I posted what I believed was someone's intent without actually talking to them.
Then, I was very happy that the individual called me on it. We talked and though I am not totally convinced that I was incorrect, there is enough question in my mind that I pulled the post. So, now I have taken the time to write down notes from recent RAS meetings. Hopefully with minimal editorial bias.
Thoughts regarding the Facilities problem, RAS budget problem or the INTENT problem are welcome?
12 comments:
Good report, with one small quibble and point this out as a proud alumni of the place. It's "Sandburg", not "Sandberg".
Unintentional is one thing; it's an exceedingly common form of biased "reporting" and we ALL do it. But when intentions are "imputed" deliberately for propaganda effect, you are dealing with a liberal mindset. That's how "You lie" becomes a racist comment, for example.
There's the reverse problem, too. That is, that liberals tend to ascribe good intentions to themselves and their policies, regardless of how the actual policy is written or what it actually does. Prime example: health care legislation. They don't care what's in it, and claim it will heal the lame, cover all the uninsured, and lower costs when anyone with a lick of sense knows it will do exactly the opposite, but it is what they INTEND to do (in their own minds). It's very dangerous thinking, and it isn't confined to Congress; school boards do it all the time.
J. Ewing
Jon, Thanks. It looks like I have a few typos to fix.
Note to self:
Hosterman with 1 N
Cavanagh with no E or U
Sandburg with a U
Pilgrim is I, not A
Olson with an O
J,
Often I think people are not even aware of their own intentions in many situations. They truly believe they are trying to accomplish one thing, when their words and actions are working to accomplish another. That is why the Difficult Conversations book was so good. It reminded me the importance of having the self conversations, before working with the other person.
And if it is that hard to know our own intentions, how can we be so certain of someone else's intentions. As one coach taught me, "Get truly curious about what is making that other sane, rational, smart, etc person do or say something that I think is so stupid. What am I missing? What do they know that I don't? What is the view from their location?"
Note: Few people see themselves as "them". (ie obstacle person, bad guy, villain,oppressor, etc) Most people see themselves as "us". (ie rational, good guy, victim, etc) This in itself is a fascinating concept. Are we "them" or "us"? It all depends where we are standing.
Hopefully I have fixed all the school name typo's... Drop me a note if I missed any.
"That is, that liberals tend to ascribe good intentions to themselves and their policies, regardless of how the actual policy is written or what it actually does."
Could anything be less surprising. While give2attain, may have felt that he have made a mistake is ascribing certain thoughts and intentions to others without sufficient evidence, surely that doesn't apply to oneself.
I assure you, my subjective impression of my own intentions is that they are good. That's an assumption, incidentally, I am comfortable making about those who disagree with. I assume they mean well, just as I do.
Are we "them" or "us"?
A lot of political campaigns are conducted on that very issue. Certainly, on the knucklehead level, that's an area where they are fought. He drives a pickup truck, therefore he is one of use, that sort of thing.
I've always said about our education system that they are all good people doing the very best they can, and "for the children." But good intentions are only good for paving that road to you-know-where. We need to find a way to disagree with policies and point out substandard results without having people believe we are impugning their good intentions. Unfortunately, in the liberal mindset, the two are irrevocably linked, and when you criticize results you criticize them directly, and then you get nowhere. They ALWAYS take it personally.
J. Ewing
@J. Ewing--
This is an interesting conversation to observe. I see Jon and John (so hard to keep straight!) trying to be reasonable and find moderate, middle ground on the idea of disagreement, idealogy aside. Meanwhile you come across as pretty darn confident in your own ideas. You're accusing the "other side" of not seeing their own blind spot, but you seem pretty certain that you don't have one. Kinda giving conservatives a bad name, my friend.
"liberals tend to ascribe good intentions to themselves and their policies, regardless of how the actual policy is written or what it actually does"
Do you *really* think this only applies to liberals? Not conservatives? Come on now.
"We need to find a way to disagree with policies and point out substandard results without having people believe we are impugning their good intentions."
I hope I am not seen as impugning people or their intentions. For one thing, it's pretty obvious to me that subjective intentions are irrelevant to policies they advocate. For another, I don't think I have ever run across anyone in these discussions whom I thought wasn't a good person or who wasn't well intended. I have no problem in thinking that good policies are sometimes advocated for wrong reasons, and that bad policies are sometimes advocated for right reasons. What matters is the merits of the policies.
That lost comment was from me, by the way.
"Do you *really* think this only applies to liberals? Not conservatives? Come on now."
Would it make you happier if I just said that "some people but by far the most often liberals or Democrats..."? Because that's what I observe. Take health care. You have Democrats in Congress determined to pass something, anything, regardless of what it contains (including special payoffs to interest groups aka "buying votes")so long as it's called "health care reform." (And it isn't "reform" nor is it about "care." But it is named for their /intention/, not what the actual legislative language says or, much less, will actually do.) Obama talks about "his plan" for what it intends to do, though it bears no relation to what is in Congress, and he has never proposed actual legislation to accomplish his impossible goals.
Things are better in local education matters, but not a lot. Even nominally Republican members of school boards regularly chastise critics of their spending decisions as "wanting to destroy public education" or even "child haters." One wonders, sometimes, if one hates ones OWN children so badly as to not want to throw tons of unnecessary money into their substandard education, when for less money they could be better educated.
Being a school board member doesn't pay nearly enough to justify the hours spent, let alone having to make hard decisions like "this program is not as important as this other" or "we can't do everything we/you want with this budget." They want to be appreciated for their good intentions alone because they cannot possible please everyone with their actual decisions.
As I've said, these people (in local education, at least, I have my doubts about Congress :-) are all good people, in a bad system. It rewards intentions rather than results, and encourages those with good intentions more than those who get good results, resulting in a circle that leads down the road paved with good intentions.
J. Ewing
Not sure what to make of that last posting. I do think it's important to get health care reform passed. We need to get at least a foundation in place. It is clear enough to me, that no bill capable of getting through Congress will be anything other than seriously flawed, but that's part of the price we pay for constitutional democracy.
I do have a lot of thoughts about the subjective motivations or intentions of many of the parties involved. I think many Democrats have a subconscious fear of governing which causes them to shrink from taking responsibility for difficult action, even when that is politically disastrous, a form of political death wish. I think many Republicans are in a sort of fugue state, which combines wishful thinking with a denial of the realities of getting older. But such musings are mostly irrelevant. The simple and indisputable fact is that we have to address the issues created by our aging country, and that the refusal to do so, does nothing to make those issues go away.
Post a Comment