Honesty | Way of the Mind

Tag Archive for 'honesty'

On work, honesty, integrity, and having a "keep things running smoothly" job

Published

on April 24, 2007

. 0 Comments

Usually, I don’t cross-link posts from one blog to another, but I believe this one is related to some subjects (no, not atheism or religion ) discussed here in the past.

So, without further ado… Why I’m not a Sysadmin anymore.

I’ll welcome any opinions, comments, etc., over there, of course.

(Note: I don’t have that kind of job — or indeed, any kind — since last August. That post is a collection of thoughts about a decade or so of a particular kind of work, not about my current situation — as the post itself says, near the end.)

Accepting the opposing viewpoint for the sake of argument

Published

Pedro Timóteo

on December 15, 2006

in honesty, logic, reason, religion and thinking

. 4 Comments

On the previous post, I quoted Ebon Musings, and one of the quoted parts was the following:

Consider honestly the possibility that you might be wrong, accept the opposing viewpoint for the sake of argument, and then ask yourself: Does the evidence make more sense from this perspective? Is the world I live in the one I would expect to see if this hypothesis is true, or is this the world I would expect under its negation?

I believe that part is so important that it deserves a post of its own.

Now, answer me honestly: how often do you do the above? How many times in your life have you stopped to consider an opposing point of view, an opposing theory, hypothesis, or explanation, and actually thought about whether it better explains the universe around you? Whether it is simpler, and you need to come up with fewer rationalizations or exceptions of your own?

Though this is certainly not related just to religion (we could easily apply it to politics, for instance), consider the following example: young earth creationism.

A young earth creationist (YEC), these days, has a lot of explaining to do. He believes in the Bible, literally; to him, it’s, by definition, the absolute truth. Therefore, anything that happens differently, must either be ignored, or explained somehow.

If you know YECs, how many times have you heard “explanations” such as:

“God made the fossils appear much older to scientific tests in order to test our faith.”
“When God created the stars, he made it so that the light from them was already arriving at the Earth, and so they appear much older.”

… and so on?

Now, do you believe that an YEC has actually, ever, stopped to think about the opposing point of view? And, sincerely, wondered if that other explanation doesn’t fit reality around him much better, and without the need for so many excuses, exceptions, explanations, and so on? Whether - frighteningly enough - “the other side” might actually be on to something?

I doubt it.

As I said, this doesn’t apply just to religion. There are many times when we should stop for a minute and consider “the other side”’s position, just to see if it fits with what you see. Stop demonizing your opponent for a moment, and think about his reasons for his viewpoint. You may find out that you’re right… or that you’re wrong. Either way, you learn and improve.

It’s a rare “skill”, though…

So, did YOU believe the Bush administration?

Published

Pedro Timóteo

on October 10, 2006

in honesty, politics and truth

. 42 Comments

When the Iraq war began, I, naturally, talked to friends and co-workers about it. As they were of different ages and backgrounds, opinions varied; most saw it as an oil grab and opposed it, while others, while not believing anything about “WMDs” or connections to 9/11, actually thought that Saddam was a problem, and should be taken care of.

I didn’t find one single person - even among those who usually disagree with me in everything - who believed in the Bush administration’s lies about WMDs, terrorist camps, connections to Al Qaeda and the 9/11 attacks, or simply that Saddam was a threat to anyone outside Iraq.

No one.

I talked to young people and old people. To men and women. To more educated and less educated people. To Christians and atheists / agnostics. To right-wingers and left-wingers. To people who opposed the war and people who supported it.

And no one believed Bush’s lies.

Bush’s “reasons”, at the time, were so obviously fabrications that I don’t think almost anyone in Europe - except maybe in the UK - believed in them. Even those who actually thought that invading Iraq and removing Saddam from power was a good idea.

Now, the fact that we all lived in Portugal may have had something to do with it. We tend to distrust our politicians; even when they actually improve things, we always realize that they’re doing it to be re-elected, not out of the “goodness of their hearts”. Not because they’re honest or have any principles. Hell, they’re politicians, after all!

Americans, from what I see, are a different bunch. They idealize and idolize their politicians, almost worshipping them. They believe they’re honest, ethical, and are sincerely trying to do a good job, even when they mess things up.

Yet, from everything I see, they aren’t. Bush has said so much crap, has lied so much, and has insulted the intelligence of the public so thoroughly, that I can’t see how anyone could ever believe in him. Yet, Americans did. They believed his lies.

So, a question to the American readers - and please, don’t feel insulted or take this the wrong way -: did you believe Bush’s lies back in 2003? That Saddam had WMDs, that he had anything to do with 9/11, that he was a threat to the US, that invading Iraq would make the world “safer”?

And, if so, why?

I’m not calling you guys “gullible” or anything. I simply want to understand what is, to me, a strange phenomenon.

Why Bill Gates is not Hank Rearden

Published

Pedro Timóteo

on August 30, 2006

in capitalism, honesty and objectivism

. 17 Comments

Since I first read The Fountainhead, and later Atlas Shrugged, I’ve been a fan of Ayn Rand and her philosophy. I wouldn’t call myself an “Objectivist”, but I competely agree with Objectivism’s basic tenets, and Rand’s books and philosophy were, years ago, a huge influence in my life, especially her denunciation of “altruism” and collectivism as anti-life, and the idea that we should see things as they are, not as we wish they were.

However, Rand’s philosophy has been completely misunderstood several times. I’ve written about one of the ways before, but there’s another which I find quite annoying, because its authors simply don’t know any better, and should learn a couple of things before putting their confused ideas in writing.

That error, found in many Objectivist and Libertarian magazines and web sites is this: the defense of Bill Gates and Microsoft. As if Gates and company were Hank Rearden-like heroic capitalists, and all the antitrust suits were simply a case of them being punished for their success - much like the collectivist government in Atlas throws more and more regulations in order to harm Rearden’s business while helping his incompetent - and much less successful - rival Orren Boyle.

Unfortunately, those Objectivist / Libertarian writers don’t work with computers a lot, or maybe they’d know.

To those writers:

Can you imagine Rearden telling a potential customer that he wouldn’t get a single gram of Rearden Metal if they ever dared buy anything from any of his competitors?
Can you picture Rearden selling an inferior product, and only managing to sell it through marketing - including marketing designed to inspire fear, uncertainty and doubt in the competitors’ products? In the book, it was Rearden’s competitors who published a report which, without stating a single fact, suggested that Rearden Metal might be dangerous.
Would Rearden force distributors into a deal where he gets a cut of every piece of machinery sold, even if it actually includes no Rearden Metal whatsoever?
Would Rearden add a substance to his Metal that corroded any non-Rearden metal that touched it?
Would Rearden add qualities to his Metal that all the competitors’ products already had for 15 years, and tout it as a “great innovation”, a lie which the ignorant media would happily repeat for him?

I say he wouldn’t. Rearden was 100% honest, and his sole weapon was the quality of his product. Microsoft has little quality, and has been dishonest from the start.

They weren’t almost punished (”almost”, because, like always, the Bush administration prevented anything good from happening) for being successful, or for being rich, or because its competitors were envious, or because anyone wanted to “redistribute wealth” (a disgusting concept). No, oddly enough, the Justice Department was right. Microsoft fought in the marketplace using every trick except one: make a better product.

Bill Gates is no Hank Rearden. He’s more like Orren Boyle, in a Bizarro world where Boyle wins.

Honesty and the Iraq war: calling things what they are

Published

Pedro Timóteo

on August 9, 2006

in courage, definitions, honesty and truth

. 1 Comment

Two posts ago, I wrote:

Let’s hope this is but the beginning of a wave of people finding out where their balls are.

And I’d really like to see it happening, though I’m not too optimistic.

For instance, take U.S. Democrats. While they criticize the Bush administration, they always say things like “mismanagement of the war”, “faulty intelligence on WMDs”, “negligence”, and so on.

Where is the politician (Democrat or Republican) with the courage to say that Bush lied? That the war was, and is, all based on deceit? Is it political suicide to say the truth, these days? Is it barely acceptable to say that the war wasn’t handled very well, but not to say that it was wrong from the start? That there never were any WMDs there, or a connection to 9/11, or any kind of threat to the U.S.?

How many politicians supported the war because they didn’t want to be seen as “weak”? Were they all deceived by the administration’s lies? I doubt it. They simply went along with the lies, because they’d lose influence if they spoke up - they’d be seen as “weak on terrorism”, as (perish the thought) “liberals”.

The Iraq war isn’t being “mismanaged”, it’s going exactly like the Bush administration wants: never-ending. Why, if the war ever came to an end, people might want their lost civil liberties back… or believe that it was OK to criticize the president again without being “unpatriotic”… or notice the state of the economy… and we don’t want that, do we?

“Freedom” as just a word

Published

Pedro Timóteo

on October 24, 2005

in definitions, freedom and honesty

. 5 Comments

This one is related to People and their stated goals, below. But this is the most common example, and I wanted to write a bit more about this.

Freedom is a concept that most people find desirable, at least for themselves - many people, however, would like nothing else than to take away other people’s freedom. But I digress - what I mean is that, to most people, “freedom = good.”

However, many freedoms have been taken away in the name of freedom. Confused yet? The problem is that many people only “remember” the “freedom = good” part, and forget about what the word really means, and will support anyone who says he’s “fighting for freedom” or “defending freedom”… regardless of what he actually does.

This is not new. Ever heard of the French Revolution? It was supposedly about “freedom”, yet it was a reign of terror that virtually destroyed the country, and caused the death of millions. “Freedom?” You would have your head cut off if you looked at the “freedom-loving” revolucionaries in the wrong way, or if anyone - without needing a shred of evidence - accused you of being a “counter-revolucionary”. Because they said they were “fighting for freedom”, all their actions, anything they ever did, was completely excusable, and any criticism would label one as “anti-freedom” - to the guillotine!

A more current example is when a particular country is equated with “freedom”. Yes, that country may have once been the most free in the world, a bastion of freedom itself. But that doesn’t mean that “freedom” and “that country” are the same thing. The country is free only while it stays free. It wasn’t like some badge for perpetuity, you know. It’s perfectly possible that that country becomes “less free” and that other countries become “more free”. This is, of course, what I think the Bush administration, and their supporters, are doing. They say they’re “for freedom”, so anyone who is against them is “against freedom”… but from whom do the anti-freedom measures, such as the PATRIOT Act, come? Since when has disagreeing with the President made one a “traitor” or a “terrorist helper”? Never mind invading other countries…

Freedom isn’t automatic. You aren’t free just because you once were. And someone can say he’s “for freedom”… and be lying.

Hypocrisy, granite quarries and “the real world”

Published

Pedro Timóteo

on October 17, 2005

in absolutes, choices, definitions, honesty, ideals and work

. 6 Comments

I’ve written here, in the past, about the general dishonesty and corruption at my workplace - and, unlike some, I don’t think I’m in an especially “bad” place. From experience, both mine (it’s my 7th job or so) and others’, this place isn’t really so bad, compared to other companies.

Yet, the level of hypocrisy I have to maintain… disgusts me.

And, no matter how much I try to avoid it, I always think of Ayn Rand’s “The Fountainhead”’s Howard Roark, and how he ended up working in a granite quarry, because he refused to compromise on his principles.

Of course, Rand’s books are exaggerated - they’re books of extremes, of “black and white”, without shades of gray. I have responsibilities, I have a house to maintain, cats to feed, and debts to pay. I have dreams, which, while not directly related to material possessions, include some material possessions in them. So I can’t - right? - leave my job because of a “normal” level of hypocrisy, of intrigue, of “rewarding the bad workers and punishing the good”. Besides, most places are as bad as this one. And working on my own is still a bit far away.

Still…

I sometimes wonder if I’m not really sacrificing myself - what really matters, such as my integrity, my sense of honesty, and my self-respect, for something that, while important, isn’t that important.

Because I certainly don’t like myself as I say “good morning” to the department head, when I have absolutely no reason to respect him, know he’s incompetent and a liar, and wish him the worst morning in the world.

Conversations with “mystics”

Published

Pedro Timóteo

on August 30, 2005

in honesty, reality, reason, religion and thinking

. 21 Comments

Let me know if this is familiar to you. (Though maybe you’ve been on the opposite side…)

You meet someone, maybe through a friend or co-worker, who has a strong belief in the supernatural. Maybe he/she (”she” from now on - blame my laziness) loves astrology, and believes in it with all their heart - up to the point that she says “it’s not a superstition, it’s a science”. Or maybe she’s a devout Christian, who believes that there is a God, that Jesus Christ died for mankind’s sins, and she is sure that she will be “saved” through Jesus. Maybe she is a “new age guru”. Or believes in alien abductions (probably including cattle mutilations and anal probes as well :)), or believes she has “alien experiences” or “out of body experiences”. Or is a wiccan, or a druid, or…

In short, she is a mystic.

Let’s say that this is one of the open minded ones, and that she has above average intelligence - she’s a “challenge”, in a way, and you both want to discuss the nature of reality with each other. So, you talk. And talk. You refute many of her points, one by one - extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, and there is no proof of any kind, only “I saw it” claims. Occam’s razor says that if two explanations explain something, then the most likely one is the one with the smallest number of entities - in other words, if something could have happened without a god or aliens, then there were probably no gods or aliens involved. Many animals die every year, and insects tend to eat the “softer parts” first, like eyes or testicles, so they appear “mutilated”. There are many contradictions in the Bible, and in the beliefs or most religions; and many people have several conflicting beliefs, like Christianity and astrology (which Christianity absolutely condemns), yet they are OK with it. Many claims of “supernatural” events were later explained as perfectly natural occurrences, and every “medium” has either been proven to be a hoax, or has refused to be tested scientifically… which amounts to pretty much the same thing. James Randi’s Million Dollar Challenge is still unclaimed, though anyone who could demonstrate supernatural powers - and, again, be tested scientifically, by a man who knows every trick of stage magicians, because he’s been one himself - could claim it. And so on, and so on. She will lose every argument she dares argue about rationally.

Eventually, the conversation will end in always the same way.

“But I want to believe in these things!”, she cries. “You lead a cold, empty, materialistic life, while mine is spiritual, it is fulfilled!”, she says. “Who cares about whether it’s real or not? It gives my life meaning, it makes me happy, and that’s what matters!”

Who can argue with that? I certainly can’t, because, at that point, that person has thrown reality, has thrown truth out of the window. She is, in a way, admitting that it doesn’t matter whether God / the spirits / the aliens are real or not, that she chooses to believe in them, therefore her life is more fulfilled this way. Nothing - including the original founder of her belief appearing and saying “sorry, it was all a joke, can’t believe you people took it so seriously!” - would change her mind, because the object(s) of her belief have been replaced by the belief itself.

And, as I said, I can’t argue with that. Because, to me, reality is what matters. It’s the only thing that matters.

Is my life “emptier” because I don’t fool myself? I don’t think so.

How I’ve become an atheist

Published

Pedro Timóteo

on August 26, 2005

in atheism, honesty, reality, reason, religion and truth

. 33 Comments

Douglas Adams (more info) has been one of my favorite writers for years, but, until I read “The Salmon of Doubt”, a collection of essays and articles collected after his death, I only had had contact with his fiction work. But a particular entry in “Salmon” changed my life.

That entry is here, it was an interview Adams did for the American Atheist magazine.

I had a Christian education (Catholic, in fact), and, until I was about 26 or so, I really believed in it. Why? I tended to be rational in most of my life, but there was a part of it about which I apparently refused to think. It’s as if it was something so fragile, that I didn’t let anything near it - like reason or logic - , because I was afraid it would collapse, that I would “lose” it. If faith couldn’t withstand logic, then I wouldn’t let logic come anywhere near it. Why did I want to keep it? In part, I guess, because I loved the person (now deceased) who was responsible for my belief, and I wanted to respect her memory. And maybe I also felt alone - the existence of an all-powerful, all-loving God was something that would keep me company. And there was, too, the promise of “eternal justice” - that the injustices we suffered on Earth were only temporary, that eventually there would be justice, and the good would be rewarded, and the evil would be punished. I wanted it to be true, so much… therefore, I believed it.

Until I read that interview. It certainly got me thinking. And, in a way, Adams had gone through similar experiences, so I could relate. He put into words what I had only felt - that faith and religion, in me, only “survived” because I had a defense mechanism - I refused to think about it, like I thought about anything in the “real world”. But if faith and religion can’t survive a “closer look”… why is that, and, most importantly, what does that tell us about them?

That they are a lie.

Afterwards, I thought a lot about it - what I should have done during all the years before. Is there a God? I don’t think so; reality and the universe can be perfectly explained without one (Occam’s razor), and a God creating the universe in 6 days is no more believable than an Invisible Pink Unicorn or a Flying Spaghetti Monster. But assuming that there is a God… then where is he? Why is there so much suffering? Why do people pray, if it doesn’t work (any scientific test shows it, and there have been some)? Why would a god create a world, then hide all traces of doing it, then stay completely invisible except for some ridiculously minor appearances to a person or two, every couple of centuries? Why would God hide, then damn to eternal suffering everyone who didn’t believe in him?

And the existance of a god is certainly something extraordinary. That, to a scientist, requires extraordinary proof. Where is it? And no, ancient books are not proof. Many people believing in him are not proof either.

I realized that I had been guilty, through most of my life, of two of the worst forms of irrationality: wishful thinking, and refusing to think about something. I had been dishonest with myself. I had put something “above” reality, about the truth. And that is wrong.

But it’s better to open one’s eyes later than never to do it at all.

Liar, liar, pants on fire…

Published

Pedro Timóteo

on August 25, 2005

in current events, fanaticism, honesty, pat robertson, religion and violence

. 0 Comments

Pat Robertson now: “Wait a minute, I didn’t say ‘assassination’. I said our special forces could take him out. Take him out could be a number of things, including kidnapping.”

Riiiight…

Pat Robertson a couple of days ago: “If he thinks we’re trying to assassinate him, I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it.”

Tough luck, Pat. Video recording is a wonderful thing.