitation is for the weak and for those who can't quite think for themselves. However, if this were true, you'd have to consider yourself weak and dependent. The reason why I'm saying this is because everyone makes decisions based on the opinions of those that they don't know. Take this in for example: you're looking for a good movie to watch on a Friday night. However, you see that http://www.movies.com/ or Ebert and Roeper gave the movie that you wanted to watch a D rating. So, do you waste your time on a relatively bad investment? No. This is an example of intelligent imitation.

Now, for a good example of slavish imitation. Imagine you're living in a far East Asian country and own a rice farm, and your neighbours own rice farms. The place that you're imagining here has differing soils, so when your neighbour has a successful crop-growing strategy, would you follow along with it? No, because you don't know if it will work for you. In fact, there'd probably be a strong possibility that it wouldn't work for you because the soil types between you and your neighbours differ so much. If you did follow what your rice-farming neighbours did without at least leaving a testing area to see if it would really work for you, that would be really slavish.

What keys into whether a person will imitate another is the degree of importance of the decision at hand. With the movie-going example, it's not really going to kill you to not rent the movie that you, at first, wanted to see. But if you're a rice farmer, and rice farming is your source of income, you want to be 100% sure that it will work for you, and you will probably not want to imitate, for the sake of your life and your possible children's lives. What I've basically hinted at here was that, the more important the decision, the less likely a person will imitate.