Disclaimer
This is NOT about Presidential politics!
In a March 14, 2018 posting, John Rosemond – a provocative
and not universally acclaimed “family psychologist” – highlighted a New York
Times article by Alex Stone (Jan. 5) entitled “Is Your Child Lying to You?
That’s Good.” This article by
Stone offers supportive commentary on a 1980s study which found that children
who disobeyed an instruction and then denied having disobeyed the instruction
were later found to have higher IQs than those who admitted disobedience. Speculation is offered that 21st
Century parents might, therefore, justifiably reduce their angst about higher
IQ/lower moral behavior, since it seems a better indicator of potential success
than lower IQ/higher moral behavior in their offspring. They might, thus, tend to tolerate more
dishonesty [perhaps even encourage it!]
At ground level, there seems little doubt that intelligence,
creativity, and “craftiness” in artfully manipulating one’s environment to
one’s best personal advantage is a “gift” many successful persons exhibit deep
into adulthood.
So why mess with something that works so well? Indeed!
Personal observation suggests that the higher one goes in
the pecking order, the greater the tendency seems to be to fabricate “new
realities”. It’s better if we think we
know where we’re going, and better yet if we personally OWN the new reality. Would be motivational gurus encourage us to imagine/envision
what we want to happen and it will more likely happen.
Of all professions, scientists – the benchmark “Truth
Tellers” – are not immune to such behavior.
In fact, they ALSO seem to thrive on extrapolative conjecturing, and are
almost institutionally required to do so.
Competition for grants and contracts is so intense that one must include
in applications submitted for funding the projected outcomes of investigation,
at least 30% of which are already proven to be true!
Scientists are also compelled to publish the results of
their investigations – at least 3-5 major papers per year in peer-reviewed
journals – building their reputations as national/world renowned experts in
their respective fields.
These are very intelligent, creative human beings who, by
force of necessity, must become well versed in their “craft” to succeed. Since serendipity is often involved in some
of the biggest scientific advances, some latitude of “extravagance” in truth
conjecturing is tolerated. However, the
term “Scientific Misconduct” emerged as a significant problem, beginning in the
1970s, and has become a mainstream concern in the 21st Century, as
pressure on scientific output and competition for funding have both
increased.
https://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/44582/title/Scientific-Misconduct--Red-Flags/
Even so, this is not the worst or most immediate concern for
most Americans. More loosely regulated financial
markets are even more prone to “extravagance” in truth conjecturing,
manipulation and outright fraud.
Consider the recent cases of Bernie Madoff and Wells Fargo Bank, which
are not necessarily “isolated instances”.
So, intelligence and “craftiness”, “extravagance” in truth
conjecturing -- even outright fraud – can transport one a good distance down an
“alternative success” road, but the risk of going over the edge of
reasonability, even as societal tolerance grows with time (simply allowing that “this is
how things get done”), increases as brazen “bluffonery” escalates unchecked to patterned
behavior.
Commercialization of science,
particularly in biomedical & pharmaceutical sciences, can be especially
truth-tenuous: The most recent case-in-point involves Elizabeth Holmes, CEO of
Theranos blood testing company.
Scientists want and need to believe
that what they are doing makes sense, and, thus, they construct hypotheses –
truths yet to be proven – but are sorely tempted to “prove” them by running
“weighted” experiments and by “weighting” the outcomes so the data fit the
hypothesis. In fact, sufficient
emotional investment is often involved that one is tempted to transpose
hypotheses into foregone conclusions. Hypotheses can become “untouchable” and, being,
thus, seen as connected to ultimate Truth, can give one an unrealistic sense of
indemnification. So great is the
emotional investment in “pet hypotheses” that they are often taken as foregone universal
truths.
The good news is that we are all “Truth Seekers”. We want and need to believe in something
immutable. The bad news is that we want
our small pond and tribal “personal truths” to reign supreme. The “truth urge” is so overpowering that we
place ourselves at the center of owning and adjudicating Truth. And we will go to limitless lengths to find
(or create) UNIQUE “truths” – ergo conspiracy theories and all of their sequelae.
The most tragic outcome of “white lies”, tribal truths and
half-baked hypotheses morphing into indelibly darkened habits and alt-truths is
the inevitable loss of INTEGRITY. Accountability, Authenticity and INTEGRITY
are the three great cornerstones and ground-levelers of life, and the prime
determinants of “topping-out” our true potential. INTEGRITY is also the last bastion
determinant of well being and self worth.
When integrity can neither be claimed nor sustainably fabricated, little
else matters. Loss of INTEGRITY
both rivals and contributes to hopelessness … the main trigger for
suicide.
So INTEGRITY is one of the most
important elements in what people call CHARACTER. Own it!
Numbness and detachment from probity may be taken as acceptable “options
of expedience” in the rush toward tangible success, but diminutions of both
soul and spirit almost certainly follow, and “Second Chances” are not always
grantable options. Press on to make your
“Personal Truth” as close to “Universal Truth” as possible. You will be rewarded by an ability to sleep
well at night with INTEGRITY intact.
Quartermaster
Quote of the Week
“Beware of the stories
you read or tell [yourself]; subtly, at night, beneath the waters of
consciousness, they are altering your world.
[But the world-at-large is not altered, and the dissonance becomes more
extreme and less tolerable with time.]”
Ben Okri / [QM]
