Spin and trust

I went to Mano's cafe discussion on "spin" Wednesday.

We have all heard of "spin doctors" expert at crafting messages and strategy to push a particular point of view while sheltering the weaknesses of that view.  Pushing the positive, casting doubt in the opponent's position, emphasizing certain aspects to take attention away from concerns, all become part of the arrows in the spin doctor's quiver. 

Some at the cafe would like to think that spin is everywhere these days, that we are bombarded by people and media wanting to sell us something or influence our thinking towards their objectives.

Resisting the call for an early definition of the term, Mano led the group towards a narrower and more focused conception of spin as oppose to other forms of communication where only certain aspects are emphasized.

We all lean towards discussing the positives in social situations while avoiding negative and critical remarks.  Are we "spinning" our message or the conversation?  Most of us will likely say no.

There are those among us that have strong beliefs about politics, the environment, and other issues and they advocate their position strongly often without mentioning or giving equal time to the weakness of their viewpoints.  Some may classify this advocacy as spinning for perhaps a lot of us would just consider it as something that persons with strong beliefs do.

Then there are those with good intentions for their audience but see that the most effective way to get their audience to the better place quickly is by a little white lie or something that is not completely true.  An example of this is for a senior center to oversell their entertainment events in order to get seniors to come to the center. 

The staff knows that it is good for the seniors to get out of their homes to come to the center to socialize. So if they cross the line to say there are lots of entertainment at the center when formal entertainment only happens twice a month,  it is only for the good cause of getting the seniors to come out.  The ends justify the means.

Perhaps more would consider this spinning the message as the truth is being stretched.

Still, some would say that this is all done with good intentions and perhaps not what we think spinning is.

Euphemisms are becoming more and more prevalent.  Are we spinning when we use the new euphemistic terms instead of the old negative ones?

In concentrating on the positive, euphemisms share a common feature of what most people think spinning is.  But we are likely not ready to say someone is spinning when he refers to difficulties as challenges.

So spinning by the "spin doctors" have to go beyond the above.

Mano characterized spin as a concerted campaign to put out a message that the speaker do not fully believe in.

Individual incidences of euphemistic language or expressing what one believes in do not quite meet the mark.  It has to be a concerted effort to spread a message that one does not quite subscribe to.

The spinner is careful that the message is vague enough that it cannot be proven to be a lie but have enough coloring to persuade the listener towards the intended direction.

The spinner takes advantage of a common trust we have with other human beings that in any discussion, we are working with each other in an honest effort to get to the truth. We may be mistaken and lead us down the wrong path but that is an unintended mistake.

The spinner intentionally nudges his audience towards a path he does not believe in and violated the unspoken trust we have with those we communicate with.

This is all well and good but what about lawyers who advocate for their clients, some of them are criminals without disclosing issues that can hurt their clients?  Are lawyers spinners by virtue of their commitment to their clients?

Here, Mano considers it as a separate case in a well known legal system where we all know that lawyers represent their clients in an adversarial environment against the prosecutors.  This is different than the spinner who tries to come across as looking after their audience's interest while promoting the interest of those who hire them.

So, when a car salesman said he is representing the buyer's interest in going to the sales manager to get a better deal for the buyer, all the time acting as if he is on the buyer side throughout the buying process, he is spinning.

But how is that different from the lawyer?  Don't we all know that the salesman work for the car dealership and not for us?

Don't we all know that there are right wing versus left wing think tanks?

Don't we know that all political parties want to stay in power and craft all positions towards that end?

Don't we have ideas of which magazine, newspaper, or media outlet is left or right leaning?

Are they spinning or are they advocating their true beliefs?

One thing is for sure.

Spinning, the use of euphemistic language, emphasizing the positive, not telling the negative, all lead to a cynical public.  We are always on the watch for what is not said, when the missing message is coming to bite us, when we have to pay the piper.

Public trust is the casualty in all this.  We view every message with suspicion and consider trusting individuals as naive.

But trust is the glue needed to hold modern day society with our complicated division of labor and deep specialization with thin general knowledge.

Spinning is short term and narrow gain at the expense of losing valuable trust in the long term and we all pay for this erosion of trust with the spread of cynicism and general mistrust.

Dec 2nd. Abnormal versus atypical

Some time ago we read a book by Judith Butler in our book club where she made the difference between atypical versus abnormal when referring to aspects of gender not usually encountered by the general public.

It is only when the two words are put side by side that the difference became so revealing.

Most of us think of ourselves as "normal" and think nothing of considering those different from us as abnormal, rather than just plain different.

It is easy for us to think of the average of a group characteristic to be normal for that group when a better description is that it is typical of that group.

There is a sense of exclusion implied by the term "abnormal" that lends it politically explosiveness.  It is the first step in drawing the separation line between the "in" and "out" groups.

In contrast, atypical merely acknowledge that there is a difference without imparting a value judgment of whether that difference matters in any respect.

The examples used in Butler's book are of those born with sexual organs that were a mismatch with their gender identity.  The label of "abnormal" led to "corrective" surgery, hormone injections, and other interventions in an effort to make individuals more like "normal" members of society.

Some of these individuals ultimately felt so out of place between their physical body and their gender identity that they have surgery to undo all these prior efforts.

For most of us who are not doctors and nurses attending births, we are not aware of the various birth "abnormalities" that happen because they are rare in percentage terms. Babies born with an extra finger for example, are a harmless feature.  Yet it is hard to find another word to replace "abnormality" for this.


It was not that long ago that homosexual tendency was seen as "abnormal". It also carried the belief that this "abnormality" can be "corrected".

Now that we understand that it is a mere difference in preference and attraction, we can still say it is atypical based on numbers within the population but no longer consider it as abnormal.

So are there instances where abnormal can be use appropriately?

We can perhaps consider good health as a normal condition and that someone stricken by disease is abnormal and expects to return to perfect health later.

Here again, consider someone with an amputated limb from an injury that will never grow a natural limb again.  Is this person atypical or abnormal? Or both?

It is becoming more and more like determining normalcy is a subjective judgment term that cannot avoid separating someone from mainstream society. Applying the normalcy test implies that there is a correct way to be and shuts out the diversity of possibilities that exists without judgement.

So should we give up on the notion of being normal altogether?  What will be life like if there is no standard of being normal?  Nothing will be considered as deviant behavior?

It may not be so bad.  No more discrimination and moralizing by third parties. All legitimate actions based on consent of the parties involved.

What about the strange incident of the person who had an agreement with another to be killed and eaten?  Surely that is strange, atypical, and.... abnormal?  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armin_Meiwes

Is that not reason to pass judgement?

So some things should be judged and condemned.  What are they?

Some videos on abnormal and atypical:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NtJCGGMUa5Y

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4B2xOvKFFz4

Regrets before we die

Here is a link to a newspaper article  http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-investor/personal-finance/carrick-on-money/carrick-on-money/article21610517/


It is about a palliative nurse summarizing what she hears from years of caring for people close to dying and what they regret most.

If ever there is a learning opportunity, this is it.

Perhaps this can shake us out of our daily details, and have the opportunity to take action on these regrets experienced by others.

Let's look at the list according to their order:

1. I wish I'd had the courage to live a life true to myself, not the life others expected of me.  I can see this being a common regret.  We often wonder if we can break off from the chains of the expectations of others.  We are social animals and what others think of us matter to us.  Just how far we bow to this pressure versus what we really want to do is a compromise we make all the time.  Perhaps we truly should ignore more of what others expect but the dying no longer needs to worry about what others think.  We, who have to live with the consequences of hopefully a longer existence, do have to balance with the praise or wrath from others.


2. I wish I hadn't worked so hard.  The spotlight of this wish shines on the effort spent, not the achievements gained.  At our more ambitious moments, we set goals which entails effort and endurance that we consider worthwhile.  This regret may be better phrased to "I wish I did not aim for so much" which changes the sentiment considerably.  In hindsight, a lot of the things we aim for do not seem as desirable as before (especially if we have achieved it).  This is a characteristic of our motivational structure which we needs to keep in mind.

3.I wish I'd had the courage to express my feelings.  Somewhat similar to item one.  We don't express our feelings all the time because it can be hurtful to others, seem to be boastful of ourselves, or be out of place in a particular situation.  We compromise. Perhaps we can change the calculus on how we determine that compromise but the wish expressed reflects more regret than reality.  Another case of a person dying with nothing to loose.

4. I wish I had stayed in touch with my friends.  Here, I have to agree that most people are carried away by their daily routines without much thought of this. It simply do not come to our consciousness unless there is a trigger like a reunion event, a chance encounter, or some other reminder.  Then there is the effort required to track down our old friends, tear ourselves from our comfortable routine and the risk of finding that we have all changed and there is not much to connect with our old friends anymore. Still, it is a trigger to have this in our minds to consider.

5.  I wish that I had let myself be happier.  This is the one that I find the most useful even though it is the last item on the list.  We are so conditioned to believe that our anger and sorrow are the result of external events and that we can only be happy if something good happens to us.  Shakespeare wrote in Hamlet  "There is nothing good or bad, but thinking makes it so"  http://www.enotes.com/shakespeare-quotes/nothing-either-good-bad-but-thinking-makes

Events happen, we judge as to whether it is a good or bad event, then we react emotionally with joy and happiness, or anger and sorrow.

We go through the process of subconsciously judging and emotionally reacting so quickly that it is difficult to realise we determine whether we should react positively or negatively to an event.

So often, we are too quick to assume the victim role to gather sympathy when it is also an opportunity for growth.

The second part of that paragraph "Fear of change had them pretending to others, and to their selves, that they were content, when deep within, they longed to laugh properly and have silliness in their life again." is also profound.  This is self deception that we have to be on guard against.

Are we really content? or are we just convincing ourselves that we are because we do not want to try something new, or risk failure or ridicule?

All in all, it is a good mental exercise to go over these point from time to time and to re-examine the compromises we make every day to see if that is truly what we want.

In our dying days, we can remind ourselves that we made the compromises consciously when we did, feel less regret, and choose to be content with our life as it fades.

Some related videos....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7K0xFdJhymc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FcITT99FBfI

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NrRTxcz2sAw