Tuesday, March 31, 2020

A Book Review: A Generation of Sociopaths


Like many other behavioral theories, (e.g., motivational theory: Abraham Maslow, Hertzberg, McClelland, et. al.) generational theory has proven useful in understanding human behavior.
On the other hand, the original theory advanced by Strauss and Howe has been reworked into myriad spin-offs and variations which lead to stereotypes that dilute and corrupt the original.
Stereotypes generally are based on sub-sets of groups or categories, and thus tend to skew the overall perception of the group being stereotyped; for example, racial and ethnic stereotypes.
A case in point is a 2017 book by Bruce Cannon Gibney[1] entitled A Generation of Sociopaths: How the Baby Boomers Betrayed America (New York: Hachette Books).  His case is persuasive; indeed, long before Gibney came of age, the Boomer generation was being called the “Me” generation.
To his credit, Gibney writes an early disclaimer, viz., “For those readers who are Boomers, or have parents or grandparents who are Boomers, it may be of small comfort that this book does not argue that all Baby Boomers are sociopaths.” (p. xii) Nevertheless, he shows little sympathy in his  characterization of the generation: “For the past several decades, the nation has been run by people who present, personally and politically, the full sociopathic pathology: deceit, selfishness, imprudence, remorselessness, hostility, the works. Those people are the Baby Boomers, that vast and strange generation born between 1940 and 1964, and the society they created does not work very well.” (p. x-xi)
Again, Gibney’s thesis is compelling, and to the extent that it is valid, what it compels is a reordering of our understanding regarding American (and by extension, global) politics and economics.
Prior to Gibney, the demons and dragons of socio/political and economic dysfunction have been perceived as corrupt parties and ideologies: Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, etc. (and always the “other” party!) Gibney pushes us to see that the boogeyman transcends traditional partisanship; indeed, the entire spectrum is infected!
For years I have argued that there are rogues in every current manifestation of our partisan system. In doing so, I have alienated friends and strangers who want to deny, overlook or rationalize the proverbial log in their party’s eye, while demonizing the speck in the “other” party’s eye. Moreover, by pointing out the warts on all parties’ faces, I draw criticism for “playing both sides,” “riding the fence,” etc.
To the extent that Gibney is accurate, and I am hard pressed to deny his premise, the elephant in the room is not the Democrats, or the GOP, or the Libertarians, or the Democratic Socialist, or the Gipper, or the Orange Man. The one with peanuts on his breath is a subset of the generation born between 1940 and 1964; and that subset has metastasized into every party and ideology.
Two topics serve to illustrate: (1) laws regarding bankruptcy, and (2) laws regarding student loans. “In 1978, when the median Boomer was twenty-six, Congress loosened the (bankruptcy) law… and has since adjusted the law first to make it easier (when Boomers were primarily debtors and thus beneficiaries of relief) … More recently, debt has become harder to discharge (now that wealthier Boomers have become net creditors).” (p. 172)
Gibney makes virtually the same case regarding student loan debt. A 2005 change in the law “made discharging student debt exceedingly difficult. The Boomers did not have to worry, as formerly generous subsidies meant they carried relatively little of such debt. Their children, however, carried quite a bit, with interest remitted to companies in which Boomers held shares.” (p. 174)
Gibney describes how that same pattern of Boomer indifference to all but their own immediate gratification is corrupting virtually every manifestation of life in these United States. I still have cold chills when I recall our current Boomer President’s response to a question about climate change, “So what? I’ll be dead by then.”[2]
Pew research (2017) indicates 37% of registered voters identified as independents, 33% as Democrats and 26% as Republicans. When partisan leanings of independents are taken into account, 50% identify as Democrats or lean Democratic;42% identify as Republicans or lean Republican. Since 1994, women consistently have identified more as Democrat than Republican, and the gap between levels of education has widened dramatically since ’94, with higher levels being more likely to identify as Democrat. But watch this: prior to 2010, the majority of Baby Boomers had identified as Democrat. Since 2010, the majority has identified as Republican or Libertarian![3]
So, I’m rethinking my whole understanding of “What’s wrong with America?” (You know, the game the whole family can play?) It’s not Republicans or Democrats who are wreaking havoc with our way of life. According to Gibney, it’s a subset of the Baby Boomer Generation, and that subset is bipartisan!
There is, indeed, an elephant in the room; but, I’m remembering the fable about the three blind mice who encounter a sleeping elephant: the first mouse touches the elephant’s tail and says, “Aha! An elephant is like a rope!” The second mouse feels the elephant’s trunk and says, “Oh, no! An elephant is like a fire hose!” The third rodent bumps into the elephant’s torso, and proclaims, “You’re both wrong! An elephant is like a wall!”
More than rethinking my understanding, I’m finding in Gibney’s work a validation of what I’ve sensed for years: we see what we see—too often what we want to see—and then generalize universal truth from our limited vision. And then we refuse to acknowledge any limits to our own vision or any possibility that a different perspective may have some merit. And that describes any “Me” populace.
It’s just a scratch on the surface; but for now, that’s how it looks through the flawed glass that is my world view.
Together in the Walk,
Jim

[1] Gibney is a writer and venture capitalist: an early investor at PayPal, and subsequently went to work PayPal founder Peter Thiel’s hedge fund Clarium and his venture capital company Founders Fund.
[2] Climate expert, Joe Romm (a much younger Boomer) made a similar statement, but with the opposite intent. After pointing out that at current rates the sea level will rise one foot by 2050, and storm damage will thus increase profoundly, he said, “I’ll be dead by then; but the rest of you have been warned.” (from a Mother Jones Podcast, March 10, 2011)

Friday, March 13, 2020

Unresolved Concerns

Rules and laws are inversely proportional to trust: more rules indicate less trust, while a greater level of trust is indicated by a relative absence of rules.
Rules and laws usually come about in reaction to a hurtful interaction within a group, or to prevent its happening (again). Our United States Constitution was intended to prevent replication of the monarchial tyranny the Colonists fled and against which they rebelled. The Constitution essentially limits government by establishing boundaries beyond which it may not go; but within which it is free to act.
Two ideologies clashed at the Constitution Convention. Situational revisions aside, those two groups continue today. They were born in animosity and that animosity has increased. It’s amazing that the Constitution got finished![1]
One group bore an unqualified distrust of government, but trusted individuals to be responsible and ethical in their dealings. They stumped for minimal central government, preferring to give more power to state and local governing bodies. That perspective is extended into today’s conservative political system.
The other group distrusted the integrity of individuals, especially in regard to unregulated commerce and banking. They advocated a stronger central governmental regulation against the threat of economic oligarchy . Today’s liberal principles emerged from that foundation.
Both ideologies remain virtually absolute, with neither crediting anything good to the other. Few, if any, voices call for acknowledging any good in both, and there is an ominous absence of any effort to find common ground on which to build consensus on anything. No political balance or trust is to be found.
Rules and laws are meant to restrict the influence of whatever entity is mistrusted. The power pendulum swings from left to right, and back. Endless partisan adjustments to and rescinding of laws, and the institution of more laws are meant to shackle the mistrusted “other party.” The result today is a convoluted system of laws, many of them self-contradictory, which transcends most human comprehension.
But, lack of comprehension does not discourage the hostile debates that indicate a gross decrease in trust and a consequent need for power and control.
In a pioneering study in group dynamics, Jack Gibb and others named four primary concerns for evaluating the level of trust within a group’s culture. The concerns determine the level of trust formation,[2] regardless of the group’s size. The following graph offers a visual guide to understanding the aforementioned concerns:
Primary Concern
Derivative Concern
Symptoms of Unresolved Concern
Symptoms of Resolved Concern
Acceptance
Membership
Fear/Distrust/exclusion
Acceptance/Trust
Information Flow
Decision-making
Politeness/caution/
Strategy (often secretive or behind-the-back)
Spontaneity/feedback
Goal Formation
Productivity
Apathy/Competition (silencing innovation)
Enthusiasm/Creative work
Control
Organization
Dependency vs. a
Counter-dependency that challenges for leadership
Interdependence/role
distribution
In my opinion the dynamics in the column labeled “Symptoms of Unresolved Concern” is a portentous description of our beloved United States of America.
So, what is the source of the mistrust, and how do we overcome it? When in any kind of conflict resolution setting, the first question I always ask is, “Do you truly want to resolve the issue between you, or do you just want to win the fight?” I find little evidence on social media that anybody really wants to resolve anything.
I suggest the mistrust is a product of hurtful experiences in our past. As a child I was pulled off my bicycle and chewed on by a big dog and, to this day I grow anxious when a big dog approaches me. I’ve learned compensatory behaviors to defuse any threat; but the mistrust is still present—until a relationship is built.
If building a relationship is key to overcoming mistrust, some concerns must be considered. Trust, by definition involves risk. So does love, which I believe should be the ultimate goal and intention of all human interaction.
Trust and love require—indeed, they are defined by—vulnerability. There is risk of betrayal and rejection. The alternative is to insulate oneself from betrayal and grief, but the payoff is fear and distrust. So I repeat: trust and love require—indeed, they are defined by—vulnerability.
A second concern in building trust is re-learning the lost art of listening. I’m not sure I could be a good listener had I not had extensive training in counseling and in conflict resolution. Even with the training and years of experience, it doesn’t always come naturally. Often, I have to be intentional about flipping on the “LISTEN” switch.
Nevertheless, listening is a key requirement for building trust. Evidence is extensive on social media that people don’t really listen—not even when the message is written in clear script. Instead of listening, they are preparing their rebuttal (even though they may not—probably don’t—really know what’s been said). How many times, while reading a Facebook conversation, have you discovered, within relatively few exchanges, the focus has been diverted totally from the original topic?
Someone posts about compassion for the poor, and within two or three responses the conversation is diverted to how liberals are shoving a welfare state down our throats. The diversion kills a conversation that may have led to a charitable proposal acceptable to all concerned. And mistrust, if anything, has increased, along with animosity.
Or a Facebook conversation about compassion for immigrants is diverted to a condemnation vs. defense of President Trump’s wall. The conversation might—might—have been more productive if the responders had listened and stayed on the subject, which probably was a concern for national security and public safety. If the responders wanted to pontificate against the wall, they would be better advised to start their own conversation. But, then, in all likelihood that conversation would be diverted, too.
How on earth can we build trusting relationships if I don’t really know what you’re saying, and you don’t know what I’m saying? Without that knowledge, we’re left to assumption and opinion, neither of which is trustworthy. A portion of those on social media see something I’ve written and blow it off with, “Oh, he’s liberal; so, I already know what he’s saying.” And another opportunity for productive dialogue is missed. While I work hard to read and “hear” what is being said by most people on social media, I’m sure I slip into my “lazy” mode sometimes and make similar assumptions about my conservative friends.
At the infamous bottom line, while there is risk in trusting, there also is risk in listening. If I really hear you, I risk learning something new; indeed, I may hear something that requires me to reconsider previous convictions.
But, then, that would mean I’d have to admit I am, at least partially, wrong—that my opinions are not absolute. And that may be the greatest risk of all.
That’s the way I see it through the Flawed Glass that is my world view.
Together in the Walk,
Jim




[1] In many ways, it’s not finished, even yet. As a living document it is adjusted according to ongoing needs.
[2] Leland P. Bradford, Jack R. Gibb, and Kenneth D. Benne, editors, T-Group Theory and Laboratory Method (New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1964)