I have been seeing a lot of stuff about microaggression recently.
The term interests me because FIML is all about micro impressions.
When done with a caring partner, FIML is designed to correct mistaken impressions or interpretations that often derive from micro impressions and/or manifest as micro expressions.
Anyone who has done FIML for more than a few months surely must be aware that we create wrong impressions of even our most trusted partners frequently.
A wrong impression often snowballs, leading to a wrong interpretation that after festering can be much harder to correct than the original micro impression.
So between friends, and especially FIML partners, the perception of micro aggression can and should be noticed and dealt with immediately or as soon as possible. It is basic to FIML practice that even a single uncorrected wrong impression can lead to serious divisions between people.
In this sense, I heartily accept the idea of microaggression being a thing. In fact, I believe it is such a thing that it happens all the time, especially if you mean micro mis-impressions and not just microaggression.
But the term microaggression means something different from the above, though the central concepts are related. Wikipedia has this short definition of microaggression:
…the use of known social norms of behavior and/or expression that, while without conscious choice of the user, has the same effect as conscious, intended discrimination.
The main difference is “without conscious choice of the user.” FIML is all about being conscious. Both parties being conscious.
If I perceive something in your speech, demeanor, or behavior that makes me think that maybe you are disrespecting me or mad at me or or suspicious of me or something like that, then if you are my FIML partner I am basically required to ask you about it if there is time.
In FIML, the asking is done without prejudgement. I simply ask “what was in your mind when you made that expression or said those words or did that thing.” Your answer must be honest. If you don’t trust your partner to be honest, you can’t do FIML (though you can start trying and see if either or both of you changes).
If your partner answers honestly and you do not perceive an iota of what you thought was in their mind, that part of the event is finished. If when the person spoke or acted they had no nothing about doing what you thought they might be doing, you are done with it. You no longer have any right to further impute your thing onto them.
You can if you want, and this is encouraged, continue to discuss the matter. For example, you might say: “From your response, I can tell that you were not disrespecting me and I am delighted to find that out. That’s a huge relief for me because I have spent much of my life reacting to people who do that as if they were disrespecting me. It’s weird to hear that I am wrong in this case and it makes me wonder if I have been wrong in other cases.”
Then the two of you can discuss that. I know one person who frequently reacts to educated northeast American accents as being “imperious” or “arrogant” when they are not. (Don’t get me started on all the many phrases and attitudes in culture that wrongly limit speech and thus culture itself—“condescending,” “know-it-all,” “argumentative,” “imperious,” etc.)
So, if two friends are having problems between themselves with microaggression, they are prime candidates for FIML practice. Of course, any two friends who are having any problems with micro impressions (all friends all the time) are prime candidates for FIML. (You cannot but have these problems.)
But microaggression as the word is being used today is not something FIML can deal with directly because it is
…the use of known social norms of behavior and/or expression that, while without conscious choice of the user, has the same effect as conscious, intended discrimination.
The important words here are “known social norms,” “without conscious choice” leading to “discrimination.”
I don’t know how to unpack that. From a FIML point of view, my guess is behaviors that could potentially be identified as “microaggression” according to that definition would be in the range of dozens per day per every person in the world. Maybe more.
An example many readers will remember is Michelle Obama reacting to a customer in Target asking her to hand them something they could not reach.
I tell this story – I mean, even as the first lady – during that wonderfully publicized trip I took to Target, not highly disguised, the only person who came up to me in the store was a woman who asked me to help her take something off a shelf.
If even the president’s wife can get something so ordinary so wrong, you can see the scope of the problem. In the same interview, the president himself mentioned being “mistaken for a waiter.”
Both later downplayed their comments because they had to. Microaggression is an inherently super-ambiguous term open to a multitude of interpretations every time it is used.
In FIML, we find that micro-mistakes are real and dangerous. They are not ignored but addressed immediately because they can be so serious. Relevantly, in my experience with FIML a great many micro-impressions that I form are simply dead wrong. Most of them are wrong. I can’t enter that as evidence because the world does not have enough FIML practitioners for me to do a study on it. However, I do suspect that a great many micro-impressions of or impressions of microaggression are wrong.
Many of us laughed or thought it was ridiculous for Michelle Obama to bristle at having a short person ask her for help because we all have been on one side or the other of an exchange like that and thought nothing of it. I have been mistaken for a store employee or construction worker more than once and never thought anything of it, except maybe to feel slightly flattered that someone thought I looked like I knew what I was doing.
Another problem with the notion of politicizing microaggression (because that is what the term is about) is whose microaggression against whom?
I have strabismus, lazy eye. Even though the condition has been surgically corrected, I still cannot maintain a direct friendly gaze for long periods of time. This means that many people are led to misinterpreting my micro expressions (I start to look down) as me being bored, tired, or not friendly when all that is happening is my eye is so tired it starts to blur and needs to look away.
I know this from years of experience and because some people tell me what they are thinking. One in twenty or twenty-five people have strabismus. Add in other eye conditions with similar problems and you will get much higher percentages. Add hearing problems, attention-deficit problems, autism problems, and so on and you can include most people in the world having difficulties with micro-expressions and how they are being interpreted by others.
If someone from a different culture or race or neighborhood interprets my strabismus as microaggression (boredom with them or condescension toward them rather than simple fatigue), they will get it all wrong. And there is little or nothing I can do about it.
I even tell people about strabismus sometimes. I explain what it does. They say they understand, but very few of them really do. Only very close friends or people who have similar eye problems understand well enough that it stops being an issue with them.
Moreover, strabismus and other eye problems can lead to problems with facial recognition. So the person in the store that asked Michelle Obama for help may have also had facial recognition problems. I have that problem, too, and I seriously doubt that I would recognize Michelle Obama if I saw her in Target.
So, sorry, I don’t have any really good answer to how to understand microaggression or deal with it. On a personal level with friends or FIML partners, micro-impressions are what we want to work with as much as we can. On a societal level, you can hardly do anything about it. A super-smart person might be able to become aware of a good many of the difficulties faced by people in the world, but even that person will miss many of them or misinterpret what they perceive even if they “know” the right thing to do.
At the abstract heart of the problem there is probably a measurement or resolution problem. Simply stated, no person can ever possibly do perfect microanalyses all the time in all situations with all people. Far from it. Thus, it is a sort of “reverse microaggression” to demand or expect that they can or will or should.
I suppose we can and should become more aware of how complex people are and how difficult it is to know even one other person well, or even to know yourself well. But nothing that I can think of will ever relieve us of the difficulty of dealing with the immense number of micro-impressions we all give and receive every minute of every day.
UPDATE 3/24/21: Since I first posted this, the notion of reacting strongly to “systemic microaggression” has gained in popularity. Guys, that is a downward spiral into Hell. Misunderstanding micro impressions that way is to turn almost everything into “fighting words.”
In order to safeguard national security and interests, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Export Control Law of the People’s Republic of China, the Regulations of the People’s Republic of China on Export Control of Dual-Use Items and other laws and regulations, and with the approval of the State Council of China, it was decided to adopt the following export control measures
1. Overseas organizations and individuals “hereinafter referred to as ”overseas specific export operators must obtain a dual-use item export license issued by the Ministry of Commerce of China before exporting the following items to other countries and regions other than China:
(1) Containing, integrating or mixing items listed in Part 1 of Annex 1 to this Announcement originating in China and manufactured overseas, and the items listed in Part 1 of Annex 1 to this Announcement account for 0.1% of the value of the items listed in Part 2 of Annex 1 manufactured overseas and above;
(2) Items listed in Annex 1 of this announcement produced overseas using technologies related to rare earth mining, smelting and separation, metal smelting, magnetic material manufacturing, and rare earth secondary resource recycling originating in China;
(3) Items listed in Annex 1 of this announcement originating in China.
I will be surprised if USA has not already established a plan to overcome this by mining our own rare earth minerals in our own country.
I have no doubt USA has caused China many problems covertly and overtly and China sees itself as fighting back (while also sobbing over their ‘Century of Humiliation’ which USA had little to do with).
China’s entire modernization has come mainly from USA and the West. Same for the entire rest of the world.
I do not expect anyone to kiss our asses and our elite parasites did make huge fortunes selling out our technology to China.
But it would be better if China behaved better than this, and same goes for most of the rest of the world.
Western men created the modern world. And everyone is benefitting from it.
Western-style modernization is without doubt the most significant human achievement in world history. ABN
(Also, USA defeated Japan in WW2, not China which did next to nothing but wait for the end to then seize power and bogus credit.)
Here’s a question I know many are wondering about: why did China wait until now to use rare earths as leverage against the US? Why not in the first Trump administration when the US started the trade hostilities? Or when the Biden administration unleashed the chips export controls 3 years ago?
I just watched a fascinating explanation by a Chinese analyst and, unexpectedly, a big part of the explanation is… helium.
Helium isn’t just a party balloons gas: it has plenty of industrial applications for things such as quantum computing, rocket technology, MRI machines, as a coolant for chip lithography equipment, etc.
In a nutshell what he’s explaining is that with helium the US had an even stronger card to play if China ever used the rare earths card.
Logan, 22, was a massive Taylor Swift fan and an aspiring teacher
South Carolina congresswoman Nancy Mace has called for the Justice Department to step in to investigate and prosecute the murder of an aspiring teacher.
Logan Haley Federico, 22, an avid Taylor Swift fan, was killed while sleeping in a fraternity house during a visit to her boyfriend at the University of South Carolina on May 3.
Alexander Dickey, 30, a repeat offender with a long criminal rap sheet, was arrested and charged in her slaying.
Prosecutors say Dickey crept into her bedroom, startled Logan awake and forced her to her knees while she was naked and begging for help.
He is accused of shooting her in the chest with a stolen 12-gauge shotgun. Prosecutors say he then fled in a stolen vehicle. He has not entered a plea in the case.
Logan’s father Stephen Federico has demanded Dickey face the death penalty and accused South Carolina prosecutors of not pushing hard enough for the ultimate punishment.
Republican lawmakers have now joined his cause and are urging the Trump administration to take up the case.
Mace told Daily Mail this week that state law enforcement has shown ‘unforgivable weakness’ in handling the investigation.
The various mug shots of career criminal Alexander Dickey
In this post I am going to contend that: linguistic ambiguity tends to lead to or produce hierarchical social systems.
By linguistics, in this context, I just mean language and its uses, though expressions, gestures, roles, and so on can also be factors. Of course, many other things–genes, wars, historical precedents, etc.–also produce hierarchical societies, but today we will just deal with language.
Another way of stating the contention above is: humans have adapted to linguistic ambiguity by forming hierarchies. Or human hierarchical societies have evolved as adaptations to linguistic ambiguity. A stronger way of saying that would be human hierarchical societies have evolved as adaptations to linguistic ambiguity and they exploit ambiguity to maintain themselves.
Another way of saying all that might be to say that in hierarchical societies linguistic ambiguity is good for the top people because it maintains the status quo. This happens because if the ambiguity matters in any way, it is almost always the top people who will decide what it means.
I am going to present a microcosmic example of this point. Please notice as you read this example that this kind of ambiguity is very common. Something like this will occur in your life very often, maybe as often as a few times per hour of conversation, maybe more.
This morning I was cutting some (store-bought) potatoes for breakfast. As I was doing that I said to my partner: “The potatoes from our garden are so much better than these store-bought ones.” All I meant was that. I had no further implication in mind.
My partner (my FIML partner) did a FIML query and asked me: “Did you say that to make me feel good about our garden?” I replied: “No, I did not.” After which she said: “Because if you had I would have felt bad because I was very careful when I bought those potatoes so I would have felt that you were criticizing my shopping.”
This example shows very clearly that the only way to resolve the ambiguity inherent in my statement is to fully discuss the statement–why I said it, what I meant by it, and what I didn’t mean by it. Anything less would leave a puzzle in my partner’s mind.
This example also shows the value of trivial incidents for FIML practice, something we have emphasized many times. That this incident is trivial and small (just a single sentence) makes it perfect material for a FIML query. If the incident were larger, it would be harder to isolate and agree upon data points. As it was, my partner and I were able to clearly remember what I had said and how we both understood that statement very differently. As it was, we were able to clear up the ambiguity very quickly. No, I was not implying criticism. Yes, I do appreciate your careful shopping. Yes, these are excellent store-bought potatoes, but they aren’t as good as the ones we grow in our garden.
Everything was clear and we both experienced a resolution, my partner more than I because I had not initially noticed the ambiguity in my statement or the effect it had on my partner.
That’s a good example of a FIML query. And it is a good example of how a FIML query can lead to an extensive discussion. The extensive discussion in this case is how even very minor ambiguities like the potato incident can lead to or support hierarchical social structures.
In most non-FIML homes, I am pretty sure most people would not have inquired as my partner did. Most people would probably not say anything. Not saying anything would maintain whatever status quo had been established in that home.
If our home were a hierarchy and I were the top dog (and we did not do FIML), my partner would be forced to wonder silently about what I meant about my potato comment. Maybe she would suffer or feel confused or resentful. It is natural for humans to interpret language in a self-centric manner and it is natural (normal) for humans to be a little paranoid about what they hear. If my partner were the top dog and I had said that, she might question me in an aggressive manner or accuse me of being ungrateful. In that case, I would probably be forced to apologize and claim that I hadn’t meant it that way. Going forward, I might become more wary about what I said around her.
So, not inquiring, not resolving small linguistic ambiguities maintains the status quo. If the status quo is a hierarchy, it will be maintained.
If the status quo is not hierarchical, other problems will result from not resolving ambiguities even as small as the potato example. In the example of partners who live together, partners will feel a mounting sense of confusion and uncertainty as ambiguities like that accumulate. It will be harder for them to trust each other. Kind motives may be misinterpreted as being aggressive, and so on. In time, things may get so bad partners will separate or stay together but divide their lives into separate spheres of influence. If they separate, no status quo has been maintained (demonstrating my main point). If they divide their lives into separate spheres of influence, they will essentially be dividing their lives into small hierarchical spheres of influence (ditto). The garden is yours. The basement is mine. Et cetera.
Some hierarchy is inevitable and desirable between friends or in the home. But for close relationships, less hierarchy is better for most people because it is through egalitarian relationships that we learn the most about ourselves and each other, and it is in these sorts of relationships that we develop the most.
In hierarchical societies, generally speaking the person who is higher up decrees the resolution to all ambiguities. Do what the boss says. Just do what you’re told. She’s in charge. He is infallible, etc.
One reason hierarchies get away with decrees like that is it would simply take far too much time to resolve every ambiguity in a perfectly egalitarian way. Thus, almost all humans today are well-adapted to living in hierarchies. I am sort of OK with that in many professional and business contexts.
Where I am not OK with it is between close friends or couples, except for a little bit here and there depending on context (for example, one partner has special knowledge or experience the other doesn’t have). I suppose many people are very content living in a hierarchy in their own home, but that’s not for me. I don’t want my partner obeying me or being afraid of me and I don’t want to obey or be afraid of her either.
From this small potato example, I hope readers will be able to extrapolate to the formations of social groups. Surely social groups formed in many places at many different times. As history moved forward in time, less well-adapted groups were dominated by groups that were better adapted. And that is why the world is run by hierarchies almost everywhere.
One consequence of this is it affects the individual psychology of all of us who live in hierarchical societies. This may make us intolerant of ambiguity. It may make us view our private lives through hierarchical lenses. Without FIML, our massive training in hierarchical systems will lead to confusion and suffering in our private lives. The inevitable ambiguity will eat away at us if we have no way to fully deal with it.
Another consequence of living in hierarchical societies is people who for one reason or another don’t quite understand the rules will often be judged as mentally ill, dangerous, trouble-makers, outlaws, and so on. In very rigid societies you can be sent to a gulag or be burned at the stake for not conforming. In less rigid societies, you will be fired or ostracized.
In recent years, global methane sources and sinks have received increased attention owing to the rapid increase in atmospheric methane over the past decade and the high warming potential of methane (~80 times CO2 over a 20-year period1). There is a continued gap between the measured increase in atmospheric methane and the total emissions predicted from currently known methane sources – this underpins global efforts to better understand potential methane release from sources with the highest uncertainties, including the ocean and coasts2. Polar regions are increasingly recognized as containing globally significant volumes of methane in subglacial and marine reservoirs, with research in the geologic record3,4 and the contemporary Arctic5,6,7 illustrating the climate sensitivity of these systems.
One such mechanism of release from these reservoirs is from seeps in the marine8,9,10,11,12,13 or terrestrial4,6,14 environment, in addition to direct subglacial flux5,7. Seeps are areas of the seafloor where there is seepage of fluids rich in hydrocarbons (e.g., methane) or other chemicals (e.g., sulfide), often creating distinct marine habitats. Tens of thousands of methane seeps have been identified in the Arctic to date, with linkages to ice mass loss since the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM)4,8,13,15,16 as well as more recent climate change impacts5,7,17. The degradation of cryospheric caps, such as glacial ice, permafrost, and gas hydrates (methane and carbon dioxide gas trapped in an ice matrix) has been attributed3,4,5,6,7,15 as drivers for changes in methane flux in these instances
A single colossal BTC whale shorted at the peak, then, just minutes before the market-shattering crash, piled on millions more in shorts. At the very bottom of the drop, he closed 90% of his Bitcoin short and completely exited his Ethereum short, pocketing roughly $190–$200 million in a single day.
That’s the only instance we can trace, but speculation is rampant that the scale was far larger and extended across other exchanges.
Don’t be naive, this wasn’t luck. Someone was either manipulating the market or front-running it. Either way, the collapse was engineered, and investors have every reason to be alarmed.
Also Kyle Bass: ‘The path forward certainly feels like an inevitability of war.’
Bass is fairly reliable and does not have stars in his eyes vis-a-vis China, which is a very good thing.
I would hope USA has other ways to get rare earth minerals.
This move by China has been brewing for a long time and it has been a well-known option all along.
As for BRICS becoming stronger if USA responds vigorously, Bass has this to say:
‘The BRICS are akin to 5 garbage trucks backing into each other. Reserve managers won’t go there and China will collapse in the meantime.’
For decades I have watched Westerners being overly intimidated and/or impressed by China. This is a natural form of what might be called ‘culture shock’.
Everyone who studies Chinese starts out this way, super-enamored. It takes years of study to see their weaknesses and faults; their real humanity.
The best thing China has going for them is ethnic/ racial cohesion.
Sun Yat-sen taught this over one hundred years ago and it has become gospel in all Chinese communities everywhere.
It is a foundational part of Chinese education everywhere.
In the West, we have mistakenly gone the other way and are fast destroying ourselves with endless self-criticism and resignation.
The ‘culture shock’ aspect of this is societies affected by it typically feel despondent, even hopeless because the confronting culture is new and seems indominable.
Japan and China both reacted this way when first confronted by the West.
Japan figured things out more quickly than any other society in the world and succeeded in modernizing without losing their Japanese identity.
China today is still reeling from its self-perceived ‘Century of Humiliation’.
The West today is akin to Japan in, maybe, 1885 in our understanding of the ‘culture shocks’ we are experiencing.
Another big factor in the West is we are infested with powerful and hostile parasitic subcultures, literally high-end gangs, who are actively seeking to destroy us as they feed on us. ABN
American Buddhist Net 