Slightly Remarkable

Several decades ago, in the 1870s, the United States economy was known as a “business-to-business” economy, where economic operations were primarily focused on one business doing business with other businesses. I know that sounds redundant, but essentially both the consumer and the employee were considered minute, insignificant vessels in the grand scheme of economics.

Of course, as we all know, this only lasted for a short time, as people became aware that their rights as human beings should be protected, and that corporations did not have the right to extort and exploit workers and their families. Thankfully, because of the way our government was designed, the people’s outcry against this unfairly skewed situation was rectified through the passage of a great many laws, protecting the rights of the public.

And ever since that fateful time in history, the American populace has come to expect — as it is their right — the protections and provisions of the law. Certainly, these laws have not existed since the dawn of time, but millenials — by which I mean to say the current and upcoming generation of Americans — seem to believe that this is the case. Subsequently, Americans have a tendency to arrogantly reject and scoff at the notion that they have to sacrifice or relinquish any amount of personal liberty, benefit, or expectations that they have.

One of my previous employers, Starbucks Coffee Company, allows me to put this into perspective. As my first job, I was anxious to work diligently — a personal work ethic — to learn and execute the tasks assigned to me to the best of my ability. Of course, this work ethic is something that I have due to my upbringing, but I quickly discovered that this was an ethic not everyone shared, to my surprise. (In defense of my naiveté, I reiterate: this was my first job.) The way an employee would address a manager directly — and how tolerant a manager was — quite frankly shocked me. I thought “How can these people keep their jobs?” After some pondering, I arrived at the conclusion that both the employees and their employers had been conditioned to the laws that protect the rights of the consumer and the employee. No longer can an employer constantly and endlessly implement practices of Taylorism without losing employees who favor more comfortable or desirable work environments (or proceed with litigation). Indeed, this is a very good (yet unforeseen) result of making more distinct the laws of personal rights and protections.

Yet the same lack of prognostication that produced the competitive work environment benefits of our day has also brought on another side-effect, this one less favorable. As knowledgeable individuals, any employee or consumer is far more likely to sue or react with a “you can’t do that to me” high-and-mighty attitude in any given situation. This awareness of legal protection has brought on a flair of arrogance and somewhat excessive self-worth.

Why is this bad, you ask, besides the connotations associated with arrogance? It’s quite simply that Americans easily begin to forget that the American spirit, upon which our great nation was founded, is based on hard work. When we reach a point of elevation where the employee has gone from under the command of the employer to commanding the employer, then the balance has shifted; the pendulum has swung the other way, and now instead of achieving the balance originally sought by the laws that were implemented in the interest of protecting consumers and employees, these laws have been taken effectively a step further, causing the employers to pay penalties and suffer greatly (and thus the economy). I won’t go so far as to say that these laws do not belong, but their extension has reached a point of extremity, and it is my belief that the American populace needs to understand that their inherent, inalienable rights are not to prosperity, but to opportunity. This is a critical facet of our country that is either overlooked or misunderstood, and it’s quite appalling that our generation assumes that they deserve to prosper simply by existing. This is false! Americans have the right to opportunity, and it is their diligence and hard work that will bring them prosperity. These are values upon which our nation was built, and they are values that have caused this country to prosper — because we did not assume we would, but because we saw opportunity and worked hard to achieve prosperity. We must continue in this direction.

It may occur to you that I’m simply ranting about the routine sociological shifts that occur every other decade or so, but the title of this entry indicates otherwise: privacy and protectionism. What does this have to do with privacy?

The fact of the matter is that the paradigmatic shift that has occurred over the years has brought us to believe that we deserve — simply by virtue of the fact that we are alive and breathing — to be protected by our government. Certainly, this makes sense, even to the more or less antiquated Enlightenment ideology: rather than the people existing for the service of the state, the state exists for the service of the people. Our reliance on our government has reached an extreme, though. Evidence? Graduated income taxes, unemployment tax, workman’s compensation, food stamps, and the list goes on. Yes, these provisions have their place, but they take away part of our American spirit: failure is the opportunity to try again! I have no problem donating money to people in need; and, if I am in the position to do so, then I will certainly be happy to. Of course, not everyone is so benevolent, but in general most Americans are. Why force it upon those who are not interested in doing so? Why is this a law?

(A note for the historians: you may see the parallels in the distinct policies of Hoover as compared to Franklin Roosevelt — and you’re right, I do agree that Hoover’s policies were spot-on, and Roosevelt did little to help the economy of the Great Depression. Argue what you’d like, but the belief that Roosevelt was anything beyond a good president — not a great one — is a very common misconception. But that is by no means what this entry is about.)

1,035 words later, and you’re still wondering, “So what’s this all about?” Okay, I cave. Let’s get to the real reason for my alleged rambling. Recently, Facebook made changes to its privacy policy. Of course, these were fully intended to continue protecting the users of the site, but the subsequent, excessive media attention this change received has been incredible. A recap of the issue points out that the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC? More like EPIC fail!) was poised to file a complaint to the Federal Trade Commission regarding the issue. What is astounding to me? Facebook’s privacy policy change had somewhat ambiguous verbiage, but it did not mean that they were misusing private information of customers. How difficult is that to understand? I don’t blame Facebook for it; they did it as an initiative to protect their customers more adequately, but as usual the media has done a great job of twisting the information so much that everyone suddenly thinks Facebook is bad for privacy.

Let me make something very, very clear. In the event that you, as a citizen and of your own free will, choose to surrender any information to a second party (in this case Facebook), you have relinquished your right to exclusivity of that information. If you are concerned about privacy, why are you using Facebook to begin with? Our country has lost the basic value that you must pay the consequences for your actions. If you choose to use Facebook and its use is contingent on you providing personal information, then you have voluntarily relinquished control of that information, in accordance with whatever policies Facebook has forthcomingly identified. It is your job, as a customer, to be aware of your actions and the potential consequences thereto.

Let me provide an equator for those of you who are still listening and haven’t shut me out already. Privacy is to prosperity as religion is to science. Take, for instance, cloning of animals; this is seen as unethical and “only for God” by many religious groups — it’s pure blasphemy, as they say. I’m not irreligious myself, but I certainly do not see this as unethical by any means. Yet we’ve had so much dispute over whether cloning may be legalized, and the fact that this debate continues merely holds back the scientific research that could be providing more efficient, better, potentially healthier foods. That’s the argument with privacy. Business brings economic prosperity. This is a fact. Privacy, and the unnecessarily excessive concern arisen thereby, becomes a stumbling block for business and, in effect, prosperity. The ball is in the court of the American populace: what information you seek to keep private should be kept private. You can never, and should never, rely on another entity (person or company) to keep their promise. This is a basic concept. Rather than react to a problem, focus on preventing it. Certainly there are provisions and procedures of the law that will protect you from such situations should they arise, but more importantly, protecting yourself is the proactive measure that should be taken for your own personal benefit. You wouldn’t trust your neighbor with your credit cards over the weekend — or worse, a stranger, which is roughly how disconnected you are from a company with whom you provide information, so why in the world would you offer this information to a group of people you’ve never met who are under the guise of a company? You wouldn’t.

Here’s another example: abortion. One of my biggest arguments against abortion is that it teaches Americans that if they make a mistake, they don’t have to pay for it. Someone has to pay. If you “make a mistake” and become pregnant, President Obama doesn’t want you to “have to pay for it” (that’s a direct quote from a speech he gave during his campaign). Are you kidding me? If the mother doesn’t pay for the mistake, who does? The child. Is there anything more unethical than forcing an unborn child to bear the responsibility of your mistake? How can you live with that? I’m not an advocate of premarital sex myself, but if you are going to go for it, please do so responsibly (and hey, you have the added benefit of moving the economy forward, since after all, you have to purchase condoms or some kind of contraceptive, right?); and if you do become pregnant or impregnate someone, it is your job to pay for the mistake, not the child’s job to assume responsibility for it.

The truth is, Americans seem to be so concerned with privacy that it hinders the progress we all hope to achieve, but just like an American, thinking does not come first, and so naturally we react to a change in privacy policies with disgust, because we have already sacrificed that private information under the assumption that it would be protected by the government. The only argument against Facebook that I consider sensible is that a new privacy policy is being implemented under the assumption that the customer agrees to it, without asking them, and of course the fact that this privacy policy is different. Facebook did not request customers to accept the new privacy policy, they just changed it; now, as an American, I of course did not read the privacy policy that Facebook asked me to agree to when I signed up, and so of course I wouldn’t know if Facebook’s original policy included a clause that permitted them to make changes to the policy without prior notification to the customer, but if they did, that essentially voids the argument that their change of policy under the assumed consent is illegal. If Facebook were sued, I’m confident they’d win the case. It’s just that it’s too expensive for them to deal with it, a waste of capital. Smart move, Facebook.

Oh, and before you point out that I’m a hypocritical bigot for not reading the privacy policy before registering for Facebook immediately after discussing privacy at length, understand that I entered into my binding agreement with Facebook knowing full-well that any information that I post to, upload to, or any way in which I otherwise take action on the Facebook web site may potentially be used in any way that Facebook sees fit. In other words, I don’t care if Facebook uses my picture, name, hobbies, preference in music, phone number, or email address and publishes it anywhere in the world, in any way. If your privacy concerns are different, then you can certainly read through all the legal jargon that Facebook has so kindly made available (or do as I have and do not put information that you consider private on the Facebook web site – yes, it’s that simple). My concern is not of privacy, as I have offered that information to Facebook of my own free will. I am prepared for the consequences.

Hopefully, people begin to see the reality of the situation and use more common sense when approaching these kinds of issues. It’s really quite simple, and I am sure the media only bloat the matter in a frail attempt at scaring the public about privacy and subliminally advocating their unreasonable agenda. Privacy is not an issue, but the media makes it ostentatious. Don’t be frightened; know your rights, read the policies before you agree to them, and don’t offer information you consider sensitive. Privacy is only as problematic as you cause it to be.

And just so everyone knows: I’m totally crushing on Bethany (she’s hot and a lot smarter than I am, what more could a guy want?), even after she rejected my request for a date. (If at first you don’t succeed, try, try again!) This is information I am willing to share with anyone, because my privacy concerns are not ridiculous. I am concerned about my social security number as it relates to my identity and livelihood, but I am not concerned about “personal” information in general, because those expectations are ludicrous. Please, let business work. Our country needs it.

Have you ever been in a conversation with a friend or acquaintance and somewhere in the midst of this conversation realized that all you could talk about was yourself? I have — and simply by saying “I have,” I am guilty of the very scenario I just described. Humanity seems naturally self-centered, and because we think in terms relative to ourselves, the way we perceive the world and relate to others in the grand scheme of things is based on our beliefs, experiences, and prognostications. This is reflected in our conversations with others. When your friend tells you he is not feeling well, he is telling you about himself; and when you respond, “I hate being sick,” you are expressing compassion based on your own experiences. Consider how you may respond if you had never been sick. Would you say “I have never been sick”? “That doesn’t sound like fun”? “My [insert relative name] was sick recently”? Isn’t it interesting that we seem to respond instinctively by refocusing a conversation on ourselves or our experiences?

You may wonder the actual cause of this self-centered point-of-view. After all, is it because we are conditioned from childhood to think in terms relative to ourselves and our experiences, or is this a natural inclination, and if so, why? Personally, I believe that it is a combination of both, but primarily a natural inclination based on a shrouded factor: knowledge. If it were merely based on our ascension to adolescence and interaction with others who also express themselves self-centeredly, then the question becomes, where did these people with whom one interacts learn to express themselves self-centeredly? Such an explanation is merely a sociological spiral with unknown roots or basis. The reason must be more natural to humanity itself than some attained or learned trait.

This brings me back to my point about knowledge. The more convinced or informed a person is about a topic, the greater the extent he is (usually) willing and able to explain it. Have you ever wondered how a nerd can be the most awkward type of individual in conversation, until you ask him about the half-life of carbon and how it is used to ascertain an estimate of the age of natural materials? Suddenly your question has somehow breathed life into him, and he begins pouring a wealth of information upon your pitifully uneducated essence (all right, I admit I took it to the extreme on that one). Of course, this lack of self-centeredness is only vaguely interesting to you, which is why you are no longer interested in having a conversation now that he is actually talking, because it is not something that interests you (which is why you know little or nothing about it); this has the added negative effect of occasionally making said nerd appear arrogant, as if he is showing off. In actuality, he is attempting to express himself in terms of what he knows. Many people know nothing better than themselves or the experiences they have had, and because that is where their knowledge lies it is the focal point from which all their conversation stems. It is not a sociological phenomenon, it is not a learned adaptation; it is the result of where one’s knowledge lies. (Of course, you could argue further that the reason one’s knowledge lies in a specific area is due to his passion for that subject, as would be the case in the above nerd example, but that goes a little beyond the scope of this entry. But passion is attractive, even if you’re a nerd, provided you have a fashion-sense.)

Although this is not necessarily a bad aspect of human personality, it can be undesirable at times, especially when it occurs in excess. Besides the fact that it appears to be ubiquitous, we often can’t express ourselves in any way other than what we know. If we want to discuss a topic, focusing on that topic often swings right back around to how we have personally experienced or interacted with said topic. How can we prevent or to some degree suppress the frequency and severity of this type of behavior? Two ways to circumnavigate it are general terminology and abstract thinking. That may sound intimidating, but both are used quite commonly, and curiously enough, they are primarily used by those who are better at conversing in an interesting, engaging way.

General terminology is the approach to conversation where, rather than revolving around yourself, you generalize the topic and speak within that frame of reference. For example, if a friend of mine is telling me about Nicole Kidman and her performance in the recent remake of the classic Invasion of the Body Snatchers, I cannot relate directly because I do not know anything about the Invasion of the Body Snatchers or Nicole Kidman, but because I have sufficient knowledge with regard to movies in general, I can speak in general terms to continue the conversation and, of course, learn something new. My response may be something along the lines of a question related to the topic, “What other movies does she play in?” to get more information; or perhaps I have a statement I’d like to make, such as “Horror films are awesome,” a generalized statement about horror films. This is better than responding with something along the lines of “I don’t care for horror films” and putting yourself and your conversational partner in an awkward stalemate until another topic is derived. It is also acceptable to sway the topic slightly to something that either interests you more or that you have more knowledge about. For example, you might be interested in knowing more about the person you’re speaking with and developing a deeper friendship, so you might say, “Are horror films your favorite genre?” or ask how frequently your friend participates in movie-seeing adventures. Any of these are acceptable, but the key is not to respond with a statement to which your friend cannot relate (i.e., a statement about yourself).

The second technique I mentioned is abstract thinking. Abstract thinking is, more or less, the ability to pull related concepts out of thin air and use them in conversation. This demonstrates that, although you have little or no knowledge about the topic you are discussing, you can understand (based on context or other details) where your friend is coming from. This often turns out to be a simple analogy or comparison to something you can relate to, such as relating a horror film to a bad dream, without actually diving into the little details that separate the two. Abstract thinking may also encompass several other techniques, but the idea is that you are discussing concepts rather than specifics.

As in my other posts, I don’t by any means claim to have a copious amount of knowledge about sociology or psychology, but I do find it interesting and have consequently chosen to write about my observations in these areas. So if you have something to add, feel free to leave your thoughts in the comments.

As I’ve mentioned before, I am by no means a psychiatrist (or psychologist, or sociologist, or… well, you get the idea). I don’t even have any formal education in any of these areas. However, I have observed several patterns in social behavior and elected to comment on what I have observed.

Because I am a college student and work at the college, I spend several hours every day on the college campus. As I walk around campus, one of the things that I have noticed is the way girls dress. I don’t want to sound sexist or demeaning, but hear me out.

By my guess, about half of the time the clothes girls wear at the college are fine — I wouldn’t consider them skanky, slutty, or otherwise unnecessarily revealing. (Do I sound like a conservative bigot yet? Just wait, there’s more!) Interesting enough, the ones who dress more appropriately are generally less trendy, stylish, and post-modern. Conversely — and I have noticed this particularly among recent high school graduates — the more trendy girls have a tendency to wear very short shorts (with huge belt buckles), huge sunglasses (indoors!), and shirts that expose their midriffs.

This social behavior isn’t exactly surprising. Some girls dress more nicely, while others dress in a more revealing manner. That’s their decision, and it isn’t my job to tell either of them how they should or should not dress; and besides that, the eye-candy isn’t too bad on campus!

What I have observed that I find one part humorous, one part curious is the tendency that girls who wear shorter shorts or tighter t-shirts to reach behind themselves and tug on their clothing, as if to cover their exposed skin. I find this funny because, well, if you don’t want people staring at your butt or stomach, you should probably wear clothes that actually fit! The curious part is that, despite her supposed modesty (evidenced by her subconsciously realizing she is showing too much skin and trying to cover herself), a trendy girl doesn’t seem willing to give up the way she dresses in order to rectify the bothersome task of frequently tugging on her clothes. Is it simply that they don’t realize it consciously, or are they too determined to show off their goods? Do they feel compelled to adhere to what they consider societal normality? Certainly most of them are not dressing this way because they are, in fact, sluts; if that were the case, they would not react modestly in public by tugging their clothes to hide their exposed skin.

Has society conditioned young girls to treat themselves in a way that they would ordinarily be opposed to so that they can fit in or be more immediately assimilated into society? Is this just the next step of the American cultural evolution that started with flappers in the 1920s nearly a century ago?

This is just one of many social behaviors I’ve observed. There are others, and if you read my pointless musings from time to time, you’re liable to come across more of them. Feel free to discuss your thoughts on this topic in the comments. I’m not seeking an argument, but healthy discussion, so please don’t think that I am saying anything sexist, hateful, demeaning, or otherwise unfair.