Addressing Complexity

(This post may not be the most timely, but whatever…)

When Wikileaks released the Iraq war logs, I noticed that I was more intrigued by the actions/role of the organization’s leader, Julian Assange, than the contents of those logs. For instance, I was much more drawn to this New York Times piece on Assange than their much larger and deeper coverage of the war logs’ contents.  

This probably had to do with the intrigue of an international man on the run, this incredibly fascinating New Yorker profile of Assange that I read months ago, and the ethical questions that Assange’s role and past decisions — like the decision not to redact the names of the Afghan civilians who aided the American/NATO war effort — brought up. 

But this very smart Glenn Greenwald column made me realize that I was probably missing the forest for the trees — caught up in a smear from a source with some pretty dubious intentions. It showed me that I was caught up in the personality/celebrity aspect of a major story at the expense fully contemplating the significance of the actual story. 

Now, I was brought up in a culture that is very interested in the individual, very interested in celebrity and power, and I’m a product of that. It’s not something I’m always proud of, and something I try to move away in a certain degree, but I think I will always be fascinated by humans and don’t think this is a necessarily bad of a source of interest*.  

But recently I’ve considering the limits of this fascination, and how this fascination can be impairing. One thing is that it is far to easy to identify ideas with your thoughts of the people who espouse them — whereas they should be weighed on their own individual accord — and I’m prone to do this as much as anyone. Here’s one example: I read the Daily Dish a bit religiously** and so I have known conservative NYT columnist Ross Douthat mainly as someone as having pretty half-assed views on gay marriage and a questionable read on the state of American politics — though less than most conservative commentators. (These are all subjective opinions of course). But on a rare occurrence, I ventured out*** and read one of his columns and found it to be really good. It was about TARP, and was balanced. By the time I read this, my biggest thoughts on TARP were 1. people were/are really stupid in not realizing that it actually turned a profit and 2. that it was necessary. I put those two thoughts in their proper order.

In this one example, I was guilty of not giving someone proper/fair attention based on pre-conceived notions and having my primary thoughts about a very big topic be constrained to exasperation towards a large group of people for their ignorance — though that ignorance is real. These thoughts — neither of which I am proud of — have to do with a fixation on the personal**** but also have to do with a bigger issue of how people deal with issues that out of our respective depths. 

This column is about how people deal with complexity as it relates to global warming. It basically says that when people don’t understand a particular issue they revert back to beliefs. I think that’s true and makes sense, but I would also add that when faced with complexity we also revert back to more familiar ways of thinking. I think this is what I did with the TARP/Ross Douthat episode, because TARP is definitely outside my realm of comfortable knowledge — though Wikileaks Afghanistan + Iraq war logs probably aren’t. 

There are a few obvious ways to better handle complexity that mostly have to do with learning more, asking the appropriate questions and doing the requisite research. But that can only go so far and at so fast of a pace. I think one important thing — and this is not that profound of an insight but I think it’s important and easy to forget — is acknowledging when you don’t have the tools to adequately handle the complexity of a problem/subject. Once that occurs, I think you’ll be much better to identify your thinking for what it is — whether it’s overly-hopeful, tribal or other degrees of irrational. 

——————————-

* You may note that many of these blog posts are directly inspired by New Yorker profiles which isn’t a coincidence. New Yorker profiles, coffee, the NBA and the pilates/yoga are some of my favorite things in life. 

** Feel free to take that word with the negative connotations it evokes, because that is probably close to the truth. 

*** I use this term somewhat figuratively, because I’m not willing to admit that I’m completely enclosed in a liberal news-biased cocoon. I think I’m better than a lot of people, though I  could make more of an effort to seek out conservative voices and it’s something I’m planning on doing. 

**** I know this is getting ridiculous, but to defend myself some more I will add another disclaimer that I don’t get that involved with personal attacks or political theater. I’m not perfect in this regard, but I’m definitely moving away from this, which I’m pretty happy about. 

* I do think questions about how Assange is running the organization are legitimate ones for people who support the organization. I don’t think Greenwald is arguing counter to this, but just that the mainstream media was dwelling on this minor topic at the expense of a much bigger one.