Guest essay by Caleb Shaw
One sign of healthy skepticism is that you take things with a grain of salt, but there is a problem inherent in having this attitude, namely “disrespect.” We are suppose to respect our elders and teachers, and I can’t say my skepticism has always led to such respect.
For example, as a teenager in the late 1960’s I embraced the Jack Weinberg quote, “Don’t trust anyone over thirty,” in a way that seriously thwarted learning from my elders. To be blunt, the reason I distrusted elders was because I wanted to break the law, and they’d put me in jail if they knew what I was up to. (I wish I could say I was breaking rules for some noble cause, such as pacifism, but that would be dishonest.)
Basically I wanted to do things elders would disapprove of, and didn’t want to hear elders rebuke me for doing things that they claimed were bad for me. Therefore, instead of learning from elders, I learned the hard way that many of the things they said were bad for me were, in fact, bad.
Apparently, if I was going to be skeptical, I should have been more skeptical of the statement, “Don’t trust anyone over thirty,” however it didn’t seem possible I’d ever be so old. That particular skepticism didn’t sink in until my thirtieth birthday approached, and I looked in the mirror and thought to myself, “Oh Lord, I’m about to be one of those people you can’t trust.”
Now that I’m over sixty I thoroughly approve of respecting elders. In fact I have revised the Weinberg quote, and it now goes, “Don’t trust anyone under sixty.” After a significant pause I add, “And I wouldn’t trust those over sixty either.” After a second significant pause I conclude, “For that matter, I wouldn’t trust myself.”
The simple fact of the matter is that humans aren’t perfect. (Some say there are such things as Perfect Masters, but I can’t claim I’ve ever met one on the street.) Sooner or later everyone I’ve met, including myself, makes a mistake, and, by making that mistake they, in some way, shape or form, break the trust. Even a minor mistake, such as being one minute late for an appointment, breaks the trust. Even if you have a thousand excuses, you failed to keep your word. Therefore it is quite true to state that no one can be trusted.
Life would be a complete drag if I took human imperfection to heart, and walked about scowling at everyone. Another attribute of humans is that, just as you can’t trust them to do right, you can’t trust them to do wrong, either. At times the most unlikely people pull off amazing deeds of kindness, strength and heroism. Humans are a lot like the weather in this respect: You can’t forecast them with 100% certainty.
Though you can’t trust humans to be perfect, you can develop a form of government that takes imperfection into account, and, through a system of checks and balances, makes it possible to make, recognize, recover-from and forgive mistakes. In like manner you can create scientific disciplines that allow one to make, recognize, recover-from and forgive mistakes. In fact all areas of life, right down to a game of darts, can be governed in a way that allows one to make, recognize, recover-from and forgive mistakes. All people need to do is accept a system of rules.
This was precisely what I refused to do, as an ignorant, young jerk. People much smarter than I had worked long and hard to create various systems that effectively deal with the fact humans are prone to making mistakes, but their systems involved rules, and I didn’t like rules. I would find a better way, an “alternative lifestyle.” Rules didn’t seem to be the same as freedom, and I wanted to be free, unaware (to a ridiculous degree) that one thing I’d never be free from was making mistakes. Then, when my mistakes became apparent, I, in the spirit of a true do-it-yourselfer, set out to reinvent the wheel. Because I was very lucky, my mistakes didn’t kill me, and I eventually arrived at a solution that looked very much like a wheel.
Now I sit back and wonder, “What in God’s name was I thinking?” I wasted decades reinventing a wheel that teachers were trying to give me for free. What made me such a stupid rebel? What a mistake!
I suppose I could play the blame-game, and say someone else made a mistake that led to mine. America is a nation founded upon rebellion, and Americans are such rebels that even the motto on their money states you can’t trust humans. It was therefore my homeland that put rebellion in my blood.
Or I could blame women, (especially schoolmarms), because it was only when women got the vote that drinking beer became unconstitutional. Prohibition didn’t merely engender a disrespect for the law, but even for the Constitution our forefathers died for, yet, as a young boy, I could hear old-timers laugh about how they brewed beer in the basement, blithely unaware they were encouraging disrespect for the Constitution.
Or they laughed about how they drove 1000 miles in ten hours, though the speed limit signs said sixty-five.
On the fourth of July everyone set off fireworks in my Massachusetts neighborhood, though fireworks were illegal. Does that not celebrate independence from the Law? Is it not in the very nature of Americans to disobey elders, whether they be King George or one’s schoolmarm? It isn’t my fault! I am not to blame for the fact I wasted decades reinventing the wheel!
The blame-game may be fun, but it cannot pull you out of quicksand. At some point it simply doesn’t matter how you wound up to your neck. Getting out of the mess becomes the focus. However, providing you survive, it is a healthy intellectual exercise to look back and ponder the mistakes that got you into quicksand. Even if it doesn’t get you out of the ooze, it might help you to avoid jumping back in. It is in this spirit that I would like to cause trouble, by pointing the blame-game finger at the schoolmarms.
I think I can say, with a high degree of probability, that it is a mistake for schoolmarms to put boys (such as I once was) in rows of desks, and expect the boys to sit still. Boys squirm. Boys kick. Boys dream out the window, dip pigtails in inkwells, shoot spitballs, and fail to memorize six words of Shakespeare even while writing twenty lines of rhyming doggerel mocking schoolmarms, (with hilarious cartoon illustrations.) You are just begging for disaster if you fail to recognize boys will be boys. You will turn a boy who might have been law-abiding into a law-breaker. Boys, by their very nature, need to run wild, and if you squelch this impulse you will have hell to pay.
(I’ve talked with schoolmarms who know this, for they have seen that boys sit most still and learn most right after recess, and right after summer vacation, and squirm worst and learn next to nothing just before recess, and when spring is in the air. However, being schoolmarms and not boys, they don’t even whimper when their government and/or teachers-union urge recesses and summer vacations be banned “so boys may learn more.”)
I actually think it isn’t a schoolmarm’s duty to discipline boys. That job is the father’s. If I wrote the laws, then, rather than a bad boy being expelled to the principle’s office, the boy would be sent by taxi to the father’s workplace. If the Dad was in jail, send the kid there. That would get men’s attention darn fast.
That never happened when I was little. I suppose I should point the blame-game finger at Dads, for when I was young they put widgets ahead of family, and ran away to the rush-hour each day-break, leaving their poor, defenseless sons in the quicksand of classrooms, and at the mercy of schoolmarms.
Due to a weird twist of fate, I grew up dead center in a wormhole in the space-time continuum, wherein I escaped the wrath of schoolmarms when it was expressed by caning, and escaped the wrath of schoolmarms as it is now expressed by drugging. When I made chaos out of their quiet classrooms, all I faced was the wrath of schoolmarms expressed by words.
Much of my skill with the use of the English language was absorbed from schoolmarm’s tongue-lashings. In order to keep order in classrooms of twenty to thirty Baby Boom rebels, they had to exploit adroit sarcasm and cynical sneering, and employ twists of dubious logic and clubbing condemnation. Their wit could be superb and set the entire class laughing, but when you are a little boy and the whole class is laughing at you, you do not think of witty rebuttals as much as you think of getting some sort of completely unholy and uncivilized revenge. An abscess of resentment brewed in me. Schoolmarms may have kept me quelled, when I was small and helpless, but when my hormones hit and I swiftly loomed taller than they, all my study of their use of English came back to haunt them.
They had created a monster. True, Frankenstein is not usually portrayed as jovial, nor as being able to out-argue the doctor who bolted in his brains, but reality is often even stranger than a monster movie. I became an outlaw, but one of the most harmless outlaws imaginable. Initially my sinister activities involved dreaming out windows, wandering into the classroom after the bell, or shrugging when asked where my homework was. It was when I stopped shrugging, and started answering the sarcastic questions, that I think I set some sort of modern record for the most after-school detentions ever received for being cheerful.
Detentions were a half-hour spent sitting in a classroom after school, and were a bad idea when boys are bursting with energy. I could only serve four detentions a day, because the last bus left at four-thirty, and for a time it looked like I might not graduate due to not-having-served the amazing numbers of detentions I was amassing. It was at this point an uneasy truce descended. Likely the teachers dreaded the prospect of another year with me, though perhaps the teachers were also embarrassed by the prospect of failing a student who was going to win the award for creative writing, and not failing him because of his grades, but rather because he cheerfully answered their sarcastic questions. In any case they stopped being sarcastic, which meant I had won.
It was at this point, at my moment of victory, that I fell flat on my face. The culprit was drugs, but I’ll talk of that later. For now I want to remain on the topic of respecting elders.
Schoolmarms did teach me a sort of respect for elders, but it was not the sort of respect that leads to one rushing to elders, desiring their attention like a rock-star’s fan desires the star’s autograph. Instead my primary goal in school became to avoid the attention of schoolmarms. They were the Gestapo, and I was the French Resistance. My respect was the sort of loathing respect one has for a bully. After the hormones hit and I won my victory I became like the Norwegian Resistance, and schoolmarms became like the trembling Quislings after the Gestapo had fled Norway.
Now I look back across a half century and wonder: What was it that made them the bad-guy Nazis, and me the good-guy? Why didn’t they seem like millionaires, loaded with knowledge, as I myself was a mere beggar, with the empty pockets of ignorance? Schoolmarms were offering me a free hand-out. What was I fleeing?
I think the answer lies in the single, dreaded word, “Drill.”
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I resemble those remarks except that I had few detentions. I took the swats.
“We are suppose to respect our elders and teachers”
LOL, that’s myth that is spread by our elders and teachers.
Respect, in book is earned not ordained.
Some elders and teachers merit it, many ( perhaps the majority ) don’t.
” in my book”
It is also lost much quicker than it is earned or regained, as climatologists are finding.
That bit about never trusting anyone over thirty has served me very well over the years. The other, about never trusting anyone under sixty sounds like good advice too.
“All people need to do is accept a system of rules.”
Rules are fine. Rulers are a problem.
Certain old people are wise, because they are smart, reflect and have loads of experience.
Many old people are as dumb as the day they were born and have a lifetime of experience at it.
The latter group try to draw on the authority due to the former by saying : “We are suppose to respect our elders and teachers”.
Science has exactly as much use for respect as an internal combustion engine has for a foreskin.
Good read. Witty and humerous.
RE: Greg Goodman says:
June 27, 2014 at 3:07 am
“…Many old people are as dumb as the day they were born and have a lifetime of experience at it…”
It might appear that way, but that is because the old tend to carry a shield to protect themselves from onslaughts of criticism such as yours. If you are put off too easily by some shield of Archie Bunker racism or religious closed-mindedness, you will miss what they have picked up over the years.
I’ll explain further in parts two through five.
For some of the young ones it seems as if brains were dynamite- they wouldn’t have enough to blow the wax out of their ears.
Of course probably not true, but sometimes seems that way.
What made the Boomers so self-indulgent and whiny? What is the reason we need to dive into endless armchair self-psychoanalysis? Can you imagine Benjamin Franklin or George S. Patton doing that? In my opinion, it’s a product of the Greatest Generation’s greatest mistake: Spoiling their children, because they had to do without during the Depression and WWII, and our economy improved in the 50s and early 60s. Then we had Benjamin Spock, the late 60s psychodrama craze, encounter groups, and endless drug-induced wonderings. As if any of that made any positive difference. Now we have a thin-skinned overly sensitive group running things, and people who can’t stand being dissed, and who are easily offended. As if being offended is a bad thing. That’s what the First Amendment is all about, baby.
Whatever it is, get over it, Get to work. Don’t try to be happy all the time – believing you should be constantly happy is another dangerous idea of the Left. Rather than worry about ME, I just do what I need to do to take care of my family. When I think I have it bad, I think about the Warsaw ghetto or central Africa, and I cheer right up.
Best rule of thumb is to trust someone as far as you can throw them.
Caleb says:
June 27, 2014 at 3:53 am
RE: Greg Goodman says:
June 27, 2014 at 3:07 am
“…Many old people are as dumb as the day they were born and have a lifetime of experience at it…”
It might appear that way, but that is because the old tend to carry a shield to protect themselves from onslaughts of criticism such as yours. If you are put off too easily by some shield of Archie Bunker racism or religious closed-mindedness, you will miss what they have picked up over the years.
I’ll explain further in parts two through five.
===================
Greg gets my vote
there ARE dumb young people who never DO grow a brain,
they end up as dumb old people,
and respecting them is dangerous and damaging.
Once I respected and trusted that all elders did know more,
as I near my 60s I know many do not.
and
for that, many young dont even have a basic grasp of stuff I learnt at school and thats pretty basic.
its scary. they will be our “keepers” in our real aged years, heaven help us!
Age has almost nothing to do with it, i am 68 and yesterday i was taught a lesson to remember by a 6, thankfully, I have learned from it.
@Caleb says: June 27, 2014 at 3:53 am
I tend to agree with Greg. Some never learn. Your adage of never trusting anyone under 60, and then not trusting them all is the way I look at it now. I am about your age (going to be 60 shortly). And I do look to elders for wisdom, and the youth for pig headedness.
I managed to grow out of the rebellion stage earlier than you. But that does not mean I was not as stupid as they come back then. With 4 sisters and 3 daughters, I know girls are a bit different (the term is not allowed on this blog). But with 2 brothers and 2 sons, and myself to boot, I can easily say that boys reach puberty and lose their intelligence. I have seen some grow out of it early. But all enter it. And the really stupid ones never get out of it.
But the wisdom – I know that my opinion is naive and in time it will change some more.
In 1957 I was in the 7th grade. The science teacher was a very old woman, no really, she was old, perhaps 64. She was the most entertaining teacher in that school and she said one thing that has stuck with me to this day and while not original it has been helpful. “Believe none of what you read and only half of what you see. Study, do the research, experiment and prove something to be true or false.” A wise woman.
Age does matter although the trick is working out who has the best experience. In flying there is a saying: ‘There are old pilots and bold pilots, but the are no old bold pilots’!
Great thoughts Caleb. As you pointed out, in our society where we are taught to rebel and we forget that rules are meant to help and protect us, good rules anyway or rules that you actually follow through on. While I agree that it is nigh impossible to get boys to sit and listen, I would still argue it is a necessary part of life, though we could be a lot more creative about it sometimes. Respect is a hard thing, as many have pointed out we have plenty of “elders” that don’t deserve it, but often we throw the baby out with the bath water and when we resort to mocking and breaking someone down we risk being become those “elders” that don’t deserve respect. I find those I respect the most are those that are humble and have the wisdom and insight to realize they don’t know everything and are always willing to learn more.
As for Oldspanky and this statement: “Science has exactly as much use for respect as an internal combustion engine has for a foreskin.”
Doesn’t really make a whole lot of sense, science is just a set of rules with checks and balances to help govern how we observe the world around us. Science is performed by people with all their mistakes and bias, so yes science still requries respect and a host of other things from those that follow its rules otherwise you begin to break the rules and end up as someone that can’t take critism and make everything personal. On another note, can the plastic splash shield under the engine be considered a foreskin?
Your school experience with the sarcastic questions reminds me of a book by Ron White (the comedian) recalling his misspent, delinquent youth and his constant run-ins with the local police in a small, west Texas town.
“I had the Right to Remain Silent, but Not the Ability”.
RE: ozspeaksup says:
June 27, 2014 at 4:10 am
“…there ARE dumb young people who never DO grow a brain,
they end up as dumb old people,
and respecting them is dangerous and damaging…”
The danger in your attitude is that you miss what can be used, in your contempt for that which should be rejected. You may be correct in stating some have embraced ignorance, but a midst all that ignorance is a shred of wisdom. If you become too pessimistic you in a sense are accepting the ignorance as the status quo. I am more optimistic that even out of a slag heap of stupidity a bit of gold can be refined.
When ignorance causes a construct to fall in a heap, it doesn’t mean the entire idea is ignorance. It means you need to go back to the old drawing board.
Respect is NOT mandatory, it must be earned. You can do this by being open and honest when communicating your science / story so I guess that rules out politicians, Crimate scientists, Institutional CEOs, etc
I had a neighbour who sadly died about 4 years ago. Her husband died when she was 6 months pregnant not long after WWII (in france). The babe was in hospital for a year after his birth and she brought him up on her own will no government support. She worked hard all her life and was still growing her own food, digging the garden by hand at aged 89.
Sadly she brought up her son to be a real asshole who bullied her for most of her life and lives off social security.
I adnmire her for her determination and perseverance but I do not respect her for her son.
Hey Caleb, sorry to post again, but I thought up a good example. Let’s image I’m invited to a Climate Change forum (a big if for sure but we’re pretending) and I meet Michael Mann there. Let’s say I show my disrespect for him by calling him names and not shaking his hand therebye not even respecting a single thing about him. Then a prominant scientist walks in, someone Mann really respects and believes shares his same views. Mann walks up to said scientist and begins talking about all his research. This scientist looks at him kindly, but firmly and calmly states that Michael made some mistakes and that if he corrected them and recieved critism better then the world would be a brighter place. Let’s say in this theorectical story Mann takes this to heart (after an inward battle of course – we all have those) and ends up taking the advice. Whose respect or lack thereof had a greater affect? Or if you can’t picture that, whose respect or lack thereof has the greater potential of breaking the barriers we humans like to setup?
It may sound silly, but how often in human history have we seen an enemy of something become a major proponent due to a major turn around. I know in my own life my supposed beliefs and thoughts were altered by a person or persons I really respected, even though we disagreed an many things. In many ways we still disagree, but their opinion and their way of breaking things down and offering insight has become the true reason I respect them. Togther we can talk about a host of things and both come out the better for it. I guess I’m saying respect for a person or position even when you really don’t want to can alter your own life and the life of those around you.
@Matthew Benefiel – The key in your story is who Mann respected. You could do anything, and Mann would not listen to you – because he did not respect you to begin with, so your respect or lack thereof would have no influence on him.
Do unto others as you would have them do unto you (because, of course, we are all made to the same physical and mental patterns). If you don’t learn it the easy way, when you’re still a child, you will have to learn it the hard way, when your criminal, or immoral, behavior elicits sharp correction from others. Why the latter way should be emphasized as in the above post, and the former, really ancient wisdom, not even mentioned even after the fact, astonishes me.
Richard Feynman:
“Have no respect whatsoever for authority; forget who said it and instead look at what he starts with, where he ends up, and ask yourself, “is it reasonable?”
I’m with you, Dr. Feynman.
@Matthew Benefiel in particular, but to anyone else mystified by my earlier comment: I wrote “science” not “scientists”. (So many on both sides of the climate debate fail to make that distinction which is why we spend so much time and energy squabbling about consensus, as if it matters.)