Persuasion vs Manipulation

My brother made a post on facebook about the difference between persuasion and manipulation. Here is what I offered in reply, with some minor changes:

Perhaps "persuasion" is a somewhat neutral word (evil men persuade as well as good). I think there is a good reason for distinguishing between the two words: some people mistake persuasion for manipulation.

Personally, I think manipulation involves an intent to treat someone as (a) an object that cannot decide on their own, or (b) as one that the manipulator believes should not act according to their own will. This is in contrast to inviting someone (as a person who has a right to choose) to make a choice the persuader thinks is good. One reason some people confuse persuasion with manipulation is that they think it is wrong to impose consequences for any action or exercise of free will. Such a belief often comes from the supposition that anything natural is good--including human desires, and that any attempt to change consequences is to destroy free will and go against nature. This belief--that natural desires are good--is to misunderstand the nature of temptation. Someone recently said that temptation wouldn't be tempting if it wasn't exciting, or enticing. Part of persuasion is teaching truth, setting artificial consequences that are a shadow of much longer-term consequences.

A child might object to their parent's consequences for stealing a cookie, but not understand that the punishment is a tool for teaching about larger consequences and deeper character-building. Is the child manipulated or persuaded to not steal cookies? Persuasion involves warning of the consequences, and helping that child to become someone who is already civilized and ready for a civilized world. When I say "Civilization" here, I am writing about of love of others and the ability to peaceably coexist with others, than of technical advancements.

Manipulation, then, is about trying to violate agency. When a child is told that they will be punished for stealing cookies, the parents are not manipulative because they (1) act out of love for the child, and are preparing the child to be mature and civilized and because (2) they have not desired to take away the child's agency, to choose to steal.

When people start talking about God, the issue becomes more complex. If god created everything, including our desires--if our choices were mechanistically predetermined by Him, then we would justifiably argue that our choices are not really ours--they were God's, and we could blame God for making any (every) evil choice merely by creating us. We would feel trapped by our choices--unable to escape God's exact calculation of each event. My religion teaches that our personality, our judgment or intelligence, was never created, but was eternal. I venture into opinion here, but I think we were unable to act before God gave us bodies of spirit, then of flesh. We did not have any way to interact until we had something to do it with. I think there are weaknesses to this opinion, but that's all right.

Let me propose a world view like this: If we are all eternal beings at some level, then something about our nature exists that cannot be changed or violated, or rather would be wrong to change. However, just as peaceable people cannot tolerate criminals to continue in their midst, God cannot allow those who choose to act in antisocial and harmful ways to continue to live with those who do. A separation is necessary. Moreover, God could not justify any separation until it was proved with actions, choices. Finally, if God did not set consequences for our actions in this life, our choices would have no meaning. If it made no difference whether we stole and ate a cookie or not (if there was no cookie enjoyment at the end, nor any depriving others of that enjoyment) then what would it even mean to steal a cookie? It would mean nothing. However, in the context of parenthood, sometimes parents who might even want to give them the cookie, give them a commandment not to take cookies without asking in order to let them learn about consequences by making the right or wrong choices. God has something far greater than we can imagine, in store for us. Every commandment and choice we are given here is to help us mature enough and become good enough at decision-making so that we can live with Him eternally, which life is the greatest of all. God still permits us to make choices of preference which are not judged as right or wrong. He also leaves us enough choice between consequences. What would a choice be if both alternatives were not enticing or desirable? It would be meaningless. So temptation is desirable. I want to sin, too--but I put my faith in God--that his commandments will ultimately lead to a better life, not just this life but the continuation of life in eternity.

Tech Republic lost or sold my email address

In the past couple days, I have started getting a bunch of new spam that makes it through gmail's filters. It's mostly from sites where I have established a relationship on purpose, but the email is unwelcome. I am normally very good about opting out of ads, updates, or whatever upon registration. I try to give a unique email address to each site I register with, so I know where spam is coming from. This isn't always possible. At any rate, I noticed that my old email address gets most of my spam.

The sites that are most annoying are ZDNet/TechRepublic, Barnes and Noble, NewEgg, and Verizon. I occasionally see email from other sites as well (even amazon!).

So, when you subscribe to any site, make sure to UNcheck those quirky boxes asking to send you junk email.

Who controls my email?

I recently had a conversation with my brother about online data services. For example, my email account is with google (gmail). I've read some articles pointing out the risks of storing your data on a server or website you don't own.

Here's something I said to him, he wanted me to post on this blog:

"If I'm not paying for my email, someone else is--which means they're the primary stakeholder and they're primarily in control of how my data is used."

Experts have basically said the same thing in different words, but the principle is clear: if you get something for free, it's not really free. What is the real cost to you, and is that cost really visible? How is my email data being used by google, and do I really have a way to know how it's being used?

Health care mythology

This author does an excellent job of explaining the problems with universal health care.

Health Care Mythology (20 minutes of reading)

Prayer and Politics

We need to pray for those politicians and others who seek to do what is right. They need God's help to be able to anticipate and prepare for the needs of the future. They need His aid to prepare against changes in politics that would destabilize provident and good living. They need our prayers, as well, that they might be able to discern between honest men and deception, and bring dirty politics to light.

In my opinion, our nation needs God's help. We need God's help to understand what to do. I hope we all ask Him to guide us in our decisions, opinions, sources of information, and in who we support.

Reasons to oppose government healthcare.

The first article gives three main points:
1) The need for personal responsibility in providing for others.
2) The need for checks and balances to prevent abuse.
3) Hesitance to make irrevocable change.
http://darwincatholic.blogspot.com/2008/07/why-conservatives-oppose-universal.html

Another blogger pointed at this site, which collects articles on many aspects of the debate:
http://www.angelfire.com/pa/sergeman/issues/healthcare/socialized.html

Here is another article:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/07/23/health_care_mythology_97552.html

For me, what it really comes down to are philosophical and religious in nature, and the opinions I have are based on those principles. Others who share those principles disagree. I think it would take a book to treat the whole issue. I present some principles and subsequent opinions below. For evidences of these things, please read the sources I already gave.

Principle 1: Self-reliance and personal responsibility. One religious leader I respect said he would not do for another man what he could do for himself. Another said that any government aid program should encourage people to become self-reliant. I once heard someone say that discomfort motivates the idle to make something of themselves. Human nature tends to favor reliance on others or the system, and abandonment of responsibility. Also, putting large programs in place tends to quell people's sense of responsibility. A friend of mine who volunteers for emergency services pointed out that since the advent of cell phones, people are less likely to stop and help on an accident scene. I think cell phones are not the cause of this behavior, but an evidence of an increasing attitude that others (read: government) can take care of the problem.

Principle 2: Individuality and Customizability: Governments can either spend a lot of money micromanaging individuals, or spend a lot of money on fraud and getting jipped. I once heard a financial advisor say he believes there's no magic solution to saving, spending, or managing finances: that the individual is the best judge of his own needs.

Principle 3: Choice, aka Freedom, aka Ownership: If government takes responsibility for healthcare, then any failures are the responsibility of government, and government is slow and hard to adapt to new situations. Also, we are hardly taught sacrifice and compassion, nor given the parallel blessings from god for such, by being forced to do charity, nor of giving from the pockets of our neighbors.

Principle 4: Power corrupts. Our nation was founded by men who did not trust power or government--hence the checks and balances. The use of force means that we have no alternatives if anything goes awry. Right now, if you dislike the system, you can change to a different system.

Principle 5: Lawfulness. The US. Constitution currently does not allow government welfare (see the 10th amendment). We should follow the higher law of the land, or amend the constitution. I favor the former, not the latter. Also, Bastiat defined justice and law in his pamphlet "The Law", and explains it very well.

Principle 6: Privacy. In order to grant such comprehensive healthcare, the government must be made much more aware of the details of our lives. Privacy has to do with decisional interference, chilling free speech, and many other things that most people don't consider fall in that realm. Daniel Solove has written books, articles, and papers on the issues of privacy. I also found a book via google on the surveillance of government in the lives of single mothers on welfare in the USA--I didn't read it but its premise was a bit uncomfortable.

Principle 7: If someone is failing, don't give him power to fail bigger. The government health care system isn't working. Giving it more money is a bad idea. Why give someone with a poor track record more power to make a poor track record? Also, refer to previous principles.

Finally, I give a glimpse of evidence. A member of my family has experienced a life under government healthcare. He has seen people become less willing to help, their consciences salved somewhat by the presence of government healthcare. The government help is always insufficient, slow, officious, and expensive in time and effort that one who is sick already has little to spare. It rarely meets all the individual and precise needs, and often requires silly or inapplicable tests or paperwork. It prevents him from saving money and thus becoming self-reliant. The benefits are effectively reduced from year to year despite so-called adjustments for inflation. And so forth...

Creativity and Math

I am listening to an interview on http://radio.lds.org/mc/eng/ of a professor (Mark Henderson?) from weber state university--a conversation about creativity. People tend to be suspicious of, or judge as weird, those who are creative. They also point out that teachers struggle to encourage students to take risks. They talked about how when the wall came down in Germany, students who were asked to draw a picture did not draw because they were not told what to draw--they were told to draw what they wanted--and they didn't get it.

President Uchtdorf said that it is part of our nature to be creative. To improvise. It is part of who we are.

I think I realized something during this. Most people dislike math; I love math (not as much as many, but it's great). I think I began to love math when I saw it as an outlet for creative thought. Even though math is very restrictive with rigid rules, there comes a point where concepts can be applied in new ways. You may be restricted by the rules, but you can still create a proof or a problem, then solve it. I also loved math because I was thinking about how I would teach it to someone else. It might have started as a study technique, or not. Teaching is also a creative activity. For me, math came alive when I was able to exercise my creativity with it--especially in problem solving, especially in Algebra and Geometry. I think of the analogy of the kite--the string both restricts it and holds it up. In the same way, creativity in mathematics and any other field must be held up by the very rules which restrict it. Without those rules, whatever they are, I believe there could be no creative endeavor.

Perhaps students fail at math, and dislike math because they are not shown or taught how to be creative. They are given rules and problems, and they do the homework. They either get the answers right or wrong. They are rewarded for conforming to rules like everybody else. They are being acted upon, more than they are acting. The only things they can create are a correct answer. They are rarely if ever rewarded for an original approach, an original solution, and even less common is to ask students to create a problem or teach.

For any teachers out there--is there something new students could do, to learn how to be creative and free because of math?