Why Do We Really Silence Women? A Discussion on the True Nature of Gender

I spend a lot of time writing about the effects of gender on our personal lives and on our relationships. I also spend a lot of time writing about tribalism through a lens of evolutionary psychology, and how this affects our modern beliefs and behaviors. Lately, thanks to some great conversations with my friend Kimberly, I've started to consider the intersection of these two realms - namely what effects gender has within tribes, especially in the realm of leadership. 

I'm still working on the nuances of the ideas and will write a full post on my hypothesis soon. In the interim, I'm going to address on very specific aspect of gender and leadership - the issue of women being silenced. 

Before you continue reading this post, read the article below. I'll be referencing it throughout the rest of the post.

When Women Don't Speak

In this article, the author discusses the persistent problem of women, in mixed groups of men and women, largely being ignored. The exact problem is summed up by this quote from political science professor Chris Karpowicz: 

“Women are systematically seen as less authoritative,” says Preece. “And their influence is systematically lower. And they’re speaking less. And when they’re speaking up, they’re not being listened to as much, and they are being interrupted more.”

Basically, in a group setting where decisions are being made, female participants do not share the same elevated platform as male participants. This observation is not surprising and entirely valid; we have a ton of data in the published literature that confirms this. My own observations across all kinds of circumstances also confirms this. 

The standard narrative permeating the social sciences has a fairly uniform explanation for this phenomenon, which was summed up nicely by political science professor Jessica Preece:

"Rather than outright misogyny, she says it’s usually cultural norms and gendered messages that subtly - and profoundly - shape the rules of engagement. Individuals who suppress female speech may do so unwittingly. “They may love women,” says Preece. “They may even be a woman!” But as a society we have been “slowly socialized over years to discount” female expertise and perspectives."

The professor continues with this explanation when she describes BYU's accounting program and the experiences of women placed in cohort groups:

“Women are systematically seen as less authoritative,” says Preece. “And their influence is systematically lower. And they’re speaking less. And when they’re speaking up, they’re not being listened to as much, and they are being interrupted more.”

When you unpack the nuances of this narrative, it's essentially based on the belief that men are perceived as inherently superior to women, and this is supported by the observation of group dynamics. Men dominate the discussions and decision-making process. 

The article goes on to discuss some experiments involving groups of five who were given a task of distributing money. When the group's decision is determined by majority rule, they found the total talking time and, ultimately, the decisions the groups reached, were dominated by males. Further, the vast majority of the interruptions made by males when women were speaking was negative. After the discussions, the participants rated who was the most influential group member, and it almost always fell to those who talked the most... which were always males. 

Their solution was to change the decision-making protocol from majority rule to unanimous. In that scenario, female influence (and talking time) increased substantially. 

The authors then go on to hypothesize about the problems with the current solutions to this problem.

"From pundits in politics, the business world, and the media, “the solution so often has been, ‘You’ve got to fix the women,’ or, ‘Well, women have just got to lean in,’” says Stoddard. But the experiences women have when they lean in can be very different than a man’s in the same position.

“Advice that works for men doesn’t always work for women, because people react differently,” adds Preece—and this is well supported in the literature. Behavior that seems strong and decisive when it comes from a man, she says, may be interpreted as abrasive and aggressive from a woman. There’s even a term coined for it—the double bind.

“The double bind is huge,” says Stoddard: exhibit traditional female characteristics, she says—warmth, caring, responsiveness to all ideas and assignments—and “you’re going to experience others seeing you as less competent.” But take on male characteristics—leading, disagreeing freely, being assertive, speaking out—and likability suffers. “The competency-likability tradeoff is a constant balancing act for women.”

They accurately point out that the problem isn't the women. But they make a fundamental error in assuming the problem is the environment. This conclusion makes complete sense if you frame gender as a social construct that was designed by men to oppress women (the "patriarchy" narrative), which has been a basic assumption of gender research dating back to the 1960's. If you've read ANY of my other writings on the topic, you'll know I bitterly disagree with this narrative. 

It's flat-out wrong. The authors are correct in that women are not to blame for this "not being heard" problem. However, they're wrong about the environment being the problem. It's understandable; given their incorrect assumptions about the social nature of gender, the environment is the only possible problem. It never occurs to the authors that their basic assumptions about the very nature of gender may be wrong, despite the fact that their narrative hasn't "fixed" this problem despite decades of effort. 

"Karpowitz, Preece, and Stoddard watched all of this unfold anew in the accounting-program study, where the women who were in the minority were routinely seen—by themselves and others—as the least competent, least influential members of their groups. And this is among 20-somethings raised in the era of #LeanIn and #MeToo—arguably a time in which women have been encouraged to be more ambitious and speak out."

Not only have these 20-somethings grown up in a pro-woman culture where gender equality is THE dominant narrative spread anywhere and everywhere, but their parents and even their grandparents have been exposed to the exact same message. Since the 60's, our society has been aggressively pushing this pro-woman narrative. Even in the most educated, liberal of circles where all participants have internalized the belief that men and women are truly equal in every way (sometimes to the point of absurdity), we still see this effect of women being silenced. 

After six decades of trying to fix a problem and having zero success, it's prudent to consider the possibility that we're somehow doing something wrong. I'm suggesting we (really, them) don't understand the actual nature of the problem. And that misunderstanding stems from the fundamental assumptions researchers make about gender. 

What if it's NOT a social construct? What if masculinity and femininity weren't fabricated by men to oppress women? What if we've been trying to solve a problem that isn't actually a problem at all? And perhaps worst of all, what if we've been hurting the very people we've been trying to help while solving this problem that doesn't really exist?

Enter My Hypothesis

I love science because it seeks "the truth", but openly acknowledges the pursuit of "the truth" is a true asymptote. Over time, we get progressively closer to "the truth", but we'll never fully arrive. That means good scientists aren't motivated by discovering that all-encompassing "truth", because they know they never will. Instead, good scientists HAVE to be intrinsically motivated by the process of trying to discover "the truth." So we use empiricism and the scientific method to slowly and systematically disprove various hypotheses. Rule out possibilities. Inch closer to that ever-elusive "truth." Good science forces us to see the world as it is, not the world we WANT to see. When applied correctly to this problem of women not being heard, good science reveals WHY we can't seem to fix this problem. 

The fundamental error the author and the researchers cited in this article make is the same error that's dominated gender research for decades - the assumption that gender is a social construct that was created for the nefarious goal of female oppression. Thanks to ideologies like modern feminism, this same error has been spread to popular culture and has given rise to the modern social justice movement (among others.) In short, this world view assumes something like this does or has actually occurred:

But what if gender isn't a social construct? What if gender is biologically-determined? What if it's innate? What if gender is more like sexual orientation and it's not a choice so much as a fundamental part of who you are? This is the foundation of most of the gender topics I write about, and is explained in greater detail in this post. Give it a read if you're unfamiliar with my arguments.

Back to this scenario. I would argue the group dynamics the researchers observe occurs as a function of our innate behaviors that have developed throughout the millennia, therefore serve an evolutionary purpose. Furthermore, if we embrace THIS narrative, we can easily develop a solution that fixes the "problem."

So What's the Solution?

After twenty years of working as a high school social studies teacher, I've observed countless groups of students. These groups sometimes consist of all males or all females, but mostly contain a mix. I may occasionally create groups just to test my hypotheses. But don't tell my students that. 

Anyway, I've come to realize group environments are not inherently collaborative in nature. They're competitive. Without excessive intervention, all groups always follow the same pattern all the time: Different people will have different ideas, which they share. The person who sells their idea the most effectively by gaining group consensus ultimately "wins", and the group comes up with a solution. 

When it comes to gender roles, masculinity is inherently competitive and hierarchical. In any given situation, the most competent male, as determined by the rest of the group, is deemed the "leader." This position isn't bestowed; this position is earned. In a group setting, the most competent person is assumed to be the leader, and their ideas are the ideas that the group supports. They reach that conclusion based on that masculine person's ability to sell the idea over the other ideas other individuals in the group try to sell. 

Quick sidebar - I'm using the term "masculinity" instead of "male" because it's entirely possible for a woman to exhibit the masculine traits needed to be deemed the most competent person in the group. In these group settings, the bias isn't against women; the bias is against femininity. Subtle but VERY important point.

So within groups, masculine people make the decisions. So where does feminine people fit into this? Are they truly voiceless?

Of course not. 

To understand the role femininity plays, let's go back in time. Imagine we're part of a tribe of hunter-gatherers roaming the plains of pre-colonial America 400 years ago. The tribe has to make an important decision about moving to follow a herd of animals or staying in one place and planting crops. The very survival of the tribe could be at stake. How would the tribe make this critically-important decision?

Ultimately, the decision is likely going to be made by a single person who is willing to assume the responsibility of the lives of the people they care about deeply. If this person makes the right choice, they survive. Wrong choice? People die. So this person is likely going to gather as much information as they can, including information from the tribe itself. Different people in the tribe are going to have different perspectives that will consider different variables. Some people will consider the food variable. Some people will consider other, potentially hostile tribes. Some people will consider access to water. Some people will consider access to fire wood. And shelter. And weather. And a myriad of other practical survival considerations. These people would likely have a more masculine outlook on the situation; they're going to consider how the tribe will get provisions for survival and how the tribe will protect itself from outside threats. 

Some people will also consider how each option would affect the people of the tribe. Will it affect relationships? How will it affect the children of the tribe? How will it affect relationships with the tribes they trade with? How will it affect their ability to recruit new tribe members? These relationship-related variables are more likely to have a more feminine outlook on the situation; they're going to consider how the tribe itself functions as a collection of different individuals. 

The leader of the tribe, the person who has accepted the responsibility for the tribe's very survival, absolutely needs both of these perspectives to make the right decision. Without the masculine perspective, the tribe might starve or be overrun by a more powerful neighboring tribe. Without the feminine perspective, the tribe may rot from within due to interpersonal conflict or be isolated from the outside world and die because the tribe failed to progress as much as competing tribes.

In summary, both the masculine and feminine perspectives very different, but both are absolutely necessary for survival. A good leader recognizes this and values each for what they are: complimentary, necessary perspectives.

When we look at the mechanics of how great leaders make decisions, we see a familiar pattern. They present the problem to a collection of advisors, the advisors mull possible solutions, the advisors report back to the leader, and the leader makes an informed decision. In some way, shape, or form, this is how organizational decisions are made. 

The advisors who will present ideas to the leader are essentially "selling" their ideas. This actual process, as such, is competitive in nature. The best ideas presented by the most persuasive advisors win. This is why these advisors tend to be masculine (again, not necessarily men.) Assertiveness, confidence, and logic are what will make their ideas winning ideas. That's the realm of masculinity, not femininity. 

So where does femininity come into play? 

Throughout this entire process of developing possible solutions, the leader and all the leader's advisors will consult with feminine individuals (who are usually women, but not always women), usually informally. They have conversations. They present the ideas, the feminine individuals consider how those ideas would affect the relationships within and between tribes, then share their thoughts. As I mentioned earlier, this input is absolutely critical to the tribe's survival. 

So why can't femininity be the decision-making gender? 

This is the million-dollar question. In the "gender is a social construct" narrative, femininity is capable of running the show but isn't given the opportunity because of oppression. This narrative probably developed, in part, because women were envious of men in power. Power itself is great, but it also comes with all kinds of nice perks. The person calling the shots makes the most money, attracts the hottest mates, gets the best access to the best food, clothes, private jets... whatever. Who wouldn't want that?!?

The problem with this is two-fold. First, this ignores the fact that the person at the top likely got there because they earned it by beating out all the other inferior people in the tribe. As a masculine male, I can confirm that clawing your way to the top of anything and remaining there is really fucking hard work. Because there's always people fighting for your position. You have constant pressure to be the best as long as you desire the power of being at the top.

Second, being at the top requires one to take on a shit-ton of responsibility for the welfare of the rest of the tribe. Normally this isn't a huge deal... until you have to make a decision that pits the welfare of the group against the welfare of one or a small number of your tribe members you're leading. 

Going back to the hypothetical tribe scenario - let's say the clear best solution is to follow the herd of animals. Maybe the land our tribe is currently occupying is ill-suited for agriculture and staying in one place will make the tribe targets of neighboring, aggressive tribes. Staying in one place exposes the tribe to likely starvation AND war, both of which could doom the entire tribe.

But let's say moving to follow the animal herd means two sick children in the tribe will likely die. Do you choose to endanger the whole tribe, including the two sick children, or do you save the tribe but endanger just those two children? Practically, it's an easy decision. Emotionally, though, that simple decision means your choice will likely kill two children in your tribe. 

That kind of decision requires the ability to dissociate from the emotion of those close relationships of the tribe in order to save the tribe, which is something feminine individuals simply cannot do. Nor SHOULD they do. Nor should we ASK them to do. 

So back to our BYU accounting groups from the posted article. Whenever we convene a group of students, whether it be in my high school psychology class or a group of BYU accounting students, and ask them to do a task, we're inserting them into what amounts to that final stage in my tribe example where a leader is determined and the other group members "sell" their ideas to the leader. This is a competitive environment. As such, masculinity takes center stage and femininity is marginalized. 

We CAN alter that dynamic, as the researchers did in the study described in the article, by requiring unanimous decisions, but this is a decidedly artificial solution to the problem. Forcing the feminine members of the group to participate in the competitive practice of sharing ideas does allow them to speak more, but their ideas are still left behind because they're not being sold with masculine gusto. So it makes us feel good that the feminine people are literally talking more, but the end result is the same - the ideas the feminine members have are largely ignored.

The worst part of this scenario is that the process of forcing the feminine members to compete with the masculine members, we may be robbing them of their opportunity to actually influence the decision-making process, which ultimately hurts the group because decisions lose that feminine perspective.

So what IS the solution?

Based off my hypothesis of how this shit works, the solution needs to be two-fold. First, the leader of the group absolutely has to recognize that any decision pertaining to the group/ organization/ tribe NEEDS both a masculine and feminine perspective. While I think this kind of leadership is rare today, it's not extinct. Truly good leaders intuitively realize decision-making requires both masculine and feminine input and guidance and will seek out both perspectives. But a lot of 'leaders' fail to recognize this, which results in a lot of bad decisions. 

Second, an environment has to be created where the feminine perspective can be shared in a noncompetitive environment. This means we can't just throw people together in a group and ask them to make decisions. That is ALWAYS going to result in masculine voices dominating at the expense of feminine voices, even if we radically alter the "rules" of how the group operates (by measures such as requiring unanimous votes for decisions.) No matter how much we tweak the dials and knobs of group dynamics, this is always going to be a problem. 

So, our solution to this problem is to choose better leaders who understand the value of both the masculine and feminine perspective, AND create a decision-making process that allows the feminine voice to be heard. The first is straight-forward. The second is a little tricky because it requires work outside a group setting where that competitiveness isn't stoked. 

Personally, I've found the easiest way to do this is to simply split groups up and let individuals have one-on-one conversations with each other. in these scenarios, the masculine members tend to share their ideas with the feminine members, and the feminine members share all the relational variables that would influence the masculine member's ideas. In this way, all the ideas that will eventually be proposed in the group setting are filtered through a feminine lens. This dramatically improves the quality of the ideas that are eventually proposed in the group setting. 

Interestingly, the BYU researchers acknowledge this:

"For starters, women are “likely to identify different things as problems in the first place,” says Preece. In politics women often think differently about issues than men do; the literature even shows they can have a cooperative, democratizing impact on deciding bodies. “Women are more likely to think about, What are the needs of families and children and how do we care for those who have the least in our society?” says Karpowitz. “Many men focus on different priorities, such as how to balance the budget or change the tax structure.”

The problem is they fail to understand the underlying dynamics of gender, which leads to misidentify the problem, which leads them to propose solutions that have failed, continue to fail, and will continue to fail into the future. The folks who buy into this narrative, in the process of trying to solve the wrong problem, are making the very problem they're desperate to solve much, much worse.

Like any good scientist, I openly acknowledge I might be totally wrong about all this stuff. But based off my own experimentation and observation, I'm likely a lot less wrong than the BYU researchers. If we can momentarily suppress our emotional reaction to the suggestion that gender roles are complimentary in nature and not oppressive, and that gender roles are innate and not imposed by a nefarious "patriarchy", we can begin to understand the real dynamics at play. That clarity allows us to develop actual solutions to the actual problems. 

For the folks who read through this entire post, give these ideas some thought. After you've pondered them for a bit, share your thoughts with me. 

***

Reframing Gender: Masculinity and Femininity as a Personality Construct and the Gender Cup Model

In the In the years since I began writing and gender, sex, and relationships, my hypothesis on the true nature of gender has evolved. Originally, I explained "gender" as a spectrum with masculinity at one end and femininity at the other. Any given person, regardless of their biological (do they have a penis and testes, a vagina and ovaries, or any of the variations and combinations that can occur) or genetic sex (XX, XY, or any other variation that can occur), fell somewhere on the spectrum. It looks something like this:

I had liked this idea because it allowed for the wide variety of gender expression we see occurring throughout our populations. The problem, though, is the construct didn't allow for the combinations of masculinity and femininity we see. 

For example, it would be entirely possible for a biological and genetic male to exhibit very strong masculine traits, yet also exhibit very strong feminine traits situationally. Based off my hypothesis I explained in this post on my other man camp blog, this kind of man would commonly be called a "gentleman" and would be considered exceptionally high value to potential mates. In the realm of gender research, this man who displays both masculine and feminine traits would be considered "androgynous."

This man, however, can't really be described with the "spectrum" model above. If he's placed somewhere in the middle, we couldn't discern him from an "undifferentiated" person who exhibits few masculine OR feminine traits, which according to the hypothesis, would be low value to potential mates.

So I needed a new representation of my model, and this new model had to account for a few... issues. Including:

• The model has to represent combinations of masculinity and femininity as discrete constructs. This would alleviate the problem of the spectrum graphic representation above. 
• The model has to represent gender expression independent of biological and genetic sex. A major problem with the concept of "gender" is it's often conflated with sex. Part of this is simply an issue with the colloquial use of the the terms. In popular culture, we use sex and gender interchangeably. Our new model has to account for the fact that sex and gender, while often occurring together in most of the population, is not a perfect correlation. Most genetic and biological males are mostly masculine, but there are obvious exceptions.
• The model has to account for variability within the same individual over time and between different circumstances. A biological and genetic male may be masculine as fuck in one scenario (like confronting an aggressive homeless person), but may display strong feminine characteristics at other times (like when caring for a sick child.) 

Taking these into consideration, I developed a better model. Note this isn't actually MY original idea; the inclusion of masculine and feminine gender traits have been studied by personality psychologists for over a hundred years. My model is unique in that it's tailored to be used as a foundation for the rest of the ideas and concepts that make up the "man camp" world view.

Gender as a Personality Construct

My new model is quite simple. We have the two gender constructs: Masculinity and Femininity. Our personalities are made up of these two traits; all of us will possess SOME masculine and SOME feminine traits. The degree to which each of us possess masculine and feminine traits can be measured with a test such as this one designed off the work of Sandra Bem, or if you really want to dig into the nuances of your gender expression, take this test. Either one will give you a ballpark representation of the combination of masculine and feminine traits you possess. 

Your particular measure of masculinity and femininity will be represented with two cups:

As the measure of masculinity and femininity increases, the cups get progressively more full. Each of us will have a particular level in each cup that represents our distribution of masculine and feminine traits. 

One of the cups will be more dominant and more outwardly obvious more often. This is our primary gender. The other one will be our secondary gender. A strongly masculine man will behave in a masculine way most of the time, but may exhibit feminine characteristics in specific situations. Masculinity would be his primary gender; femininity would be his secondary gender. 

Likewise, a strongly feminine woman will behave in a feminine way most of the time, but may exhibit masculine characteristics in specific situations. Femininity would be her primary gender; masculinity would be her secondary gender. Here are my cups:

As you can see, I skew HEAVILY towards the masculine. Interestingly, back in my "Nice Guy" days, I would have scored FAR higher on the femininity cup and FAR lower on the masculinity cup. Not because I was a fundamentally different person, but rather because I thought that "Nice Guy" persona would get me what I desperately wanted - female attention. The cups above represent my authentic self. I'm pretty good at the feminine traits represented in the cups above because they're fundamentally part of who I am. But the feminine traits that I "faked" as part of my "Nice Guy" persona? Not so much. 

Anyway...

I'd expect the majority of the population to follow this particular pattern. HOWEVER, it's entirely possible for other combinations to exist. A biological and genetic male could express feminine characteristics as his primary gender. And vice versa. Or a genetic or biological male or female could have equal parts masculinity and femininity. AND those characteristics could be balanced in such a way that they're equally dominant (both "primary".) And so on.

The way to think of "gender", therefore, is that it exists independently of biological sex, genetic sex, sexual orientation, or any other such construct. 

Make sense?

The model itself isn't new or revolutionary; it merely gives us a useful framework to talk about the role of gender on how we perceive ourselves and the world around us, and helps explain, predict, and alter how we relate to other people. Especially in relationships. 

How We Can Use This Model

I make a lot of observations, give a lot of explanations, and make a lot of predictions across this blog and my other sex and relationship blogs. Pretty much all of these observations, explanations, and predictions can be explained using the Two Cup Gender Model. Here's a sampling:

• Gender expression is biological in nature and difficult to change without profound consequences. The idea that gender is hard-wired is one of the enduring, fundamental aspects of my hypothesis, which I detail in this post. However our cups are filled is largely innate and difficult to change. We can ACT in a way that violates our biological imperative, but that violation will come with significant struggles. It's essentially the same as if a gay man tries to be "straight." Possible, but extremely distressing personally. This deviates from the popular notion that gender is a social construct, which has virtually no scientific support. 
• All of us have an authentic "default" ideal combination of masculine and feminine traits. This is tied to the previous point. Each of us has a default combination of masculinity and femininity that feels authentic. When we're acting in that way, we're most likely to reach our full potential. 
• Masculinity and femininity are complimentary in nature. Great things happen when masculine and feminine people work together towards a common goal. Masculinity or femininity alone are both woefully inadequate at accomplishing greatness. Masculinity and femininity also falls flat if the constructs are competitive in nature. 
• Masculinity and femininity can both create and ease tension, which creates the foundation of the push/pull dynamic of flirting and seduction. When masculinity and femininity interact, there's an inherent tension based off the stark contrast between the two. This contrast is the fuel that supplies the fire of passion. This applies to relationships or, really, any situation. Bringing masculine and feminine individuals together makes life more interesting. 
• Relationship health increases as a function of the the disparity between masculinity and femininity in each partner. As I mention in the last point, the tension between masculinity and femininity fuels passion. The greater the discrepancy between the two, the more passion can build. The more passion builds, the more subjective enjoyment we get from relationships, the longer and more satisfying we'd expect the relationships to be.
• Most men are aroused by strongly feminine women; most women are aroused by strong masculine men. This is in no way a given, but generally speaking, this holds true. This is the reason a great deal of the man camp teachings involve learning to get better at being a man.
• Relationships are most successful when both partners score high on both masculine and feminine traits. The more of each trait a single individual possesses, the more capable they are at navigating life, empathizing with others (including their partner), and more dynamic and interesting their personalities become. A masculine male with strong feminine capabilities paired with a feminine female with strong masculine capabilities will create the best, most successful relationships. Basically, two androgynous partners are the pinnacle of relationship potential. 
• Relationships are least successful when both partners score low on both masculine and feminine traits. Basically the opposite of the last one. Two undifferentiated partners are going to have the least-successful relationships.
• Children thrive when they're exposed to both masculine and feminine influences. Role models are important for children. Having a strong masculine and a strong feminine role model will expose them to the full range of gender expression, which will help them learn the nuances of both. It's important to note the biological or genetic sex of the parents don't seem to matter. A gay couple with one masculine and one feminine partner has the same basic outcomes as a straight couple with the same gender expression variability. 
• The most successful tribes have roughly equal numbers of masculine and feminine members. If you follow this blog, you know tribalism is a major focus of my hypothesis. Generally, the more diverse the tribe, the more successful it will be... mostly because diversity gives the tribe a wider range of capabilities to solve interesting problems that arise within and outside the tribe. Gender is a MAJOR part of this. A tribe of mostly masculine members or mostly feminine members is not going to be nearly as successful as a tribe with equal numbers of each. 

These are just a few of the practical applications of the Gender Cup Model. Moving forward, this'll likely be the model I use for future posts. 

***

Conspiracy Theorists are a Cancer to Society

A few weeks back, I was having a discussion in a Facebook group regarding how COVID-19 would affect public schools in the fall. A handful of parents, rightfully, expressed concerns for their children's health, and more importantly, the health of high-risk individuals in their families. Schools are, after all, petri dishes. It would be exceptionally easy for a kid to bring the virus home from school and infect entire families. 

But two members of the group had entirely different rationales for not wanting to send their kids to school - they were concerned an eventual vaccine for the virus would contain a microchip that would be activated by 5G cell phone towers nearby, which would in turn cause their children to start believing in a "gay agenda" that's been pushed by Hollywood.

That discussion was... tough.

You see, I have a visceral disdain for conspiracy theories and, sometimes, for the people who push them. Most of us are familiar with at least a few conspiracy theories, and a lot of us may even entertain some as being a remote possibility. For example, I'm generally open to the possibility that there are still some unknowns related to the JFK assassination decades ago. Or that the Saudi government might know more about the 9/11 attacks than they're letting on. Shit like that.

I place that kind of belief on the same level as agnostics being open to the possibility that there is a god or gods. Or some kind of higher power. It's not something we can prove or disprove. At a bare minimum, we have to entertain the possibility that it could be true, but we can acknowledge that it's improbable. 

I'm okay with that. I think it's good, even. 

My disdain for conspiracy theories comes from the folks who actually live the brand. You know, the people who will literally live their lives around the material facts of their preferred collection of conspiracies. The folks who could probably be diagnosed with paranoid personality disorder if they were to seek treatment. 

So what's the genesis of this disdain?

Why I Hate Conspiracy Theories

To understand why I have such a primal hatred of conspiracy theorists, it's probably useful to know a bit about me. Per the Myers-Briggs (yes, I understand the validity issues of personality instruments), I'm somewhere between an INTP and ENTP. Using logic and reason to stimulate debates to solve problems is my jam. Take a problem, research everything related to the problem, debate possible solutions, and come up with a unique solution that satisfies all the relevant parties. 

I can do this all day every day forever and be endlessly fulfilled.

In college, I majored in history and social studies, and also experimental psychology. All of those realms involved the same kinds of skills - research, critical thinking, asking questions, then answering those questions. This required great researching skills, curiosity, open-mindedness, skepticism, empiricism, and a relentless pursuit of the asymptote we call "the truth."  

The basic process is the same for all those fields. You start by making an observation, then you formulate a thesis or hypothesis, do research on the thesis or test the hypothesis, report the results, then offer a conclusion as to why it's correct or incorrect. If it's correct, I missed evidence somewhere and go back to the research stage. If it's incorrect, I reformulate the hypothesis and repeat the process. Greatly simplified, but that's the process.

Regardless of the application, there's always a fundamental assumption I HAD to make: I might be wrong. No matter how much evidence supports whatever I was investigating, that process of seeking the truth is a real asymptote - you never get to discover the truth, you only get incrementally closer. This means there's always going to be a lot of uncertainty baked into my world view. And I'm perfectly comfortable with that. Quite frankly, certainty makes me really uncomfortable. If I think I've discovered "the truth" about anything, it means I missed something, somewhere, somehow. 

This is a decidedly different approach to what a conspiracy theorist will take. Conspiracy theories go in the opposite direction. They start with a "truth", then work backwards to make that truth valid. Instead of seeking evidence to refute their truth as a good historian and experimental psychologist would do, conspiracy theorists seek evidence that supports their truth. 

I modify my world view continuously based on an evolving understanding of the world. A conspiracy theorist controls their view of the world to match their preconceived world view. 

My approach makes me progressively better at navigating the world because I objectively understand it better. This makes me a better individual, husband, father, teacher, community member, etc. 

Conspiracy theorists get progressively worse at managing their lives because their world view becomes more and more limited, which reduces their overall effectiveness at anything and everything. In short, they drift farther and farther from objective reality.

The Effects of Conspiracy Theorists on the Pandemic

Normally, this has little to no effect on others. Or more specifically, no effect on me. So I usually tolerate conspiracy theorists just for the amusement factor. However, the coronavirus pandemic has changed that game. A lot. 

While there's still a ton we don't know about the virus, we do know enough to understand that we're now at a stage where we have to "thread the needle" of reopening society in a way that won't overwhelm our health system, and this reopening has to be coordinated on a local level. Unfortunately for our policy-makers, this is a Herculean task given there's a HUGE lag between people being exposed to the virus, becoming contagious themselves, and showing symptoms. In short, seemingly healthy people can infect a lot of other people. 

This problem can be partially mitigated with all the recommended guidelines - only leaving home when it's absolutely needed, social distancing, wearing a mask in public, washing hands, avoiding touching your face, etc. Even with all those efforts, the reopening process is still akin to driving a bus down a busy highway without a steering wheel. 

Enter the conspiracy theorists.

The most dangerous type, right now anyway, are those who believe the danger isn't real. There are a lot of conspiracy narratives being circulated via Youtube videos and social media, but they all produce the same result - people avoiding any and all mitigation efforts. The stupid shits in my home state of Michigan are the perfect examples:

Because these people buy into the conspiracy narratives and take little to no precautions, they spread the virus quickly. Which results in a spike in positive cases, hospitalizations which threaten to overwhelm local hospitals, and eventually, deaths.

What these dumb shits fail to realize is that their "protests" to reopen the economy have the net effect of assuring the economy stays locked down longer. THIS is the overt harm that is being caused by conspiracy theorists right now, today. As a business owner increasingly desperate to reopen, I have a growing disdain for this group and their short-sighted ignorance.

Of course, there IS the extreme polar opposite conspiracy theorists who believe the virus is an apocalyptic end-of-the-world-as-we-know-it pandemic that will wipe out most of humanity. While these folks don't get nearly as much press as the people pictured above, their irrational fear fueled by their particular conspiracy theories are also potentially catastrophic only economic in nature. Instead of death via virus, though, they're heading down a path of death via starvation and exposure as more and more people lose their homes.

Culling the Herd

One of the main points of this blog is to connect with and, maybe, recruit people into my "tribe" in both real life and online. This process involves identifying people who are interested in the concept, have skills or knowledge that would be useful to the tribe, and are eager to learn from others within the tribe.

To this end, I'm normally extremely open-minded. I want as diverse of a tribe as possible because diverse tribes have the varied skills and knowledge to survive and thrive any and all potential situations. Conspiracy theorists pose a serious problem, however. They're "stuck" in a particular world view that perceives nefarious enemies and secret plots all over the place, and that generalized distrust seriously limits the flexibility of the tribe.

So that's one population I will not consider for the kinds of people I want to surround myself with as part of this project. 

***

For those who are interested in learning more about the psychology behind conspiratorial beliefs, this is an excellent literature review on the published data on the topic, which I used as a source for this post: Understanding Conspiracy Theories

The Coronavirus Has Been A Giant Filter

The coronavirus has revealed quite a bit about the world in which we live. Among the more interesting (and helpful) things? This pandemic has revealed the people who are resilient. 

A major aspect of this whole man camp project is surrounding myself and my family with good people. Capable people. Smart people. Fun people. And in light of this pandemic? Resilient people.

My close friends, the people I know well, have not surprised me in the least. Without exception, they've handled this pandemic exactly as I would have predicted they would, which is generally positive. But a whole lotta casual acquaintances have been... surprising. 

Under the stress of the pandemic, a surprising number of people in my extended social circles have turned out to be far less resilient than I would have predicted.

Some have responded to the pandemic with irrational fear to the point where it seems they believe half the world's population will die. These are the folks who are personally terrified to do anything and everything without a hazmat suit. 

Some have responded with shocking callousness towards the suffering of others. Or the welfare of their community. Or just the value of human life.  These are the folks who insist we open everything immediately without restriction. Usually under the guise of "freedom." 

Some have responded with profound selfishness where they absolutely refuse to make any kind of personal sacrifice for the greater good. These are the people who refuse to close their businesses or eliminate their personal habits that could put others at risk.

Some have responded with pathological paranoia, which almost always manifests as conspiracy theories. These are the people who believe this entire pandemic is a giant hoax perpetrated by some boogey man shitlords hell-bent on accruing power.

Finally, some have responded with an unthinking, sheep-like allegiance to a particular group or a person by simply adopting whatever mindset is being modeled for them. This is most evident in ardent Trump supporters, but this type of person can be be found anywhere and everywhere across any grouping of people. 

All these people are the kind of people I will avoid like the plague, at least in real life. Their lack of resiliency is untenable. Quite simply, these are not the kinds of people that will enrich my life in any discernible way.

But there have been a lot of pleasant surprises, too.

Some people, for whom I would have predicted to be rather weak and lacked resiliency, have turned out to be genuinely good people. Strong people. Leaders.

I've seen people making incredible personal sacrifices to help others. I've seen people who themselves are on the brink of financial ruin engage in amazing acts of kindness. I've seen people putting the welfare of their community before their own personal safety. I've seen incredible acts of humility and caring. These people... these are the folks I want in my tribe. These are the folks I want to have my back. These are the folks I need in my life.

The coronavirus has revealed we're surrounded by a lot of shitty people. But the coronavirus has also revealed we're surrounded by a lot of wonderful, amazing people. It turns out that whole "adversity reveals character" thing is true. And the entire world is getting one hell of a dose of adversity right now. 

***

Floki.

I don't normally write when emotional; it clouds my reasoning. Today's going to be an exception.  

Fair warning - there is no happy ending. I'm writing this one just for me; this is my therapy today. 

This is Floki, one of our rescue cats we've had for about five years. Here, he's sitting on his favorite spot - our kitchen counter. God, that annoyed me.

When we got Floki as a kitten, he seemed kinda weird. Eccentric, almost. For fans of Vikings, you'll recognize his namesake. 

As Floki grew, we came to realize he wasn't eccentric so much as... slow. What Floki lacked in intelligence he more than made up in sweetness. And freakishly-fast reflexes, even for a cat. Over those five years in California and later Colorado, We never had a mouse or fly that lived more than a few hours. 

Floki had a lot of peculiar behaviors. He never really got the hang of litter boxes. Most of the time he hit the mark, but once or twice per week, he'd only come close. It was a pain in the ass. But it was Floki. It was impossible to stay mad at him for more than a few seconds, especially when he'd look up at you with his giant googly eyes. 

He was weirdly bad at grooming, so it wasn't uncommon for him to have patches of matted fur or white cat dandruff splattered across his shiny black fur.

If Shelly and I were lying on the couch watching TV, Floki would hop up on us, walk around to find the most awkward spot so half of his body would cover both of us, then plop down. At the slightest movement, he'd leap up and scatter away. 

Other times he'd hop up on your lap and, in another lesson Floki never learned, he'd make biscuits without retracting his nails. And it hurt like Hell. But it was Floki. He'd settle in and let you stroke his ears. He had a strange, barely-audible purr that would stir as he melted into your lap.

I'm not much of a cat person, but I loved that cat. Maybe it was because he was completely devoid of that asshole-ishness most cats possess. Maybe I felt a little sorry for him. Maybe his demeanor just reminded me of a dog. Damn, I really loved Floki.

Over the last few weeks, Floki started losing weight. He started begging for any kind of meat we might be eating. He started drinking A LOT of water. He started wanting to cuddle more. And he started peeing in random spots around the house.

We made a vet appointment, and this last Friday, I had to go through the routine of coaxing him in a crate. Floki absolutely hated that crate and would fight tooth and nail to stay out. Literally. He was soooo damn strong. From the moment I'd get him in the crate to the moment he was let out, he'd let out a deep, heart-breaking howl. He was always petrified and would be traumatized afterward. It was never easy.

As it turns out, Floki was sick. Very, very sick. After consulting with the vet, Shelly and I had three terrible options. We could do nothing and Floki would likely die within a month, but it would be a decidedly unpleasant decline ending in a painful death. 

We could try treatment, but it would involve a lot of injections, indefinite, weekly trips to the vet indefinitely for testing, and a cost that was several multitudes of what we could afford given the realities of the present situation gripping our world.

Finally, we could euthanize him.

After a horrible, painful discussion, we made our decision. The first option was simply too inhumane and would require way too much suffering. The second option would require money we didn't have, but more significantly, would require crating him for a trip to the vet every week for as long as he could fight. I couldn't do that to him. So we chose the last one.

Now, I have a little bit of a peculiar belief about euthanization. In some confluence of the influence of my dad, the movies Old Yeller and Of Mice and Men, a belief in the responsibility of pet ownership, and finally a deep drive to be kind to the weak, I don't believe euthanasia should be done by a stranger. Part of the responsibility of owning a pet is being willing and able to end your pet's suffering yourself instead of farming it out to a third party. It's just part of being a man.

It's probably not a popular belief, but it's my belief.

Having grown up as a hunter and being surrounded by farmers, I don't have an issue with killing animals, but a beloved pet is different. And given Floki's... specialness... it's really fucking painful.

The absolute last thing I wanted for Floki at the end was to go back into that crate, drive to the vet while howling the whole time in terror, be placed on an unfamiliar table in an unfamiliar room and be given a painful injection by an unfamiliar person.

So Shelly and I made a plan. We would tell our three kids Friday night to give them time to spend with him that night and Saturday, then wake up early Sunday and do what I had to do.

For the last 36 hours of his like, Floki lived like a king. We showered him with attention. Fed him countless cat treats he loved, and did anything and everything else he loved.

When I woke up this morning, the dread had really set in. Given I don't have a ready supply of phenobarbital, there's really only one way to humanely euthanize a cat. One bullet in the middle of the forehead. It's close and it's personal and it's traumatic. But it's humane. I couldn't stop rehearsing the steps in my head, both because I hoped it might make it a little easier and because I didn't want to fuck up.

As I was milling about with the last-minute preparations, Floki took his regular spot on our kitchen counter top. Shelly fed him a cat sedative we had left over from our car ride from California to Colorado, and we showered him with some more attention and treats. The next hour and  a half crawled by. 

When the sedative started taking effect, Shelly said her final goodbye and I loaded him in the car. I wanted to avoid the trauma of the crate, I let him lie on a cat bed in the passenger seat. As we drove out to the secluded area I had scouted the day before, I stroked his ears. I could feel that familiar, quiet purring. I'd like to say I held it together on that drive. But I can't.

Somewhat surprisingly, the moment we arrived, a calm fell over me. I now had a job to do and couldn't fuck it up. Compartmentalization, I suppose. It's a gift and a curse. 

By now, the early morning sun was warming the air and ground. Some birds were singing in a nearby tree. It was beautifully serene. 

I quickly set everything up, then carried Floki to the spot. At this point, his eyes were mostly closed as the sedative had taken full effect. I set the cat bed on the ground, then laid him down. I laid down next to him and pet him for a bit. I quietly told him stories of my fondest memories with him over the years. 

I was still surprisingly calm. The only emotion I felt was the warm connection I had with this cat I had grown so attached to over the last five years. He was purring as he drifted off to sleep. I was thankful those giant googly eyes were closed. 

It was the first echo of the CRACK! off the walls of the valley that busted me out of that compartmentalization. I absolutely fucking lost it. I don't know how much time passed, but something snapped me back into that compartment. I still had a job to do; I had to finish this. 

I wrapped him in one of the blankets he loved and loaded him in the car for the short drive to the spot I'd bury him. Fortuitously, Western Colorado is covered with mesas. 

Nature's counter tops.

The drive sucked. God it sucked. I couldn't stop replaying it. I felt grief and sadness and anxiety. I wanted nothing more than to stop; to be doing anything other than what I was doing right then. But I had to finish. 

I arrived at the spot. I climbed to the top of one of my favorites and found a perfect spot facing the snow-covered San Juan Mountains to the south. I'm not religious or even spiritual, but something about this spot felt right. Very, very right. The picture doesn't do it justice.

Rest in peace, friend.

This was and still is really, really hard. But together, we gave Floki the best end he could have possibly had. He was treated like a king and had a peaceful end. 

The grief will pass. It always does. But god damn, it hurts.

***

This Isn't Our "New Normal"... Yet: A Discussion On How This Pandemic Could Get A Whole Lot Worse

Today's "normal" is certainly different than our "normal" even a few weeks ago. But what about tomorrow's "normal"?

One of the cool aspects of studying history and psychology is you start to learn cause and effect. If "X" happens, "Y" follows. It's never possible to entirely predict where current events today will take us tomorrow, but we can make a few broad predictions. Practically, predicting likely future outcomes can help us better prepare for those unknowns we may face tomorrow. 

Right now, today, we're still on the "upward curve" of the coronavirus pandemic. Barring a sudden discovery of an effective treatment that can be quickly deployed on a world scale, we're in for a bumpy ride that'll likely last a long, long time. Unfortunately, hydroxychloroquine doesn't look like it'll be our savior drug. Our lone defense against the virus, right now, is social distancing and personal hygiene methods. It's becoming abundantly clear the earlier any give geographic region goes into "lock down" mode, the less severe the outbreaks, and the more likely local healthcare systems can handle the load. The horror happening in New York City right now could be attributed to the lax attitudes a few weeks ago. This also means places like Florida (or Brazil and Belarus), where the governor refused to take the danger seriously, will have a day of reckoning in the very near future. 

Barring that miracle treatment and based on that we're seeing in Southern Europe (which is about two weeks ahead of us as far as the spread and severity of the virus), we're at least weeks away from the peak of the virus, and more importantly, at least months away from being able to return to some relaxing of the social distancing guidelines. That means our economy here in the US is going to continue to be seriously hamstrung, which is precisely what's going to make the ride so damn bumpy. 

The world we lived in back in February is gone, and probably gone for a lot longer than most of us realize. Maybe even forever. We're just starting to peer over the edge of a giant, deep, dark chasm. The "new normal" we're experiencing today isn't the normal we'll likely be experiencing in the near future. Odds are decent we're just experiencing the beginning of the first of a series of crises.

So What's The Problem?

There are two fundamental issues we're facing as a world community. First, we have a TON of debt. Second, we're not getting along too well these days. On top of these two problems, the sheer worldwide scale of the pandemic means we can't really help each other out too much. 

These two fundamental problems have created the potential for a catastrophic collapse of the world economy, the likes of which could pale the Great Depression. The coronavirus pandemic could be the spark that ignites the dumpster fire of that economic collapse. The shutting down of commerce will cause a series of severe crises; each one contributing to the potential misery of our "new normal." Here are a few of these crises, both local and worldwide, in the making:

• Rampant worldwide unemployment. The cascading effects of the shelter-in-place orders is causing world economies to grind to a halt. No commerce = no jobs. We'll likely see unemployment numbers that rival or even surpass those we saw during the Depression when it peaked around 25%.
• Failing businesses. Businesses both large and small are already under immense pressure. As the pandemic wears on, more will fail which will lead to more lost jobs.
• Oil price collapse. The Saudi/ Russia oil price war drove the price of oil down at the exact same time demand evaporated due to lock downs. Pretty much every country who isn't Saudi Arabia will see their oil industry collapse. Tough for countries like the US; catastrophic for countries that rely on petroleum as their primary export. I'd expect to see a slew of revolutions in some of these countries.
• Collapse of banking. This could come in two forms. As more and more people cannot afford rent or their mortgage payments, we'll see a slew of defaults that will quickly move up the chain of lenders. We could also see a run on banks ala 1930. While we now have federal banking protections here in the US, there's an upper limit on how much the government can spend. Given how much is going to be needed to prop up every other aspect of the economy, people probably aren't going to have too much confidence in their banks. 
• Stock market crash and retirements drying up. As the world economies shrink, world markets will take an incredible hit (bigger than they have thus far.) This will have all kinds of disastrous effects, including the plummeting value of retirement funds. This will probably be fine for younger folks as the markets will eventually recover, but those close to or already retired? They';; be in trouble.
• Collapse of the real estate market. The collapse of the housing market in 2008 had all kinds of negative consequences. Given the sheer number of foreclosures we'll see as a result of unemployment and failed businesses, we'll likely see a repeat. 
• Governments defaulting of debt. We have a total of about $260 trillion in worldwide public and private debt, but only about $90 trillion in total worldwide GDP. That means we're paying a whole lotta interest on that debt. As governments are forced to dump piles of cash into their economies in an attempt to prevent a total economic collapse, some countries (like Italy) will likely be forced to default on their debt. This will add even more strain on an already over-stressed world economy and might lead to wars, revolutions, and an even more pronounced swing towards authoritarian, nationalist governments. 

The longer the pandemic wears on, the more likely one or more of these crises will explode. The more likely any one or a combination of these crises are to explode, the more it's going to impact us personally. 

So What Effect Will This Have On You and Me?

Preppers like to talk about "The End of the World as We Know It" abbreviated TEOTWAWKI), which is the shorthand way to describe what life you be like AFTER whatever calamity they're predicting comes to fruition. And it's almost always a Mad max-like scenario:

In reality, the likelihood of the entire world collapsing and devolving into this kind of scenario is going to be really, really unlikely. The actual reality is likely quite a bit less dramatic. However...

The world as we knew it HAS ended. The world we enjoyed just a few weeks ago is dead, at least for the vast majority of us. What is our new world going to look like? Here are the two probable ends of that spectrum of possibilities. 

Scenario #1: At the bare minimum, this pandemic has been a cruel wake-up call for the folks who took our comfortable and safe world for granted. And the PTSD of that realization is the kind of thing you don't forget. We'll likely internalize some of our social distancing behaviors.

Scenario #2: At the worst, we're going to experience widespread financial misery we've only read about in history books. A lot of us will lose our jobs. Many of us will lose our houses. Most of the stuff we used to buy will be impossible to acquire. That which we can buy will be much more expensive. Food will be scarce, thus expensive, especially food that's not grown locally. Starvation and malnutrition will become a real issue. A large number of people won't be able to cope and we'll see an explosion of suicides. Crime will increase exponentially, especially in cities. Drug use will increase dramatically among those who can afford it. Divorce and domestic violence rates will shoot up. Your savings and investments will plummet in value. Systems and infrastructure that's already stressed will start to fail regularly (like the electric grid in California, for example.) And so on. 

Our "new normal" will likely fall somewhere between these two scenarios, and will likely be dependent on how this pandemic shakes out. If we find an effective treatment within weeks, the virus weakens with warm weather (thus buying us precious time before we're hit with another wave of outbreaks in the fall), or it turns out the virus has been circulating for months so we're pretty close to developing herd immunity, then our "new normal" will be closer to scenario #1. 

But if the pandemic drags on for months? We very well could end up closer to scenario #2. That was the thinking that led to my "surviving the pandemic depression" post two weeks ago. That has also informed my "expect the best but prepare for the worst" approach to dealing with the pandemic.

If I Were You...

My advice is simple. Expect the best; plan for the worst, which is explained in the aforementioned post I linked in the last paragraph. Pay close attention to the "tribe" part; everyone should be shoring up their social connections right now. 

But beyond that? I'd say spend a little time savoring what you have right now. If any one of those crises I mentioned at the beginning come to fruition, our world is going to change for a fairly significant amount of time. We'll likely lose all kinds of aspects of our "old normal." Right now, today, we still have a lot of stuff we might not have in a matter of weeks or months.

Enjoy that takeout food.
Enjoy that hot shower.
Enjoy those well-stocked (well, kinda well-stocked now...) grocery store shelves.
Enjoy those parks.
Enjoy the Internet.
And everything else you took for granted before March of this year. 

At this point, we can't predict what tomorrow is going to look like. It might be pretty much like it was before all of this exploded. Or it might be completely unrecognizable. Regardless, enjoy what you can of our "old normal."

And know it's okay to grieve losing the old normal. 

Lastly, as part of that "tribe" point, I'm always in search of like-minded people who understand the value of fostering mutually-beneficial relationships and see this pandemic as an opportunity to create a better world, even if it's just a better world for our tribe. Contribute what you can to the group; use the group resources to help survive and thrive. Teach each other skills. Share knowledge. Stuff like that. Even before the coronavirus hit, Shelly and I have been developing social connections both locally here in Western Colorado and, thanks to our travels and the Internet, social connections all over the US and world. If you're digging these posts, you're probably in that "like-minded people" category. Find me on Facebook so we can connect. Or shoot me an email at eldiablobjj@gmail.com. 

Stay safe, folks.

~Jason