YOU ARE SO NOT ORIGINAL

Once we admit that we are, to a great extent, queue-ers-up in an existential queue, learning to be what others already are, waiting to be initiated, then we can begin to have a purchase on our existence.  Without this admission, we are deceiving ourselves about our own originality. Photo by Julie Johnson on Unsplash

One of the most underestimated ways to develop is simple copying.  Which is strange, because humans are very good at copying.  Our genetic foundation is based upon an ability, in principle, to replicate large chunks of our functioning between generations.  And our cultures are founded on rituals and processes which replicate, in principle, traditions, thereby passing them on.

You'll notice I said 'in principle' when talking about human replication.  In actual fact, no replication is perfect.  Nevertheless, we are, more than we know, biological and cultural photocopiers, perpetuating ways of life and being easily and naturally.

THE UNDERESTIMATED SKILL

Why do I describe copying as an underestimated skill?  Well, centres of learning, for instance, often pride themselves on being centres of critical thinking.  But many qualifications can be obtained simply by copying of the factual and cultural practices of the institution awarding them.  At worst, we have a hypocritical situation where schools and universities say that they are encouraging creativity and critical thought; but in practice they reward replication of what they expect to see.

So copying is underestimated in that we pretend it has little role; we kind of ignore it, as though it is not worth thinking about.  Instead, we celebrate how innovative we are being, how new, how groundbreaking... while continuing, in practice, to replicate.

IS COPYING BAD?

You might notice an ambivalence in this article about copying.  On the one hand, I seem to be saying it is a good thing, that we cannot do without it.  On the other, though, I seem to be suggesting it is a hidden sin, a symptom of hypocrisy.

I guess I feel that it is both.  On the one hand, it is a foundation of art, craft and science.  Tradition enables the building of knowledge bases which can inform the education of students, who can then get a head start, incorporating into their practice generations of awareness without having to suffer for it.  And replicability enables the building of scientific libraries, predictive in nature, offering models of being which can be assented to because consistently and methodically attained.

On the other hand, there comes a time when simple replication feeds those who replicate, but creates nothing new.  If institutions reward replication too much, they will become blind to the new.  Members of those institutions will have to escape in order to create.  Hence, I suppose, dissidence, where citizens move from the trammels of a self-replicating culture, towards one which offers more breathing space.

OUR DEVELOPMENT AS CHILDREN

When young, we are, in a sense, built to investigate... but also to copy rapaciously.  For instance, we passionately seek out first experiences - we want to know what new sensations feel like, what new places have to offer, what happens to things when we drop them, throw them, put them in our mouth.  Thus investigation is embedded in our being from the start.

But, allied to this, and in some ways keeping us safe, is a complementary urge to copy.  We feel safe when we do what others are doing.  We compare, and feel it acutely when we feel too different; we often seek to buy what others buy, to join the groups that others join.

WE NEED TO TALK ABOUT COPYING

So I am certainly not suggesting that copying is inherently bad.  We need it in order not only to assimilate others' practices, but to extend and communicate any experience by association.  The replication of grammatical rules and understood vocabulary enables language to bear meaningful discussion.  Without it, we would have to reinvent the world every day; we would have the cultural equivalent of Alzheimer's.

However.  And it is a big however.  We need, I think, to be more open about what copying we are asking for.  Enough of education which pretends to be high-proportion critical thinking, but is in fact high-proportion regurgitation.  Let's be honest.  Let's say clearly 'Yes, much of our education is in fact a practice which rewards the replication of a set knowledge base.'  Let's not pretend to be more creative than we are.

And when we vote, let's be aware how much we are copying the cultural practices of our friends, or our heroes.  Let's not pretend that we have thought our way, personally, to our own views about everything.

THE RELEVANCE TO THE SOCIAL MEDIA DEBATE

The public and media have reacted with something approaching horror to revelations that some companies make it their business to manipulate our views, and control the knowledge we access.  Well, if we are copying beings, what do we expect?  If we pretend we live in a critical nirvana, where our thoughts are pure and individually-made, then yes, we will react with horror to the thought that our perfection might be tainted.  However, if we admit that our whole lives are soaked in copying; that we copied our language, our politics, our style, our material existences, from others, with only limited modification by us... if we admit this, then we have a chance of better allowing for companies that manipulate.

The social media debate just makes more obvious something that happens all the time: we copy others.  A large part of us is built to swallow what people say wholesale.  That's why and how we can enter the world of a film or a book - we are built that way.  Even Stockholm syndrome is not a surprise when we think about it this way - we are so easily manipulated because we are constantly looking for world-views to assimilate and swallow pretty much whole.

A CONTEXT

I have focused on copying.  But there are plenty of other ways of thinking.  In particular, there is critical thinking, in which we learn to take apart, and stand at a distance from, what we see.  There is also strategic thinking, in which we begin to choose exactly what we copy, and how.

But let's, at first, start where we are: the human race is a race of flagrant copiers, swallowing pretty much whole each other's ways of life, words, languages, styles, practices.  Let's stop pretending we are so original.

Once we admit that we are, to a great extent, queue-ers-up in an existential queue, learning to be what others already are, waiting to be initiated, then we can begin to have a purchase on our existence.  Without this admission, we are deceiving ourselves about our own originality.

A WORD ABOUT CREATIVITY

All this is not to say originality and creativity do not exist.  But I am arguing that, unless we stop and realise exactly how much we are uncreative and unoriginal... unless we do that every day... then we will not begin to be truly original and creative.  We will simply think we are, and go about regurgitating the same things, applauded by those who think the same things, not realising that we are just repeating, repeating.

When was the last time you rewarded someone for doing something different?  Honestly, are you more likely to reward your friends if they take you into new territory, or if they simply reassure you about a copied truth you don't want to let go of.

I remember a tutor once telling her class to think critically at all costs.  I remember that same tutor, the following week, telling a student that their critical thinking was simply resistance to the traditional truth.  You can't have it both ways.

WHAT CAN WE DO?

I'm not suggesting we do anything differently.  Only that, perhaps, we could become more aware of exactly how much of a role copying plays, even in adult life.  Then we might better understand group-think, politics, social media, and many other aspects of behaviour.  In my psychology training, copying was, as I see it, vastly underplayed.  It was as though the tutors and textbooks were ashamed that things could be that simple.  After all, it's creativity that makes us human... isn't it?  I wonder.  I really wonder.

A SUMMARY

Humans are natural copiers.  But we pretend we are not.  We pretend that we have reasons for everything we do, when often we have simply copied what others do.  Recent interactions between politics and social media have presented us with a frightening truth about how manipulable we are.  And yet we can't quite accept that this is how we function.  Perhaps we should be more honest with ourselves, and admit that most of our lives are copied.  Perhaps, only then, can we engage our critical and strategic brains effectively.  First, we need to realise exactly how far our urge to copy extends.

So I challenge you.  I say you are not original.  And if you think you are... how are you going to prove me wrong?

KEEPING THE PEACE

It takes a strong person, and a lot of integrity, to remain steadfastly connected to a calm perspective when everyone around you wants you to take sides.

Recently there has been a lot of fuss about Russia.  I don't mean to demean the fuss, but to put it into context, international relations have always had their ups and downs, and at times of great political heat, populations tend to get caught up in the bias.  I was thinking how it relates to the fuss that goes on in families - the same accusations, the same misinformation, the same provocations, the same reactiveness.  I was wondering what could be learned.

There are a few characteristics of these times.  Remember, perhaps, the Iraq war(s), and how various pieces of 'information' were assembled into dossiers and presented as fact.  In particular, chemical and biological weapons, it was implied, existed, and were quite possibly to be used.  Wording was found that pushed the known truth to its boundaries and slightly beyond, to maximise acceptance of the desired political stance.  The public and Members of Parliament were made to feel disloyal if they did not join the lying (or twisting of the truth); if they did not, they were accused of being traitorous in some way.

What are the main things that change when things get intense?

SWEEPING STATEMENTS ARE MADE

Think of the last argument you had with a loved one.  I bet it was hard to avoid statements like 'You always...'  When we're annoyed, and in the heat of the moment, our angry selves take over, and make the truth subservient to our personal needs. We are inclined to borrow from the truth to support our own perspective.  It's not how it should be, but we do it because we think we are under attack.

Currently, politicians are lining up to show their loyalty to the UK by inventing new phrases about 'Russian Oligarchs' and 'Putin's henchmen'.  The implication is that Russia (we don't really know what we mean by this) is somehow irredeemably bad, and will always do bad things.  The only option, apparently, is to stand up to Russia, to ostracise it, reduce its influence, and starve it of resources, until it comes to its senses and gives in.  Life is not that simple, but we don't care; we just want a clear enemy.

STANDARDS OF EVIDENCE ARE REDUCED

Governments have an advantage here.  Logically, they must keep a part of government private, to do investigations.  Politicians have access to such investigations before the public.  Therefore, politicians are in a position to imply anything they like, and to hint that someone, somewhere, in the private realm, has disclosed evidence to them.  No member of the public can challenge that.

In this way, at times of threat and haste, no one has time to wait for conclusions.  Politicians have great power, in that they can assert what they like, and loyal staff will not contradict them, for fear of being disloyal.

The temptation to manipulate public opinion is so great, that politicians use it en masse, and then cannot turn back, because they might seem to be supporting 'the other side', whatever that other side, that enemy, might currently be.

Again, think of the last time you got upset with a loved one.  During an argument, or an intense situation, we can be tempted to speak first, and check our facts later.  It is almost impossible for us to restrain this urge to pretend we know more than we do.   We are desperate to gain control of the story, and so we assert what we can, especially when no one can prove us wrong.  Religion can be misused in this way.  Who can argue if someone says that God has inspired their point of view?  

IF YOU'RE NOT FOR US, YOU'RE AGAINST US

Suddenly, when politics gets intense, a 'for or against' mentality applies.  In personal relationships, too, we make the same distinctions.  Watch a couple splitting, and you will often see a great wariness about the 'story' that gets put out.  Friends' loyalties are tested, as each ex-partner tries to ascertain who is 'on their side'.  Families often divide on biological lines, and one or other party can lose a lot of friends overnight.

In the current frenzy about 'Russia', Jeremy Corbyn, leader of the opposition, has been accused several times of being somehow allied with the enemy, when he simply calls for restraint, and patience, in waiting for evidence to come through about the truth of a situation.  It takes a strong person, and a lot of integrity, to remain steadfastly connected to a calm perspective when everyone around you wants you to take sides.  But it's how wars start, and we'd do well to look at Mr Corbyn's example, whatever our political perspective.  Waiting is unfashionable, but it often pays off in the modern intense political arena.  A lot can change in a few days or hours.

TO SUMMARISE WHAT CAN GO WRONG

So, in families, or among friends, or in politics, three things in particular can go wrong:

1. We start making sweeping statements about our enemies

2. We stop waiting for evidence, and pretend we know things we don't

3. We start trying to alienate those who disagree with us

In personal lives, the kind of things we say include:

'John was always difficult.  I think he's got a psychological disorder.  I saw him with Jane the other day.  He's such a nasty piece of work.  I don't know what she's thinking.'

In political lives, the kinds of things we say include:

'Jeremy has always had links to socialist governments.  He's unelectable.  He's now trying to defend Putin.  I don't trust him.'

THE MIX OF FACT AND FICTION

In all our lives, all the time, fact and fiction are linked.  That's why we read books, return to life, read more, live more... fact and fiction are fused in an alliance which helps us learn about life.  In a right relation with each other (when our intentions are compassionate), they help us.  In a wrong relation with each other (when our intentions are malicious), they turn our minds upside down.

WHAT CAN WE DO?

So what's a better way to be?  Well, remember that famous poem 'If' by Rudyard Kipling:

'If you can keep your head when all about you

Are losing theirs and blaming it on you...'

That poem advocates maintaining a peaceful calm and a clear perspective whatever the circumstances.  It's worth a re-read.

In the meantime, maybe, to protect yourself against all the truth-bending:

1. Stop talking so much, and just listen.

2. Wait and see.

3. Be compassionate towards everybody.

There may be a time when you need to take sides and fight.  But just make sure you're not being manipulated in the moment.  Make sure you're not accidentally fighting someone else's battle.  Make sure your intentions are free of bias.

SUMMARY

Modern politics is increasingly 'in the moment' and frantic.  To protect ourselves, and the truth, we need to get better at listening, waiting, and being compassionate.  That way, we can't be manipulated into fighting other people's battles.  We can stay free to make peace.

CAN ANIMALS FEEL?

Recently, the UK government has received bad press for excluding a reference to animal sentience from a legal statute.  The clause at issue was a part of an EU regulation which ensures that each state, 'since animals are sentient beings, pays full regard to the welfare requirements of animals' in formulating all policies that involve them.  The government decided to leave this out of UK law in future, as part of the secession from the EU.

Why would the government seek to do this?  A couple of ideas include:

1. Creating more flexibility in policy making, in order to give the UK a competitive advantage in developing agricultural and industrial policy

2. Preparing the way for a relaxation of hunting regulations, as it removes a constraint on forms of hunting that cause animals distress or pain

Two questions arise from the current debate:

1. Are animals sentient beings?

2. Should animal welfare be given priority over human requirements?

ARE ANIMALS SENTIENT BEINGS?

There are two parts to this question, relating to two primary meanings of the word sentient.  Firstly, are animals able to feel pain?  And secondly, are animals conscious of their painful experiences?

Taking the first question first: humans get very confused when it comes to deciding if other species can feel.  They get all tangled up in debates about what it is to feel.  Some say feeling is simply the ability to respond to sensory data.  By that argument, even plants have feelings, because they evidently respond to such stimuli as light, heat and wind by changing their behaviour.  To find a definition that applies to animals rather than plants, some people point to the development of a complex nervous system as a definer.  So, the argument goes, if you have a complex network of sensors that report stimuli to a central system - a bit like mobile phones have begun to do - then this qualifies the being for special treatment.  A problem with this is that, as I just hinted, even some modern mobile phones might qualify for special rights under these definitions.  Complexity of response is a problematic way to distinguish animals as worthy of special treatment, because if we apply it to animals, we may have to apply it to machines in due course.

A HIGHER DEFINITION OF SENTIENCE: CONSCIOUSNESS OR SUBJECTIVITY?

If we discard an ability to respond or recoil as a definer of welfare rights, we are left with the idea that we may have to find something special in the response of certain animals which makes them worthy of privilege.  There are two main concepts which are used in developing this idea.

Firstly, there is the concept of consciousness.  Consciousness has two main sides to it.  Firstly, an ability to reflect on your own experience.  This falls prey to the above problem of generalisability to machines: many machines, as they develop, will be able to reflect on their own experience, in the sense of being able to create metaperceptions of their own perceptions.  For example, a computer can already observe the way it is experiencing data management, and adjust its metacognitions, or master concepts, in the light of what it learns.  This is one of the principles of machine learning being incorporated in artificial intelligence projects.

The second main side to consciousness is the mysterious one.  It is best expressed by your surprise when you realise that you are a sentient being stuck inside yourself - you feel like you are kind of inside your own head, uniquely, and are nowhere else.  You cannot explain where this 'self' came from, nor where it is going; you just feel strongly that your awareness, your perspective, is unique.  Humans have developed some ability to extend this awareness to their fellow humans - in other words, they have come to a general understanding that each human, because similar, is likely to experience the same sense of being a unique centre of awareness.  We talk of 'subjectivity', meaning the understanding that, in our communications, we are each unique centres of awareness.

ARE ANIMALS SUBJECTIVE BEINGS TOO?

Humans have developed ethical structures around this sense of common subjectivity.  But they have trouble extending this to animals.  Much thought has been expended trying to justify a boundary between humans and other animals.  You can see it in many religious approaches, which seem to give humans a special position in a hierarchy of being. You can see it in much literature, which seems to glorify the human individual's centre of awareness as unique in comparison to an animal.

But at what point does an animal acquire a subjective nature, in the sense of being a unique centre of awareness?  And why do some humans still insist on differentiating between human subjectivity and animal perception?

A PROBLEM IN HUMANKIND RATHER THAN IN ANIMALS

I would like to suggest that the problem here lies in a unique deficiency of humans, rather than a unique awareness.  It goes like this:

Other species are able to live their lives without the assumption that they are special.  Humans, however, have a thing I'd like to label 'Interspecies Psychopathy Disorder', or IPD.  A species suffering from IPD cannot conceive of any other species having the same powers, and therefore the same value, as it does.  It lives in its own little bubble of power-hungriness and self-aggrandisement.

This explains why the government cannot include a sentience clause in the latest legislative adaptations.  This is especially true of a conservative government, which by definition sees itself as there to continue recent historical views rather than develop new ones.  As the heads of a state of people with IPD, they feel duty-bound to make life more comfortable for those who wish to continue being power-hungry and self-aggrandising.  Anything else might cause undue shock in the general population, as they realise that they are not alone on the planet, but part of a network of sentience, in the sense of subjective consciousness, that extends beyond humans.

We don't want to scare the masses.

BEYOND INTERSPECIES PSYCHOPATHY DISORDER

Some may wish to develop beyond human-specific concerns, and see the world as more of a network of different, but equally valuable, consciousnesses.  They may even wish to stop being terrified by the idea, and to start thinking that empathy with all things, even so-called lower beings, is a generally good thing.  Such people may even find themselves becoming happier, as their need for self-protection, and therefore fear, reduces.  I couldn't possibly comment.

SEXUAL HARASSMENT IN THE WORKPLACE

Harrassment is unwelcome verbal or physical conduct.  Sex is anything involving either intimate physical relations, or gender.  So sexual harrassment is unwelcome talk or behaviour towards a colleague, compromising their freedom to manage their own body, or their own sexual identity, as they choose.

Recently, there has been a lot of talk in the press and on social media about where lines are drawn.  The suggestion is that it is not always clear when sexual harrassment is taking place.  Some have suggested that what is friendly banter to one person, can be unfriendly harassment to another.  Others have replied that the lines are indeed clear, and that those who say there is a grey area have limited understanding.

Both are in a sense right.  Sexual harassment is one of those areas of behaviour which requires the operation of something psychologists tend to call 'theory of mind'.  Theory of mind is the ability to speculate (i.e. theorise) reasonably accurately about what is going on in someone else's mind, and to moderate one's own behaviour in the light of that speculation.  We use this ability all the time in our human relations.  It is perhaps shown most clearly when one human openly empathises with another, saying 'you must be feeling...', and offering a helping hand of some kind.

HOW CAN THINGS GO WRONG?

Essentially, things go wrong if person A fails to moderate their behaviour in a way that respects person B.  In other words, avoiding sexual harrassment is the same thing as demonstrating respect in your actions.

In order to appropriately adjust to B's needs, person A needs to make sure they have the following skills:

1. An understanding of the general rules of human interaction in the particular social context

2. An appreciation of any additional flexibility that person B might need

3. The ability to modify one's own conduct in keeping with 1 or 2

Most of the arguments for a grey area are situated in areas 1 and 2.  The general rules of human interaction do change from culture to culture; and, on top of that, each individual will have their own requirements for a comfortable social interaction.

THE ROLE OF JUDGEMENT

There is no magical age or time when a human suddenly becomes qualified to make judgements as to local social rules, and others' individual requirements.  There is no doubt that some of us are better at it than others.  Some people genuinely find it difficult to get a hold on social etiquette; and some people find it difficult to read other people's individualised social signals.  

THE ROLE OF CAUTION

This is where caution comes in.  One reason we are shy in new social situations, is that we are holding back from social interaction until we have a better appreciation of the social rules of the gathering, and the character of the individuals contained within it.  In this way, shyness, far from being a social dysfunction, is a social skill which prevents us from harassing others unduly.

Negotiating any social situation involves practicing a degree of shyness, or caution.  This buys all parties time to 'size each other up', to get to know existing social hopes and expectations, and to begin negotiating any new ways of behaving that might be necessary to involve everyone well.

Caution can massively reduce the risk of harassment.  Using a driving analogy, slowing down, and increasing observational awareness, reduces the risk of unwanted accidents.

ALLOWING THE OTHER PERSON THE SPACE TO APPLY CONSENT

Linked to this idea of caution, is another kind of reticence - respect for the other person's freedom of mind, and modifying one's behaviour to allow the other to exercise consent without feeling pressure.

This requires perhaps more skill than any of the above.  It takes time to learn a behavioural style which allows others the ability to say no gracefully.  A hand on a knee, for instance, if unwelcome, requires the other to be quite explicit in response, either removing the hand, or drawing attention to the act and explaining that it isn't welcome.

THE GREATER THE POWER, THE MORE IMPORTANT IT IS TO WAIT FOR CONSENT

The burden on the other to say no explicitly, and the difficulty of doing so, is at its most pressurised when person A has power over person B.  In such situations, A is used to having their wishes met by others, and the social environment is often adapted to this expectation.  Conversely, person B, if in possession of less prima facie power, will have to summon far greater courage to express a refusal - not least because the social rules of the workplace imply that solving problems for a boss is a good thing.

Hence, person A has a greater responsibility than usual to ensure they leave a large amount of room for person B to say no.  Ironically, this is the opposite of the behaviour expected of many bosses, who are often applauded for an ability to reduce others' ability to say no.  In other words, the lauded dealmaker for the firm, has to learn to put this particular deal into the hands of a weaker person, to leave it there, and to accept no as an answer.  Furthermore, it is wise to treat the absence of a yes or no in the same way as a no.

THE MECHANICS OF FLIRTING

There has also been recent discussion of whether, and how, flirting can be allowed in the workplace, and whether it is compatible with the workplace.  Many politicians have commented that they met their current partner at work, and, without the ability to flirt, they simply would not have had a relationship.

Flirting is complex.  It is, roughly speaking, the expression of a willingness to enter into an exclusive intimacy with another person.  I say exclusive because flirting implies the possibility of a special relationship.  Not necessarily sexual; but an intimacy of a special kind, not afforded to the world in general.  For example, a person would not normally be expected to flirt with a cat; society has expectations as to who might be expected to flirt with whom, and why.  This definition of flirting does not necessarily relate to concrete reality: it is one of those words which does something just by being used.  Thus: 'Are you flirting with me?' implies that the other may be intending to open the door to a special relationship that is only really definable in terms of flirting.  Romance is similarly a word which defines its own world: sprinkles some kind of fairy dust over certain relationships, and implies they are special in a particular way.

The language of flirting is in conflict with the language of business in certain ways:

1. It implies a preferential relationship between two people independent of the requirements of business

2. It therefore implies that the requirements of business might be compromised

3. Flirting challenges the impartial operation of business hierarchies and boundaries

Given the value put upon the role of impartiality in business, flirting is therefore often considered an abuse.  Whether in a job interview, or a work meeting, or a court, or a police station... a situation designed for fairness is severely challenged if one party playing one role attempts to enter into a special relationship with a party playing another.  Suddenly, it becomes hard to communicate on a 'business' basis, because the world of 'special intimacy' has been invoked.

SO IS FLIRTING PERMISSIBLE?

So on one side we have people saying that flirting should be banished from the workplace.  On the other, people saying that many relationships start at work, and to banish flirting would be to impoverish society.

One solution commonly used is to banish 'special relationship' type behaviour from the workplace.  It is hard to eliminate it entirely, but, broadly speaking, many workplaces expect business behaviour in business hours.

POWER AND FLIRTING

Professions with problems in this area are often professions like acting, media, modelling... professions which are often in the business of promoting, albeit temporarily, 'special relationships'.  Some of the biggest recent scandals have come from film and theatre, where the distinction between 'business' and 'special relationship' can become blurred.  For example, a director may feel that it is OK, in the name of art, to walk across boundaries of intimacy with an actor.

Power has a particular role here if the object of flirting, the object of an invitation towards a special relationship, is dependent on the flirter for their welfare or livelihood.  There is a simple sequence of questions that might be asked in order to develop good working practice:

1. Am I interested in a deeper relationship with this person?

2. If so, am I in some way in charge of this persons welfare?

3. If so, does it better protect their welfare if I keep my interest to myself?

4. If so, perhaps it is better not to flirt.

Some professional relationships have a built-in quasi-legal framework which reflects this.  Thus a doctor, prima facie, is under a duty not to flirt with a patient.

SUMMARY

To negotiate relationships without harassment, we need to have a practical understanding of social expectations, but also individual personalities.  We need to have an ability to manage our own behaviour, and to make situational judgements which protect both ourselves and others.  The role of caution is not to be underestimated: it is better to do nothing than to risk an accidental misunderstanding.  And, most importantly, if we have power or responsibility over another person's welfare, then we would do well to keep any flirtatious interest to ourselves, and at the very least to respect the other person's personal decision space, to allow enormous room for a 'no', and to treat the absence of a positive response in the same way as a no.

WHY ARE OFFSHORE INVESTMENTS WRONG?

There's a great hoo-ha at the moment in the UK about things offshore.  A recent release of hitherto secret information has revealed that several influential individuals have investments held offshore.  This means that they have invested funds in organisations registered elsewhere than the UK, to take advantage of more favourable terms.  Those favourable terms can include such things as lower tax rates, greater secrecy, and differences in regulations which enable the saving of money.

There is, in many cases, no indication that the individuals concerned have done anything illegal.  Offshore investing has a long history.  And it got me to thinking: what, exactly, is the problem that the media are feeding on?  What, in our, the readers', perceptions, is this news stimulating?  Certainly, if you watch the UK news at the moment, there is an impression being spread that something dodgy is being exposed, that wealthy people have been doing what they shouldn't do, and that something should be done about it.

As with many stories with a scandalous feel to them, the public is feeling its way as it goes.  Cultural viewpoints have a way of developing themselves as they go, using news events as catalysts for changes in ideology.

Picking out a few of the materialising assumptions, some of which may not be conscious in everyone's minds, what do we get as emergent ideas?

Let's choose an example of such news stories, and then try to take apart what it is inciting.

Lewis Hamilton, the racing driver, is being accused of acquiring a private jet via the Isle of Man, to take advantage of a VAT exemption on planes exclusively for business use. Additionally, it is alleged that he in fact went on to make some private use of the jet.

There are a range of assertions that members of the public might make in their minds in response to the story.  Teasing apart a few of the ethical assumptions we might apply, here is a short list of statements you might approve or disapprove of:

1. A citizen should pay home country tax on all their earnings

2. A citizen should not use transactions outside their home country to reduce their tax liability

3. A citizen should not make financial transactions in secret

4. A citizen should not benefit financially from making a false statement

The first three, while possible moral views, are, as a matter of fact, not the legal position in the UK.  Legally, the UK allows certain offshore schemes to avoid tax, and does not generally require immediate public disclosure of such schemes.  Number four may have the law on its side - Lewis Hamilton may have fallen foul of tax regulations in claiming exclusive business use of his plane.

THE POWER OF LANGUAGE

Regarding the first three: while fiduciary loyalty and openness are what the public may like in a rich citizen, they are not legally required.  If UK citizens want them, they may have to press for legislation to require it.

So what is all the fuss about?

I suggest the power of the story is in the language used by the journalists, and it is this language that may ultimately incite change.  The key words here (even if they are not always uttered out loud) are:

1. Disloyalty

2. Secrecy

The feeling left by the language of journalists, is that Lewis Hamilton, in seeking to invest money elsewhere, is being (a) disloyal to his home tax regime, and (b) secretive in order to gain an advantage.  Compare these two sentences:

1. Lewis Hamilton bought a plane via the Isle of Man

2. Investigations reveal that Lewis Hamilton avoided taxes of £3 million through an Isle of Man scheme

Using the language of revelation and exposure makes the original act sound more sinister and secretive.  And in saying 'avoided taxes', there is a double hit.  Avoiding can be positive, but has many negative connotations; and 'taxes', in the plural, rather than 'tax' in the singular, sounds less technical, and more as though Lewis Hamilton is avoiding what most people have to pay.  In this way, the language used by journalists can emphasise social division, and stimulate a sense of social injustice.

If UK citizens want new legislation that requires UK citizens to maximise the UK tax they pay, and publicise all of their financial information, then that option is open.

I just have a couple of balancing reflections.

RELATIONSHIP MANAGEMENT

Imagine you are in a relationship with someone who requires you to do nothing unless it benefits them.  If you do, then they accuse you, directly or indirectly, of disloyalty and secrecy.  Under UK legislation, this can be classified as controlling behaviour, and there is a law against it.  Carrying the analogy across to the UK's financial affairs: is it a good way of encouraging people to be UK citizens, or residents in the UK, if the government and media insist that to benefit from an offshore transaction is to be disloyal and secretive?  Do we want to become a world of selfish countries, with each government only interested in its own benefit?  Just asking.

OTHER ACTIVITIES

Have you holidayed abroad?  If so, how do you feel about it being characterised as an offshore transaction? 

What a disgrace!  Instead of supporting your home country and investing your money there, you skulked abroad and gave your money to foreigners!  You avoided traditional UK weather in order to benefit from enhanced conditions offshore.  Shame on you!

Have you learned another language?  If so, how do you feel about that being characterised as an offshore ruse?

What a disgrace!  Instead of supporting your home language and enriching it, you slipped away to evening classes and used your hard-earned brain capacity helping to promote a language not your own.  You avoided your traditional words in order to benefit from an enhanced relationship with those that use other languages.  Shame on you!

SUMMARY

I guess I am suggesting we think carefully about what world we are trying to create.  It is all very well to be watchful of hypocrisy, and to ensure that those with wealth and power are aware of the great responsibility they can hold to behave with dignity and respect.  Speaking truth to power is a great function of the media.

But readers of the media must be careful that they are not led into hypocrisy themselves.  It is easy to view the rich and powerful as a different species, prone to disloyalty and secrecy.  It is harder to realise that we can all, even when we think we are being righteous, be prone to controlling, intolerant and invasive behaviour. 

Offshore is not necessarily sinful.  A sense of balance, perhaps, would help.

THE PHILOSOPHY OF CLEANING

I bet you didn't know that cleaning has a philosophy.  Or that it warrants an article.

But think about it.

What is cleaning?

A PROBLEM OF DEFINITION: DEFINING DIRT

In order to have cleaning, you have to define dirt.  This isn't as easy as it sounds.  To make the point quickly, here is a phrase that has made it into the national press at various times:

'Ethnic cleansing'

This phrase causes revulsion in many circles, because it applies a philosophy of hygiene to culture.  It is at the very edge of what I am talking about, but it illustrates a key issue when it comes to the philosophy of cleaning: first, you have to define what you mean by dirt.

Generally, we operate with a practical definition that we rarely think about: that dirt is what we all agree we don't want present, and therefore that cleaning is removing the things we all agree we don't want present.  We spend very little time in polite society thinking about what we assume is dirt, what we assume is undesirable.

So, to have a concept of cleaning at all, you have to divide your world into two parts:

1. Things you don't want near you

2. Things you do want near you

You then start to try to remove item 1 from your presence, whilst retaining item 2.

A PROBLEM OF LOCATION: WHERE WILL THE DIRT GO?

You will notice that our concept of cleaning depends on a concept of presence.  That is to say, you are trying to remove so-called 'dirt' from your presence.

There are two ways to do this:

1. Simply move the dirt away from you

2. Change the 'dirt' so that it becomes 'non-dirt'

I propose that the first option is what we might call 'lazy cleaning'.  We are simply passing on the problem to somewhere else.  A little like the nuclear waste industry, which often ships danger around the world, in order to expose other people, who are not ourselves, to risk.

The second option is more interesting.  It implies some kind of process of reconciliation: changing the situation so that 'dirt' becomes something more acceptable.  The dirt does not need to go somewhere else (which seems to me a ridiculous way to behave - passing on the problem to others).  It can stay right with you, but a change is necessary.

Using the ethnic cleansing analogy, we are considering alternatives to simply shipping 'undesirables' out.  We instinctively realise that the latter is wrong on two counts: firstly, because these 'undesirables', even though maybe difficult to live with, are as valuable as us; and secondly, because there is not an infinite supply of different locations.  It is therefore logical to seek to manage undesirable things, or what we perceive as 'dirt', in our presence, rather than ship it away from us.

A PROBLEM OF CHANGE: WHO OR WHAT HAS TO CHANGE INTO WHAT?

Let's now sub-analyse option 2 above.  How can we change the 'dirt' so that it becomes non-dirt?  This breaks down into two options:

1. Change the nature of the 'dirt' so that it becomes harmless to us

2. Change our nature so that we cease to be harmed by the 'dirt'

Taking the first option first: how might we change the 'dirt' around us, to make it more 'hygienic', without 'shipping it out'.

An example might be packaging of foodstuffs.  Current food packaging creates a mountain of 'rubbish' (stuff we don't want near us, so we ship it out of our houses using undesirable-receptacles called dustbins).  Existing practice simply passes the problem on to others in another place and time.  We bury our mess in landfill, or ship it to other locations.

How can we change the nature of the dirt?  Well, we can change our packaging so that it does not need throwing away, and at the end of its life simply merges harmlessly into our environment.

And looking at the second option: how might we change our own nature?  Well, rubbish is only undesirable because we see it as so.  Hoarders have actually worked this out.  They change their nature so that they can accept all the rubbish around them.  It might be unpalatable to others, but it is a simple solution to the problem of dirt: learn to live with it.

Applied to our 'ethnic cleansing' question: having rejected 'shipping undesirables out' as a selfish and ignorant option, we can either: 1. try to change the person we have 'othered', or thought of as undesirable; or 2. try to change ourselves so that we learn to live with the person we have 'othered', or thought of as undesirable.

A PROBLEM OF RELATIVE VALUE: APPLIED DISCRETION

You may notice yourself reacting differently to the two examples above.  We generally value humans more than we value packaging, and therefore:

1. With items we value higher, such as humans, even if they make our lives a misery, we prefer to change ourselves to adapt to their presence, rather than trying to change them.  So our 'cleaning' involves self-change.

2. With items we value less, such as packaging, we feel more OK about trying to change their nature.  So our 'cleaning' involves changing externals.

This is not always the case.  You will be able to think of some people who use option two for everything.  They value themselves above everything, and therefore, whenever they feel 'unclean', they will set about trying to change aspects of their environment, including other humans... everything but themselves needs to change.  The problem is always external, and never lies in themselves.

Most people would accept that these latter people are wrong (i.e. that we can't always be trying to change the outside world to suit ourselves).  In fact, we can apply a sliding scale of hygiene, so that:

1. More selfish people tend to solve hygiene problems by either shipping the undesirable out, or trying to change it

2. More selfless people tend to solve hygiene problems by adapting themselves, so that they no longer see 'dirt': they see opportunities for self-adaptation

We all exist somewhere on this sliding scale.  You will have things you value highly (usually friends); and things you don't value so much (usually enemies or objects).  And your happiness, or cleanness, will usually involve adapting to the former, but trying to change or distance the latter.

SELFISH PEOPLE HAVE MORE CLEANING WORK

Now I would like to propose that selfish people have much, much more cleaning work to do.  We should feel sorry for them, because their work is never done!

Think about it.  A selfish person wakes up in the morning.  They are surrounded by things they value less than themselves.  Therefore, when they experience difficulty, their solution is always to (a) ship the problem away from themselves, or (b) try to change everything and everyone but themselves.  How exhausting!  Such a person will have a never-ending response to their own suffering.  They are permanently employing themselves as a kind of police of the whole world, constantly trying to throw people and things out, or to change every single thing around them to suit themselves.

The reason they are likely to collapse in exhaustion is this:

1. They have divided the universe into 'desirables' and 'undesirables'

2. They are allergic to undesirables, and therefore spend all their time trying to push them away

3. They are allergic to self-change, and therefore spend all their time trying to change everything around them

DO WE HAVE TO DIVIDE OUR WORLD INTO TWO?

A good question is: do we have to divide our world into desirables and undesirables?

We are questioning our whole concept of cleaning.  Because without that division, we have no basis on which to clean.  Because nothing is, in fact, dirty.  Dirt simply does not exist.  Everything is neither desirable nor undesirable.  It just is.

I'll leave you with that thought.  Obviously it is an impossible thought.

I mean, who would want to think that there is no need to clean, that our work is done, that everything is OK?

Unthinkable.

WHAT IS A PSYCHOPATH?

WHAT IS A PSYCHOPATH?

A good question to ask.  And a problem question.  The problem is one of definition.  But we can have a go at it.

If we were asking 'what is blue?', then I might be able to point at blue things until you twig that I am labelling something that is direct to your experience.  If you can see colour, then you are likely to have an appreciation of what I am labelling.

If we were asking 'what is a car?', then I might be able to point to those things with four wheels that are usually sold as cars.  You will be so familiar with your own use of the concept, that you will have little trouble appreciating what the label 'car' refers to.

But if we are asking 'what is a psychopath?', we immediately have a problem.  We are not talking about something you experience every day.  And we are not talking about something which most people are used to identifying and living with.  What I am saying is, the normal routes to learning a word - experience and usage - are not really available to us.

A FEW POINTERS

Firstly, the word 'psychopath' still does not have a steady definition among professionals.  There are, however, a few key characteristics which are frequently cited:

1. Lack of empathy
2. Selfishness
3. Antisocial behaviour

DEFINITIONAL PROBLEMS

1. Regarding lack of empathy, there seems to be confusion as to whether a 'psychopath' would simply not have the ability to empathise with others; or whether, alternatively, a 'psychopath' can empathise perfectly well, but just chooses not to be influenced by empathy.  This capacity/choice debate has yet to be resolved.  It is important, because, if it is a matter of choice, then so-called 'psychopaths' would not need to be treated any differently for legal purposes.  They are just 'normal' people making an 'abnormally extreme' choice not to be influenced by empathy.
2. Regarding selfishness, there is a philosophical problem.  It is perfectly possible to argue that all humans are selfish, directly or indirectly.  So egotism, in itself, may not end up being definitive in terms of what a 'psychopath' is.
3. Finally, regarding antisocial behaviour, there is a political question.  When we say 'antisocial', we usually mean someone's behaviour is disturbing because it departs from social consensus.  For example, we consider unorganised fighting antisocial, but reward Olympic fighters with gold medals, because they are doing tidy, organised, socially-approved fighting.

These are all important questions, because without resolving them, we are stuck not being able to tell the difference between a so-called psychopath, and a 'normal' person who makes an unusual choice (a) not to be influenced by empathy, (b) not to bother disguising their selfishness, and (c) not to indulge in socially-approved behaviour.

THE SEARCH FOR A BIOLOGICAL BASIS FOR PSYCHOPATHY

Some have attempted to find parts of the brain which, when damaged or inhibited, increase one of the three above tendencies.  In particular, a lack of empathic response (and a lack of fear response) has been found in those preselected as showing psychopathic traits.  The circularity of this should be obvious: if you select someone for their traits, it is hardly surprising if their brain processing reflects those traits.  It is about as unsurprising as discovering that those who jump less high usually have inhibited leg processing.

EMPATHY AND FEAR

An interesting aspect of the above brain scan research, is the potential linking together of lack of empathy, and lack of fear.  If I am a soldier in battle, I may choose to limit the resources I expend on empathising with the enemy.  I may also choose to limit resources expended on my fear response.  The relationship between the two may be mutual: reduced empathy may reduce fear; and reduced fear may reduce empathy.

It may have occurred to you that this is not the only possible pairing.  For example, some soldiers may retain sufficient empathy to anticipate enemy movements, and sufficient fear to motivate self-protection.  The no-empathy, no-fear pairing is only one strategic option.  My guess is that the single-minded focus on one, rather cartoon, definition of 'psychopath' will give way to a more subtle, multi-faceted appreciation of the different ways that empathy and fear can interact.

But I wonder whether the traditional view of the 'psychopath' will stray towards suggesting a simplistic developmental pathway where, for whatever reason, a child has become unable or unwilling to extend empathy, AND has become unable or unwilling to feel fear.  The definition may tighten itself up in this way, and then find a story about child development that corresponds.  Whether anything new arises by congregating such a selective story around the word 'psychopath', is a matter of debate.

THE FUTURE OF THE WORD 'PSYCHOPATH'

So where are we?

Many people lack empathy, are selfish, and do antisocial things.

The word 'psychopath' is an attempt to label certain people as extremely, and possible irretrievably, unempathic, selfish, and behaviourally antisocial.

The problem in the plot will be our inability to tell the difference between (a) those who CHOOSE to divorce themselves from the interests of others, and (b) those who are COMPELLED THROUGH INCAPACITY to divorce themselves from the interests of others.

I suspect that polite society has developed a wish to label a set of people as (b), as deviant monsters, unable to share. It will carry on refining its definition of psychopath, until TV channels and pundits have their industry sewn up.

I would just ask one final question: are you so sure you can tell the difference between (a) law-abiding citizens who endanger a whole world with consumption, pollution and war, and (b) individuals who endanger others with their selfishness.  Remind me, which ones are the psychopaths?