Given that I'm in a department of "communication studies," it should come as no surprise that people who take our courses--indeed, even people who teach our courses--will claim that communication ("good" communication, presumably) can solve the world's problems. Sounds nice. I wish it were that simple.
As I see it, on a good day, when two or more people have the same level of communication skill and the same motivation to succeed, communication can do the magical things it claims to do. I guess we call those "win-win" games. Unfortunately, the world is full of people who either see themselves as losers, and/or want badly for you to be a loser. In these situations, communication becomes weird, competitive, emotional, irrational, strategic, and dysfunctional. Like any other tool, communication works best when people who really know their craft and who really care about the process and the product are at work.
In addition, communication is not the answer to all of our problems anyway--even when it's done well. Sometimes a whole big pile of money will beat a whole big pile of communication. Certainly in our household, a few more (read: 40 or 50 thousand more) bucks would put everyone at ease and eliminate much of the tension and bickering. Sometimes the absence of a major calamity (e.g., tornadoes, hurricanes, earthquakes, blizzards, etc.) will do much to keep the mood cheery; on the other hand, there's nothing as stressful--personally and interpersonally--as trying to cope with Mother Nature when she is really pissed.
In the end, communication is one potentially important piece of the puzzle, and I really do believe there's a whole lotta hurtin' out there because people have difficulty communicating effectively. But to resurrect an old 10th grade vocabulary word: communication ain't no PANACEA.
Wednesday, August 20, 2008
Saturday, August 9, 2008
Dark Knight: not right
OK, readers from coast to coast have been asking me to write something that's a bit more connected to popular culture. Glad to oblige!
We saw "The Dark Knight" yesterday. I was underwhelmed. Let me count the ways in which I was:
1. Hype, hype, hype. Big box office receipts. Big money for certain other people, and none for me. Not proud of the emotion, but I feel a general sense of resentment. This is not great art. There is nothing to admire here--only the level of revenue it's generating.
2. Action, action, action. Films these days try to set new records for vehicles chasing other vehicles, people falling off of buildings, people trying to hurt each other, and lots and lots of (BOOM!) explosions--with twelve special effects per minute. But less is more. And more is definitely less. Yeah, it's a cartoon, but it's still over the top.
3. Preposterous plotting. Many things made no sense whatsover. Got the Joker in custody? Do something totally stupid to enable him to escape! Cell phones rigged to track people? How could one possibly use the giant screen where all these cell-phone-derived images appear? Blow up a hospital with about a dozen pre-planted charges? No problem--it's the Joker, after all! He and his minions can sneak in just about anywhere. (He's very good at timing and orchestrating all sorts of violence to the exact moment when it needs to happen.)
4. Batman's voice. I believe one critic referred to it as a cross between Darth Vader and a grizzly bear. Sounds silly.
5. Maggie Gyllenhaal. Still kinda cute--i.e., I'd date her in real life--but not the kind of woman to be the focus of a titanic struggle, a love interest in a major motion picture. Not enough romantic gravitas there.
6. The Joker's motivation. OK, the late Heath Ledger did a nice job of acting demented, but I worry that some people believe that the world is just filled with people who like to see chaos and violence, and for no apparent reason whatsoever (like them "terrorists" we've been told to watch out for). Subliminally, the message is, some people are just plain evil, and there ain't nothin' you can do about that. I think it's a bad message in the current geopolitical context. (If you think I'm a little loopy here, understand that a recent Newsweek column suggests that our stance at Guantanamo regarding torture may have been influenced by Jack Bauer, of "24" fame. If Jack can extract a key piece of information with torture, then we should too! Even a U.S. Supreme Court justice--Antonin Scalia--has mentioned that Jack needed to use torture because, on the show, there was a nuclear warhead hidden somewhere in Los Angeles. Scalia said, "Jack Bauer saved Los Angeles . . . He saved hundreds of thousands of lives. Are you going to convict Jack Bauer?" I wish I was making this up, but there is evidence to support the notion that a TV show has influenced our response to "terror." And I believe this Batman movie subliminally affects our view of just about anyone who resorts to violence--such people are evil, amoral sociopaths.) [See "The Fiction Behind Torture Policy" by Dahlia Lithwick, Newsweek, 8/4/08.]
7. The joke's on us: we never learn what HAPPENS to the Joker! (Even though it SEEMS to be clear what MIGHT have happened.) But in the world of Hollywood, when you see such an ambiguous ending, "sequel" is the magic word, and if we don't know for sure what happened to that guy, we may well be seeing him again. But if we do see the Joker again, who will play him? Ah, who cares? For them, it's another bazillion dollars in box office receipts and sales of little Batman figures from a special promotion at Dairy Queen or some such place.
I was ready to be dazzled, but in the end, I was frazzled. And even a little bored.
We saw "The Dark Knight" yesterday. I was underwhelmed. Let me count the ways in which I was:
1. Hype, hype, hype. Big box office receipts. Big money for certain other people, and none for me. Not proud of the emotion, but I feel a general sense of resentment. This is not great art. There is nothing to admire here--only the level of revenue it's generating.
2. Action, action, action. Films these days try to set new records for vehicles chasing other vehicles, people falling off of buildings, people trying to hurt each other, and lots and lots of (BOOM!) explosions--with twelve special effects per minute. But less is more. And more is definitely less. Yeah, it's a cartoon, but it's still over the top.
3. Preposterous plotting. Many things made no sense whatsover. Got the Joker in custody? Do something totally stupid to enable him to escape! Cell phones rigged to track people? How could one possibly use the giant screen where all these cell-phone-derived images appear? Blow up a hospital with about a dozen pre-planted charges? No problem--it's the Joker, after all! He and his minions can sneak in just about anywhere. (He's very good at timing and orchestrating all sorts of violence to the exact moment when it needs to happen.)
4. Batman's voice. I believe one critic referred to it as a cross between Darth Vader and a grizzly bear. Sounds silly.
5. Maggie Gyllenhaal. Still kinda cute--i.e., I'd date her in real life--but not the kind of woman to be the focus of a titanic struggle, a love interest in a major motion picture. Not enough romantic gravitas there.
6. The Joker's motivation. OK, the late Heath Ledger did a nice job of acting demented, but I worry that some people believe that the world is just filled with people who like to see chaos and violence, and for no apparent reason whatsoever (like them "terrorists" we've been told to watch out for). Subliminally, the message is, some people are just plain evil, and there ain't nothin' you can do about that. I think it's a bad message in the current geopolitical context. (If you think I'm a little loopy here, understand that a recent Newsweek column suggests that our stance at Guantanamo regarding torture may have been influenced by Jack Bauer, of "24" fame. If Jack can extract a key piece of information with torture, then we should too! Even a U.S. Supreme Court justice--Antonin Scalia--has mentioned that Jack needed to use torture because, on the show, there was a nuclear warhead hidden somewhere in Los Angeles. Scalia said, "Jack Bauer saved Los Angeles . . . He saved hundreds of thousands of lives. Are you going to convict Jack Bauer?" I wish I was making this up, but there is evidence to support the notion that a TV show has influenced our response to "terror." And I believe this Batman movie subliminally affects our view of just about anyone who resorts to violence--such people are evil, amoral sociopaths.) [See "The Fiction Behind Torture Policy" by Dahlia Lithwick, Newsweek, 8/4/08.]
7. The joke's on us: we never learn what HAPPENS to the Joker! (Even though it SEEMS to be clear what MIGHT have happened.) But in the world of Hollywood, when you see such an ambiguous ending, "sequel" is the magic word, and if we don't know for sure what happened to that guy, we may well be seeing him again. But if we do see the Joker again, who will play him? Ah, who cares? For them, it's another bazillion dollars in box office receipts and sales of little Batman figures from a special promotion at Dairy Queen or some such place.
I was ready to be dazzled, but in the end, I was frazzled. And even a little bored.
Wednesday, August 6, 2008
Coping with Western Civilization
Some of my students are very, very good. Others are not quite so good. Many of those "others" have difficulty dealing with details, meeting deadlines, and generally understanding what's required for someone to be successful in the Modern Industrialized World. Occasionally, I have said to such struggling individuals, "You know, you really don't HAVE to learn to function in this manner--you could, for example, build or buy a small cabin up north, fish the lakes and farm the land, and say goodbye to schedules, computers, cell phones, faxes, and bureaucracy." And sometimes I want to join them if they ever choose that route! Some cases in point:
Financial planning. Anyone who truly understands investments and taxes and the like has a leg up on me! IRAs, tax-free municipal bonds, annuities, price-to-earnings ratios, and so on (including anything that involves a "rollover" and anything where a "cost basis" needs to be calculated) are in the end a complete mystery to me. I try to rely on a couple of "professionals" to help me navigate these worlds, but I really don't have a clue as to whether I'm doing it all right, or well. For all I know, I've squandered thousands of dollars in some way or another by doing what I have been doing.
Health and dental insurance. I had a tooth extracted. Dentists say I don't absolutely have to do anything about the hole in my jaw, but they recommend either a three-tooth bridge or a dental implant. But try to figure out how that's handled by insurance! There are procedure codes, pre-treatment estimates, x-rays, and "in or out of the network" issues that need to be addressed. Yuck.
Car and home insurance. Deductibles, levels of coverage, comprehensive coverage, liability, etc. etc. might as well be written in Urdu. Once again, I pretend that I know what I'm doing, but the best I can say is that I seem to do what most people do, and I'm not a big fan of doing something just because the majority does it. (In argumentation, we might call that the fallacy of argumentum ad populum.)
If I were independently wealthy, I might just hire someone to take care of these things. But we all know what that could mean: some shyster trying to take advantage of me and my vast sums of money! Perhaps what we have here is the strongest argument for mortality: at some point, I'll never again have to worry about this stuff! (And, in the afterlife, I pray that hell is not a place where one must continuously fill out insurance forms.)
Financial planning. Anyone who truly understands investments and taxes and the like has a leg up on me! IRAs, tax-free municipal bonds, annuities, price-to-earnings ratios, and so on (including anything that involves a "rollover" and anything where a "cost basis" needs to be calculated) are in the end a complete mystery to me. I try to rely on a couple of "professionals" to help me navigate these worlds, but I really don't have a clue as to whether I'm doing it all right, or well. For all I know, I've squandered thousands of dollars in some way or another by doing what I have been doing.
Health and dental insurance. I had a tooth extracted. Dentists say I don't absolutely have to do anything about the hole in my jaw, but they recommend either a three-tooth bridge or a dental implant. But try to figure out how that's handled by insurance! There are procedure codes, pre-treatment estimates, x-rays, and "in or out of the network" issues that need to be addressed. Yuck.
Car and home insurance. Deductibles, levels of coverage, comprehensive coverage, liability, etc. etc. might as well be written in Urdu. Once again, I pretend that I know what I'm doing, but the best I can say is that I seem to do what most people do, and I'm not a big fan of doing something just because the majority does it. (In argumentation, we might call that the fallacy of argumentum ad populum.)
If I were independently wealthy, I might just hire someone to take care of these things. But we all know what that could mean: some shyster trying to take advantage of me and my vast sums of money! Perhaps what we have here is the strongest argument for mortality: at some point, I'll never again have to worry about this stuff! (And, in the afterlife, I pray that hell is not a place where one must continuously fill out insurance forms.)
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)