Perhaps College Is Not For Everyone

PERHAPS COLLEGE IS NOT FOR EVERYONE

Christopher Ebbe, Ph.D.   1-14

ABSTRACT:  The American dream of advancement has become focused narrowly on having a college degree as the passport to better jobs.  Some untoward consequences of this are outlined, and a suggestion for refocusing is offered.

KEY WORDS:  college, American dream, vocational training

The American dream of advancement socially and financially has become more and more focused on the college degree as an essential ticket of admission to upper status and higher paying jobs.  An unfortunate result of this has been a degradation of college learning, since by far a majority of current college students have little interest in the general education learning that college traditionally offers but are in college mainly to get the degree and to get a head start on their chosen profession or job if there is opportunity in the curriculum to do so.  Additionally, decades of “passing students along” in grade school and secondary school in spite of failing abilities, along with the American workers’ established expectation of frequent raises of pay have created an expectation in society of rewards regardless of production and have led to a larger percentage of college applicants being unprepared to do what used to be considered “college level work.”

Many professors are frustrated with this evolution of the student body, and some have “dumbed down” their classes and changed their grading curve averages to allow the same percentage to pass now that passed thirty years ago even though students learn considerably less now.  Colleges and universities, from a business perspective, have not attempted to restrict enrollment to those who are interested in general learning or headed for careers that actually require that type of college or graduate education.  Colleges have therefore become more of a combination of technical and vocational schools plus some general education (math, philosophy, science, languages) which students try to “get out of the way” as soon as possible, usually in the first two years of college.

The attitude of society has changed toward college education also, with many more parents and students thinking that college education is for gaining entry-level skills for a job, whereas college education has traditionally been for gaining greater levels of more general skills, such as thinking well, historical awareness, and communications, that make learning the skill details of specific jobs easier later on as well as providing a broader base for knowing what it is to “live well,” to live a “good life,” and to live an ethical life.  College as it currently stands does not provide as much of that job-related training as parents think it will, which again underlines the point that their children are in college simply to gain the degree.  On-line degree programs probably offer more of the job-skill kinds of courses and fewer of the general education courses than do traditional colleges.

Traditional (and still widespread) college curricula are composed of courses in—

• history (to help students understand the consequences of societal structures, political decisions, and cultural movements on societies)
• English (to help students communicate clearly and unambiguously and to be able to organize the presentation of a sequence of ideas)
• psychology/sociology/political science/philosophy (to help students understand how people and groups view the world, identify their values, and make their decisions)
• mathematics, or sometimes philosophy (to help students think more logically)
• electives, such as art, music, drama (to broaden the students’ interests)
• concrete skill courses aimed at skills needed in certain jobs (accounting, computers, rehabilitation or other medical technologies, advertising, marketing, etc.)

Students can choose a “major” area of study from any of the above.  Some majors will focus on concrete skill courses but some will have none at all.  A major usually comprises roughly one-fourth of a student’s credits.

It is unclear whether today’s greater percentage of college students seeking status and higher pay rather than knowledge is due to (1) young people switching over from expecting general education to expecting training in jobs that will result in higher status and higher pay, (2) the same number of young people attending college who like learning or are interested in general education but greater numbers of young people attending who think that the college degree is crucial for their futures, or (3) more young people attending college now who would not have done so earlier because they did not think that they could obtain admission or because they thought that the emphasis in college on general education learning was not to their liking. 

There are probably a number of reasons for the lower commitment to knowledge and learning, including a lower expectation on the part of young people of having to work hard to succeed, from seeing so much effortless success in movies and TV and (apparently) so much success for people who have little education or knowledge but are movie, sports, or music stars.  The recent craze for building children’s self-esteem by praising them indiscriminately may be another factor.  And, perhaps parents’ expectations for their children’s efforts and work ethic are lower, also, if parents are working harder than ever to “keep up” and also want to “give their children a better life,” since they may unconsciously think that a better life would be one without so many demands!  As noted above, “passing” students in grade school and high school in spite of failing performance no doubt contributes as well.

The unfortunate result of this mixing of “education for thinking” and “education for doing” has been that neither is well served.  Those interested in knowledge are given less importance by colleges seeking maximum enrollments, and those interested in jobs have time taken away from those interests by half-hearted general education requirements.

America has always had a generally anti-intellectual bent, with its emphasis on the practical and its distrust of authority.  Another force pushing the new assumption that college is for getting a good job is our American disdain for learning psychology (what makes people tick) and learning history (how people have screwed up in the past).  With our equalitarian assumption in this country, every person thinks he or she is a psychologist and has no need of improving his or her understanding of people, and with our manifest destiny belief as a country, we think that we are somehow different from every other society and will not make the same mistakes that they have made.  Both of these assumptions are false.  We are more optimistic but just as prideful and short-sighted as all other human beings, and we will pay for these faults in various ways. 

Regardless of the reasons for the decline in college students’ readiness for “college level work” and for the decline in their interest in knowledge, the reputation of the bachelors degree from American colleges is declining and will continue to decline, if moving great numbers of students through the system is a higher priority than quality control.  Business leaders are already noting that college graduates are less prepared to function in high-level jobs, in terms of thinking and communications, than they used to be.  If employers simply allow their enterprises to function at a lower level by hiring and retaining lower qualified college graduates, the American economy will pay some price in terms of competitiveness (since there are parts of the world in which students still expect to work hard, particularly in Asia).  Unless it becomes apparent to young people that high-level thinking and communications are actually necessary for gaining those higher status and higher paying jobs (by employers filling those jobs only with actually qualified candidates), the current attitude among students will persist.  Professors who insist on reasonable levels of achievement for good grades will be pressured to change those standards in order avoid complaints from parents about their children not passing certain courses.

Our society has preferred to blame educators for American childrens’ low performance in comparison to students in the rest of the world, and to react by threatening teachers’ and administrators’ jobs if students don’t improve, but perhaps the major problem is with our young people and what we have taught them to expect.

This sorry situation could be turned around if authorities at any level—college, government, or business—began expecting more of children, but there seems to be little will to do that.  Government officials don’t want to upset the public by appearing to be critical of voters’ children.  Business leaders “have to” fill their positions with someone (even if not well qualified) if they want to avoid disruption in their current business processes.  College administrators need the income of more students’ tuition to pay for everything as inflation makes it harder and harder for them every year.  Parents feel so little authority with their children now, as compared to fifty years ago, that they dare not risk expecting more of children.

A related issue for colleges and universities is the trend for many of them to focus more and more on large research grants and the personnel to get the grants and do the research.  This often takes away from administrators’ concerns about quality undergraduate education and places more emphasis on graduate education and various “institutes,” but if an institution is committed to quality education, this need not be the result.

A DIFFERENT APPROACH

A major change in our educational system that would address the mismatch between traditional college curricula and the desire for job advancement would be to create another major track in post-secondary education which would focus mainly on preparing people for success in “doing type” jobs rather than “thinking type” jobs.  (Note that the previous sentence would be roundly rejected if it had read “...another track in post-secondary education for vocational training,” since we traditionally associate “vocational training” with blue collar jobs.  We seem to want all children, if possible, to move “up” to “white collar” work which is perceived as being higher status than “vocations” such as plumbing, carpentry, and electrical work.

Actually, most of the job knowledge preparation for white collar jobs that can be done in college is of the same nature and level of the learning for hands-on production jobs and can be accomplished just as well in a setting that is not “college.”  Learning accounting is just as mechanical and structured as learning to saw a straight line and does not require a college setting or a significant amount of “thinking type” training.  The distinction between these tracks should be on the level and type of learning, not on whether the job is physical or mental.  Many “paper-pushing” jobs that college graduates now enter require no preparation at all besides basic organizing ability, so they don’t really need either track, even if employers still would prefer to hire those who have proven that they can persist long enough to get that college degree.

Lower and mid-level mathematics would need to be taught in both settings, since it is useful for quite a few of what I am redefining as “vocational” jobs, and it is also essential for learning to think clearly for those in “thinking type” training.  There is no doubt that many of those who rise from “doing type” jobs to executive positions do so because of better learning skills, psychological skills, and communication skills, but many people who start in “vocational” positions have the inherent talent for these thinking, psychological, and communication activities and will develop their ability to use them regardless of job, so they may not need college anyway.  Being in the “thinking type” track does not guarantee higher pay, either, since many activities that are basically “thinking type” activities are not particularly well paid (teachers, assistant professors, philosophers, administrators in small companies or public agencies, and some scientists, particularly those who work in the field making observations and collecting data).

Separating training settings for “thinking type” activities and “doing type” activities would allow for better training for both and could give “doing type” activities the greater respect that they deserve if we could but change our attitudes and prejudices about “vocational training.” 

The pay differential that most cultures seem to establish between workers and management is a value issue that societies should try to understand.  While organizing and directing functions (management activities) are essential for effective production, there is no logical reason why they should be higher paid and higher status.  (There are psychological reasons for this, of course, rooted in our perception as children of adults who have more and control more than we do as gods, but they are not logical reasons.)  The workers that carry out the physical (and mental) tasks needed for production are just as essential as managers for the total outcome.  As production in general becomes even more efficient in the future and as more and more people receive college training, management-eligible people may become much more plentiful, and there may be a need for fewer and fewer “workers.  At that point, perhaps we will have to face more squarely why we value monetarily some people’s work more than that of others.

High school students could choose and be counseled regarding which kind of training to pursue.  People could switch from one track to the other (if their applications were accepted), although with the penalty of having to make up some ground.  People could go from either training track into any sort of job, and hopefully employers would realize that being in one track or the other is not necessarily a limit on what a potential employee could do well.

The main resistance to building up a vocational training system would be from less advantaged families who want their children to do higher paying work, because of how they currently misunderstand what college is or does, as well as from all those who want to believe the uniquely American dictum that anyone can achieve anything he or she wants to (even though this is not and never has been true).  While it is true that in the past and even now lifetime earnings of college graduates is greater than that of non-college graduates, it seems likely that this is turning around and that the glut of college graduates will result in lower pay for college graduates in general.  This is already happening, as college graduates find it harder and harder to get their first jobs, and many law school graduates cannot get jobs at all.

A number of European nations have an apprenticeship system in which companies take on (and pay) young people for training in specialized jobs.  They get some on-the-job training and some coursework in trade schools and must pass exams before becoming permanent employees.  This approach has been very popular but may be declining due to regulations the companies must follow and the difficulties of defining uniform guidelines for what must be learned for each specialized job (which is defined nationally in Germany at least and not just by the company involved).  If companies in this country followed this approach (without the regulations and national definitions of jobs), sharing the expense with the selected trainees, it would no doubt be a very welcome alternative for many young people.

There are pros and cons of having different training systems for “thinking type” and “doing type” work.

Pros

better training for doing both “thinking type” work and “doing type” work (assuming that both tracks can operate at a similar level of excellence)

more competent cadres of workers for our society in both “thinking type” and “doing type” work

less pressure on people who really want to or are better suited to do “doing type” work to pretend that they want to do “thinking type” work or to prove themselves in “thinking type” training (i.e., college) (even with lowered college standards).

Cons

risk of some continuation of status prejudice against “doing type” work

some undermining of the American belief that “anyone can do anything”

fewer citizens getting the “how to live a good life” benefits of college (although we certainly could make those courses available all the time through adult education)

less homogeneity in society than there might be if everyone went through the same training track

essays\collegeforeveryone

Lifelong Adherence To Expectations From Childhood

LIFELONG ADHERENCE TO EXPECTATIONS FROM CHILDHOOD

Christopher Ebbe, Ph.D.    11-13

ABSTRACT:  The positive and negative consequences of continuing in adult life to attempt to fulfill what we believed was desired of us in childhood are explored.

KEY WORDS:  ideals, childhood, shaping, roles, self, reinforcement

As children, all of us have some understanding of behaviors and roles that we believe our parents or caregivers want us to do or fill, as well as those that they wish to discourage.  These  behaviors are typically rewarded or punished (being “good,” being “bad,” talking back, playing football well, doing well in school, acting more maturely than would be expected for one’s age, being nice to others, being selfish, being tough, “being a man,” becoming a doctor, etc.).  Most of us respond to these rewards and punishments by trying to do what adults want of us, although depending on the form and degree of those rewards and punishments, some resistance or rebellion may occur.

If internalized, these expectations become ideals for us, and we use them as part of the standards by which we judge ourselves. An ideal is what we are “supposed to be” (or do) rather than just what adults want us to be or do or expect of us.  Ideals and expectations both involve satisfaction if we fulfill them and internal conflict, shame, guilt, and/or self-punishment if we view ourselves as failing to live up to them. 

If most of this parental guidance or coercion is aimed at personally or socially productive behavior (brushing your teeth regularly, treating people well), then going along with it is usually in our best interest, but if it isn’t consistent with our personalities or talents, then to continue to hold it as an ideal and attempt to fulfill it can create problems.  During development, we are capable of trying all sorts of behaviors, but as adults, conflicts between who we are and who we believe we are supposed to be are more serious.  If the expectations and ideals that we have accepted growing up are not compatible with our personalities and talents, then we must deal with whether to continue to please others by conforming to and honoring the ideals that we have accepted from others, or to take the risky step of changing our ideals to some that are more compatible with our adult views of ourselves and of the world. 

If one has been expected to become a doctor, and one has accepted this as an ideal, and if one has the intellectual capability and is accepted into medical school, then becoming a doctor may be possible, but one should ask whether this “feels right” to one in terms of one’s other values and pleasures.  If one is inspired by painting considerably more than by learning about the body, then there is a conflict, and one must weigh the rewards of pleasing one’s parents by being a doctor (plus the rewards to oneself of that role and career) while missing out on an art career, versus disappointing one’s parents and pursuing art as a career.  The consequences of changing directions might be even greater if one had been expected to become a professional athlete but then changed to art!

This conflict is even more intense if it is not just a question of pleasing or disappointing one’s parents, but also involves still trying to gain parents’ conditional acceptance by pleasing them.  It is much easier to risk making the change to do what one wants to do if one is confident that parents will still love and accept one but much harder if one expects the parents to always thereafter view one as a failure and refuse to “forgive” one.

Many of us are in this bind of fearing to displease parents because of feared disapproval or rejection, and we rarely talk about it with anyone, because we sense, correctly, that it would reveal a weakness that would be more appropriate for us as children than for us as adults.  As a result, many people soldier on doing what they don’t really want to do, out of fear of this disapproval and rejection (which we often generalize to our peers and to society in general as well).  You can check out whether you are being affected by this dilemma by being honest with yourself about whether you are really doing what you want to do.  This applies to every area—your job or vocation, whether to have children, where to live, who to marry, how to spend your weekends, and so forth and so on.  If you would really rather have your life arranged differently, what keeps you from doing it?  Leaving aside the practicalities of capabilities and costs and considering only others’ reactions, whose disapproval, disappointment, or rejection keeps you from making some changes?

If you have made life choices in order to please others or gain their love or acceptance, imagine what it would be like not to have to prove yourself any longer, what it would be like to be free to be you no matter who that was.  You might miss the security of knowing what you are “supposed to do,” but the relaxation and release from a straitjacket of expectations (and conflictful ideals) could be even more valuable.  You would no longer have to cringe every time you wondered if something you had done or said has angered or disappointed significant others.  You would be free to be happy.  You may have derived some satisfaction or happiness from your success in pleasing others, but the joy in being yourself and using all of your talents in the world would far surpass that.

Of course, making changes after one’s life is already established in certain important ways has its practical difficulties (getting additional training, moving to another city, how one’s spouse and children will feel about the changes, etc.), and we must always be realistic about these new goals.  It is not productive to set new goals that are fantasies and not compatible with one’s actual abilities or are simply not possible in the environment.  Those in boring jobs that do not use their abilities are in an especially difficult position, since in modern industrial society, many tasks are needed that are in fact boring and make little use of personal qualities or abilities, and alternatives may be hard to find.

The life circumstance that is most prohibitive of some changes is raising children, whose welfare “should” be paramount for us.  It is easier to leave a marriage in which there are no children than to leave a spouse and children.  There are circumstances, therefore, in which one’s decision probably should be to honor one’s commitment to childrearing before making changes that would be of serious detriment to those children, although in some families it would actually be better for the children for the parents to separate, and the spouse who institutes the separation might in some families also take the children.

To risk the disapproval, disappointment, or rejection of significant others is a major challenge, but not to act risks self-hatred and self-rejection, which can be even worse over the long run and which prevents you from achieving the degree of maturity and life satisfaction that you might otherwise achieve.  It may be better overall to do what is “right” for you and resolve to work out as best you can any relationship consequences.  Even if you cannot get the acceptance of significant others, it may be best for you to do what is “right” for you and to feel good about yourself.  The key to making this shift possible is for you to no longer hold yourself to a rule above all other rules of always pleasing those other people.  It is also not unreasonable to reverse the direction of these expectations, so that you now believe that they “should” accept you as you are (at least as long as you are treating them decently), rather than continuing to expect yourself to please them.  As an adult, you have a right to do what is best for you, as long as it is not unreasonably harming others, and it is not reasonable in this day and age for parents to determine their childrens’ important life choices.  You will probably have to work with yourself for a while to convince yourself of the appropriateness of this role reversal, but it is probably in the interest of your emotional health and your happiness to make this shift.

This analysis has focused on roles and achievements, but the reasoning and value choices apply equally to all expectations of others—degree of sociableness, customs of all sorts, conformance, dress, agreeableness, the assumption that one will take care of parents in old age, etc., etc.  The argument is the same in every case.  What is the best thing for you under the circumstances and given careful consideration of all of the consequences of each possible choice (which includes how your actions will affect others)?  These consequences include our own emotional reactions to our choices, consequences far in the future as well as immediate consequences, how our behavior impacts others, the reactions of others to whatever behavior we choose (and our reactions to their reactions, etc.).  This is not an argument for simply doing in every case what would seem to be more immediately enjoyable, since long-term rewards can be much more important than immediate enjoyment.  One might appropriately decide that the best thing for one’s life is to stay home and take care of one’s parents if that will be emotionally rewarding and financially feasible, before making certain life changes.

Every option has negative as well as positive consequences.  If

we choose an artistic career, then we should be prepared to give up excessive alcohol use, since it probably would eventually impair the physical abilities needed to produce our art (and perhaps our artistic judgment as well), and we should accept that we must also find a way to prepare for retirement, given the fact that art often pays poorly and given that it would be unfair to other family members for us to presume that they would support us in our old age.

In order to make the best possible decisions about one’s life, it is important to be aware of potential misleading input from one’s own culture.  Just because something is popular, we cannot conclude that it is sure to lead to a better life.  In current U. S. culture, for example, there is a strong message from the culture in general to “move forward” and “take risks,” as well as to please oneself (as opposed to careful consideration, moderation, and self-control).  It would be well for us to remember that in many other cultures, the weight of cultural wisdom would be on tradition and the welfare of the social groupings involved, rather than solely on our own happiness.  Before making a major life choice, you should ask yourself whether people in those cultures that are not as hopeful regarding change are happier with their lives than people in your own culture, and you should investigate what the outcomes are for people in your culture who have made each of the choices that you are considering.  Of course, it is difficult to accurately assess outcomes for those in other cultures, since we are not a part of those other cultures and cannot judge with certainty about whether they are happier, but we must recognize that there are many ways to live a good life.

These arguments are intended to be freeing but not to support irresponsibility.  They rather attempt to shift responsibility more to yourself, so that you rather than others are making the final decisions about your behavior and your benefits and losses.  For some people the choice to reject parental expectations of care in old age would be the right one, if that choice were necessary to enable them to have an extremely rewarding career (and they might choose later on to take care of the parents anyway).  For some people, it could be the wrong choice, if while it enabled them to have the desired career, it also resulted in suffering from lifelong guilt about doing so that they could not resolve.  Choice is complicated, but in general we feel better about ourselves and our lives if we make the choices rather than letting others make those important choices for us!

There is an assumption, of course, underlying this line of thinking that your choices for yourself will be better than those of others for you.  This is generally true, because we know ourselves and our needs and feelings better than others, and because the wishes of others for us are so often contaminated by their natural wish for us to be and to act in ways that will benefit them, even if they are to our detriment.  If you are one of the few whose cognitive capacities are not sufficient for making these choices for yourself, then you may wish to consult with someone with more experience and better judgment to help you.

essays\roleandidealchangesinadulthood

Integrity

INTEGRITY

Christopher Ebbe, Ph.D.      11-13

ABSTRACT:  Integrity is defined and discussed.  The barriers to living with integrity are enumerated, and illustrations are given for the consequences of failures of integrity, both for the individual and for others in complex, interdependent societies.  Reasons for these failures are explored, along with methods of improvement.

KEY WORDS:  integrity, responsibility, conscience, self-interest

It is very satisfying and gratifying to live in a way that is true to one’s own values, ideals, and beliefs—to live with integrity.  This both expresses and confirms one’s values, ideals, and beliefs and allows one to more fully and deeply understand and appreciate those values, ideals, and beliefs through repeatedly observing them and their results in one’s own life.  One of the consequences of not living with integrity is losing respect for oneself, which then lowers one’s self-esteem.

Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary defines “integrity” as “an unimpaired condition: soundness; firm adherence to a code of especially moral or artistic values: incorruptibility; the quality or state of being complete or undivided: completeness.”  We respect people who live with integrity, who believe in themselves and are true to themselves and what they believe in (even if they don’t agree with our particular values).  

“Completeness” implies being a complete person, with all of our strengths and weaknesses, all of our wonderful and not so wonderful traits.  “Completeness” would call for knowing oneself fully and completely and accepting it all, without having to divide oneself into “good” and “bad” parts.  Any forced suppression of self (i.e., feeling forced not to be who we really are, as opposed to feeling that we are choosing freely from among the many satisfying ways that each of us can be) results in unhealthy incompleteness and resentment on our part.

“Firm adherence to a set of ... values” is necessary for integrity, and in this case you embody this set of values.  You have a set of values about existence that indicates the relative importance of various activities, the purpose of life, and the rules that you believe should govern conduct between people.  You are the living example of your values and the only one who can clearly and completely illustrate them and represent them in the world.

Having integrity means to stick to what you believe incorruptibly.  If you have integrity, you do not change your stand or your beliefs just because someone else wants you to, or because it would be to your immediate advantage to do so.  If you do not believe in stealing, and you are in a situation in which you could easily take someone’s valuable property without being detected, you do not all of a sudden change your values and take the property, rationalizing that while most of the time you are against stealing, this opportunity is too good to pass up.  

Having integrity requires that we do not distort the truth for our own advantage.  We view ourselves and others objectively, and we are not hypocritical—for example, criticizing others for drinking too much but attacking anyone who accurately points out that we drink too much ourselves.

A person with integrity can tolerate whatever comes with relative ease, including the events in her life and her own emotional reactions.  She can feel battered by external events or by her own strong emotions (such as shame, guilt, or disappointment) but through these experiences is able to stay relatively centered and on an even keel and does not vary significantly in how she views reality, treats others, or carries out responsibilities.  She can be counted on by others in good times and bad times to be the same trustworthy, responsible, and caring person.  The feelings, perceptions, and choices of persons without integrity tend to flow purely from self-interest, so their moods, viewpoints, and behavior will have relatively less consistency or continuity.

If part of integrity is not losing sight of the truth, not changing one’s values based on immediate opportunities, and not being pushed too far off balance by various emotions, then integrity would imply being relatively constant in mood (since emotions can be regulated and reasons for them understood), relatively constant in viewpoint (from seeing the truth and the totality of the situation and from not getting pushed off center by emotion, circumstance, or others’ opinions), and relatively constant in behavior (since having a relatively constant view of reality and managing emotions adequately will tend to produce similar behavior choices over and over in similar circumstances).  A person with integrity acts autonomously and consistently in accordance with her principles, sometimes regardless of negative consequences.  She takes into account the input of others but makes her own decisions about the issues and is not swayed by over-emotionality, loudness, repetition, or manipulations.  She readily perceives the self-serving and unsupported nature of many assertions by human beings about reality, as well as the ad hoc and circumstantial nature of societal customs and beliefs.

If we act with integrity, our values, ideals, and beliefs will be visible to others through our actions, so that they know where we stand and know what to expect from us.  It would not be “integritous” to hold secret our values, ideals, and beliefs and to demonstrate other values, ideals, and beliefs in our public behavior.

We generally associate integrity with positive cultural values, such as dependability, honesty, and reliability, but each individual’s set of values, ideals, and beliefs is somewhat different, and it would seem theoretically possible to uphold and adhere to, with integrity, a set of values, ideals, and beliefs that are different from the cultural norm.  However, if in doing so we were to harm others, then somewhere inside us we would empathically experience that harm, which itself would harm ourselves.

Having integrity means that if you “believe in” being trustworthy, carrying out duties dependably, and doing a job properly, then you are committed to reliably carrying out the assigned tasks and the responsibilities that you have accepted.  If you are a crossing guard, then you will be at your post every day at the right time, and you will pay attention to all pedestrians and cars during your entire shift.  If you are a train engineer, then you will pay attention to the track ahead, to the signals, and to your train’s warning lights and gauges without distraction, even when the train is to some degree on automatic pilot.  If you are the pilot of a plane, you will attend to your plane’s position and condition every minute, in case the plane’s computers miss something or suddenly fail.

Having integrity sometimes requires standing on your own and being yourself, even when some others do not agree with you.  This is especially true when a group of which one is a part is violating one’s own values, ideals, or beliefs.  We usually admire those who can stand against harmful behavior by a group, but it is another matter to do so oneself.  A young man who believes in the dignity of all people but whose friends openly demean African-Americans faces an immediate integrity crisis.  A young woman who gives in to being who her mother wants her to be, to the exclusion of her true self, will face a chronic integrity crisis. For both of these individuals to have integrity and respect themselves, they must stand up for their beliefs.

Not having integrity, then, has to do largely with being false— denying the truth, pretending to be other than who we are, being hypocritical, and not living according to our stated values.  Our challenge is to face who we are and work toward accepting who we are, while at the same time expressing our true selves in the world and having the courage to face whatever rejection or hurt that we fear others will give us if they do not like who we are.

If we are willing to listen to ourselves, most people know when they are violating their own integrity by acting falsely or out of accord with their values, ideals, and beliefs.  This is not conscience but rather an awareness that one’s self-concept and self-image are being violated, so that one is not portraying in behavior what one has claimed about oneself.  This is usually troubling and can be taken as a signal to oneself to more clearly choose how to act—whether to get back into accord with one’s values, ideals, and beliefs or to violate them for some specific reason or with some identified excuse. 

Integrity is often abandoned through hypocrisy or inconsistency. It would be a loss of integrity to say that you believed in loving and comforting yourself while at the same time criticizing and wounding yourself.  It would be a loss of integrity to use your cell phone for calls and texts while driving a train, when you have sworn to make the passengers’ safety your number one concern.

Pros and Cons of Having Integrity and Acting with Integrity

Having integrity gives us the satisfaction of living by our values, ideals, and beliefs, so that we take pleasure in noticing when we express those values, ideals, and beliefs in how we approach life and how we treat others.   Acting with integrity also relieves us from the possibility of feeling duplicitous (hiding, deceiving, or keeping secrets from others) and as if we are betraying our values, ideals, and beliefs by not acting in accord with them.

Others appreciate our integrity, even when they don’t agree with our particular values, ideals, and beliefs, and they particularly value our dependability (assuming that dependability is one of our values).  Others also know that “what they see is what they get” with us, that we are not hiding secret values, ideals, and beliefs that they will be surprised or unhappy to see later on.  They value the assessments and judgments of a person with integrity, since they can have relative confidence that those assessments and judgments will be made without bias.

The major disadvantage of having and acting with integrity is that we are revealed to the world and risk negative reactions from others, especially if our expressed values, ideals, and beliefs are different from those of others.  A person with integrity values acting with integrity enough to tolerate these occasional negative reactions, hoping that he can help others to understand his viewpoint and possibly to benefit from its insights.

The other major cost of having and acting with integrity is that in order to act with integrity, we may sometimes have to do things that we wish we did not have to do, such as doing one’s homework even though one is tired or carrying out a promise even though one would prefer to be doing something else at that moment.

If we have integrity, then we notice when we are tempted to act in contradiction to our values, ideals, and beliefs, and this self-awareness alerts us to the immediate choice we must make between acting with integrity and serving our own immediate interests.  Hopefully our commitment to integrity will be sufficient in most circumstances to allow us to maintain that integrity!

Problems From Failures of Integrity

Not acting with integrity can stem from hypocrisy (claiming to be reliable and to have integrity even though one does not), inconsistency (usually from putting one’s immediate needs above carrying out one’s duties), or fear of others’ reactions, as noted above, but it can also be the result of being unorganized and therefore unable to act consistently.

Consequences for others of one’s lack of integrity can range from minor (taking care of things but often not on time) to catastrophic in cases where crashes of buses, trains, or planes, with many injuries or deaths, occur because of neglect and lack of attention.  Other recent and significant problems resulting from lack of integrity include college classroom cheating, cheating in sports, the fairly widespread practice of  teachers changing students’ test results in order that the class meet state or federal standards for achievement, and, of course, corruption in government.  Crashes of buses, trains, or planes usually are caused by operators losing focus and attention to the road, track, or surroundings, often because there seems to be “nothing happening” and because of boredom in these fairly routinized occupations.  It takes great concentration and determination to maintain attention when bored, and those who carry out these tasks with integrity are certainly to be congratulated!

Classroom cheating has grown exponentially with the availability on the internet of pre-written essays and papers on many, many subjects and with the development of tiny electronic devices (i.e., cell phones, cameras) that can copy for later sale or transmit test questions or answers to others in the same room or outside.  The failure here is the loss of belief that education is meaningful (so why not cheat, when the goal is not to learn but simply to pass) and the refusal to take responsibility oneself for one’s abilities and performance (to pass or fail on one’s own merits), instead justifying cheating by the fact that in many of today’s relatively meaningless and routine jobs, training has little to do with performance and by the belief that if one doesn’t cheat, one will lose out, since “everyone else is doing it.”

Teacher cheating has ballooned recently as society puts more and more pressure (partly unfairly) on teachers to “make” children learn, including government standards that threaten teacher job security of students fail to learn enough.  Teacher cheating is the product of fear of job loss, fear of embarrassment, and perceiving (justifiably or not) that the standards are not reasonable and therefore need not be honored if it means losing one’s job.

Cheating in sports is societally sanctioned, and we make no efforts to control it except by penalties during the game for being caught breaking the rules.  There is no moral pressure on athletes not to cheat (except for using performance-enhancing substances), and many sports fans want their athletes to cheat if that is what it takes to win (and thereby to verify the manhood of both the athlete and the fan).  Due to the pressure to win and the hope that players have of “advancing to the next level,” the attitude among athletes is that cheating is morally OK, that every advantage must be taken in order to win and to look good.  When actually facing opponents on the field of play who are cheating, it takes a great deal of integrity not to do so oneself.

Government corruption (bribery, embezzlement, vote selling, etc.) results from incumbents viewing elected positions or bureaucratic employment as opportunities for personal enrichment rather than opportunities to serve one’s fellow citizens.  Corruption will continue until enough people insist on integrity in those they vote for, instead of looking the other way or tolerating corruption as long as those corrupt actions benefit them personally

It has come to light recently that a large number of scientific research reports prove to be false or unsupported when other experimenters attempt to replicate them.  This is certainly troublesome since we have come to depend on scientific advances in many areas and since basing behavior on actually groundless “findings” can have negative consequences for the public.  There are few attempts to replicate findings anyway, because researchers get far more fame and recognition for the initial finding itself than for the more mundane replication.  Acting with integrity would require that researchers report their findings with the caveat that the findings should not be trusted or used in real life until confirmed through replication.  For the scientific field itself to have integrity would require that the system of rewards for researchers be redesigned so that replication would be expected and rewarded.  For the media who spread the word about these initial findings, to have integrity would require that they append a verbal notice to every such report of the unreliability (unreplicated nature) of the findings.

All of these failures of integrity (and morality) depend fundamentally on the hope that one will not be caught (and embarrassed or punished, depending on the actions), but more sadly also on the lack of concern that people have for their fellow citizens.  Every improper action that we do affects others.

How To Have Greater Integrity

As noted above, not acting with integrity can stem from putting one’s immediate needs above living with integrity (with or without a hypocritical excuse, claiming to be reliable and to have integrity even though one does not or has it only episodically), from fear of others’ reactions, or from simply being too unorganized to act consistently in accord with one’s values, ideals, and beliefs.  Increasing one’s integrity can be approached in several ways, if one cares to do so.  (Not everyone will want to act with greater integrity, but it is unlikely that such a person would have read this far in the essay!  If one is unconvinced about the need for acting with greater integrity, then consider again the benefits and costs of having and acting with integrity identified above, and make a choice about whether integrity is important enough to tolerate the costs.)

To change or grow, it helps to have a vision of what change would look like.  Pick someone whom you admire for his or her integrity (or several people), and get a clear image of what you would like to become with respect to integrity.

Be clear about what your values, ideals, and beliefs are.  (Values are the characteristics of yourself and others that you admire and feel good about—e.g., honesty, loyalty, helpfulness.  Values, in this context, are not things that you value, like family or soccer, although loyalty to family could be a value and playing your best soccer every minute could be a value.  Ideals are your picture of how people can live the best lives.  Many ideals will be restatements of your values but perhaps with more emphasis or with a higher standard.  “Honesty” might be a value; “being honest all the time” could be an ideal.)  (This exercise will also give you a chance to notice if any of your ideals are so idealistic as to be unrealistic and therefore not helpful in practice or with regard to realistic growth on your part.) 

Give this some thought, and write down your values, ideals, and beliefs, even if it is just some notes rather than a full description.  If you can’t identify them, think about what makes you feel warm, secure, and good when you watch other people’s behavior and when you experience other people’s behavior toward you.

Then, consider whether you are living in accord with your values, ideals, and beliefs.  Think about the details of your daily life and how you express (or don’t express) your values, ideals, and beliefs in practice.  You can then identify ways in which you would like to better represent your values, ideals, and beliefs in your behavior.  Write these down, too, specifically, such as “since treating those I love with concern and compassion is an ideal for me, I will work on being in a better frame of mind when I get up in the morning, so I can greet the rest of the family in a positive way” or “since one of my values is personal responsibility, I will stop making excuses for when I mess up.”

If  there are specific barriers for you to acting with greater integrity, such as lack of commitment, lack of organization, and fear, consider some changes.  If you are not fully committed to having and acting with integrity, so that you do act with integrity sometimes but not all the time, it means that you do not perceive the positive benefits of integrity to be worth giving up the option to do what you want sometimes instead of acting with integrity.  Since you value this option more than your integrity, you will continue to abandon integrity when you want to, even if you pretend to others that you have integrity.  They will eventually perceive your duplicity.  Perhaps at some point in the future, with more experience, you will decide that integrity is valuable enough to give up the option to act without integrity for your immediate gain.

General disorganization is due either to lack of mental capacity for greater organization or secret desire to have the option to get what one wants using the excuse of disorganization.  If one lacks the mental capacity for greater organization, then one must be satisfied with what one has, or develop some compensating mechanisms that will support greater organization, such as keeping a notebook with a calendar with one at all times and doing one’s best to write down dates and obligations every time they become known, as well as to refer to those notes every time a new commitment is asked of one.  These notes might usefully include a description of behaviors that one wants to do again in the future in the same circumstance (such as refrain from arguing further when discussions become shouting matches), since writing these down may help one to remember them, and reviewing one’s notebook will provide reinforcement of these commitments to oneself.

If your disorganization is due to a desire to use it as an excuse for selfish actions, then change will occur only when you decide that you will get more out of life by giving that up and acting with greater integrity.  Once again, this will come down to doing what you believe will be best for your life in an overall sense.

The most common cause of acting without integrity is fearing the reactions of certain others if one acts in ways that are consistent with what one really believes is right or best.  No one likes to be rejected or criticized, and sometimes acting with integrity leads to rejection and criticism just for being different and because of the challenge that one’s difference poses to others’ morality or integrity.  If one refuses to join in with bullying, for example, when one’s acquaintances are bullying someone, one’s withdrawal from the bullying is a tacit if not overt indication of disapproval, and this may well be responded to with criticism or even with some violence toward oneself.  It is easier in such a situation to appear to go along with others’ behavior and avoid their rejection or criticism, and it is harder to act according to one’s position that bullying is harmful and therefore not acceptable.  An even more difficult situation would be a forced religious conversion, when the penalty for refusing is death!

In most such situations, however, the costs are not life-threatening but one does risk loss of friendship or support or being left out of a group.  The bottom line is deciding which is worse—one’s own internal shame or guilt for not living according to what one believes is right and proper, or the negative reactions of others.  If the consequences are life-threatening, then perhaps we may be excused for going along with things and not expressing what we believe, but in most cases, it is feasible to act with integrity and simply tolerate the rejection or criticism.  If we can support ourselves with our good self-esteem, then the fact that others cannot accept certain aspects of us becomes a nuisance to be dealt with, rather than a crisis of identity and

hurt feelings. Standing up for what you believe in may result in having different friends, hopefully friends who value your integrity.  Occasionally acting in accord with one’s values and beliefs causes some change in others’ behavior over time, and feeling that one has stood up for what one values and believes in is a very gratifying feeling.  We cannot realistically act with integrity consistently without bringing about some negative reactions, but you may prefer to take those risks and to accept that “you can’t please everybody all of the time.”

Think about some of the situations in which you would like to be true to yourself and to what you believe.  Consider the likely consequences and how you would feel in each circumstance.  If you can tolerate the negative consequences, and it is clear to you that you would feel much better about yourself if you did act with integrity, then you are in a position to have greater integrity and to take some risks in acting with integrity and expressing more of your true self in public.

If you can’t quite bring yourself to act with integrity in some specific circumstance, it may help to consult with someone whom you view as having integrity.  Talking things over with someone who understands is usually helpful and may give you the perspective to take a risk.  People who act courageously usually have some fear, so don’t let the presence of fear automatically stop you!

Since people in general admire and have greater trust in people with integrity, if you act with integrity, you will be contributing to the lives of others and making it possible for the various groups that you are a part of to function better.

Being yourself with integrity is the crowning glory of one’s efforts to be oneself and to have good self-esteem.  Having personal integrity is expressing your true self in the world and being consistent with your beliefs and with who you really are. Being yourself fully and freely and feeling good about it will bring great joy to your life.

essays\integrity

Means Versus Ends

MEANS VERSUS ENDS

Christopher Ebbe, Ph.D.   1-14

ABSTRACT:  Psychological aspects of the means versus ends issue are explored.  Taking responsibility for our actions is urged.

KEY WORDS:  means, ends, means vs. ends, morality, selfishness, self-servingness

The means vs. ends issue can be stated as the ambivalence that we have about taking actions that benefit some (usually us) while doing harm to others or the world.  Most of our actions do affect others, often harming them to some degree, but so many of these negative consequences are assumed to be trivial that we generally don’t frame the question as means versus ends unless direct taking of human life is involved. 

Every action that we take affects the world and therefore other people as well in some way, however small.  Every piece of litter, every electricity-generating wind machine used, and every lump of coal burned affects the environment and other people, but since we look at them as only actions in the moment, and we don’t see immediate negative effects, we incorrectly judge that there have been no effects. 

Typical vignettes for discussion of means-end issues involve provocative choices between various negative outcomes (which person or persons to save and which to let die), but in the real world, all of our actions affect others and the world, so perhaps it would be more productive and far-reaching to deal simply with the decision-making process, whether or not we would traditionally have categorized the issue at hand as means-end or not.  (Another view of this might be that we should add all decisions to the means-end category, since they all should command our attention and none are truly simple.)

The usefulness of the typical between-a-rock-and-a-hard place means-end examples is to hopefully make us more aware that choices matter, that no matter what we choose to do, there will be consequences.  The insights to be gained from means-end discussions are that choosing to take any action leads to negative consequences of some type (as well as, hopefully, the desired positive consequences), and that there are negative consequences both for others and for ourselves in addition to any positive outcomes for ourselves or others.

To take the use of missiles or drones in war as an example, by using missiles or drones we may keep some of our soldiers from dying by keeping them off of the battlefield, but (a) it inevitably results in some civilian “collateral” damage deaths; (b) repeated use of drones removes some of the horror of war from our awareness and therefore makes us a bit more callous about war and about the lives of people in other countries; (c) it makes wars cheaper and therefore more possible to conduct; (d) it does not lead as effectively as occupying territory to cessation of fighting; and (e) it may lead to more wars in total (and more of our soldiers dying), since the immediate and visible cost of wars has been lowered.  Human beings usually opt for the immediate positive benefit (saving our own lives or money) over negative consequences in the future, even though the total of those negative consequences may be great enough to outweigh the immediate positive result.  This is the essential dilemma of these choices, and the only way for our decisions to be different would be for us to adopt a decision-making routine that we disciplined ourselves to use in every case that would help us overcome our immediate benefit bias.

Drones may also be used to “assassinate” persons whom the U. S. presumes to be enemies, working with or for Al-Quaeda, for example.  This usually occurs in countries in which the U. S. does not have a military presence and is done as a convenience.  In other words, we can kill someone we want to kill in someone else’s country without ever “being in” that country.  It could be argued, as above, that this may save some of our soldier’s lives, but the negative effects are that (a) it weakens the sovereignty of all nations; (b) it suggests to other countries that they need not police their countries for these persons, since the U. S. will do it; (c) it makes clear to other countries that they are free to do the same on U. S. soil (assassinate those whom they view as enemies without setting foot in the U. S.); and of course (d) it may well kill innocent civilians, just as in an active war zone.

In society and in all of our personal choices, we would do well to recognize and take seriously all of the results of our choices, even the indirect and future results.  There are prices to be paid for using drones to kill, and we will pay them, even if we decide that the pluses outweigh the minuses.

To use some other illustrations about choices that have both positive and negative consequences, making credit easily available in our society (a means) has had the predicted and desired effect of boosting consumer spending (the desired end), as well as providing income for credit care companies, but it has also created a society in which saving is unpopular, family financial stability is weakened, and millions more people are going to suffer in retirement in the future (all generally unanticipated and undesirable ends).  Is the convenience of credit cards worth these other consequences?  It’s far too simple to fall back on the “people are responsible for themselves and should make better decisions” excuse.  Since large numbers of people in fact don’t take adequate responsibility for themselves when immediate versus long-term consequences are their choice, and since those who make these bad choices will end up being a tax burden on the rest of us, perhaps we should re-think our credit policy!

We have eliminated the military draft, a supposedly desirable thing, since it frees up more citizens to do other things with their lives without interruption, but this means has also created a non-volunteer armed forces, so that most of the population has little personal idea of the sacrifices and dangers of armed conflict and is therefore much more willing to allow the government to go to war, since they don’t have to be in danger themselves.  (All of the lip service honoring of veterans these day has a self-serving component as well, as people thank their lucky stars that they didn’t have to fight.) 

This effect is augmented by the tendency lately for administrations to borrow most of the money for a war, rather than increasing current taxes to pay for it, so once again, citizens don’t see any immediate negative consequences for themselves of the country engaging in a war.  Borrowing has allowed the government to engage in a war (which sometimes no doubt is in the national interest), but it has also had the effect of making citizens think that they will not have to be financially burdened by a war (which is false since they will eventually have to pay for the borrowing).

We have greatly broadened the entertainment available to us (a seemingly desirable end), but this has also decreased the population’s activity level and made them more passive and dependent on fantasy wish fulfillment than before (an undesirable end).

We have made great strides in drugs that affect our feelings and reduce pain (both legal and illegal!), but this means has also resulted in a population that believes that it shouldn’t have to feel pain and is therefore less able to tolerate difficulties and deal with adversity.

Means vs. ends comes into play with respect to waste products and the environment in so far as we want certain ends (clean environments, warm homes, inexpensive transportation, plastic products, inexpensive manufacturing), and we have always been willing to use means that resulted in using up the world’s resources and creating polluting waste products and environmental impacts that we didn’t have to deal with or pay for.  Now those waste products and environmental impacts are having enough impact (which will get even worse if we don’t do something about it) to make us realize that the means that we are used to using are unacceptable and that we must find other means to achieve those same ends, if we can.  Human beings don’t like to be restricted or confined by limitations, and so we struggle with our dilemma of not wanting to give up our unacceptable means even though we can see their unacceptable impacts.

In global warming we finally are facing up to how millions of individual “no effect” actions add up to quite notable and sometimes dangerous effects.  Perhaps those who resist the idea that human beings are affecting the weather by their actions are resisting partly out of a wish not to have to recognize the fact that every one of their actions has an effect.  People used to simply throw out their garbage in the street and tolerate the stench that resulted.  Now we cart it all away, so that the homeowners and businessowners don’t have to “be affected,” but it is carted somewhere and piled up into true mountains of waste, or incinerated which adds to global warming, or dumped in the ocean which changes the species balances and temperature of the oceans.  Wind turbines are cited as “sustainable,” but they slow down the global flow of air, no matter how little that is for each turbine, and this has an effect on the global weather pattern.

We have been able to employ these look-the-other-way “solutions” to our impact on the environment only because the planet is huge, and we do not directly observe the consequences of our actions.  For tens of thousands of years, there were not enough people on the planet to overwhelm the natural decay processes inherent in the rest of nature, so human waste did not build up, but now there are enough people that their bodily waste products along with their energy uses and manufacturing waste products are rapidly adding up to something quite significant.

THE ISSUES

As stated above, it is more useful for us to focus on the total array of benefits and negative consequences of all of our choices and not just those more traditionally labeled as means-end issues.  The primary difficulties in all decisions, besides distinguishing accurate from inaccurate information, are that (1) we are biased toward immediate as opposed to future consequences and (2) we are biased toward making too much of the desirable consequences and too little of the negative consequences, because we are biased toward the option that we want to take even before we consider all of the consequences.

Even if we decide to make better decisions by identifying without bias all relevant factors, we still have no calculus with which to accurately weigh up the pros and cons to see how they balance.  We have no table to assign some sort of number to how much a child’s life is “worth” in contrast to the life of an older person or whether a lifetime of mild guilt will be less or more important than giving up something we want right now in order to “do the right thing.”  The best we poor, limited human beings can do is to make as clear and honest a comparison as we can and then accept the partly rational and partly emotional “reading” that we get in our minds from that.

THE SOLUTION

The solution here is to learn how to make better decisions—in particular to discipline ourselves to consider as objectively as possible all of the consequences of our actions, for ourselves and others, both positive and negative, both immediate and deferred, before making a choice.

In order to make the best choices among all options, it may be essential to force yourself to consider solutions that you don’t like.  Human beings have a strong innate drive to procreate, but clearly it is going to be possible within the next hundred years to have so many people on the planet that many will starve and crowding will increase the suicide rate.  Considering this as a real possibility (instead of refusing to consider it by stating as an article of faith that “science will find a way to feed us all, no matter how many people there are,” may be crucial to the survival of our species.

Another example of an unpalatable but perhaps necessary “solution,” this one to the problem of waste, would be to require all factories and other production facilities to process (not store) all waste on their factory premises or to contract for its proper disposal.  This would mean no more dumping waste into rivers or oceans, no more carting things to a landfill, and no moving to a new site when the old one gets too polluted.  This would be costly for some businesses, but then consumers would know and be paying the actual cost of production instead of the actual cost minus the cost of processing waste that has in the past been less expensively placed in the environment where it can affect the lives of everyone.  We will no doubt be very reluctant to take these very difficult actions in the future, because we are used to depending on the planet to process our waste for free instead of paying for this processing ourselves.

A routine of steps for making fact-based decisions that take feelings and desires and all outcomes into account contains the following steps.  The method requires a deliberate and unhurried approach, taking the time to reflect and to allow thoughts and feelings to surface that may be buried or unfamiliar (from Ebbe--Problem Analysis).

Write out a description of the problem.

Examine all of the elements of your description of the problem, to ensure that they are accurate and true.  Make sure that your "facts" are facts and not opinions or wishful thinking.  Admit it if you don't know something. 

Carefully consider the impact on your problem description of your motives, your feelings, and how you wish reality to be.  Refine your problem description by removing distortions due to your motives, feelings, and wishful thinking.

Are there deadlines or important timelines concerning the problem?

How have things in the past led to the problem? 

Who are all of the other people who are actively involved in the problem? 

What are the views of others about this problem?

What are all of the different feelings that you have about the problem or aspects of the problem?

What have you yourself contributed to making this a problem or to its lack of solution so far?

How do you feel about yourself in relation to the problem?

What are all of the potential solutions to the problem that you can think of?  Be open to those solutions that you do not initially feel good about.

What are the moral and ethical questions raised by your potential solutions?  What are the moral and ethical issues of not acting at all?  Consider these carefully, since these are probably the elements of decisions that come from deepest within us.  Get moral/ethical consultation if you can’t reach clarity yourself.

Narrow down the potential solutions by excluding those that you could not carry out for lack of ability or resources or because the solution would not be morally palatable to you.

Notice which remaining solutions will work only if you can get someone else to do what you want. 

What are all of the outcomes of each remaining potential solution, including outcomes far in the future and the impact of your possible actions on others?  Be open to all outcomes, especially those that you know you would prefer to ignore.

What will be the remaining unsolved elements of the problem after each solution you are considering is implemented?

What are the unintended results of each potential solution? 

Are there legal ramifications of any of the possible solutions (or of non-solution)?

Examine the actions and resources necessary for each remaining solution, to ensure that you have the ability and the resources for each.  Discard those that are not feasible.

How would you feel about yourself after solving the problem in each of the remaining possible ways?

Make a list of the uncertainties and major questions you still have, if any, about your solutions, and talk them over with a trusted adviser.

Choose the solution that seems most desirable, given--

         the actions necessary

         the resources needed

         the outcomes anticipated

         your feeling about each solution

These steps of thinking carefully about all aspects of the decision-making process help greatly to clarify options, but in the end they do not help us to evaluate those options.  In order to choose between options that all have both positive and negative consequences, we must use our sense of values to determine which consequences are more important than others, and we must “add up” in our minds the sums of the net effects of those positive and negative consequences for each option.

Allow yourself some time (at least overnight and preferably a couple of days) to let yourself fully "feel" the results of your deliberations.  Pay attention to nagging questions, uncertainties, and new considerations that come to your mind.  Re-evaluate your chosen solution if necessary.  If you don't "feel right" about the solution, back up and reconsider the alternatives or generate new ones.  (In some cases, the best solution may be not to act!)

HELPFUL ATTITUDES

Your consideration of how your potential actions could affect others will be much more effective if you care at least somewhat about others’ feelings and welfare. 

Having adequate empathy skills is also very helpful in this regard.

Greater awareness of how important other people are to our meeting our own needs moves us toward considering the benefits and costs to everyone of our decisions and not just the benefits and costs to ourselves.

Your choices will be better informed and more humane if you believe that in the long run you will gain more rewards and get more out of life if you take others' needs and feelings into account when you act, trying not to harm them and sometimes allowing them to meet their needs at the expense of your own immediate gains.

Your choices will be more effective if you have the best fact base possible for the choice.  Distinguishing reality from opinion and distinguishing reality from our emotion-induced wishes and distortions of reality are just as essential for this as using only trustworthy fact sources.

Your choices will be more effective if you have as much commitment to the truth as you do to your immediate gratification, since this will at least minimize the bias that we grow up with toward choosing the immediate gratification and ignoring the facts.

(For further explanation of removing distortions from your thinking and the cultivation of empathy and social concern to help make better decisions, see (Ebbe) “Better Decisions,” “Empathy,” and “Gaining Wisdom.”)

USING THESE IDEAS IN YOUR LIFE

You as an individual can take the first step toward making the world a better place by adopting these methods of decision-making in your own life.  You can pay attention to all of the negative as well as the positive consequences of your choices, especially those that are likely to occur in the future.  You can make a commitment to seeking the truth and to recognizing how you distort reality in order to take care of your immediate feelings.  You can check out every one of your thoughts and opinions, to see if they are really true or if they contain distorted wishful thinking.  You can develop greater empathy and take your impact on others more seriously.  You can pay attention to how much others contribute to your life, and you can cultivate a personal attitude of gratitude for your life and for what you have in life.  You can acknowledge and honor your motives, while removing their distorting effects from your problem-solving assertions.  It sounds like a lot to do, but you can do it little by little, using available attention to consider each of these items as they come up in your daily life. 

The most effective single thing you can do to improve your decision-making is to wonder for each of your thoughts if it is really true, given what you know or could know if you cared to, and examining how your wishful thinking might be coloring your thinking. 

You could teach your children to value the truth and to use it to make their lives better, by your example and by examining with them the consequences of their decisions and their distortions of reality.

You can make a difference in the world and improve your own life, too, by examining all of the positive and negative consequences of your actions, by taking others' needs and feelings appropriately into account in your decisions and actions and by getting the most accurate information that you can to help you to understand the issues.

essays\meansvsends