On Resolving Conflicts with Ideologues

From the personal to the geopolitical, harmful ideologies continue to be a primary factor driving destruction and conflict in the world. Ideology could be best defined as the adherence to pre-supposed beliefs (also known as doctrines, or dogma) even in the presence of evidence that those beliefs are erroneous or fallacious. This is due to our evolved preference for certainty and aversion to the unknown.

In the mind of someone who is able to freely think and engage in critical thought, the following will occur when an overarching belief is challenged:

[Overarching belief of X] -> [encounter with evidence that contradicts belief] -> [closer scrutiny of X is triggered] -> [additional evidence confirms contradiction of belief] -> [individual reassesses/rejects/reforms belief X to incorporate new data] -> [new beliefs established]

In the mind of an ideologue, variations of the following will occur when a doctrine is challenged:

[Overarching belief of X] -> [encounter with evidence that contradicts belief] -> [evidence is denied or discounted] -> [additional evidence is not desired] -> [belief X is reinforced rather than weakened] -> [pathological idea remains intact]

But while propaganda and brainwashing are effective in keeping ideologues from absorbing new information, they are far more effective when the flow of potentially problematic information is reduced to a slow trickle. This is precisely why the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and other totalitarian ideologies place extremely high value on controlling the flow of information. The “Great Firewall” of China prevents the flow of information to the Chinese people, but the culture of siloing and censoring data that contradicts Party ideology is equally important to maintaining the grip of ideology over the thoughts and minds of the subjects of the CCP.

From an overarching perspective, however, the CCP itself is equally as great of a victim of ideology as its subjects. Not the least of which is the self-styled new Chairman himself, Xi Jinping. Unable to absorb new data and accurately assess the situation on the ground, Xi and the Party he leads are doomed to fallacious, pathological thinking and erroneous conclusions. Beijing’s mishandling of Hong Kong is a perfect example of the Party’s inability to incorporate new information and adapt to the changing reality: with the local liaison office misrepresenting the reality of the situation and public sentiment on the ground in Hong Kong, Beijing’s response could not have been appropriate to address the root causes of discontent. It’s a problem shared by many other insular groups that have cut themselves off from dissenting information, whether it be Russia’s Putin disposing of military officers who warned of issues with the Ukrainian invasion, or Americans seeking to disconnect from and muzzle those who challenge their political ideologies. In short, the the hallmark of an ideologue is that they are all too successful at insulating from from ideas and information that are vital to their course-correction, learning, and adaptation.

With this in mind, the solution is find a way to open their minds to the possibility of new data points and information: personal engagement. To be absolutely clear, this is not the same as political engagement, a term I associate with the failed foreign policy of the US since as long as Kissinger has been an influence. On the contrary, the financially-motivated neoliberal approach through which the West has engaged China until recently is tantamount to appeasement, ultimately enabling their harmful conduct in other countries, the ocean, and even space. What is needed to get through the barriers carefully erected by an ideologue is genuine engagement on a personal level by a skillful communicator who is able to make the interlocutor feel understood. Only once this relationship has been established will the ideologue allow him or herself to be tacitly exposed to new data. This failure of personal communication skills in conjunction with a fundamental lack of understanding of China and the CCP is where the US and the West have been falling tremendously short, resulting in an increasingly belligerent China.

I would be remiss not to point out that there is no guarantee that any ideologue will be eventually reached in this manner, but it is, ultimately, the only option to affect meaningful change. With minimal opportunity cost and as a process running in conjunction with economic and social pressure, it is a valuable, effective, and underutilized option to resolve conflict in today’s world. It only requires the communication skills to connect — and the will to do so.

What Are You Looking At? – An Essay on the Importance of Perspective

“No, Donny, these men are nihilists — there’s nothing to be afraid of.” (The Big Lebowsky, 1998)

Imagine you’re standing in the center of a large, darkened warehouse. It is so dark that you cannot see anything, but you have an understanding that the room is not in any way ordinary — it has been imbued with a magic that allows representations of everything in existence to be stored within it in vast rows of organized shelves. It contains toys and weapons, delicacies and poison, fascinating mysteries and the drudgingly commonplace, loved friends and sworn enemies, Windows 7 and Windows ME, Ghostbusters (1984) and Ghostbusters (2016), and so on for a near eternity. However, you wouldn’t be able to see any of this in the darkened room at all, save for one trusty tool you find in your hand — a flashlight.

It’s quite a powerful flashlight, but the warehouse is so large that you can only see two or three sections of the warehouse at a time. When you examine the toy section, you find yourself feeling joyful as you pick up the playthings of your childhood and adolescence. As you shine your light on the section labeled “war” and walk through its many shelves, you feel your gut fall into a dark void of hate, despair, and loss. Stumbling along, you find the “love” section, and the dark void in your stomach is replaced by the warm glow of connection. You feel at peace.

In this allegory, the warehouse is your world and the flashlight your perspective. I have chosen the word perspective, but we could also use the terms worldview, lens, or viewpoint interchangeably. The subject at hand is the way in which we view the world, and my purposes are to impress upon you its importance while also providing a method of crafting an optimal perspective.

First, let us expound on perspective and a few closely related concepts. I define perspective here as the sum total of the values, beliefs, and understanding a person holds in their mind at a given moment. It is also a product of one’s own hierarchy of values, and so our perspective will change as our value hierarchies change.

While it happens that value hierarchies and the perspectives they generate are commonly found as part of classically identified ideologies (pre-packaged value/belief systems), they can also be encountered everywhere else from internet memes to literature. Unfortunately for us, because our perspectives are the product of a vast number of conscious and subconscious processes, it is very easy to let something influence our perspective. To illustrate, let’s say we are having a bad day and we come across a faux-Folgers advertisement that says “The best part of waking up… Is when you don’t wake up”. Oof. Yeah, we chuckle, and we think we move on to the next thing — but by our implicit agreement with that sentiment, we allow a bit of that fatalistic negativity to subconsciously influence our perspective, tinging it just one shade darker. It is likely the reason so many of us struggle with unhealthy perspectives in the digital age is the same reason many of us still eat fast food on occasion — when we’re in a rush and need something that fulfills a need now, our subconscious finds adopting a pre-packaged perspective irresistibly simple. Why did we have to wake up today, anyway?

Some common pre-packaged perspectives today might include cynicism (disbelief in the altruism of others), pessimism (an imbalanced focus on negatives over positives), nihilism (rejection of higher meaning and shared values), or any one of dozens of black and white sociopolitical dichotomies. Don’t get me wrong; it’s entirely understandable that many people are cynical, pessimistic, or nihilistic these days, and there are undeniable benefits to these perspectives: a cynic is rarely disappointed in others. A pessimist is rarely surprised by bad news. A nihilist is freed from the burdens of moral consequence and responsibility. So what is the problem with adopting one of these broad, negative perspectives?

A perspective that’s simple and easy to understand has downsides. Just as a sizzling burger and piping-hot fries might satisfy at the time but leave us deeply regretful later, the long-term effects of a “fast-food” perspective, one that makes overly broad generalizations or logically inconsistent judgements about groups or entities, is far from optimal: for a nihilist, the benefit is also the drawback: if nothing matters, then everything is meaningless — so why continue living? For a pessimist, the continued focus on the negative side of everything is strongly linked to increased stress, anxiety, and negative health outcomes. For someone who uses a black/white dichotomy such as victim/oppressor, what may seem initially like a quick and easy way to know who and what is “good” and “bad” will quickly devolve into logical incoherence and schizm once a complex issue is examined in detail.

Thus, the criteria for constructing a perspective shouldn’t just be whether or not it is accurate, but also whether it is beneficial. That is to say, a logically coherent perspective is objectively more useful than one that is logically incoherent because it will provide more accurate predictions, but a coherent perspective that also provides more benefits than another is clearly the optimal choice. It only makes sense that we should curate the perspective that will result in the best outcome for us — but what is “best”, anyway?

The concepts of “good”, “better”, or “best” imply comparison between two or more entities, where one thing is subordinate in desirability to another (see: value hierarchy). These judgements are based on the current situation one is experiencing. As Maslow’s hierarchy of needs demonstrates, when one is suffocating, air is better than water; when one is dying of thirst, water is better than food. So, what is best is determined by what we attribute the most value to in our circumstances — and that means this is something we must decide for ourselves based on our objectives and values.

To construct the optimal perspective, we must ask ourselves what we value and what our objectives are in our current state. And we must not be afraid to try different perspectives to see what fruit they bear, for although it might feel otherwise at first, perspectives aren’t set in stone: part of being human is trying out different things and seeing if we like it. In our early childhoods, we may value the love and validation of our parents, then the acceptance of our peers. As we get older, we may change to value the acceptance of a romantic interest, saving a certain amount of money, or achieving certain professional goals. As we get older still and find that those achievements leave us yet unsatisfied, we may value more and more abstract concepts such as love, understanding, or connection (perhaps these are all one and the same). 

Ask yourself: What do I value most highly in life? What are my objectives? The perspective you choose should be the one that bears the most fruit. So now, allow me to return you to the darkened warehouse of my opening allegory, flashlight in hand.

Where do you choose to look?

Douglas Black is a Writer, Business Analyst, Lecturer, DJ, and amateur psychologist. He can be reached on his LinkedIn.

Common Documentation Problems & Solutions

We tend not to know the value of something until it’s gone, and that’s especially true for documentation. But how much does a lack of documentation really cost?

Let’s say that a given organization has eight new workers across all its departments. For the first three months of work, I estimate anywhere between 25-50% of those workers’ billable hours will be spent acclimating to existing systems and procedures and preparing their work environments for development. At an average rate of $45 per hour, that comes to a cost of $43,200 – $86,400 spent on acclimation in those first three months — and that’s that’s just for the new hires. Across all departments and systems, how many hours will the Operations & Maintenance teams spend working with systems each year? What about during a crisis? If there’s limited, inaccurate, or, even worse, no documentation, how many thousands of additional hours are being spent on getting up-to-speed across any given organization each year? In a small organization with 10 employees, roughly $45,000 will be lost each year due to a lack of documentation, and that scales upwards: without sufficient documentation, an organization with 100 employees will lose $450,000 per year; one with 1000 employees will lose $4,500,000 per year, and one with 3000 employees will lose $13,500,000 per year.

While cutting costs on documentation sounds at first like it’s trimming the fat, the reality is that a lack of documentation will slowly bleed an organization dry.

This article gives a brief overview of some of the most common problems an organization or individual might have with documentation and suggests an approach to fix it.

Problem: You don’t know who has the documentation for a system or application, or what you have is out-of-date.

Solution: Use a central repository for all documentation. Bonus points if it has some kind of version control: this could be SharePoint, OneDrive, Git, Confluence, or Wiki, but what really matters most is that it is SOP that all documentation from your department or organization goes to it. It should be organized intuitively and maintained regularly.

Problem: You aren’t sure where to get the right version of a required application or developer library.

Solution: Create a file repository on the same server as your central document repository. Organize all those different versions of Adobe, Apache, and Oracle apps (not to mention developer libraries!) in a way that’s logical for its purpose, which could mean bundling the files with the associated installation guides, or organize them by product. The most efficient method should be chosen according to the most common use-cases.

Problem: You find yourself having to open documents to figure out what they are.

Solution: Organize and name documents logically and consistently, and be sure to maintain this organization —it won’t help if you only use it for some documents but not others.Keep them hierarchical folder structure that is appropriate for your needs. Name your documents according to content, purpose, date, or any other criteria that you or others may be looking for. Just as an example, you might name your files according to the following format: <project name> – <document purpose> – <draft status>.docx. It may seem a bit basic, but you’d be surprised to see the jumbled file names on documents that get sent up to the very top (or from the top!) of a company or agency.

Problem: It takes too much time to find the information you need within your documentation

Solution: First, use MS Word’s Multilevel List feature to organize content in documents under clearly defined headings (plus, you can then quickly promote/demote the importance of a section using tab/shift + tab, which makes formatting much more time-efficient). Second, use Word’s auto-generated Table of Contents feature. This will generate a clickable ToC based on the headings in your document. You can make your documents even more convenient to navigate by using Word’s “Cross-Reference” feature, allowing a selection of text to be linked to another section anywhere in the document. Even better, all these interactable features will persist despite converting a DOCX to a PDF.

Another feature that helps save time is including a purpose section near the top of the document (usually near the introduction), so that readers can quickly determine if the document they are looking at is going to be useful to them.

Problem: You have documentation, but people have difficulty understanding and following it

Solution: There could be a few reasons for this, and I’ll go through the most likely culprits here. Firstly, the right medium needs to be chosen based on the message. Is the information a set of inputs/outputs and return codes for an API? It probably should be put in a table. Is it a list of database entities and their relationships? Make an Entity Relationship Diagram with a diagram or drawing app. Is it an introduction to the project including its history? It should probably be written in paragraph form and in chronological order.

And speaking of writing in paragraph form, this brings us to the next solution: make sure the information is organized in a logical and accessible way for your audience, i.e., the right level of background information and context is being provided. If it’s a Systems Design Document, it will be fairly technical, but if it’s an O&M guide, someone who was hired a week ago should be able to understand and follow it. But how can we write in a way that’s more logical and accessible? I’m glad you asked!

Generally speaking, information in writing should be presented from the most general first and get progressively more specific as it continues. One of the best tools to help writers understand this concept is what’s known as “the inverted pyramid model”

The inverted pyramid is a generalized model used for many different genres of writing, but the guiding principles of “general information -> specific information” and “more important -> less important” hold true regardless of whether one is writing an essay, news article, or technical documentation. If your article’s overall outline as well as the information in each paragraph follows this model, it will almost certainly be more digestible and easier to follow for readers of all levels of familiarity with the subject matter.

Conclusion:

If something is worth doing, it’s worth doing well, and that’s why just having documentation isn’t enough — it needs to be available, up-to-date, logical, organized, and understandable.

I hope these tips have been useful for you or your Technical Writer. If you have any questions or comments related to this article or writing documentation, feel free to reach out to me on LinkedIn.

Review: Nightmare of the Wolf

I watched The Witcher: Nightmare of the Wolf last night (Netflix). As someone who has read all of Sapkowski’s books, enjoyed the Netflix show, and has been playing The Witcher III since 2014 (still only 50% through!), it was definitely time well spent.

Story-wise, the film follows Vesemir, Geralt’s older Witcher mentor, and tells the story of a formative series of events in his (relatively) early life. In terms of adding to the lore, the focal event of movie is the sacking of Kaer Morhen, the training ground and safe-house where the Witcher School of the Wolf trained and spent their winters. The sacking was frequently referenced in the novels and games, but the exact circumstances of it had not been expounded upon. It’s an exciting and engaging ~80 minutes of runtime, and there’s zero fat to cut and nothing that drags. In fact, one of my criticisms of the film might be that it’s a little too fast-paced, and there are quite a few places where dialogue or events could have benefitted greatly from having more time to breathe. Overall, it tells an engaging, emotionally satisfying story that definitely adds to the books, netflix series, and games.

Visually, the film was produced Studio Mir, the South-Korean animation house, who also produced Avatar and Legend of Korra (neither of which I have watched, but the visual style is definitely there). The animation is detailed, fluid, and frequently impressive when in action. My only gripe here is the way Vesemir is drawn — they drew him a little too smug. I guess I know what they were going for, trying to imagine what the Vesemir of Witcher III would have been like less tempered by age and world-weariness, but I think they went a little too far with his visual design. Ultimately, though, as an animation, they are targeting a wider audience than before, and I think the visual design of the lead characters makes this hard to forget.

The English voice acting holds the film up. There are a few slightly awkward deliveries by the leads, but it was generally quite well acted given the audience and tone of the film. This is a relief, because in animations, the voice acting is what makes or breaks the emotional connection the viewer has to the characters and story. I didn’t look up who did the voice work in the event that any of them were celebrities.

I don’t know if these are real easter-eggs or are accidental, but there are a couple of spots in Wolf that may make you chuckle. One seems like a clear visual and then audio reference to Elias Toufexis as Adam Jensen in Deus Ex: Human Revolution. You’ll know it when you see it. The other is that a key character reveal at the end looks just like the main character of Studio Mir’s Avatar.

Overall, I’d say Wolf is absolutely worth a watch if you enjoyed the books, games, or show. If you didn’t like the show but like animation, I think it’s still worth a try as its more accessible and more quickly paced. If you are looking for a numerical score, I’d give it a 7/10.

It’s Not Left vs. Right, it’s Control vs. Free Will

“The two-party system really sucked, but this one-party system is completely f**cked.”

This post is spurred by the feeling that a lot of people who mostly know me through my social media think that I’m “drifting right”. I would say that my life experiences over the past decade (particularly the last 3 years going from the takeover of Hong Kong to the preposterous shenanigans of living with COVID in the USA) have very much pushed me to highly value individual liberties.

Obviously, pure libertarianism isn’t a great idea because we need some degree of civil servantry to help those who are unable to help themselves and provide a degree of medical care and welfare, but seeing the reality of what happens to people once they have been completely disempowered by their government, the very people who are supposed to serve them, has made me extremely wary of any structures of power that create a power imbalance.

The problem with a power structure that has no oversight is that even if it starts off functioning well because its filled with good people, eventually those good people will move out and bad, power-seeking people will move in. See: American politics, Hong Kong, and just about everywhere greedy, corrupt, power-seeking ghouls seek control over others that infringes human rights. When that happens, there are a few recourses:

1) People can vote (this was denied to Hongkongers);

2) People can protest (this was denied to Hongkongers);

3) People can speak out against oppression (this was denied to Hongkongers);

4) People can physically fight back against oppression (this was denied to Hongkongers. You couldn’t even buy a laser pointer there).

Watching that happen to my adopted home was and is one of the most difficult things I’ve had to endure. I feel dirty even writing that, because that’s absolutely nothing compared to those who were born there and had families and had nowhere else to go, or the so many who were raped, tortured, or murdered there because they protested for freedoms Americans and many others take for granted.

I realized that at the end of the day, we must not outsource our responsibilities to anyone else ⁠— be they government, personal, or otherwise. “The government will take care of it” is just a euphemism for “somebody else will take care of it”. No ⁠— we are responsible for ourselves, and if we outsource that responsibility, we simply move the burden to others.

As I grew up in an extremely progressive anti-gun home (in an extremely privileged and safe area during an equally privileged time, I should add), I somehow knew nothing else about them other than they enabled murders and would just “go off”, killing family members accidentally on a regular basis. Watching the complete disempowerment of people in China and Hong Kong first hand made me realize that having a population with the ability to defend itself is absolutely crucial to the preservation of a free society and to keep people safe from government overreach.

This isn’t meant to be a 2A post, however: I want to draw people’s attention to the major trends that have been occurring worldwide over the past 25 years of internet and technological development. I’m not talking about Mr. Potatohead, Starbucks logos changing, or confusing pronouns:

1) Massive expansion of unconstitutional, unethical, and dangerous surveillance power. A lot of this was granted via the Patriot Act, which was perhaps the biggest American blunder of the 21st century even considering Iraq and Afghanistan.

2) Increasing corruption in politics, leading to a resurgence of power-hungry, dishonest, career politicians who do not have your best interests at heart. How many millionaires are currently serving in congress?

3) Increasing domestic instability as a result of international factors (social media manipulation by China/Russia, COVID-19) as well as domestic ones, such as social media, disconnection, lockdown, divisive domestic politics, corporate overreach, lack of purpose/values, family cohesion, etc.)

4) Increasing international instability, including an expanding totalitarian China fighting to create a new global order, financing of cartels in Mexico, and using those cartels to destabilize Mexico and the US. At the same time, people and the mainstream media take a blind eye to our southern neighbour and our border. You do not want the cartels operating in America, but they already are.

5) A major increase in authoritarianism within the US. While Facebook, Twitter, and Google, et al. have long embraced censorship whenever it aligned with their own political/financial interests, 2021 has been marked by increased censorship pushed by the administration via threatening of tech giants with anti-trust action. The results of the administration’s pressure have already manifested in Google’s changes to their ad policies (the financial backbone of much of the internet), the White House directly flagging posts for Facebook to remove, and Apple adding a backdoor to its encryption. And they are far from done.

6) The global trend is a massive push from the ruling class and those who serve them to control the citizenry using technology, automation, and propaganda (media that favors advocacy over truth). Much of this has been pioneered by China, and autocrats and technocrats everywhere, including the USA, have been eyeing China’s iron-clad control over its subjects with envy.

The above is far from an exhaustive list; I didn’t even bring up climate change and the destruction of our environment, but my point is that people don’t trust authority for good reason: it’s shown itself time and time again to be untrustworthy. When people don’t trust authority, they are rightfully less willing to give up their responsibilities to authority. We know that the police don’t have the manpower, willpower, or funding to be there right when you need them. Nobody is coming to save you. You need to be your own rescuer.

What gives me hope is that it seems that more and more people are waking up to the overt manipulation by legacy media, which seems to serve mostly as a mouthpiece for the ruling class (political and business elite). Even Americans who still subscribe to the partisan narrative that the real enemy is the other half of America rather than the corrupt and power-hungry elite are starting to realize that authoritarianism is a double-edged sword, and when they seek to cancel others, those same powers are quickly turned back on them.

To paraphrase an anonymous and sagely YouTube comment, “the two party system really sucked, but this one party system is completely fucked.” I hope people are starting to realize that they have ⁠— and have always had ⁠— the tools within them to learn and make their own choices that are best for them. We can’t keep outsourcing these decisions and rights to those who have done nothing but drive the world into the ground and hope that maybe this time, this time, things are somehow going to be different and our problems will be solved.

The reality is that most problems are almost entirely only capable of being solved by ourselves as individuals and communities. And most of those problems aren’t even external; they are our own insecurities, weaknesses, and biases. We should all start by endeavoring to solve our own problems, and once we do that, we can start to take responsibility for things beyond our own body and work to improve our local communities and beyond.

Critical Race Theory is Bullshit, But So Are Laws Banning Discussion of it

Author’s note: I originally wrote and published a fairly garbage hot-take on this topic where I reached the wrong conclusion because I missed a single word in the proposed law. This updated version of the article corrects my initial reasoning.

A friend sent me an article the other morning, the headline of which I could hardly believe:

A $5 Million Fine for Classroom Discussions on Race? In Tennessee, This Is the New Reality”

I immediately assumed this headline was misleading as a result of biased journalism and letting feeling override logical thought. I figured it would be an article meant to reinforce the coastal elite stereotype of the South as a place where such racist, restrictive laws come from. And as I’ve learned in the past five years, just because it’s written doesn’t mean it’s true. To find out whether it really is what it is alleged to be, we have to carefully analyze the actual text of the proposed law.

Before we go through the law, though, this kind of fear over what people’s children may be exposed to is far from new in American discourse: we’ve argued over violence in media, sex education versus abstinence, and even de-segregation. It wasn’t too long ago that the Intelligent Design theory camp was pushing for science classes to “teach the controversy“, either. What is it that people are so concerned about? Rational and moral people should all agree that schools should enable healthy discussion and understanding of race, discrimination, and prejudice in social studies and history. But people seem not just worried, but frightened that their children are going to be subject to intellectual brainwashing that may do untold harm to their development as human beings (now, I am not saying that this is the absolute reality; I am saying that this is what many people are afraid of). Whether or not these kinds of incidents are widespread seems to be up for debate, but we should acknowledge that such examples are worrying for the prospect of a free-thinking society that seeks truth.

What people are concerned about being taught and are taking extreme steps in an attempt to mitigate generally are Critical Race Theory (CRT) and aspects of the 1619 Project curriculum. Of course, there’s a bit of debate about what CRT is and what gets to be called that, but I’m going to avoid the nonsense detour for what it is and go for the most authoritative definition I can find: reference books. All the encyclopedic definitions have the same gist, but I submit that her Majesty’s Britannica says it best: “race is not a natural, biologically grounded feature of physically distinct subgroups of human beings but a socially constructed (culturally invented) category that is used to oppress and exploit people of colour”. So, if this is what CRT is, then it’s clearly a non-starter and is in the same hallowed company as classic double-bind, “white fragility“.

The concern about CRT-related content being taught in schools is often referenced as an extension of the 1619 Project. The 1619 Project was/is a journalism-project-turned-curriculum of civil-right journalist and author Nikole Hannah-Jones meant to refocus on (1) the consequences of slavery and (2) the contributions of black Americans. As something students might study in a secondary school language arts class and contextualized by a capable teacher, the essays and poems written for it have at least some role in an educational exploration of the roots of America and its culture.  The 1619 Project’s inaugural essay by Hannah-Jones, America Wasn’t a Democracy, Until Black Americans Made It One is well-written and exemplary in its commitment to self-expression, and as long as it is presented as someone’s subjective opinion rather than an ideal worldview, I can’t see what’s wrong with high schoolers reading through it. Other essays as part of the 1619 Project, such as “Why Is Everyone Always Stealing Black Music?” and “How Segregation Caused Your Traffic Jam“, I will leave to a later time to explore.

So, overall, yes, CRT is bullshit, and the 1619 Project’s material is of varying quality. But neither of these are actually mentioned in the proposed legislation. When I wrote my first draft of this article, I skimmed the preamble and went straight to the section which enumerated what the law seeks to avoid. My initial understanding of the law was that it sought to ban the promotion of the following concepts. My comments are encapsulated in parentheses and italicized:

1) One race or sex is inherently superior to another race or sex (Seems rational to me. I wouldn’t want my son or daughter being taught they are better or worse because of their race or sex, nor do I want anyone else to be taught a sexist/racist paradigm of understanding the world or themselves.);

2) An individual, by virtue of the individual’s race or sex, is inherently privileged, racist, sexist, or oppressive, whether consciously or subconsciously (This also seems fairly straightforward. Individuals should be judged by the content of their character and their actions.);

3) An individual should be discriminated against or receive adverse treatment because of the individual’s race or sex (seems pretty clear that we shouldn’t do this based on section VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964);

4) An individual’s moral character is determined by the individual’s race or sex (I would hope this elicits no controversy);

5) An individual, by virtue of the individual’s race or sex, bears responsibility for actions committed in the past by other members of the same race or sex (it becomes clear after thinking about the implications just 1-2 steps ahead that we cannot and must not hold individuals accountable for actions committed in the past by people only associated by race or sex);

6) An individual should feel discomfort, guilt, anguish, or another form of psychological distress solely because of the individual’s race or sex (Given the current focus on inclusivity and LGBTQ rights, I think that this should not be controversial, though it should be a given for race, sex, sexual orientation, disability, or any other immutable characteristic);

7) A meritocracy is inherently racist or sexist, or designed by a particular race or sex to oppress members of another race or sex (Meritocracy is a concept for the advancement of individuals based on their achievements. The only claim of oppression one could make is that it oppresses those who cannot achieve. Those who are less able to achieve still need a place in society as well as purpose. However, for society, including governments and businesses to run effectively, the best person for that job should indeed be the person hired for that job. We have plenty of experience with politicians who have sidestepped meritocracy via nepotism to suggest that a meritocracy is the best option);

8) This state or the United States is fundamentally or irredeemably racist or sexist (The USA certainly has a history of racism and sexism amongst its population. So does every other place in history. I do not excuse any of it, but it must be highlighted that societies can change and grow as they learn. The key word here is irredeemable. If one believes something is irredeemable, it means they do not believe that people have the ability to change or learn, to not be what they once were. If one believes that, why even bother?);

9) Promoting or advocating the violent overthrow of the United States government (Don’t see a problem with this as it’s quite standard, e.g., to immigrate to the US lawfully one must attest to this.);

10) Promoting division between, or resentment of, a race, sex, religion, creed, nonviolent political affiliation, social class, or class of people (this seems like basic non-discrimination/sensitivity training to me); or

11) Ascribing character traits, values, moral or ethical codes, privilege, or beliefs to a race or sex, or to an individual because of the individual’s race or sex. (I think we’ve already gone over ascribing character traits to races or sexes who do not actually naturally possess them.

The amendment goes on to to clarify that the above in section a) does not prohibit an LEA or public charter school from including:

“1) The history of an ethnic group, as described in textbooks and instructional materials adopted in accordance with part 22 of this chapter;

2) The impartial discussion of controversial aspects of history;

3) The impartial instruction on the historical oppression of a particular group of people based on race, ethnicity, class, nationality, religion, or geographic region; or

4) Historical documents relevant to b) 1-3 that are permitted under legal sections 49-6-1011”

“What’s the problem,” I thought. I published my take on the EdWeek and sent it to a few friends. I originally concluded that the legislation seemed to just attempt to avoid affecting children negatively by promoting racist and sexist concepts. Reception was mixed. My more conservative friends agreed and thought it was a good article, but my more liberal friends took issue with it. To paraphrase, I believe the feedback I got was that my article “sucks” and I “totally missed the point” of the law. How would this be, though? I spent hours analysing the language and writing up my thoughts! Well, because, like a dumbass, I missed a very important word in the preamble:

“a) An LEA or Public charter school shall not include or promote the following concepts as part of a course of instruction or in a curriculum or instructional program, or allow teachers or other employees of the LEA or public charter school to use supplemental instructional materials that include or promote the following concepts:”

Not just promote. Include. This means that the law would effectively ban discussion of any of those concepts.

There’s no way around the fact that this law is censorship. I am no friend of censorship, and I believe we should be able to discuss anything we like however we like in public and private, including internet commons, and let the truth be found that way. When we ban discussion of ideas, we do so at our own peril because it means that people will reach their own understanding of those ideas that misrepresents the concept. Read the Manifesto of the Communist Party, read Mein Kampf, read Anders Breivik or whatever you want, just make sure it’s properly contextualized so it’s not being read as fact. Bad ideas need to be discussed and criticized. CRT should be discussed and criticized, as should any idea that students are interested in learning more about.

As a teacher, I am not comfortable with the idea that any teacher be worried about accidentally breaching into an area of discussion that is somehow “illegal” in an academic context. It’s incumbent on the teacher to approach any topic carefully, with full understanding of the subject and their audience. No good teacher should ever willfully make any of their students feel guilty, superior or inferior for any immutable characteristic they possess. Thus, if concerned parents want to improve the quality of instruction in schools, then then need to allow specifically for the critical discussion of any ideology.

I understand that those who support this law have valid concerns about the quality of teaching and classroom context for CRT, the 1619 Project, White Fragility, or any other ideologies that are byproducts of the well-meaning Zeitgeist. As someone who taught for over a decade, I grant that what is taught in classrooms has little chance of being parsed critically even in universities, and almost no chance of being critically examined by high-schoolers (I only started being able to think critically and synthesize my own knowledge to an effective degree around the age of 32!). Point being, adolescents and even adults are generally taught to “learn” (memorize) what they are being told. Is it morally or socially responsible to torpedo students’ understanding of themselves or the country they call home? We are already living through the consequences of an unsure and insecure generation not sure of what their values are except money, and the outcome isn’t good. But censorship is rarely the lesser of two evils, and it is always a sword that cuts both ways.

So, as a teacher, news editor, and someone who has lived under some degree of censorship and oppression, I find that I have to object to the proposed amendment. No, I do not think adolescents should be taught racist or sexist concepts that make them feel of unequal worth, which the first section of the bill seems to attempt to prevent. Because it would make even discussion (not just promotion) of ideas illegal is a dangerous move, it takes the already censorship-crazy culture of America into an even more dangerous position.

Happy Independence Day!

Happy 4th of July/Independence Day!


Independence Day serves as a reminder of how good big escapist Hollywood movies used to be.


It’s also a reminder of what the principles of America were meant to be, and that we should hold these ideals in high regard and attempt to live up to them, just like we looked up to Will Smith when he punched that alien in its stupid face.


These are what I think one needs to believe to be “American”:
1) All people have equal inherent worth as human beings, and no person is worth any more or less than any other, regardless of income, race, or any other surface-level characteristic.

2) Freedom is an inherent fundamental human right.

3) If you want something, work hard at it and don’t give up

4) Do what is morally right, even at great personal sacrifice

Is this always the reality of America? Of course not, especially now. There are hundreds of millions of people living in America. But we create reality through the sum of our collective beliefs and actions, and as Michael Jackson once probably said, “if you believe something, you’ll make it real! Sha-mon!”.


Believing in what America sometimes is and could be is what makes someone American in my book. You don’t need to be born in the US or even an American citizen to be “American”. In fact, the most American people I know come from places like the Congo, Mali, Afghanistan, Iran, Thailand, Hong Kong, Taiwan, China, and others. Conversely, some of the most un-American people I know were born in America.

So, to all “Americans” out there, have a happy independence day, and never give up on your ideals.
…Now lets go grab the most powerful explosives we can legally obtain and go blow some shit up. 😎

Garbage In, Garbage Out

I was recently attempting to explain to a reddit-addicted friend why she should be more judicious with her content consumption. I reasoned that we are all literally and figuratively what we consume: our physical body can only be made of what we feed it, and psychologically and intellectually, we are the media we consume. Thus, I told her, there is no way around the unfortunate fact that, well… “garbage in, garbage out”.

Most of us are aware that when we eat a 500g bag of corn snacks fried in partially-hydrogenated palm oil, it’s bad for us. It’s notable because we physically feel bad, and we can connect the behaviour of eating that item with the subsequent effects of lethargy, indigestion, and poor physical performance. Long term, we know that it will raise our chances of pathology and disease. There’s even a kind of shame and self-deprecation associated with eating such unhealthy foods.

Yet, there’s very little comparable awareness of the consumption of intellectual garbage. Most of the internet content mills that are most financially successful have become so by serving up heaping portions of nonsense as a result of the new “anything-for-clicks” business paradigm, and so, for many of us, we’ve become accustomed to a mental diet of rubbish. Whether its a certain sub-reddit post, HuffingtonPost editorial, or Breitbart article, many of us have been consuming content just for the memes (90-day fiancé, anyone?) or to pass time and stave off boredom. But it’s not harmless.

There is a real danger that consuming media mindlessly, uncritically, and without context is causing. The causal chain of events partially responsible for our world becoming an intellectual desert goes something like this:

1. We read something that appears to be true, but is actually not 100% factually correct. It may be an editorial masquerading as expository journalism, or perhaps of subjective emotional interpretations as objective fact. It is likely from a source we have decided to trust information from (a logical fallacy, the argument from authority).

2. When it fits our biases, we share it.

3. Other people see it, and they believe it is true because they have seen that it came from an “authority”.

4. What would have once been identified and rejected as a non-truth becomes our reality, simply because we believe it to be true.

5. We manifest this garbage into reality through our assumptions, expressed in our thoughts and actions.

So, that’s the ‘how’, but it doesn’t excuse the why: I don’t have time to read every article in the world nor eat everything on the menu, but if I’m going to eat something, I’m at least going take the time to look at it and smell it to make sure it’s not a treat from my rabbits — and then properly taste and chew it should it pass the test. The bottom line is that if you’re on social media sharing things, then you do have time to actually read what you’re sharing and critically examine it to make sure it’s not just a bunch of shit. If you’re reading reddit to try and figure out how to improve your love life, you need to contextualize that information and parse it yourself before you mentally flag everything you read as a “fact”. Start by familiarizing yourself with established logical fallacies. Think about what the author has to benefit. If you have time to be on social media, you have time to use your brain and critically examine information.

Don’t believe anything because you trust the person who said it. Don’t believe anything I just wrote in this post is true because I wrote it. I’m nobody, and even if I wasn’t, who I am has no bearing on my arguments, anyway. Arguments must stand on their own merits and withstand questioning. All people make mistakes and miscalculations.

When you read something and it because you carefully thought about the arguments and evidence laid out, and then if your brain “clicks” and it makes sense, then believe it. The greatest and most dangerous logical fallacy of all is to believe anything without checking it yourself.

We are, literally and figuratively, what we consume. Our bodies are comprised of the elements and nutrients we intake. Psychologically and intellectually, we are the experiences we have, the media we consume. And the world itself is comprised of all of our realities.

What kind of world are we reinforcing with our intakes? Is it the one you want to live in, or is it the one that outrages you? Memes in, memes out. Hate in, hate out. Ideology in, ideology out.

Garbage in, garbage out.

Deus Ex Hong Kong

April 28, 2021

I have a lot of dreams about Hong Kong. Mostly nightmares, really. They are variations on a theme.

The other night, I dreamed that I found myself back in my adopted home of Hong Kong again, walking on the familiar streets of central Hong Kong Island with friends.

I was immediately anxious. It wasn’t the nostalgic Hong Kong of my memories I was in. It was still 2021, and Beijing’s National Security Law had already been implemented. Hong Kong was firmly a de-facto police state swarming with plainclothes and Mandarin-speaking riot police. I didn’t know how long I had been there, but I knew I needed to leave as soon as possible. Before I could react, the next thing I knew we had been stopped by three young policemen with intense, jittery eyes, kitted-out in full riot gear and carrying sub-machineguns. They corralled us into an alley and demanded to see our Hong Kong IDs.

My blood ran cold; I knew I would be arrested, and I had two or three guesses of what would happen after that. I had violated the new National Security Law by criticizing the Chinese state dozens of times after it was passed, meaning they would at least have an ostensibly legal justification to disappear me and do as they wished. Law or no law, I had been under some level of surveillance in the real world at least as early as June of 2019 after writing some articles about Huawei. I waited, defeated, under the hazy neon lights of the street signs above me as the young officer scrutinized his tablet. I was sure that my name and face would come up in their system, and that would be it.

They had any number of justifications under the newly established Chinese legal framework, and that’s all they’d need to arrest and disappear me into the grey jails within Hong Kong such as Pik Uk, where Amnesty International found conclusive evidence of torture — or worse, the opaque gulags of the Mainland under the guise of “following the course of justice in China“. I might have once been afforded special treatment as a foreigner in Hong Kong in 2018, but as I had been advised, those days were over. Would I mysteriously fall off a building like HKUST student Alex Chow Tsz Lok? Probably not. Held in some windowless room in Beijing as a bartering piece? Very possible.

The officer with the tablet looked up and whispered something to his colleague. Then, to my shock, handed our IDs back and told us to avoid meeting in groups and to go back home. Flooded with relief, I next found myself at the airport boarding a flight out of HK.

My own personal nightmare, at least, ended.

A flash pro-democracy protest in my local mall in Tai Po, a frequent occurrence in mid-late 2019. (Video credit: own)

But I recently had another dream about Hong Kong. In it, I was surrounded by friends and students, old and new. The mood was festive and lighthearted as we talked and joked in Cantonese, ate noodles and other food in a market late into the night. We were in Hong Kong — but it was not the Hong Kong where I spent much of my adult life since 2011. I knew somehow it was another Hong Kong. It wasn’t just the buildings with neon signs, but the atmosphere: all the bustling streets and vivaciousness of Hong Kong, but without the oppression, “suicides”, and fear. A Hong Kong where Hongkongers could keep their culture alive and be optimistic for the future.

An early, optimistic student protest at the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology (HKUST) where I worked. A few months later, HKUST student Alex Chow Tsz-lok, would mysteriously fall from the fifth story of the parking garage of his home residence in the presence of riot police. According to witnesses at the scene, the police beat and blocked paramedics who attempted to treat Chow. He died in a hospital days later. (Video credit: own)

While Hong Kong’s neon lights and incredibly varied topography — city, mountains, towns, villages, forest, and ocean packed into just over 1100 square kilometers — are indeed some of the features that made Hong Kong so special, the dream made me realize that Hong Kong is much more than its physicality.

Hong Kong is hot and fresh wonton soup made from scratch, served by a smiling auntie who remembers your usual order. It’s hot milk tea and macaroni ham soup for breakfast. It’s cold beer and fresh seafood on the street with friends on a hot August night. It’s Cantonese slang and inside jokes; the way diu said just the right way says everything that needs to be said. It’s accidentally dropping a few hundred dollars (or even your whole wallet) in the middle of the most hectic rush hour and having multiple people chase after you to give it back. It’s long, quiet walks home at 4am after dancing the night away without a thought about safety.

Hong Kong is having the exhausted person next to you on the bus “go fishing” and fall asleep onto your shoulder, and you try not to wake them, because you understand their struggle. It’s how the tiny bar you frequent is a home away from home, and the owner looks after you like your own mother. It’s the way nearly two million people can protest with seemingly superhuman politeness. It’s the character of a people who have experienced so much change and hardship, who work 60 or more hours a week to make ends meet in one of the most competitive environments on Earth, yet still find the time to be warm and welcoming to you. To put one foot in front of the other and be decent, no matter what.

Freshly made wonton noodle soup from my local cha-caan teng, or “tea restaurant”. (Photo credit: own)

Hong Kong may be breathing its last breaths under the Chinese Communist Party, but the ethos of what it means to be a Hongkonger can’t be killed by physical oppression or by making ideas illegal. Police and military can occupy its streets, turn its school curriculum to propaganda, but Hongkongers are more hardy than that.

Protest graffiti under a bridge in Tai Po, 2019. (Photo credit: own)

With new immigration pathways to Canada, Taiwan, the United Kingdom, and the United States, more and more Hongkongers are leaving what was once their home and creating a new one. With any luck, the diaspora may reestablish vibrant communities, continue practicing their language and culture, and keep the character of Hongkongers alive.

Hong Kong isn’t a place; it’s a people.
Hong Kong is dead; long live Hong Kong.

Douglas Black is a Business Analyst, Technical Writer, University Lecturer, and former technology Journalist. He lived in China, Hong Kong, and other parts of Asia-Pacific from 2007-2019.

If You Hate Writing, Learn to Write

If you’re reading this, chances are you think you hate writing.

You’re not alone: in more than a decade of teaching, I can’t recall students brimming with excitement on the first day of a writing class. It’s perhaps even worse in the business world, where it seems people would rather do just about anything other than be responsible for writing documentation, project charters, requirements, letters, or technical analyses.

But one must learn to write just as surely as one learns to breathe — our lives depend on it, because learning how to write is the very same as learning how to think.

Many people mistakenly feel the most difficult part of writing is putting pen to paper (or hands to keys) and spelling out the words, likely informed by unpleasant memories of cramped wrists and fingers from past exams written. But I swear to you that the most difficult thing about writing, by far, has nothing to do with the act of writing out language, but what comes before (and after): Thinking. I don’t mean it as an insult when I say most people don’t like writing because they don’t like thinking. It’s no wonder, however, because thinking is difficult.

Writing can be loosely categorized into four non-exclusive genres, including expository (establishing facts), persuasive (which I am trying to do in this essay), descriptive (crafting a mental image), and narrative (telling a story). I bring up these rhetorical modes because learning to write well in each one means honing our cognition in a crucial area. Remember that the way we do one thing is generally the way we do everything, and so by writing better, we’ll unavoidably be thinking better, too. Let’s break it down by genre and cognitive skill, starting with expository writing.

Learning to write expository texts means learning how to organize concepts logically so they can be learned by others. But is logical organization that important? Absolutely, because logical organization requires many cognitive sub-skills, as well. To logically organize and explain facts, this means you must be able to look at something, such as a car, software application, or manufacturing supply chain, and understand it (learning). Then, you must be able to organize all the entities comprising that thing into a hierarchy in a way that makes logical sense: i.e., pistons are a sub-component of an engine, and an engine is one of the primary mechanisms within a car. While wheels are important, too, they are not a sub-component of an engine, and should be organized differently, etc. Simply put, learning to write expository texts well means learning how to learn, learning how to analyze a system and organize it logically, and learning how to assess importance and create value hierarchies.

While persuasive writing depends quite heavily on expository writing as a pre-requisite in order for facts to be communicated, it also leans on thinking objectively and with empathy for others’ perspectives. Accordingly, it’s no surprise that the first rule of persuasive writing is to understand your audience. Thinking objectively (from different perspectives) is one of the most important sub-skills of critical thinking; it helps us separate ourselves from our egos and biases towards our preferred narratives, helping us take a step back from the zeitgeists of the age and do a self-diagnostic: does what I’m being told really match up with what I’m seeing? Who benefits? What incentives do I have to believe this is true? How does the scale balance once the evidence has been honestly stacked up? You might be surprised that what you’ve been taking for granted as the truth has been anything but.

Descriptive writing — the skill of being able to create mental imagery in our readers — isn’t just for aspiring novelists. Firstly, to describe something, one needs to notice it. Life is made up of the little details, and learning to appreciate them won’t just help you enjoy life, but it will help you develop an attention to detail that is necessary to be highly proficient in almost any pursuit. To be descriptive also requires that we choose our words carefully, with precision and a mind on how they will affect our audiences, helping us be more considerate and empathetic. Crucially, this means we will then also learn to think more carefully. Finally, being able to skillfully describe places, people, feelings, or other experiences is an excellent way to ensure you have the full attention of people when you communicate.

You don’t need to want to be the next Stephen King to learn to write narratives (stories), either. In his non-fiction book on the craft itself, aptly titled On Writing, King likened writing to digging around in dirt and excavating bones and artifacts that tell a story. I would like to modify his analogy somewhat. Narrative writing is not just the excavation of buried remains that tell a story, but a sort of archeology of the self: discovering what we have ourselves once buried and forgotten. When you sit down and write stories that draw from yourself, you are engaging in self-expression and discovery. You don’t need to publish it anywhere, even, but to put that which was hauled from one’s own hidden depths onto paper is to express what was crying out to be expressed. To understand yourself is to understand all of humanity.

If we don’t learn to properly think, we do so at our own peril. The world we live in is awash in examples of what happens when people only know how to follow rather than think. We will fail morally as we follow others into disaster without question, fail to communicate our wants and needs to those closest to us, fail to find our true selves through lack of expression and understanding, and ultimately fail to uphold our responsibility to ourselves in this world by falling far short of our potential. The mind is a weapon. Learn to wield it by learning to write, lest you be unwittingly wielded by others.