Independence day

In Finland, today is the yearly bank holiday known as Independence day. It is a celebration of attaining independence and considered a day of great importance in Finland. My attitude towards the day is, however, twisted.
First of all, I do appreciate the liberties Finns gained through independence and I certainly do appreciate the efforts of all those who have defended those liberties.A society which supports free expression and other basic human rights is important for the happiness and well-being of people, and gaining independence from Russia and maintaining it through WWII were really important achievements. But beyond that, I don't see much value in independence. Let me explain.
My biggest problem is the nationalism that is always associated with independence. Nationalism is always exclusive in nature, as opposed to inclusive. It is always "we" the against the others. Nationalism without the "others" would be meaningless and nationalism by nature thus promotes partisanship and supports conflicts. Moreover, independence in itself is exclusive in nature. "We" are independent of "them". Let them take care of themselves. Insofar as independence increases the amount of people that have access to human rights, then it is positive. But suppose Helsinki would like to become independent from Finland. Does not really make any sense, does it? (Although I can imagine some local politicians who would support the idea.) It would be an arbitrary division of Finland into parts. 
You could argue that separating Finland from Russia is a different case than Helsinki from Finland, since there is a distinct cultural difference between Finland and Russia. The argument falls apart when we realise that there is also a distinct cultural difference between Helsinki, with a city-culture, and most of the rest country, which has a more rural culture. So, the division into states is rather arbitrary. I do think that division of the world into states is useful in our time (that might change sometime though). Having a singular government for the whole world has a great risk of driving the leaders into corruption, which would be very difficult to disband if there are no counter-forces.
When observing the independence day celebrations (in Finland and elsewhere), we observe that a central theme is displaying the national flag and other national symbols. Here, notice the use of the word "national-". By using these symbols we emphasise the nationalistic as well as the exclusive character of the festivities. This is also the reason why right-wing extremists so eagerly embrace national symbols. It is "we" against the "others".
In conclusion, I would much rather celebrate a day of human rights, co-operation, equality, peace and democracy, than a day of independence.

On Accountability 2

In the aftermath of the tsunami in Japan, I again have started to reflect on accountability. This time, I am thinking about the accountability of the general media and not only scientific publications. During my studies, I read two courses of modern physics, which would be in layman's terms nuclear physics. I have repeated this often, but I still contend that only after having studied modern physics did I learn to sufficiently appreciate my ignorance. In other words, only after having studied nuclear physics did I understand that I don't know by far enough to make any sensible statements about nuclear physics. It's just too difficult.

Now, having read plenty of news from Fukushima, I realize that most journalists do not share my appreciation of their own ignorance. The news are filled with statements that are to me obviously flawed, and which scare people that do not spot the flaw. In effect, the main news outlets are doing their best to spread panic and fear.

As horrible as the events in Fukushima are, I believe that we should refrain ourselves from making decisions based on emotion only, instead of facts and evidence based judgement. Spreading fear and panic is in this sense counter-productive. Fears should be considered in decision making, since it has a strong negative effect on the well-being of people, but it should not be taken as an excuse for ignoring facts and evidence.

My conclusion of this is, with respect to news outlets, that news corporations driven by economical motives do not have sufficient incentives to retain accountability. Spreading fear and panic sells newspapers, even if the news would be slightly inaccurate. It seems that this lack of accountability is a common theme in market driven corporations - it is, after all, lack of accountability that caused the nuclear disaster in Fukushima. Likewise, lack of accountability caused the economic crash a few years ago. If thus accept that the capitalistic system is lacking in incentives for accountability, the question that remains is what we should do about it?

To me it seems that the only way to introduce accountability in world economy, is to change the rules of the game somehow. The most obvious choice is regulation. However, I fear that such regulations would be difficult to design and even more difficult to supervise. To be honest, I don't even have an idea where to begin. Personally, I would lay more hope in changing the rules on a different level, by opening things up instead of closing them down. I believe that enforcing transparency, not only to governments, but to privately owned corporations as well, that would be a good start. This would not, however, solve the problem with news outlets.

This is a problem that still eludes me. Especially now that the border between news media and private persons on the Internet has diffused, it will be difficult to enforce accountability. For traditional newspapers, it perhaps would have been possible to enforce a law that demands that facts should be double-checked. But with bloggers such rules become meaningless.

Right at this moment, I had an idea! What about a scientific validation service for news outlets? A service, that would employ scientific experts to validate the plausibility of claims made in a news story? Hmm. Have to think about that more.

On Accountability

A word that I have come to stumble on with increasing frequency is "accountability". It is with pleasure I have seen its rise, not only because it often involves bringing justice, which is inherently good, but because it demonstrates a rise awareness of systemic relationships. Let me explain why.

A recent topic in Finland has been the quality of food. Many in the general public have bemoaned the low quality. The producers respond that their offerings match the demand, so the general public is to blame. In effect, both parties are pointing fingers at the opposite side.
Personally, I happen to agree with both sides. The quality of many products is shamefully low, but a depressingly large portion of people are primarily interested in the price, not quality. The public cries for accountability, but producers cannot commit economical suicide by raising quality without obtaining something in return.
A systemic analysis of the situation would probably most naturally begin by observing the incentives the producers have to improve the quality and the incentives the public has to buy good quality food. For the low-income people, there are no incentives. You eat what you can afford. This fact alone enforces the status quo. There is an obvious demand for cheap food and the producers main incentive is to meet the demand.
Here the cry for accountability is effectively a demand for a feedback system. Without going into how the accountability should be implemented, for which I do not have any clue, I would like to emphasise the importance of a feedback system. The demand and supply relationship is, in a narrow sense, a linear relationship, where more demand gives more supply. The demand for accountability, for a feedback mechanism, is essentially a desire to create another connection between supply and demand, that balances or counter-acts the existing relationship.
I find it important to realize that all parties in this equation currently already act in a way that is well-warranted, when observed in isolation. Each participant tries his best to do good in his local surroundings. That the outcome is bad, is not to be blamed on the individuals, but on the design of the system.

Another example is the famous and infamous Wikileaks. I honestly believe that US officials quite earnestly believe that they have been acting in the best interest of the people of USA all along, if not always "the world". From their own isolated perspectives, all their actions seem well-warranted and justified. The fact is, however, that the US has in secret done some horrible things (for a abbreviated list, see http://www.opendemocracy.net/ryan-gallagher/what-has-wikileaks-ever-taught-us-read-on). Although the US government is supposedly held accountable to the people of USA, the flow of information from the government to the public has been too weak. The government has not had any incentive to improve the flow of information, since improving would have made life within the government more difficult. What is needed is an independent party to control the flow of information. Wikileaks is one such independent party, although admittedly it has its faults.

Yet another example of a completely different kind is the scientific peer-review process. To obtain good quality science, we must have a mechanic for assessing the quality. Peer-review is the best mechanism we know of. Usually, peer-review is enforced in scientific publications, where any input must be subjected to examination of independent experts. Only when the experts agree that the input meets scientific standards of quality, is the article accepted for publication.
The standard way of implementing peer-review is anonymous review, where the independent experts are chosen secretly by the editors of the scientific publication and the authors never learn the experts identity. The purpose of this mechanism is to prevent undesirable feedback, that is, enable reviewers to express negative criticism without fear of retaliation. An undesirable side-effect is that the reviewers do not get any feedback for their comments. Again, the system is linear. Information flows only from reviewers to the authors.
An alternative is open review, such as exploited by Wikipedia, where commentary is signed, if not by name, at least by alias. (In on-line communities, an alias can become as valuable as a real-life identity.) In the open review model, a reviewer dare not submit careless criticism, because his own reputation is on the line. Only well-argued criticism can be presented, without a negative impact on ones own reputation.

In each of these cases, the usual level of dialogue is finger pointing, name calling and blaming the opponent for the problems that exist. I find such dialogue un-constructive and distasteful. Yet, the emergence of the word accountability, gives hope that people in positions of power would catch up on a systemic perspective, if not consciously, perhaps at least intuitively. Personally, I have today tried to start a movement within my own field of science toward increased accountability through open review. After all, I do not want to be just another "finger pointer", but I believe it is imperative to act upon what you think is right.

"You didn't want to talk" vs. "I would have liked to talk"

In the middle of an short email, a friend of mine wrote to me "... but you didn't want to talk to me :)" Ouch. My friend had been insulted by my actions. First reaction: guilt. I should've called, sms:ed, sent email - something. Second reaction: I should write or call my friend now, although then it wouldn't be because I wanted to, but because I was told to do so. It wouldn't feel right. Third reaction: Protest. I don't like to be pushed to around, I write when I want to write. You write me if you want to be in contact!

What just happened here? All these feelings blew through me half-consciously in less than 10 seconds.

This is a vicious circle starting right here. Something in it self small but unfortunate happened, and my friend felt neglected. My friend wanted to communicate the feeling of neglect, but not make it too heavy - thus the smiley at the end - although the hurt feelings were obvious. My reaction to it is easy to predict: denial, protest and the feeling of being treated unfairly. And the result, no improvement in the situation, but more hurt feelings.

So, what would be the alternative? Moving the focus from my error, to the desire of my friend. "I would have liked to talk to you." It is a positive feeling. Desire. It is a flattering statement. I would jump on the chance and call my friend immediately, or better yet, go visit my friend.

In this example, both parties have a lot to learn. My negative reactions were totally unnecessary and unwarranted, although understandable. I should learn to faster recognise the vicious circle before it starts. And most importantly, I should learn to take my friends better into account.
In my opinion, my friend would benefit from trying to, instead of confrontative statements, find supportive and constructive approaches. Confrontation is sometimes useful, but most often it is not an effective approach. A constructive nudge can, according to my experience, often be pivotal and highly effective.

Taboos and -ism's

Everyone knows it is a taboo to criticize religions and faith in general. That is precisely why faiths have survived so long, because they say that questioning them is bad manners. If it wouldn't, the inherent implausibility of faith and contradictions of the simplest logic that religions make, would have made the whole phenomenons crumble and disappear.

Interestingly, I recently discovered another taboo that works in the same way, although it is much more mundane. Namely, I noticed that to criticize the idea "hey, let's go for a beer" is a taboo. At least in one of my circles of friends, there is a strong social stigma associated with not-drinking-alcohol. People seem to assume that people, that do not drink at a party or dinner at the local pub, would destroy the mood, that such people are boring people. It seems that drinking is associated with group cohesion in such a way that non-drinking is perceived as a threat to group unity. As if, "If you don't drink you're not one of us."

While I see group cohesion as a positive force for happiness, it also robs us from the freedom of choice, which impacts happiness negatively. The absurdity of the situation is easily revealed by asking "Am I not good enough as myself, but only if I drink?" and "Why is it a problem for you if I don't drink?".

Another aspect is that people encouraging you to drink, with a "C'mon!", implicitly assumes that everyone will have more fun when drunk. Personally, I have lately found that drunken small-talk is just devoid of any real value. In this sense, I feel that people become boring when they get drunk, not the other way around. There are many exceptions to this, though, in the sense that many people that are interesting sober are interesting also when tipsy.

What this leads me to is that group cohesion is a strange animal. A sense of unity with peers is generally a positive force. However, generally all ways of maintaining cohesion can destroy all the positive effects and, worse, bring unhappiness. By design, most tools for maintaining cohesion are exclusive through "You have to be X, or you're not one of us." Here the "you're not one of us" -part is meant to be (and it is) a severe punishment.

This principle seems to apply in all cases where I recognize group cohesion as a strong force, including all theism/religions (infidels should die!), nationalism (you're not patriotic if you oppose, say, the war in Iraq), racism, criminal gangs etc.

The question that then remains is, is group cohesion possible without the negative effects? I would argue "Yes." People united by common goals, aspirations, attitudes or character, will often experience a feeling of unity without need for external maintenance of cohesion. In this perspective, positive group cohesion appears only when the group has a solid and well-founded purpose. Groups with only a weak purpose and weak motivation for unity are the ones who need to punish straying sheep. Positive group cohesion is then also an inclusive phenomenon, where all those whose internal motivation is the same can be included in the group, whereas negative group cohesion is an exclusive phenomenon, where all those who don't fulfil the external requirements are excluded from the group.

In essence, it follows, that the motivations to maintain theism/religions, nationalism, racism and criminal gangs are weak. The sense of inner purpose that these groups carry are so weak, that they must punish dissidents, otherwise the groups would fade away. What I find striking is that so many of these weak groups are known as -ism's. Is there a pattern? Perhaps this is also why many feel that the word atheism so badly represents the phenomenon.

Personally, the lessons I have to learn from this are then:

1. As a tutor, mentor, teacher and employer, I must strive to generate a common internal sense of purpose in my students and employees so strong, that group cohesion emerges.
2. As an atheist, I have to avoid partisan thinking, avoid construction of a them (theists) against us (atheists) -spirit, and openly participate in constructive discussions. By accepting all people as themselves, could prove to be pivotal in opening the minds of people.
3. As a person, I should strive to accept all people as themselves.

Edit: As an afterthought, I just realised one more pattern: In countries where religions are most accepting, most inclusive in their character (and thus follow their own teaching the best), are also countries where religions are fading away. For example, in Scandinavia, there is a very accepting atmosphere overall in the whole society, including religions. There, also churches are very weak. On the other hand, in the US, which is infamous for its exclusionist attitudes (esp. with respect to religions and patriotism), churches go strong.

The Power of Possibilities

During the last year, nothing has changed on the outside, but everything has changed on the inside. Suddenly, I've begun to see possibilities. I could apply for this or that job, I could go skiing, I could train climbing, I could this and that. Objectively, it is a small change. Yes, I suddenly have received some new job opportunities, but objectively it is not much more than what I had before. These options are not likely (as in the competition is/will be hard). But there is hope.

I have regained the feeling that there I have possibilities, which gives me the feeling that I can make choices. While I already knew that the feeling of being able to influence in your life's choices is important for happiness, the forces with which it hits you is awesome. My emotional state has risen from "ok" (50/100), to almost "happy" (80/100).