To be free is a choice, not a right

Portrait of John Surart Mill
via Wikipedia

This article by Richard Reeves on The Guardian’s ‘Comment is free’ blog should be compulsory reading (“The value of a self-governed life”). John Stuart Mill was one of the most influential writers of his time, or the times since, and his exploration of the relationship between liberty and choice has probably never been bettered.

Despite all the protestations of commitment to liberty and freedom today, it has rarely been under greater threat, whether from those who wish to stamp their own religious or political views on the world at large; those who claim to be saving us from terrorism by removing our liberties to resist being saved in their chosen way; or those who see conformity as the best route to profit, and freedom as inefficient in economic terms.

For Mill, liberty was always a choice. As Reeves says:

Mill’s idea of liberty requires freedom of opinion, expression and lifestyle in order to produce the broadest possible palette of ways of life for us to choose from. The state should not impose a single view of the best way to live – for Mill, the idea of a centrally imposed national curriculum was horrifying. Equality before the law, and rights to fair trial were important precisely because they allowed people to live the way they chose, even if eccentric or even disgusting to the majority, so long as they did not actively harm others in so doing.

Continued

We aren’t becoming more cynical, we’re becoming more dependent on authority and simplistic views of the truth

Ben Goldacre, writing about a week ago in “Comment is Free,” the blog network of the British newspaper The Guardian, mentioned an interesting study into the way the media handle science stories (“Why reading should not be believing”).

The researchers found that 65% of stories didn’t correctly deal with “the study methodology and the quality of the evidence.” Obsessed with giving out eye-catching ‘truths’ from authority figures in white lab-coats, these reporters skidded over any drawbacks or uncertainties and reduced the numerical information in the studies to simple headlines, preferably with big numbers in them. Continued

Maybe high expectations aren’t quite as positive as you thought

Lisa Takeuchi Cullen has a piece in TIME magazine’s ‘Work in Progress’ blog that throws an odd sidelight on what it may really mean to approach your work in a positive frame of mind (”Positive thinking leads to…job dissatisfaction?“).

She cites a forthcoming research study by Dr. Olivia O’Neill, assistant professor of management the University of Georgia’s Terry College of Business, showing that: employees “higher in positive affect had higher salary expectations, and changed organizations more frequently, which leads to lower overall job, career, and life satisfaction.”

If I’ve got that right, she’s saying people who have a positive outlook on life expect more from their work than they get. As a result, they end up with worse careers and lower levels of satisfaction with their life. Whew! That seems like a good reason to be miserable. Continued

. . . Probably Calls the Political AND Lifestyle Tunes

Here’s an interesting question from one of the blogs associated with Britain’s The Guardian newspaper. The author, Prem Sikka, asks “Who really governs?” and notes that politics is increasingly influenced by the demands of business. In his view, we can have democracy or rampant corporate power, but not both.

This is the core of his argument:

Public confidence in parliamentary democracy will continue to be eroded until the power of corporations is checked. Normal people pay a large share of their income in taxes, but the political structures are unduly influenced by corporations and their controllers. They seem to enjoy representation with little or no taxation. The choice is clear: we can have either democracy and public accountability or rampant corporate power with enormous private wealth and power concentrated in the hands of a few business executives, but not both.

It’s a powerful statement. It may even be true of politics. But what about the other aspects of society and community life? Are corporations getting too big for their boots generally, not just in the political sphere? Continued

How often have you decided — firmly — to do something or avoid something, only to forget all about your resolution when temptation arises? We all know how difficult it can be to stick to our decisions, but have you ever wondered why this should be. Amongst all the wonderful adaptations produced by evolution, why should humans be left with minds that seem to have minds of their own?

That’s the provoking questions posed — and answered — by Gary Marcus in this article from The Los Angeles Times (“Does your brain have a mind of its own?”).

It seems the answer probably lies in an aspect of evolution that seems curiously . . . well, human: the fact that everything is built on what went before, even if starting from scratch seems the best option, and ‘good enough’ is readily accepted. Continued

Do you suffer from letting other people walk all over you, rather than expressing your own opinions, just because it might upset someone? That’s the question asked by Bonnie Staring in an article for healthszone.ca, part of The Toronto Star’s blog network (“The 7 deadly doormat sins”).

What makes you into a doormat? Here’s what she writes:

The Seven Deadly Doormat Sins (SDDS) are anxiety, denial, doubt, mediocrity, resentment, self-helplessness and silence. Whether performed on their own or in a heinous combination, SDDS can stop us from reaching our full potential, awakening the powerful person within, or simply getting to the office on time.

She also offers tips on how to identify SDDS behavior and learn not to do it again. Continued