#like the idea of there being a set framework on what is correct and incorrect behavior

[chimeramoth]

As I was falling asleep last night, I thought about something:

Whenever you use the wrong pronouns for someone, you are mis-pronoun-cing them.

I thought about what the effects of saying mispronouncing vs. misgendering would be when you are trying to correct them about something, and I think maybe using the term mispronouncing could be really effective.

The reason why is there are some people, despite all the historical and biological evidence we have, are never going to accept or logically understand the differences in sex and gender, and are never going to remove their framework of understanding their world from "manliness" and "womanhood." They will not budge that way, and because of learning behaviors to demean, belittle, and dehumanize things they do not understand, they will continue to do just those things when you bring up gender. It's a reactionary word now because of the virality of the internet and how internet cliques form.

But when you let someone know that they're mispronouncing something, they have a completely different reaction. Usually you will see them fluster up and ask, oh, well how do you pronounce it then? You see them open up to the idea of slightly changing their language, because they would not want to mispronounce something again in a more serious setting or a situation where they genuinely care about how they are perceived, such as like a public speech. In a public speech, you would probably feel more embarrassed for confidently mispronouncing a word and then trying to defend that that pronunciation is the truest and correct way that God intended, when the rest of the social group understands and communicates that word differently.

But people are less embarrassed when they have a loud, aggressive social group ready to defend them and argue day and night in their favor about gender, pronouns, and names uncommon to where they have been raised.

Conclusion? I think the ignorant and discriminating kinds of people are ready to ridicule you if you give them their buzz word. They're ready to just repeat hateful garbage that they got from someone else. But those kinds of people might feel a little more receptive to being corrected if they feel like they're being embarrassed. They may feel more embarrassed and un-confident if they feel like the rest of the social group has already accepted and moved on from the incorrect way of pronouncing something, and they do not want to be socially left behind speaking gibberish.

(This is not a call to action of any means, I'm not trying to get everyone to change the way they let someone else know that they used the wrong pronoun or gendered term for someone else. Just wanted to share an idea that maybe some people could use or try out if they'd like, and we could see how effective it may be.)

(I've also provided a could of examples below the cut if you'd like to see what I had pictured in mind.)

Example A:

"She is late to work. She is going to make the managers unhappy." "Actually, Shane is a he. As in, He is late to work. But I agree, the managers will be unhappy with him." "Um, she is clearly a girl. She doesn't have a deep voice and she has breasts." "Well sure that's what his voice sounds like and body looks like, but he is actually a guy. He gently corrected me about his gender. He told me." "Yeah well you can't just make up whatever gender you want. It's biological." "C'mon, don't be like that. Don't be misgendering people you don't know." "Misgendering? What are you, a snowflake?"

Example B:

"Ugh, Carly forgot to bring my book again. I'm never going to get my book back from her." "Carly? Do you mean Carl?" "Carl?" "Yeah, who wears the blue beanie?" "Yeah. She has my book about reptiles." "Nah man, you're mispronouncing it. His name is Carl." "Well she was introduced to me as Carly back in middle school." "Well, sure, but that's not the way we say it now. Everyone has been calling him Carl since we were like 17. Words and names can change." "Everyone has been calling her Carl?" "Yes. Him." "And you guys just call...him...that?" "Well yeah, why not? You know Jordan's name is actually like, Bartholomew or something, right?" "Oh right. I guess that's true." "And remember Miss Schaeffer? She's Mrs. Barry now. She got married last summer." "Ohh. Okay, I think I get it now. Anyways, Ive been wanting my book back..."

[chasing-sirius-in-circles]

Some syncretism bullshit comparisons* bumping around in my brain whom I must write down to make room in there, though further research and probably many corrections are still in order:

Ra and Osiris > Indo European creation gods (Horus as the warrior would make sense, Set unclear if this is the comparison we go with), maybe similar to the mycenaean conception of Zeus/Poseidon (who back when was also the underworld deity)

Osiris Set and Horus > Cain, Abel, Seth (hilariously, Horus is Seth, not Set), proto Indo European twin gods and warrior

Osiris > Hades (you cannot take this from me idc if the Greco Roman Egyptians didn't roll with it) and Dionysus (on Earth, this also makes for a Horus and Dionysus connection), and, I'm gonna say it based on comparisons in antiquity of Isis and Demeter, Persephone. Also Hel (regarding early conceptions of a dreary but mostly neutral afterlife for most people who weren't a king or elites). See also Proto Indo European Manu. Husband of Innana/Ishtar (who apparently the greeks placed between Persephone and Aphrodite which would track with the myth of Osiris fathering Anubis with Nephthys and his being a god who must spend time in the underworld)

Set > Loki, Proto Indo European Yemo, Typhon (I guess?) and, getting crazy here, ancient/archaic conceptions of Eros (it's the vigorous coition), Ares

Isis > Demeter (makes things be alive?) possibly Hestia, maybe aspects of early Despoina/Persephone (yes I realize this seems contradictory) though I'm gonna be honest I don't think I've come across a good comparison for her anywhere, you could imo also argue elements of Hera and Frigg or Freya, but I think she also could be called a rare example of a trickster goddess/a check on and director of divine willpower which is why she maps onto tons of other kemetic deities (an eye of Ra for ex), also any mother of god archetype like Mary (which I realize is odd when I just compared Osiris and Set to Eve's sons but fuck it, mother of god who is also your ticket to the afterlife/salvation, it tracks), maybe even SOME elements of Hermes (who is incidentally somewhat akin to elements of Loki which brings me back to my fringe tinfoil trickster thing again), Innana/Ishtar (who I guess brings us around to Aphrodite!?) with echoes of Neith she shares with her sister

Nephthys > Hecate (cares for shades entering the underworld/afterlife, associated with Isis and therefore some degree of magic or proximity to it, and Isis and Osiris do hold traits also present in Hades and Persephone though not necessarily in that order), Ishtar's husband's sister Geshtinanna, echoes of Neith

Osirs, Set, Isis, and Nephthys re: each other > Isis and Set feel like counterbalances to each other to me (he is basically raw power and Isis is legendary for holding the power of Ra's name, some generational repeating themes there maybe?) while Isis and Nephthys are extremely complimentary to the point where I'd look at them as a unit/two sides of one coin/two modes of being for a same force, which would suggest the same of Osiris (Osiris-Horus? I'm making that up but you know what I mean) and Set, two sides of kingship and complex and ergo heirarchal civilization

Nut > Nyx

*In my head gods are the faces humans can even begin to comprehend for all but unknowable infinite 4 dimensional tessellations of the many natures, laws, forces, and patterns of the universe so I'm pretty open to the idea that any given deity can be reflected many times in many others and vis versa. mythological chronology and circumstances don't have to be perfect matches for me to consider them comparisons worth noting.

This is my personal take and I'd love to discuss all of this with the understanding that this is just my worldview that helps my puny human mind conceive of these things and it is therefore equivalent to a theoretical framework of choice, I'm going to default to it but that does not mean I think all other views are incorrect--this is just the conception that I'm starting from.

[dreamsmp-megaritz]

what is Dream SMP analysis? why is Dream SMP analysis?

I see DSMP analysis as being a fun ongoing activity of collecting and interpreting evidence—in a very broad sense of “interpreting,” and in a very broad sense of “evidence.”

The goal is not to reach some final end-state—one where we’ve proved the correct theories and debunked the incorrect theories. The goal is the process, not the outcome.

There are many different degrees to which one can engage in the activity. I’d say everyone who watches DSMP at all is doing some DSMP analysis-- at least in the minimal sense of forming some understanding of what they’re seeing, even if they don’t write or read any essays about it afterward.

Not that I’m against having arguments for or against theories, of course. The effort to support some theory, or to undermine some other competing theory, can be a helpful framework for collecting and organizing and interpreting the evidence.

This activity often can be fruitfully done…

[A] by oneself, or

[B] (often better) in concert with others who hold the same theory, or

[C] (perhaps ideally) in concert with others who hold differing theories, some agreeing and some disagreeing.

But ultimately I think the activity itself is the interesting part. Maybe over time the activity leads us to hold more correct theories and fewer incorrect theories—but I’m not sure whether this is the case or not, and anyway it’s a secondary consideration. And, in general, persuading other people to “agree with the correct theories and reject incorrect theories” should probably be even further down on the list.

For one thing, what would make one theory more true than another, in an analysis of DSMP? By what criteria should we judge a theory? (For now I’m using the word “theory” in a vague manner that could be worth returning to.)

I don’t think I would accept an extreme subjectivism which claims any interpretation is “just as valid” as any other. But I also don’t have a clear answer here. It’s not particularly obvious what the criteria for truth are—in an analysis of any sort of fiction or art, let alone something like the DSMP. I am also not sure whether we should speak of “truth” as opposed to some broader concept like “legitimacy” or “plausibility” or “reasonableness” or even “goodness.”

Should we use the criterion of logical consistency? For some kinds of investigation, we’re looking for consistent theories in which we’ve resolved all the contradictions. In a scientific investigation, it is a very bad sign when a theory’s predictions are contradicted by the observable evidence, or when one element of the theory contradicts another element of the same theory. The application of a logical consistency standard can show when a scientific theory is flawed. But is logical consistency a good standard for interpreting DSMP? It seems debatable.

There are internal inconsistencies within many works of fiction—perhaps especially one such as the DSMP, whose story emerges out of a combination of writing and improvisation by multiple people, and which is set within a game-world that has unclear and flexible rules. DSMP is likely more prone to internal contradictions than many other stories are, for reasons that will be worth exploring further sometime.

This is not necessarily a bad thing. But it means that on some points of contention, many (if not all) theories will likely run into some inconsistencies. There may be cases where a fully consistent theory is simply impossible.

So there is reason to doubt whether we should be judging DSMP theories according to their consistency.

At least, if we use the criterion of consistency, it would need to be done in a special way—to account for the peculiar features of DSMP’s story, including perhaps the impossibility of fully consistent theories. I am not sure how to do this! Maybe it is certain kinds of consistency we’re looking for in a theory, and not other kinds. What kinds of consistency are important? What kinds of consistency are unimportant?

Additionally, we should probably judge a theory by several different standards—not only consistency. I’m not sure what other criteria for judging theories could be used instead.

For one thing, there seem to be various standards of “thematic cohesion” (or something) which are appropriate to analyzing a work of fiction. Some of these might resemble consistency, but a lot looser than strict logical non-contradiction.

I’m also thinking of some vague idea like “being faithful to the spirit of the story.” It’s probably got to have affective elements, as well. The legitimate reasons in support of an interpretation can come partially from our interests and what we care about. The structure of a viewer’s emotions might play a role in grounding the structure of some kinds of legitimate theories (in a manner to be explored further sometime). Again, I wouldn’t agree with full subjectivism, but rather some kind of mixed criterion that involves a role of the psychology of the viewer and/or community of viewers as co-creators of the meaning of the story through the interaction. More broadly, the DSMP media itself is a kind of canvas upon which we can overlay additional significance, meanings, conventions, headcanons, and whatever else.

I’m really making this up as I go. Unfortunately, I’ve barely studied any literary theory or philosophy of art—fields that probably have produced a lot of ideas which would be useful here!

In any event, analyzing the evidence is pretty interesting (despite my meta-level uncertainty on what kinds of things it can be evidence for). The evidence is made up of lots of details from lots of media. The evidence is large in size, it’s difficult to navigate, and many pieces of it can be interpreted in various different ways. One’s broader background theory could lend support to one reading over another, but a different background theory could perhaps support a different reading. There are a lot of interconnected things going on here.

It’s cool and good for people to explore these ideas and share them with each other, and see what comes out of it. It’s a good activity, and people should enjoy doing it. If you’re doing DSMP analysis in a manner that seriously hinders your own enjoyment or the enjoyment of others, then something has probably gone wrong.

[script-a-world]

hello. i want to write a story set in a very religious place. like fanatic level of religious. in my mind, this place is ruled by what the church says but has a "cover" figure to "connect" with the people. the people of this place are devoted to their religion, meaning they know passages, go to mass, and shun those who don't support it. here is my question: how does one go about creating a religion that feels real? what do i need to take into consideration (i'm not religious myself).

Mod Miri Note: At the same time this came in we also received from the google form the question “How do I world build a religion?” I can’t confirm they’re the same anon, but we’re combining them for the answer.

Brainstormed: You seem to have a very… narrow perception of religion? If you aren’t religious yourself and you’re (presumably) from a Western culture, it makes sense that the Christian church and more specifically Catholicism are your go-to images of hyperreligion. Saying “mass” and “church” and “passages” kind of gives away the fact that you’re trying to base your religion off of at least your idea of an Abrahamic religion, but I’d ask you to reconsider. Right now it sounds like you’re trying to create a negative critique of these religions, and even if that is what you’re going for, you need to do a lot of research on their theology, history, and practices before you can do so with any competence.

I’d suggest doing some basic research on types of religions, like animism, pantheism, polytheism, general superstition, etc. There are plenty of spiritual worldviews that you might consider way over the top, but whose believers find it more bizarre when people don’t follow their teachings. Fanatics are never fanatics in their own mind, and especially among their own people, but also… fanatic might be a relative term. If you’re approaching this from a nonreligious background, then you might consider X-amount of religion in one’s lifestyle to be fanatic-level. Whereas a person who actively practices religion would consider X-amount to be perfectly normal, and only folks who take it to XX-amount plus some shadier practices are the true fanatics.

Remember, religions start because people want to make sense of the world. There is a deeper feeling of wonder and personhood and power, both within a human being and in the whole world around us, that drives spirituality and generates superstition. Religion, at least to start, is beneficial to people, otherwise no one but sadists would follow its teachings. Now, like anything else, religion can devolve into a means of power hoarding and control of a populace, but only because of the people in charge getting greedy. The vast majority of religions I’ve studied have had radical, freeing, empowering teachings applicable to everybody when they first sprang up, and only later did adherents twist those teachings into societal oppression. If there is no satisfaction or benefit in your religion, there won’t exactly be any incentive for people to follow it so closely, aside from whatever negative consequences occur for those who fall away. And negative consequences aren’t often enough to keep people in a religion. If following religion is more painful than the consequences of leaving it, plenty of people will jump ship.

Religion can also show up in every single part of life. According to Wikipedia:

A religious experience (sometimes known as a spiritual experience, sacred experience, or mystical experience) is a subjective experience which is interpreted within a religious framework. The concept originated in the 19th century, as a defense against the growing rationalism of Western society. William James popularised the concept.

You look up and see a cloud, a spiritual person sees a portent, or a spirit, or a castle where the gods live. You take a break from work for a minute, a spiritual person now has time to mutter a prayer, or observe the mood of the world, or dedicate their work to their god. A person doesn’t have to be anywhere near a fanatic to have their religion be in every part of their life. Especially if they adhere to a more lax spirituality or superstitious worldview instead of an organized religion, the central spiritual experience of religious belief alters the perception of self and surroundings. It isn’t only a set of rules to follow.

It can even help areas of society that modern Western society considers nonreligious! Historically, medicine has always come under religion. Witch doctors, medicine men, witchcraft, even the hygiene laws laid out in the Christian Bible. Physical health has often been considered a reflection of spiritual health, which, in a way, is true! The placebo effect means tending to one’s mental and emotional health with the reassurance of religion will improve one’s physical health as well. Not only that, but the power of a “spiritual experience”, regardless of if you believe the supernatural is real, can cause religious ecstacy, something you might perceive as a serious psychological problem but those who experience it consider to be a deep form of spiritual expression to be treasured and sought after. The spread and preservation of information is also often aided by religion, even though that can change should those in power want to change history or obscure truth for their own reasons. Just look at the history of the printing press and how that was driven by the need for Bibles. Many cultures, most famously Australian Aboriginal peoples, have oral histories thousands of years long that tie in closely to their spirituality.

You also might be confusing religion with cults. If you think all religion is predatory, playing on people’s weaknesses and fears in order to coerce them into a miserable lifestyle of following strict laws and living under control of those in power, you definitely have conflated “religion” and “cult”. If you’d like to worldbuild a cult, go ahead! It’s likely to be smaller and less acceptable than an established organized religion, not very transparent to the outside world nor its members, and have a spirituality that is in fact just a veneer over gaining power, instead of genuine belief and devotion, and may in fact require people to murder or commit suicide. Just look at Scientology, or these, or even Jared Leto, and a more in-depth look from this organization covering many different kinds of cults.

On a more worldbuildy note, are those who practice this religion correct? Does their god(s) exist? Is the supernatural real? If yes, then are they really fanatics if they’ve been right all along? Even if they’re incorrect, the dedication and deep-held beliefs of religious people shouldn’t be mocked wholesale, in my opinion. Make sure to keep some genuine three-dimensional development for characters who are part of this religion, or include other religions with different practices, or the only thing you’ll accomplish is “waaaa religion bad believers dumb”. And if that is the story you want to write, feel free, but I can’t help you there.

Feral: What makes a religion feel real? Sincere faith.

Specifically among the leaders. I mean, sure, those lemming-like peasants who actually believe that superstitious nonsense will have sincere faith, but honestly? There is going to be a higher percentage of people faking it among the masses than among the clergy. Clergy members are generally required to go through rigorous studies and often take vows that can cause great discomfort. I am sure there are those who did it for the power - there are in atheist organizations as well, humans can be crap - but if you actually read the writings of important Church leaders of the past, not to mention rabbis, imams & mullahs, and archakas, you’re going to find that they have sincere faith.

Something you should always keep in mind when developing pre-modern religion in a Western context is that before the advent of modern scholarship, which starts to become a thing in the West during the Renaissance, all the important scholars were clergy. And again, those learned people either had to be really, really dedicated to their power-hungry ambitions or had to have sincere faith.

That does not make religions perfect by any means nor does it mean that the god they have sincere faith in is omnibenevolent (though the qualities of an omnibenevolent god will be strongly dependent on the culture that worships it). And religious leaders are absolutely capable of doing terrible, terrible things even if they profess to worship an omnibenevolent god, and politicians can definitely twist things around to suit their needs (again, this is not exclusive to religiosity). But your ask has this weird given that a major religion (on par with Catholicism/Christianity) in your world is a scam, and while yes, that happens in cults and alternative religions and in splinter groups*, as Brainstormed pointed out that’s just not how, at least, the four major religions of our world got started.

Yes, it’s true that bureaucracies of a certain size and age will inevitably begin to change focus to protecting its own existence. And yes, it’s true that ambitious sociopaths will be drawn to places of authority even if they are difficult to achieve. And yes, it’s true that an individual entering a toxic environment is more likely to be changed by the environment than to change the environment. But guess what! That has nothing to do with whether the organization is religious or not.

Why does a religion exist in the first place? It explains the universe in a pre-modern world; it provides organization and structure for community focus - in other words, many social programs have historically been run through religious organizations and leadership. And it provides hope and comfort in a very scary world.

Some clergy might be able to fake all of that for a little while, but a large bureaucracy with many clerics who are all in on the fake? No. Allow me to rephrase: hell no. People are not dumb. Maybe you believe that of all religious people, but you are wrong and they are not. The people in your world, if they’re anything like the people in our world, are gonna sniff out the bullshit if none of their religious leaders believe what they’re selling. There is a reason Scientology has to keep blackmail files on all its adherents, and I promise you, the Catholic Church does not do that.

*A note on cults, alternative religions, and splinter groups: Cults and alternative religions (their PR friendly name) are “religions” that are scammy and/or actively dangerous to the participants or others: People’s Temple, Branch Davidian, etc. Splinter groups are congregations that start as normal members of a large religion or denomination but its insular culture creates a divide that just takes things a little too far even for the most fanatical of the main sect (think terrorist groups that link themselves to religions). These types of religions might be what you are actually asking about. Groups like these can be highly, highly influential but in a very contained area. What cults often do is the leader settles in an area and buys property and builds a church and maybe a school and then encourages the members to all move either onto the plot of land if it’s large enough or to buy up surrounding land and homes and push out all the non-believers. That area can then be fortified or just have a de facto boundary with the rest of the world. Sometimes a group like this can become large enough to constitute an entire town, but rarely a city - groups that large will more often have centralized compounds but with the members living scattered among non-believers, as Scientology does. Obviously a group concentrated like that will have an impact on local politics, if they are allowed to participate, but it’s not going to go farther than the county line, so to speak. As we all know from the news, splinter groups like ISIS can become very large and globe spanning, but those types of groups have within them splinter groups and factions, and I don’t think that’s what you’re asking about anyway, so I’m just going to leave it there.

But frankly, your ask reads to me as “how do I create a fantasy!Catholic that is secretly evil and will show the audience how evil religion is in the real world? Opiate of the masses!” And my advice is… don’t. Because it lacks compassionate understanding of people of faith (many faiths), it lacks a factual understanding of how world religions differ and function, it totally lacks nuance, and finally, because it is absolutely, monumentally, extremely, really, very cliche.

Maybe the way your ask is coming across to me is totally not how you intended it. Maybe you only used the jargon you used because you assumed we wouldn’t know any other terms and maybe your understanding of world religions is actually quite sophisticated. Maybe you really do have this insanely clever way to spin a tired cliche into some new and original. In these cases, we strongly encourage you to come right back with as jargon-full and specific an ask as you can write, use our submission google form to do it. Otherwise, give our responses some thought and if after you’ve developed your religion, you want to come back with a specific ask other than “how do I world build a religion?” (which is a little too broad), please feel free.

[ailuronymy]

Hey, I follow a WC YouTuber called Moonkitti and she'd uploaded a video called "Warrior Names". She kinda slams traditionalism and also demonstrates she has no idea what exactly it is. Like she shows some prefixes as examples which has Tree and Dirt as acceptable and Jay isn't, despite the inverse being true. I know she mentions she's not against it in concept, but that it was being enforced to limit others' creativity, but I have really mixed feelings about it and wanted to know your opinions.

Hello there, Ruddles! I hadn’t heard of this person before but I went and watched this video and I think I understand where your mixed feelings might be coming from. This video is trying to do a lot of things but, in my personal opinion, it’s doing none of them particularly well.

There’s three major things happening all at once: 1. a legitimate personal reflection about how certain traditionalists acted towards this person in the past and how that impacted her (4:50; 6:20); 2. an incorrect and misleading explanation of what traditionalism even is and very clearly no understanding of why it appeals to people, and therefore very little empathy towards people who use the style; (5:13; 6:00);  and 3. (from an outsider stance as someone who likes deconstructing arguments for fun) a fascinatingly messy argument both in favour of Erin Hunter while using Erin Hunter’s various (and typically more incompetent) choices as justifications for… everything and anything. 

It’s a mixed bag to be sure! To start with, I don’t think there’s anything wrong with saying that some people who use the traditional style are jerks. It’s very true. I remember those days too. Some people genuinely did crash forum threads just to mock and belittle other people. It was terrible and I think it’s totally legitimate to be upset about that.

I think the argument that everyone who uses traditionalism behaves that way is bad faith, however, and I also question the confirmation bias happening at 6:54, because I only ever see people talking about traditionalism for themselves, because that’s the spaces I hang out in. I wonder if Moonkitti has ever actually looked for traditional forums and sites, or if she’s just taken for granted that they don’t exist and everyone who uses the style is waging their own personal crusade. That’s not something I endorse in any way, by the way. Don’t anyone do that. 

The second topic is personally the most frustrating because at points she’s almost right. But her definitions are incorrect and explanations simplify in a way that isn’t helpful to anyone. She’s not trying to actually give an account of the style and then point out the ways it doesn’t work or shouldn’t exist or anything like that: she’s half understood the idea and gone, “That sounds dumb.” This is in fact what she claims traditionalists say about other styles (7:22), which I disagree with: traditionalism is based mostly on having a set framework in place and then fairly rigorously debating what works and doesn’t within that world set-up. Plenty of names that are traditional sound pretty silly, but that doesn’t mean we knock them back wholesale. The whole point of the style is there is a method. Making judgments based on looser qualities, like sound or flow or imagery, is more of a lyrical approach.

Anyway, she doesn’t even seem to have gone to the effort of learning about it herself before deciding to preach. I think that’s tacky. It’s exasperating to me, because it’s not like there aren’t a ton of resources out there: if nothing else, traditionalists are good like that! We love lists and archives and referring to rules we’ve written out. That’s one of the things she’s correct about. She frequently refers to the fact that traditionalism is fan-made (2:25; 3:59; 6:45), but she does so as if this is a bad thing, which it’s not. Traditionalists are aware it’s fan-made: we are, after all, the fans who made it. That’s the whole idea. 

Which brings me to the third topic: she doesn’t seem to fully understand why traditionalism exists and why it brings joy to people who use it. That’s an issue, because much of her argument is based around “well, canon.” She mischaracterises traditionalists as people who are “taking things too seriously” for being creative–i.e., she recognises that the entirety of traditionalism is fan-made, but can’t seem to understand why fans would elect to create rules to follow; it seems to cancel out the creativity in her world-view. She also repeatedly refers to the fact that she doesn’t need a traditional system to enjoy the Warriors world (0:26; 7:17; 8:28; 9:05)–to which I reply, your mileage may vary–and seems to look down on people who are pulled out of the story by “a silly name,” unlike her or Erin Hunter, who don’t take things “seriously.”

The major problem I have with this approach is that it shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the value of good world-building–or even some idea of what it looks like. She claims a strict system would result in a boring story (which perhaps would be true for her, who knows: again, mileage may vary) (8:28), but the issue I have is that she says: “don’t get me wrong, warrior cats is not perfect, but the least of our troubles with the quality of these books is how strange these names are. Sure, Bouncefire sounds weird and doesn’t seem realistic, but if you’re worried about this story’s realism, consider the fact that we have about fifty cats who live together who barely gossip except if it’s about a housecat” (1:06). 

She uses the word “realistic” throughout the whole video, as though the goal of using a traditional style is to make Warriors realistic, which in my opinion it’s not. Plausible, yes. Believable, yes. Cohesive, yes. But not realistic. These are, after all, talking cats with religion. I myself multiple times a year refer to the fact we’re all getting excited over “feral cats talking to stars in the forest.” There’s no pretense there! But the thing Moonkitti argues that actually makes me mad is that, because it’s not real, nothing matters. 

And that’s absolutely horse-apples. It matters that the names in canon don’t have structure, because the world of Warriors doesn’t have structure and that is the underlying problem of the series. That is part of why the series is not well-written. The world doesn’t have structure or consistency in how it is built, and the run-on effect is that characters are frequently flat and their decisions–even their deaths–are regularly made meaningless by the world of the story. The world-building is inconsistent and poorly planned, and the run-on effect is that plots regularly force characters who are supposed to be intelligent or even an average amount of smart into being unbelievably stupid simply for the sake of furthering it, and the stakes of the stories are constantly forced to increase to squeeze any amount of impact out of the plots because the writing itself won’t do it. 

There is no hierarchy from most to least when it comes to the quality troubles of Erin Hunter’s work. The issues in Warriors are not stand-alone. They are interconnected. It’s silly to pretend that transformative world-building, which is what traditionalism is, is somehow a superficial, ornamental thing and not simply another way for fans to mend some of what makes Warriors “not perfect,” like any other AU or fandom meta. Canon invented the name-change custom (7:43)–and repeatedly made it messy, and shameful, and had no idea what they wanted to go with. Traditionalism mended that and made it better. If you can recognise that the series isn’t perfect, I don’t think it’s a stretch to also recognise and acknowledge different ways of how fans react to and deal with those imperfections in fan-works, such as role-playing and fanfiction and OCs. 

Moonkitti’s repetitions that this is a fantasy series and it’s not real so stop caring frankly reminds me a lot people who get uncomfortable and defensive when you analyse and discuss a piece of media in any kind of critical or thoughtful way and will tell you don’t be so serious. In my case, these people tend not to realise that, for me at least, this is fun--and it’s worthwhile and important to do. It’s also my actual job, in the daylight hours. (Here it’s just a hobby).

So tl;dr: Erin Hunter doesn’t take Warriors seriously–and that is the problem. The canon naming style is a symptom of how little effort Erin Hunter puts into consistent or meaningful world-building. Traditionalism exists as some fans’ attempt to craft a solution for themselves, and I include myself in that. 

Moonkitti’s approach to explaining traditionalism from a place of 1. not being interested in understanding it and 2. being oddly defensive of Erin Hunter, the creative team behind all of canon’s terrible weird writing choices, rather than critical of said choices and choosing instead to blame fans for wanting canon to be better and then acting on that desire, feels a bit in bad faith to me. I’m sad to hear that she had such bad experiences with traditionalists in the past, because that’s awful, but I also feel strongly that it’s a good idea to know what you’re talking about before you step onto the stage like this.

For instance, she says, “There’s no real argument for why [certain] names [should] not be in the series,” (2:13), but, well. I’m here and this blog is my seven-years-and-counting argument. I like to think it’s often a persuasive one, too!

[diazepamalprazolam]

Ten papers I’m planning

Over the past two years there have been a few ideas for papers or research that I’ve really wanted to get into, and I’ve been splitting my time between them too much to the point where I haven’t been able to actually finish any major parts of any. I spent three hours last night sorting through all of my notes, drafts, and the articles/books and organizing it all so that I can work through each paper one by one, hopefully refining them so I can use some as writing samples and others I want to eventually publish. In the mean time, I want to just express some of the main ideas behind them and where my head is at in regards to the arguments. I will make larger posts for each paper going fully into the details later.

The subject matter ranges over the philosophy of language, the philosophy of mathematics, philosophy of computer science, philosophical and mathematical logic, philosophy of set theory, epistemology, belief, philosophy of mind, metaphysics, philosophy of science, theoretical physics, and philosophy of film. 

De Re Belief and the Spy Argument

In order to give an account of the ability for our words to directly reference an object and for our beliefs to be directly of an object we need to have a strong epistemic and ontological acquaintance with that object. Impredicative definitions like “your car keys are where you left them” are not strong enough to give you direct reference or direct belief. Arguments that exist in the literature which try to show that “Alice believes  are incorrect because they rely on impredicative definitions like “the shortest spy”. A stronger account of reference needs to be given, otherwise our ability to directly reference anything burns away.

Intensionality and Belief 

ntensional semantics, giving an adequate account of the classic puzzles in the philosophy of language, is not only helpful for practical concerns in fields such as AI or psychology, but are also necessary to understanding the fundamental components of the human mind. Logical analysis of intensional contexts is not only possible, but it is necessary for a true understanding of logic, language, and mind. The next breakthrough starts with reconciling Kripke’s trilogy of works (Naming and Necessity, A Puzzle About Belief, And Reference and Existence) into a coherent doctrine. This doctrine is then extended to a logical framework of intensional semantics backed up by possible world semantics which is used to explain how the puzzles can be avoided.

Skolem, Tennenbaum's theorem, and De Re Belief About Numbers

Skepticism about the ability to have direct belief about numbers or that our logical foundations of mathematics are not strong enough to provide us with a correct ontology can be countered by appeals to Tennanbaum’s and Kripke’s theorems. Kripke showed that our conception of algorithm follows directly from the completeness theorem, and argues that we should believe this because a computation is just a special mind of proof. Tennanbaum showed that the only model of arithmetic where the addition and multiplication functions are algorithmic is the standard model. So, concerns about or inability to conceive the correct model of our theory of arithmetic fail when they are based off this type of skepticism.

The Lucas-Penrose Argument, Human Consistency, and Belief

The Lucas-Penrose argument that the human mind cannot be a computer because we can understand our own Gödel sentences (sentences that intuitively say “I’m not provable” which if they are true, are true but unprovable). Their argument fails because, among other reasons, it is plainly evident that the human mind is not consistent, which is a requirement to have a Gödel sentence. Showing that the human mind is inconsistent requires a strong conception of intensional semantics, because the computational element our mind which corresponds to the computational element of a computer are our beliefs. If we have computational beliefs, intensionality will rise up and without a proper analysis of intensional logic, we won’t be able to directly map the nature of our beliefs to a formalized system. Doing this is a prerequisite to giving a full account of how the human mind is a computer, which we can then show to be inconsistent, thus defeating the Lucas-Penrose argument. 

Gödel’s Second Incompleteness Theorem and Intensional Content in Metamathematics

Gödel’s second incompleteness theorems is often said to be intensional, as in, it isn’t just about numbers, it is a theorem which encodes itself as a series of arithmetical statements about numbers that somehow says something about itself. Intensional metamathematics and logic are highly controversial, but the second incompleteness theorem is directly at a confluence where they meet. Understanding the true intensional nature of the theorem can shed light on the correct methodology of intensional semantics, linguistics, logic, philosophy, and possibly even pure mathematics.

Film as Philosophy, Arguments about Personal Identity

One of the major debates in the philosophy of film is whether or not film can do philosophy rather than just present it. I argue that it can, by giving a case study. Persona, Mulholland Drive, and Black Swan all present philosophical arguments about the nature of personal identity. In order to prove that film can do philosophy, I argue for parallels between the methodology used in the two fields, namely thought experiments, skepticism, and logical analysis in philosophy, and lighting, narrative structure, and metatheoretic implementations of narration in film. 

String Theory, Black Holes, Holography, and Realism

In the philosophy of science, realism is the view that our scientific theories purport to give an accurate depiction of the world as it genuinely is, antirealism says that our theories merely exist to make predictions about the world and anything beyond observables is nonsensical to speak of scientifically. String theory seems to be our best scientific theory and yet it is notorious for being “unverifiable” and thus lends itself to a strong antirealist stance. I argue that realists can save their view point by appealing to the work being done by people like Susskind and Maldecina, and that both the black hole information paradox and the firewall paradox have far sweeping implications for a possible realism account of string theory. The interdisciplinary work between theoretical computer science and high energy particle physics is indispensable in providing the philosophical justification for this realism.

Set Theory and the Search for New Axioms

Set theory is the foundation for modern mathematics. We trust that theorems we prove are true by showing that they can be reduced to talk about sets and prove from the axioms of ZFC set theory, the standard formal system we use. However, it was shown early on that certain fundamental questions about set theory were not able to be decided by ZFC. This led to the question: does mathematics need new axioms? I argue that it does, that the ontological foundation for set theory provides us with justification for adopting stronger axioms that prove statements we intuitively knew to be true about the subject matter but which our axioms were too weak to prove originally. Additionally, a debate has sprung up about whether or not we should adopt a “pluralistic” view of set theory, a view that says there is no true answer to these undecidable questions. I reject the multiverse pluralistic view on the grounds that the iterative conception of set is fixed and that the justifications (such as the plethora of positive results about new theorems being proven) for accepting new axioms are stronger than the justifications for pluralism. 

Three Competing Foundations for Mathematics

Set theory is not the only possible foundation for mathematics. Recently two other views have been suggested, category theoretic by pure mathematicians and univalent intuitonistic type theoretic by computer scientists. I argue that category theoretic foundations do not provide any clear conceptional illuminations about the subject matter and therefore ontologically are too obscure to be a correct foundation. I also argue that univalent foundations may be useful as a foundation for computer science, but intuitionistic logic, which is a weakening of classical logic, is too weak to use as a complete foundation. We know things to be true which are not provable intuitionistically, and therefore we cannot rest all of mathematics on that weakened pillar. Finally I argue that the pluralism debate about new axioms is not a weakness but a strength for set theoretic foundations because it has resulted in conceptual advancements in every area of mathematics and the question of new axioms is relevant to each area as well.

The Julius Caesar Objection, De Re Numbers and Logicism

Logicism is the philosophical school of thought that believes all of mathematics can be reduced to basic logical laws. Logicism was once the main school of thought, but after a contradiction was shown in Gottlob Frege’s attempt to derive arithmetic from logical laws, the logicist dream went dormant. Since the 80s there have been attempts to revive the logicist dream, but they all suffer from one objection Frege himself gave: the Julius Caesar objection. Given the new weakened for of logicism, it is impossible for a logical theory to prove that what it says is the number 2 is actually the number 2 and not Julius Caesar, for example. The lack of a way to ontologically speak of the objects it studies is seen as a fatal blow to the new logicism, because, as argued before, we do have direct belief of and make direct references to numbers. I argue that, much like some of the papers above, the issue can be solved with an appeal to intensionality. If it is the case that Gödelian sentences can contain intensional content, then it is also the case that purely logical laws can be used to give intensional definitions of numbers, solving the Julius Caesar objection, or so I argue.

[ironjohnredcognition]

The Directing mind

h/t @afx626

In all of these occasions, you are summoning impressions in your mind and then reacting to them as though they were real.

The Stoics taught of the ton hegemonikon ("directing mind") as an entity unto itself. Aurelius established it as being the uppermost authority within the mind. The important thing about this is that the mind contains the directing mind, and other things, which could be called lower faculties — such as impressions.

He did this often. If something in your mind that is not your directing mind should be in discomfort, he said, that is its concern. (Paraphrasing.)

One of the main "powers" granted by Stoicism is that you begin to realize that your mind is not one monolithic thing, but many components that interact. (Prescient of them. There isn't one modern neurologist who would dispute this.) Moreover, your Directing Mind is free to disagree with other parts: not merely to repress them and lie to itself about how the feeling doesn't exist, but to acknowledge that it is there, and incorrect.

The sense of nervousness you speak of isn't "you." It isn't correct just because you feel it. The only reason you take it for granted is that you never learned how to do otherwise.

Imagine this: You feel nervous, and instead of recoiling and getting your heart rate up, you merely interpret it as a signal. You don't let your thoughts run away; if dire predictions arise in your mind, you quiet them down so that they don't distract you. Now you can think a little more clearly.

It's hard at first, so you start with something easy. It's easier to dismiss your anger over the supermarket not having your favorite Lunchable than it is heavier matters, so you practice on little things like that. And when you check out, if you stumble with your words and feel silly at the cash register, you remind yourself on the way to the car that your stumbling has already been forgotten by the cashier, who has already heard fifty people misspeak some word today, and will hear the same thing many more times before the sun is down. The sense that other people are intensely interested in your every tiny mistake is, I'm happy to report, largely misguided, and not worthy of the trust you invest in it.

Over time, you try this technique — this deliberate, conscious granting or withholding of assent (agreement) to your impressions — and you get better and better at it for larger and larger troubles. You find that things that troubled you to no end don't seem so severe as they did before.

Ultimately, an impression (like "the cashier thinks I'm a dork") is a tool to be used, not an oppressive phantom to run and hide from — and certainly not to be mistaken for a guaranteed fact about reality. If you think the cashier thinks you're a dork, so what? (Even if it is true!) Does it change how you use the credit card machine or how you push your cart through the doors?

"You are just an impression. You have given me (the Directing Mind) information. That is your purpose, and that purpose is now complete. What I do with that information is not your concern, but mine. Isn't that why you gave it to me in the first place?"

Essentially, you are de-automating processes that have been running automatically, so that you can retrain them with better information and strategies.

There is no thought in your mind that doesn't owe you an explanation for why you should think it instead of some other thought. Remember that.

A tenet of Stoicism is that most of what we think and do is unnecessary.

An impression says, "I wish I had these capabilities I had before!" Then you dwell because for some fucked up reason our minds are set up to allow us to think that dwelling is a subset of "doing something useful," which it isn't.

You have already had the thought that you wish you had your former capabilities. This thought was worth having at most one time. Every time you re-think it, you tell yourself what you already know, without surfacing any new useful information.

Maybe you can do something about this, and maybe you can't. I suppose the place to start would be to try to recognize when it's happening, and see if you can't prevail upon yourself to replace that thought with another.

When an ancient philosopher — I forget who, might have been Diogenes — was getting old, he fell; and on this, he chastised the ground: "Don't be so greedy! You'll have me soon enough!" He didn't fight it, so it didn't seem to make him nervous.

It's hard for me to give more specific advice because I don't know what you have to work with, and my best advice is to talk to someone who knows what the hell they are talking about, like a psychologist who specializes in TBI.

If you can't afford that, I — a person who does not know what the hell he's talking about — would suggest observing these things, learning how to predict their arrival, and allowing some part of yourself to say, for example, "Ah, Mr. Hyde is nearly here again. I should preemptively go sit somewhere quiet until he has left me, and then I can go about the rest of my day." Or, "I can't remember... Probably won't be able to for a few hours... I'll write it down and come back to it later."

I would not tell myself that I have accepted it. I would be more interested in observing evidence that suggests to what extent I have perhaps accepted it. It isn't a light switch. Acceptance comes in gradations.

You really, really ought to know a few things about the architecture of your brain. That can clarify a lot.

Paul Ekman (Emotional Awareness), Gerald Edelman (Wider Than The Sky: The Phenomenal Gift of Consciousness), and many and others have written a lot on this subject. I can't type the entire contents of those books into this post, but I can give you a somewhat crude synopsis.

A few inches behind each eye is a brain structure called an amygdala. This is often cited as the "fear center" but that's like naming a gallon after a single drop. Amygdalas generate emotions, but they also play a part in facial recognition, recall of the social relationships between people, and many other processes. The amygdalas also have the distinction of terminating the olfactory nerves directly, and are naturally involved in smell.

They are not considered to be a part of the conscious mind, but they wield massive influence over it. One of their main activities is to write information directly to the prefrontal cortex. They have a generous amount of bandwidth and access with which to do this. (They have to because part of their job is to save your life during emergencies.) The primary route into the PFC (and functionally the conscious mind) is the amygdalofugal pathway.

The amygdalas are also privileged to early access to sensory data. They can "see" and "hear" things a fraction of a second before your conscious mind becomes aware of them. When you recognize a relative the very instant you see them, without any delay whatsoever, you have your amygdalas to thank. They are also capable of seizing control of your PFC and issuing mandatory commands. If you've ever found yourself dodging (or directing your car) around an extreme and sudden hazard, with unusual agility and clarity, and almost feel you're not the one doing it... yep, that's your amygdalas.

The amygdalas can write an impression directly into your conscious mind. It will arrive seemingly out of nowhere, and usually without context. Their advantage is that they're optimized for extremely fast reaction, and because they have early access to sensory data, they can get the drop on your conscious mind.

But...

Your conscious mind can also form its own impressions. It's a fraction of a second behind the amygdalas, but it does have one advantage. When you have a behavior you want to modify, you can train yourself to "smell it coming." There is always some series of triggering events, and these can be consciously detected and intercepted. If your PFC steps in before the amygdalas take control, it has a chance to assert itself. With adequate practice, it can get quite good at this.

Now you have a very rough, basic framework for understanding the fundamentals of where impressions come from, and how they can be managed — what it means to manage them, "behind the curtains." What the wetware is actually doing.

One of the corruptions of the Directing Mind mentioned by Marcus Aurelius is "this thought would be superfluous."

You can't dismiss certain unpleasant impulses, like anxiety. They nag at you. Good! That's supposed to happen! What's missing is this:

Interpret the unpleasant impulse as a signal (and nothing more!) that something is not quite adequate.

Figure out how to remove the impulse's reason for firing in the first place.

Once the impulse has fired, you can acknowledge it and do something about it. "You want me to do something? Fine, I am scheduling two hours tonight to work on this." The part of your unconscious mind the impulse came from wants it to be addressed, just like an impulse indicating thirst comes from a lower faculty that will be watching to see whether you appear to be moving toward water, and will flog you more and more aggressively if you do not.

That which originated the impulse is looking for either immediate action or reliable future action. That action must be predicted as having an optimal chance of success. If these conditions are not met, the impulse will not leave you alone — unless you have trained yourself to dissociate from it, which is really not a good idea. The impulse is a tool to be used; or if not useful, refined or repudiated. It is not something to be hidden from.

This is one of the pitfalls of Stoicism. "What is outside my mind is nothing to it" doesn't mean you ignore your problems. It just means you don't let them get on top of you, or forget the best use of your mind, or have an unrealistic expectation of what life will give you. There are concepts of "preferred indifferents" and "unpreferred indifferents." If the outside world was completely meaningless, there wouldn't be two kinds of indifferents.

It may be that you interpret the impulse as spurious. "I already set aside time for this. Why are you bothering me again?" Or, "The impression behind this impulse is based on a previous understanding of my relation to the world, but I have internalized a better one now... so what am I supposed to do with it? You must have come to me purely out of habit." Or,  "I already failed at this thing, and it's obvious that I should try that thing instead. Why are you motivating me to work on an obsolete problem? What is the useful output?"

There is no thought in your head which is immune to interrogation. All thoughts must be able to answer: "Why are you useful? Why are you the best thought for me to think right now?" "Ah, but I feel anxious!" "So what? I'm already doing all I can."

[odahinata-blog1]

What is SEO

Both pay-per-click and also SEO are targeted to obtain your site put as near the top of internet search engine results as feasible. Advertising as well as SEO are various, yet really, really comparable. Search Engine Optimization are taken into consideration as the major consider boosting the website traffic of one's web site. The principles of great SEO are rarely a key. Individuals that the very least comprehends concerns with URL framework and also SEO are the actual individuals that produce them: internet designers, developers, as well as software program programmers. Numerous veteran SEO's are currently considering the huge photo and also collaborating with functionality experts. Some SEO are scammer. I discover it intriguing that numerous newbies are offered the incorrect perception that there is one almighty response to succeeding in online search engine. Search Engine Optimization are specialized strategies utilized to maximize your internet site, to be Search engine pleasant as well as boost your possibilities of positioning well in searches. However SEO could likewise be one of the most successful approaches of owning leads since any type of leads you obtain from SEO are totally free leads. There are a multitude of firms that embrace a quick as well as underhanded technique to SEO referred to as Black Hat SEO. They use underhanded strategies that protest online search engine plans. The very best arise from SEO are seldom accomplished over night. Black hat SEO are the strategies utilized to mislead the online search engine in order to generate even more web traffic to sites. Internet site proprietors that unconsciously use black hat strategies of SEO are extra prone to modifications in online search engine formulas as well as dealt with being outlawed. Many hardbound publications about SEO are best considered as an automobile in order to help the novice recognize the procedure of seo. This is since the concepts behind SEO are challenging. They are extremely useful and also most web designers are associated with SEO as well as utilizing it. White hat and also black hat SEO are 2 opposite sights of the best ways to do seo. Essentially, SEO for Lawyers are approaches that intend to boost the placement or ranking of a site in the listings created by online search engine. The advantages of SEO are practically unrestricted. Keep an eye out for SEO Tools and also software application that is dated and also completely worthless. Constantly study prior to you purchase any type of SEO software application since the online search engine Algorithms are regularly transforming consequently boosting their search innovations to supply one of the most appropriate outcomes for their customers. Search Engine Optimization devices for Google, MSN and also Yahoo countless. Search Engine Optimization devices for news release optimization were likewise introduced by PRWeb at the end of June called SEO Wizard. Seo is challenging, however with the appropriate SEO devices, your web site promo job simply obtained a great deal less complicated. Blog sites are just one of the most effective SEO devices around as well as some like WordPress are complimentary. Google Sitemaps' are an effective SEO devices which you could break out by seeing my site. MSN has actually released a collection of SEO devices to opt for their Pay Per Click item Adcenter. There are numerous SEO devices offered online, some are much better after that others, as well as some are not. Header tags, appropriate Keyword thickness, correct message format font styles, begin message key-phrase as entire expressions, alt picture tag message, web links indicating your website as well as each web page as well as your domain itself are some points to listen also. Numerous specialized SEO devices could assist you establish the appeal and also the competition of your feasible keyword phrases as well as could aid enhance your online search engine ranking specifically in Google. Creating fresh web content for SEO plays a big function in maintaining site visitors on an internet site. Allow's speak distinct website web content and also SEO web content approach. Discovering an excellent SEO web content author is less complicated compared to you assume. Simply run a Google search or check out elance.com. Exactly what excels SEO Content? It is distinct, high quality details that your site visitors could utilize and also is valuable to them. RSS feeds are an indispensable device in the SEO web content tool kit. If you scratch SEO web content as well as wind up scuffing a pair spam web pages, you could obtain seen a lot more due to the fact that a person is examining the various other spam web pages. The main variable that will certainly establish whether your SEO material is "adequate" is the web content supplied by completing sites. You require distinct web content that no one has in order for it to pass replicate material filters. That's why it is very important to obtain your material short articles indexed prior to you send them to the online search engine. I believe nowadays though online search engine formulas could map back the material and also see that released it initially, so at the very least make certain you release it to your web site or blog site prior to sending it to write-up directory sites. To reinforce the style of your website, you require keyword abundant SEO material. Search Engine Optimization material composing suggestions material author's major goal is to develop a brand-new created item which is initial, basic, interesting and to the factor. Compose details targeted SEO material for the independent web pages. Special SEO web content stays king. Revealing your site visitors you could actually compose special, engaging web content, your website traffic will certainly expand extremely quick. Earlier it was simply material writing today it is extensively referred to as SEO web content writing. Nonetheless there are some stringent guidelines implemented on SEO web content. As soon as you have site visitors, your SEO web content need to be transforming them right into consumers. With efficient SEO material on your web site, fifty percent of your online search engine ranking optimization job is done. Honest seo is a should or you will certainly obtain outlawed. It's not if, it's when. Seo was and also still is interesting to me. Seo is an essential component in a web sites success. The purpose of Search Engine Optimization (SEO) is to attain high all-natural internet search engine positioning for pertinent keyword phrases or keyword expressions. Working with a moral seo business to place well in the all-natural outcomes is necessary to long-term success. Your white hat Search engine optimization (SEO) project will certainly supply you with a long-term boost in targeted web traffic and also certified site visitors to your Web Site. See my website frequently as well as include it to your faves as I upgrade you with the most recent information as well as reports in the seo sector everyday. The impacts of poor seo are ruining and also really dismal. Each internet site is one-of-a-kind in its very own means as well as thus your (SEO) intends vary from site to site. My website has some ideas on the best ways to carry out seo (likewise referred to as SEO) on your web site. I have a totally free, extensive overview of the technique of seo for those not familiar with the subject if you send me an e-mail. There's a great deal of buzz around concerning seo (SEO) solutions. Some excel as well as some misbehave. Check out Google's regards to solution as they have some details on their website regarding it. Frequently, aesthetic style and also SEO are regarded as a shared sacrifice. Pay-per-click and also SEO are targeted to obtain your web site positioned as near the top of online search engine results as feasible. Pay-per-click price cash, however the clicks from SEO price you absolutely nothing. Search Engine Optimization are taken into consideration as the major consider boosting the website traffic of one's web site. Both, PPC as well as SEO are necessary. The fact is, one of the most gratifying component of SEO are typically the slowest to award. Public Relations and also SEO are based mainly on content trustworthiness as well as importance, not a straight settlement for direct exposure. Search Engine Optimization are specialized strategies utilized to maximize your internet site, to be Search engine pleasant as well as boost your possibilities of positioning well in searches. There are a multitude of firms that embrace a quick and also dishonest strategy to SEO referred to as Black Hat SEO. The major elements of on-page SEO are optimization of the title tag, the heading tag, the body message as well as the Meta tags. Business thinking about SEO are periodically not really satisfied with exactly how their internet site looks. Designers with an understanding of SEO remain in high need. Actually, websites with outstanding Search Engine Optimization are making gigantic jumps in positions as well as obtaining a significant increase in cost-free website traffic with Google's brand-new upgrade. Terrific internet functionality as well as SEO are thrown away if people that see your internet can not inform that you deserve their trust fund. Those that concentrate on SEO remain in the one-of-a-kind setting of recognizing the internet in such a way that no standard advertising and marketing firm could intend to. White hat and also black hat SEO are 2 rival sights of ways to do seo so if you utilize one, pick with wonderful treatment. The 2nd crucial element for high SEO is the headers. Usage H1, H2, H3, H4 headers. A lot of the methods that could be made use of for SEO are outlawed by the numerous online search engine. The advantages of SEO are nearly limitless. Poor methods of SEO are a rigorous 'NO' - Like exact same shade message as the history and also Doorway web pages could obtain your internet site outlawed. The 5 pressures of SEO matter Keywords, distinct Content, tidy Code, pertinent Links and also correct use Technology. Creating for individuals and also developing for SEO are not equally special objectives. There will certainly be concession. White hat SEO are strategies that adhere to specifically the policies and also standards offered by online search engine stand a far better opportunity of getting website traffic as well as greater positions compared to black hat methods. Therefore it is necessary to aim to remain upgraded regarding brand-new SEO are worried. The off-page components of internet site promo and also SEO are equally as essential. Most of concerns with SEO is really fundamental and also simply requires time to be noticed online search engine. Website design as well as SEO are 2 extremely various self-controls, yet a particular level of cooperation is called for. It's very easy to see why reliable SEO are currently quite sought after. Black hat SEO is methods made use of to deceive or adjust online search engine for greater positions. If done effectively, the outcomes of your SEO initiatives are extremely remarkable. Those that exercise exactly what some describe as "moral" as well as "proper" SEO are called White Hat SEO's. One of the most essential for SEO is to adhere to the policies as well as you will not have anything to stress over.

[ahbusinesstechnology]

How to make your website secure

HTTP Security Headers

Recently we introduced the online tool Securityheaders.io , which checks the security of a web server. Easily and easily find out the weaknesses of your own server with this tool. In addition, you get even more, good articles on the topic delivered. Thus equipped, it is quite easy to eradicate the most important weaknesses and to implement another piece of security. So that you too can make your server more secure, I explain in today's post the implementation of the most important HTTP security headers.

  First: Scan the server and determine the initial state Use the online tool securityheaders.io for scanning  . You'll probably see red because that colour you get when your server is potentially unsafe. That's not too bad, because an estimated 80 percent of web servers are not sure.

The scan has now produced exactly the results that are likely to be the most widespread. For websites with HTTPS certificate, there are two more points to add, one of which we will implement. Besides, you can the Green colour of some parts is so the status of this part is OK without any issues. In contrast, the red one shows that you should considerate on these parts. We want to seal the security leaks ejected on this scan in this article. Furthermore, we want to analyse whether all points really make sense and we implement it after that. We will implement these HTTP security headers in this article X-Frame-Options X-XSS-Protection X-Content-Type-Options Strict Transport Security (HTTPS sites only)

What are HTTP Security Headers?

Each time a browser requests a page from a web server, the server responds with delivery of the page and sends an HTTP response header with the content. These headers can have metadata such as fonts, cache control, and error codes. However, one can also send security-related settings with the response headers, which instruct the browser how to behave. For example, a strict transport security header would instruct the browser to communicate only over HTTPS. In total, there are six different HTTP security headers. We recommend in this article which headers you should use and which ones you better leave your finger on. Important: All addressed HTTP security headers come in the .htaccess file in the root directory of the website. Basically, there are three methods to set the headers. Once via the configuration file of the Apache web server (httpd.conf), then via PHP directly within the protected website and via the server control file .htaccess. I will treat all three methods. As a common action, clicking on the graphic will open the Gist Gub Gist where we can download the code.

The X-Frame-Options Header

We can The X-Frame-Options header to keep your website from being executed in a frame. Besides, professional content thieves like to create websites that get content from other websites. Hence, We usually execute this content in a frame. The finished website of the thief then looks as if the content comes from its own page. To prevent this practice, set an X-Frame-Options header. This very effectively prevents execution in a frame. Browser support:  IE 8+, Chrome 4.1+, Firefox 3.6.9+, Opera 10.5+, Safari 4+

Disadvantage of this header: WP framework can no longer execute  the website as a frame. This includes the responsive layouts of the Google Chrome and Firefox Web Developer Toolbars and the Am I Responsive website.  Therefore we should set The header only when the website is no longer in development mode.

The X-XSS Protection Header

As normal, we use The X-XSS Protection Header to address and enable cross-site scripting (XSS) protection filters in modern browsers. Basically, we should activate the filter already. However, this header enforces usage, so we should use it. There are three different setting options: 0 to deactivate the filter, 1 to activate (the browser tries to clean up and display the defective page) and  1; mode = block activates the filter (the defective page is blocked). Browser support:  Internet Explorer 8+, Chrome and Safari

The X-Content-Type-Options Header

This header protects against attacks with incorrect MIME types. If the browsers detect the MIME type as incorrect status, they refuses to load styles and scripts. They call only the setting "NOSNIFF" in this header. If the browsers set the header, they will load only styles and scripts with the correct MIME type. The following MIME types are recognized as correct: Styles text / css scripts "application / ecmascript" "application / javascript" "application / x-javascript" "text / ecmascript" "text / javascript" "text / jscript" "text / x-javascript" "text / vbs" "text / vbscript" Browser support: Internet Explorer and Google Chrome

The strict transport security header (for HTTPS websites only)

The Strict-Transport-Security header instructs the browser to access the Web site only over a secure HTTPS connection. This ensures that the browsers makes no unsafe connection, which would be potentially vulnerable. Also, this HTTP response header prevents users from accessing the page if the browsers don't trust the server's TLS certificate . Adjustments: max-age - The number of seconds that the browser should force the secure connection. includeSubDomains - tells the browser to enforce the secure connection for subdomains. Browser support: IE 11+, Chrome 4+, Firefox 4+, Opera 12+, Safari 7+.

All previously discussed HTTP security headers should be used. If your website is delivered via HTTP only, then you do not need the last header. The three upper, however, I strongly recommend to set. If all mentioned headers have been set correctly, the next scan is with security headers give a solid B . That's a practical value. The content security policy header We should treat  The Content-Security-Policy header with caution as it can directly influence and paralyse your website if we does not meticulously record it. In addition, WordPress users will get quite a bit of trouble in the admin section of the website, as this header also has an effect there. Therefore, we can not generally recommended to implement it. We have deployed the Content Security Policy  to protect against  cross-site scripting (XSS) and other code injection attacks. The idea behind this header is to create a so-called whitelist that lists all allowed resources. The browser does not explicitly allow, does not load and process Content sources or types. If the CSP is not active, the browser loads and outputs all data, regardless of whether the source could be harmful. We can load only the allowed files with active CSP , all others not. All modern browsers support the content security policy. The possibilities of this response header are very extensive; too extensive for this article. Content Security Policy Generator In order to be able to comfortably create the sometimes very long code snippets for the correct function of a website with CSP, there is a good online generator. This will take you through tabs through the setting options and let you adjust the policy over and over again until it finally works.

We should clarify it for the  public-key-pins header . Hence, we can set it safely, but seems feasible only for server professionals.

Conclusion

We have addressed the most important HTTP security headers and can easily implement them by copying the respective code snippets into the server control file .htaccess. A B in the securityheaders.io scan can also reach a non-specialist and do a lot for the security of his website. An A or A +, on the other hand, only the real experts can reached. If you use WordPress, it is extremely tedious to implement the CSP, because WP must also provide CSP for the admin area, if WP does not release any things. In the latter case, however, you can save the setting of the CSP also equal. Read the full article

[juniperpublisher-ph]

The Collapse of Sensemaking in Injury Root Cause Investigations Resulting in Ineffective Injury Prevention Decision-Making: A Retrospective Case Study-Juniper Publishers

Juniper Publishers- Juniper Online Journal of Public Health

Abstract

One of the main tasks of workplace public health professionals is management of injury reduction programs. A critical part of managing in complex environments is effective Sensemaking. Sensemaking is a critical leadership skill necessary in order to determine what has occurred or is occurring in an organization or a given situation, and a means of identifying ways to improve on the results or prevent ramifications. In the industrial setting, environmental health and safety organizations must understand the importance of sensemaking as a critical skill for EHS leaders to perform adequate and accurate injury investigations and prevent recurrence of workplace casualties. Root cause investigations must include a strategy capable of identifying the equipment, policies, environment, and behaviors that caused or contributed to workplace injuries. In this retrospective case study, we evaluated a flawed root cause investigation and leadership decisions through a sense making lens and determined that a collapse in sensemaking resulted in poor decision-making, leading to an incorrect root cause and an inability to assign adequate corrective and preventive actions to inhibit recurrence of similar incidents.

Keywords: Root cause analysis; Accident investigation; Sensemaking; Organizational development; Occupational safety; Cognitive bias; Injury prevention

Go to

Introduction

One of the main tasks of workplace public health professionals is management of injury reduction programs. A critical part of managing in complex environments is effective sensemaking. Sensemaking is a critical leadership skill necessary in order to determine what has occurred or is occurring in an organization or a given situation, and a means of identifying ways to improve on the results or prevent ramifications. In the industrial setting, environmental health and safety organizations must understand the importance of sensemaking as a critical skill for EHS leaders to perform adequate and accurate injury investigation and prevent recurrence of workplace casualties. Root cause investigations must include a strategy capable of identifying the equipment, policies, environment, and behaviors that caused or contributed to workplace injuries. In this retrospective case study, we evaluated a flawed root cause investigation and leadership decisions through a sensemaking lens and determined that a collapse in sense making resulted in poor decision-making, leading to an incorrect root cause and an inability to assign adequate corrective and preventive actions to inhibit recurrence of similar incidents.

Go to

Literature Review

The Need for Root Cause Analysis Methods in Accident Investigations

Accident investigations must be thorough because causative agents for accidents in the workplace can result from poor

safety management systems,

engineering controls,

personal protective measures, or

Safety culture programs [1]. Determining individual and interacting factors that cause or contribute to injury is critical for future prevention efforts [1-4].

Incident root causes can vary, being driven by anything from

faulty safety management systems,

inadequate personal protective equipment,

machinery malfunction,

improper engineering controls, or

Ineffective organizational culture. Determining all of these contributing factors and the specifics behind them that led to injury is vital in order to prevent similar occupational hazards in the future, and prevent recurrence of similar injuries [1-4].

RCA and similar models being used in industry today include

accident Root Cause Tracing,

fault Tree Analysis,

barrier Analysis,

ishikawa-Fishbone Cause and Effect, and

the 5-Why method, among others [1]. These methods are used to analyze whether the necessary barriers were in place to prevent the injury being investigated, as well as analyzing the

equipment,

work processes,

work environment,

behaviors, and acts of Mother Nature, and how they contributed to the occurrence [1]. In essence, these tools are used to assist in making sense out of accidents during investigations. Sensemaking is inherently necessary in the root because investigation processes.

Organizational Decision-Making

Decision-making is critical in organizations because it drives the actions that are taken by those organizations and their leaders. These actions essentially determine organizational results and whether or not an establishment is successful with regard to the organizational mission and goals, including the provision of a safe work environment for employees. The natural human decision-making processes are unreliable, much because human beings are often influenced by many factors when in order to make decisions [5,6]. Inconsistent decision-making is a costly problem for many organizations, often resulting from individual human judgments that are influenced by cognitive biases and irrelevant factors called noise, including items such as personal mood and environmental weather, among others [6].

Additional factors, such as

Hermeneutics

emotions

social influences

information availability and

moral motivations

play a pivotal role in cognitive bias and thus in decisionmaking [7]. Sensemaking, defined in short form as a constructed and coordinated system of action [7], evaluates and steers decision-making, including early and follow-on decisions after successful or failed actions. Effective sense making is critical for organizational success and for reducing potential losses generated by interference of noise and other factors.

Sensemaking for Organizational Decisions

Sensemaking is central to organizational decisions because it is where meanings materialize and inform or drive action [7,8]. It is the natural and ongoing process by which we investigate whether a decision for action was the right one, and the resultant effects of the action exercised [8]. This process can sometimes be easily taken for granted and, if not practiced carefully, may lead to a domino effect of like decisions, even if they are bad ones, because it is not unlikely that an individual’s or organization’s action establishes commitment.

The complex process of sense making is all about evaluating, from a comprehensive approach, what occurs in a given situation, and projecting how it can affect a particular situation and the involved organization. The ability to

analyze

interpret

search

view, and

think

about the situation is critical for effective decision-making. The common themes in sensemaking are psychodynamic in nature, often focusing on levels of awareness that impact sense making and the social biases and interpretations that ultimately influence organizational or individual action [9], and the results of those actions.

Sensemaking and Root Cause Analysis

In industrial settings, root cause investigations are performed for many purposes, including for identification of the cause of injuries and environmental incidents and the prevention of recurrence. Safety-driven root cause investigations are generally performed by environmental health and safety (EHS) professionals and EHS engineers. Although not clinical practitioners, these professionals are usually grouped in an occupational category of preventive health specialists, and are therefore health professionals. The idea of sensemaking is not a new concept in healthcare, although it has been somewhat overlooked in applied health management research. Davidson, Daly, [10], however, developed a sense making model for health care by combining the [11,12] leadership organizational sensemaking model and [13] adaptation model. They created the Facilitated Sensemaking Model as an applied method provided by nursing staff to adjust to disruption experienced by families in situations where family members are in intensive care, allowing for better understanding, making sense of the situations they are newly exposed to, and decision-making Davidson, Daly, Agan, Brady, Higgins [10]. Such models would be useful for environmental health and safety root cause investigators, affording

injured employees

their supervisors

their managers

case managers

quality assessors and

senior leaders.

The ability to make sense of injuries and their causes, as well as necessary follow-on preventive measures. [8] loosely define sense making as an ongoing retrospective, organization, and ordering of all plausible cues or images in a situation in order to rationalize what people are doing. Sensemaking employs a multitude of texts, including analysis of narratives, to build actionable knowledge. The narrative is fundamental to sensemaking and leads to the enactment and retention of organizational action [14,15]. Through narratives, organizational actors are able to translate occurrences into meaningful events and thus impose a logical structure upon a flow of equivocal happenings through ordering and sequencing [14].

This is essentially the rationale behind root cause analysis, and [8], even if not purposefully, rudimentarily exhibits root cause analysis in a retrospective assessment of a collapse of sense making in a firefighting disaster that led to numerous casualties. This study contributed to the literature and knowledge regarding the necessity for certain skills and attributes necessary to foster effective decision-making in organizations. [8] go on to describe the nature of organized sense making from conceptual, descriptive, and prospective views, addressing

flux

bracketing

labeling

retrospection

presumption

plausibility

As they apply to decision-making in organizations. [8] is credited with the greatest contributions in defining sense making, setting the stage for further research and thereby expanding the theoretical framework for analytical study of leadership and organizational decision-making.

Go to

Materials And Methods

Reasoning

There is limited literature on the application of sensemaking. Although there are plenty of articles that describe sensemaking and provide a theoretical basis for understanding the topic,a literature search yielded that although there are a number of articles that focus on sensemaking in healthcare settings, academia, and in professional service organizations [9,15-17], the peer-reviewed collection of manuscripts on applied sense making in niche fields, such as environmental health and safety, is limited or non-existent. This leaves room for research focused on the application and exploration of sensemaking in these real world organizational environments.

Methods

Using a phenomenological grounded theory approach, we performed a qualitative-inductive, naturalistic retrospective analysis of a case study involving a root cause investigation in a large corporate setting. The investigative data collection was conducted in real-time using a partially embedded ethnographic approach through ideographic, observation discovery and data analysis occurring retrospectively against the incident narrative through a sensemaking lens. Sensemaking was analyzed using definitions established in the peer-reviewed literature [7,9,15,18-21].

Narrative of the Scenario

At a materials manufacturing plant, a medium-sized occupational safety department of ten staff members serve as investigators for occupational injuries and illness. Incident root cause investigations. Investigations for all accidents and near misses are conducted by trained and experienced field investigators. Investigations for incidents that result in recordable injuries (RI) and lost-time injuries (LTI) are further reviewed and briefed by senior corporate leaders routinely, including senior compliance leaders, as they can become legal documentation in the event of regulatory inquiry.

Employees at a warehouse for the large manufacturing organization generally move a large variety of products from the warehouse to the employees throughout numerous buildings. These products vary, and are general items delivered for manufacturing and construction of final products that the corporation places on the market. The sizes and weights of materials moved and delivered vary, and may include large boxes, large solid components, machine parts, and drums of chemical compounds. Materials are generally moved and delivered on carts, with dollies, or via forklift. Some items must be stored or handled in the warehouse for short-term or long-term periods. Moving the large, awkward, or excessively heavy objects onto or off of pallets, onto forklifts, or onto or off of storage racks routinely require the assistance of moveable-arm vacuumassisted hoists in order to prevent musculoskeletal injuries to warehouse employees.

During normal daily operations, an employee in a warehouse applied a mounted moveable-arm vacuum hoist in order to lift a 50 gallon drum of a cement compound necessary for a manufacturing process of a corporate product. The drum weighed approximately 350 pounds, requiring the vacuum hoist to move the drum from the storage pallet onto a drum shaker that is located 30 inches above floor level. The drum shaker is routinely used in order to shake the drum to loosen/soften the cement mixture compound if it is hardened upon receipt. Once the drum of compound is shaken for 15 minutes, it is lowered back onto the pallet using the vacuum hoist before it is transferred to the manufacturing location by fork truck.

After lowering a drum of shaken cement compound back onto a pallet, an employee was unable to remove the vacuum hoist from the drum. Apparently, the head plate, which is under vacuum seal, was not releasing because the release mechanism normally used to remove the seal was not functioning properly. Because of thus unanticipated problem, the employee was not able to remove the hoist from the drum, slowing delivery of the needed compound. In an attempt to rectify the situation, the employee called a co-worker over for assistance. Together, they decided that the co-worker would hold the top of the drum and push downward on it while the hoist operator attempted to apply excess pressure to the release mechanism and simultaneously pull upwards in order to release the hoist. After a few attempts, the seal was broken. However, the combination of the force with the rapid release caused the released head plate to immediately projected upwards. The co-worker who was holding the drum down was in a leaning position over the top of the drum. The unexpected and rapid upward retreat of the moveable arm caused the head plate to strike the employee in the head, requiring that the worker be evacuated to a local hospital emergency room for medical treatment.

Root cause investigation results

A thorough root cause investigation was performed utilizing four commonly-used root cause analysis tools, including Barrier Analysis, Fault-Tree Analysis, Ishikawa-Fishbone Cause and Effect Model, and the 5-Why method.

Root and contributing causes

The vacuum release mechanism malfunctioned. The process design, personnel actions, and equipment were assessed thoroughly, and it was discovered that there were numerous failures in the process that significantly contributed to the accident and injury. To begin with, there were no standard troubleshooting procedures established for equipment malfunction, despite the fact that this problem had been experienced on multiple occasions over several years. Troubleshooting should have been addressed through a managerial process and proceduralized, which is what would normally occur in the environment. Furthermore, although a procedure was not developed, there was no existing hands-on training provided to employees on how to correct the problem, despite the fact that this problem had been experienced on multiple occasions over several years.

Third, mechanical equipment, including fork trucks, carts, emergency showers, and many others are generally placed on a routine preventive maintenance schedule to ensure ideal function and operation. There was no established preventive maintenance schedule for the vacuum hoist and release mechanism and the equipment had not been inspected and maintained since the manufacturer’s one-year warranty maintenance four years earlier. Finally, it was noted that the vacuum hoist is only used in this process when the cement material arrives in the warehouse in a hardened condition. Otherwise, the drum is delivered by forklift directly to the manufacturing area, without the need for the use of the hoist.

Corrective and preventive actions

Root cause investigations are critical for identifying the causes of injuries or incidents, but the main objective is to determine what went wrong and what actions are required for prevention or recurrence. Sensemaking is also delineated as a matter of action, with event assessment and post-assessment follow-on action being a cyclical process [8]. In accident investigations, corrective and preventive actions (CAPA) are developed as strategically planned actions to immediately correct the problems identified as the cause for the incident or injury, and to prevent recurrence. CAPAs are designed and implemented as a direct result of the root cause investigation findings.

Senior Regulatory Quality Director review of root cause investigation

The Senior Regulatory Quality Director, a senior compliance leader for the organization, is responsible for review and approval of root cause investigations for incidents that result in RI and LTI injuries. Upon initial review of the incident investigation report, there were no arguments or requests for changes in the submitted report. However, two months postsubmission, a second review was performed. Upon this review of the incident, the Senior Regulatory Quality Director read the entire report, and despite all of the information provided regarding the process, decided to edit and redefine the root cause, logging it in the system under a different determination than the investigators and root cause experts that were involved in the investigation had concluded. The root cause determination made by the Senior Regulatory Quality Director was that the materials were delivered in a hardened state. The justification for this change was that the “…vacuum hoist was used because raw materials were delivered in a hardened state and had to be massaged. If materials were delivered with normal consistency, the hoist would not have been used.”

The logic behind this selection was that, although the employee was injured as a result of the head plate being stuck under pressure and the failure to prescribe troubleshooting, Preventive maintenance, and training requirements, the hardened material is what caused the use of the vacuum hoist. Following that chain of reason, if the material was not delivered in a hardened state, it would not have to be placed on the shaker, and therefore the vacuum hoist would not have been needed and thus not used. As a result, the head plate would have never been stuck and the employee would have never been injured during the attempted removal of the vacuum-sealed head plate. Clearly, this determination is logical. It is true that the employee would not have been injured if the hoist was never used. However, this line of reasoning for root cause determination fails on multiple levels.

Investigation team leader interaction with Senior Regulatory Quality Director regarding the root cause investigation determination

Upon completion of the incident investigation and presentation of the report and summary, the Senior Regulatory Quality Director, who does not work on the manufacturing facility, criticized the report and requested that the investigation report be modified to list the hardened cement compound as the root cause for the injury. When the lead investigator and his team attempted to discuss and explain the scenario to the Senior Regulatory Quality Leader, they were met with a lack of attention and dismissal, followed by a stern argument defining the hardened cement drum root cause logic. When offered professional advice by a root cause investigation subject matter expert, the Senior Regulatory Quality Director became aggravated and loud, completely disregarding any advice provided, and increasing argumentative and reticent attitude. Furthermore, the Senior Regulatory Quality Director argued “I’ve been doing this for years, and I am paid way too much to be correcting you on this.” Regardless how much the lead investigator attempted to collaborate and explain the situation, the Senior Regulatory Quality Director refused to listen to an attempted step-by-step explanation of the investigation or to consider options.

Senior Regulatory Quality Director’s interpretation and final assignment of CAPAs

Upon completion of the root cause investigation review, CAPAs were assigned based on the Senior Regulatory Quality Director based on the modified root cause determination. The corrective action assigned called for the immediate removal of the vacuum hoist from use. The unit was required to be labeled “out of service” and a purchase order was placed to have the hoist repaired by the manufacturer. The preventive action focused on preventing the delivery and use of the hardened cement. The logistics manager was assigned an action to notify the supplier of the cement compound regarding hardened material and file a complaint, notifying the supplier that the company would no longer accept hardened product. Warehouse receiving staff were instructed not to accept the cement when it is delivered in a hardened state.

Problems with the root cause and CAPA assignment

The major problem with the re-assignment of the root cause by the Senior Regulatory Quality Leader was that addressing the cause could have prevented that particular injury during the situation, but was not the main point of cause for the problem. The moveable arm vacuum hoists in the warehouse were purchased to assist lifting and moving numerous items within the warehouse. The hoist is used for lifting materials other than the hardened cement drums. It is used for lifting and moving other heavy and awkwardly-shaped equipment, as well as 50 gallon drums of other compounds. The head plate could have become stuck on any other surface of materials being moved, and could have resulted in similar incidents. The removal of the need to shake the cement drum to loosen it from the hardened state did not preclude the problem.

The corrective and preventive actions assigned were only adequate to partially address the problem. The corrective action to immediately remove the single vacuum hoist and have it repaired would prevent the immediate problem with the one piece of equipment. However, numerous identical hoists exist in the facility, and could experience the same problem, since none of them were on a preventive maintenance schedule and not troubleshooting procedure existed for any of them. Furthermore, preventing the arrival of the hardened cement compound removed the necessity to lift and shake the drums of the specific compound. Nonetheless, the hoists are used for other processes throughout the facility. The re-assigned CAPAs failed to address these issues.

Go to

Results And Discussion

Evaluation of the Senior Regulatory Quality Director’s sense making showed critical flaws that resulted in failed leadership and organizational ineffectiveness. The result of ineffective sensemaking by the senior organizational leader resulted in undesirable organizational implications, affecting suborganization teamwork. Additionally, had the situation been left to remain placid without intervention, the poor leadership decision could have resulted in unsafe working conditions and potential incident recurrence.

Decision and Sensemaking

There were numerous failures during the root cause investigation review process by the Senior Regulatory Quality Director that resulted in ineffective sensemaking and thus poor decision-making. These included problems with

perception

limited search

cognitive and confirmation bias

noise

communication

institutional factors

power

ego

collective knowledge

assessment of narrative

problem-solving

emotion

interpretation and

politics of knowledge.

The effects of perception, interpretation, and perspective on sensemaking

Perception of situations, including during root cause investigation, are very much guided by cues that are received from the environment as well as from experience. Sensemaking usually begins in a state of chaos [8], which is often exactly what is experienced at the front end of root cause investigations. This chaos is rife with an undifferentiated flux of fleeting sense impressions from all of the raw activities and information received through environmental and personal cues [8]. The perceptions and interpretations, couple with experience, communication, and other factors creates mental models that can also be shared to make meaning of situations. This is achieved through organizing, which is essentially partitioned and established through bracketing. Once the flux raw data and activities are available to the individual, sense making becomes about bracketing and labeling [8].

Bracketing is guided by mental models [8]. Bracketing is an incipient state of sensemaking that is based on a diversity of available data. Based on what has already been learned, past experience, and the information available, decisions can be made. These decisions are achieved through partitioning and organizing data from a combination of mental models and salient cues [8]. During this process, phenomena are forcibly carved from the flux of raw information. In the root cause scenario, this is one primary area where the leadership fails because the Senior Regulatory Quality Director identifies with raw information and experience and stops there, with limited information and a lack of analysis of all of the data and cues received. Essentially, bracketing is cut short, and though the world is simplified [8], it is too simple, leaving a lot of data on the table not to be considered, resulting in incomplete labeling and premature decisions. Sense making requires imposing functional labels on interdependent events to suggest plausible acts of management, coordination, and distribution [8]. Incomplete analysis and premature labeling can result in categorization using peripheral cases with equivocal meaning, with indeterminate actions more likely to alter sense making [8]. In root cause investigation, the limited bracketing and immediate labeling, using only peripheral cases of cause and contributing factors resulted in assumptions, leading to equivocal rather than empirical data.

Interpretation is also vital to sense making, and can affect the sense making process and the actionable results of the process. It can be said that no two people interpret things in exactly the same way. This is because meanings people develop are fundamentally fluid and they continue to develop over a breadth of experiences, making them essentially unstable and [22,23]. Some scholars contend that there is no unified or shared representation in organizations as a result of this because histories are too diverse and complex [21]. In addition to interpretation based on experience and the fluidity of experiences, individuals and their sense making abilities are also affected by cognitive and confirmation biases.

Psychologist argue that mistakes in our judgments cannot possibly be random or else they would cancel each other out (2011). Instead, they maintain that human judgments are systematically biased towards one side or the other. These are cognitive biases that we maintain as a result of biology and experience (2011). [19], explain the role of cognitive bias in human judgement, presenting that biases resulting from character based upon personality, created by factors including heredity, biology, and psychology. These include things like

biologically-limited information processing capacity

hermenutices

social influences

emotional and moral motivations, and

noise.

One of the key elements identified in cognitive bias is noise and noisy information processing [19]. Besides the way that our brains process noisy information, Kahneman presents the concept of noise as environmental exposure that affects evershifting attitudes and perspectives of individuals because of the influence of unimportant or irrelevant things, including

the weather

dining menus and

traffic patterns among other topics.

this irrelevant data can affect mood or information processing, and thus result in a situation in which an identical question being asked multiple times over extended periods potentially results in different responses from the same individual [19]. These inconsistent decisions can dramatically affect organizations and organizational outcomes relative to mission and goals [19]. This noise is considered a type of cognitive bias, affecting sensemaking, and therefore decisionmaking.

This cognitive bias is evident in the root cause investigation scenario when the Senior Regulatory Quality Director did not immediately negate and modify the determination of the root cause, but re-reviewed and requested modification two months after initial submission and review. It appears that the senior leader was somehow refocused and potentially made a different determination after initially agreeing to the root cause investigation report during the initial review. Narrative devices are very useful in sense making. Narratives serve as a sort of detective story example in which the problem-solving procedures entail a set of movements and actions that detect the cause of the problem, identifying a diagnosis, and agreeing upon corrective actions [14].

As a narrative process, problems are dramatized and made visible and meaningful structures and cognitive frames are created, permitting diagnosis to occur by transforming equivocal findings into meaningful characterization [14]. Furthermore, narratives deal with human intentions, and their significance in the study of organizations have been recognized as the basic principle of human cognition [14,24]. The narrative method implies collecting data from varying sources and piecing information into a comprehensive and useable text. This method is what implicitly transpires during root cause investigations. Making sense of a thorough collection of data beyond the raw material is necessary and can lead to actionable intelligence.

The Senior Regulatory Quality Director failed to consider the entire narrative, thus limiting the amount of information from which to make root cause and CAPA decisions. Instead of thorough analysis and interpretation of a comprehensive data pool, the Regulatory Director relied on limited search, meaning that there was no attempt to look at alternatives. Narratives provide the fundamental vehicle for securing the commonsensical in organizational knowledge [14]. However, the Senior Regulatory Quality Director ignored the narrative provided in the investigation and created a narrative that best fit her biases. As soon as she noticed the hardened material as a contributing cause, the fixation was on that individual problem, with blatant negation of other causes, although they were provided. The Senior Regulatory Quality Director committed to the hardened cement drum as the cause. She identified the problem that was convenient and acceptable for her interpretation, and closed the door on other possibilities, leaving no room for doubt and re-evaluation.

Additionally, [5] also examines the potential influence of confirmation bias on sense making. The Senior Regulatory Quality Director had the full narrative and a comprehensive amount of information available for review. Nevertheless, she was readily able to select one individual contributing cause to the incident, attach her mind to it, and treat it without any doubt as the root cause. [5] describes that humans tend to seek out facts that support their ideas and beliefs, stopping short of any material that could be revealed to discredit them. Perhaps this is, in part, fueled by hubris. Not leaving room for doubt and reevaluation implies idea of perfection or inability to be incorrect. This is similar to [24] Reality Filtering, which is defined as “… many among the intelligentsia create their own reality- whether deliberately or not – by filtering out information contrary to their conception of how the world is or ought to be [24].” Furthermore, this can be interpreted as an example of withdrawn self dishonesty, an organizational behavior theory in which the individual making decisions is situationally withdrawn, due to a lack of self-awareness and ego, and is therefore unable to recognize his or her own role and participation in an organizational failure.

In this scenario, the Senior Regulatory Quality Director exhibited numerous signs of excessive pride and egotism. The blatant disregard shown for the investigation team and the subject matter experts, including direct refusal to engage in conversation, reduced the chances of comprehensive data gathering and complete understanding of the event. Action is the meaningful element in organizational sense making, but the construction of the action is subject to conflict of interpretation with the resolution firmly rooted in argumentation and debate [14]. Without the discourse, the entire sense making process potentially becomes affected and may lead to ineffective decisions, such as was experienced with the root cause investigation.

Sensemaking methodology is partially grounded in human perspectives [18]. Perspective has a great deal to do with decision-making, and evaluating and understanding different perspective in a given situation can be vital in making valid decisions. Organizational teams commonly struggle through conflict resulting from diversity of thought and experience. In order to avoid this, teams must evaluate diverse perspectives from within the group. Diversity means that team members have different experiences and ideas. These differences should be shared and explored. Diversity of thought and ideas are not weaknesses, but rather opportunities [25]. The idea behind sharing perspectives, also known as street corners, is focused on ensuring team members are open to sharing ideas and openly and honestly listening to the ideas of others to aid in the design of the best possible solutions to problems [25,26]. Exemplified this in her work, refining a methodology in this area by focusing on the communication of information and how that exchange can enhance or impede sensemaking [18].

This concept is critical to sense making and root cause investigation because sense making is not about truth and getting the exact correct answer. Sensemaking is about establishing the best and most comprehensive plausibility for a situation through continuous re-evaluation and re-drafting of the story and incorporation of all of the data as it becomes more available [8]. This is important because root cause investigations require a comprehensive assessment of all of the data points available, and root cause analysis tools are used to take into account as much data as possible to make root and contributing cause determinations. In the vacuum hoist analysis, the Senior Regulatory Quality Director failed to observe or consider all of the data or to communicate effectively with the root cause investigation team that participated in the investigation. The senior leader chose, instead, the make a determination based on experience and perception. However, there search shows that leaders’ and managers’ perceptions are rarely accurate [8,20,27].

Organizational activity, managerial practices, and decisionmaking often rely heavily on the accuracy of leaders’ and managers’ perceptions [27]. Organizations and teams often make the assumption that managers and leaders have accurate perceptions of their organizations or their work environment. However, the research suggests that their perceptions are highly inaccurate [27]. Studies exhibit that perception is formed by the prior beliefs and needs of the perceiver rather than objective facts, which supports the necessity to collaborate and communicate with team-mates or co-investigators to secure a more comprehensive set of data on which to make decisions winter [20]. In fact, organizational behavior and organizational development experts propose that a significant and unfavorable problem for organizations does not have to do with inaccurately analyzing scarce data, but rather failing to interpret an abundance of data into something actionable Bettis Prahalad (1995) [8]. Therefore, by ignoring the data presented by the investigation team, and refusing to discuss the situation with the subject matter experts from an ethnographic perspective, the Senior Regulatory Quality Director constrained the collective ability for the team to manage their information and prevented the group from collectively reaching a comprehensive conclusion and appropriate actions. Sense making requires the cognitive processes by which people engage in debate, dialect, and collective inquiry [14]. The senior leader failed to foster that, and that action, or lack thereof, contributed to failed sense making and bad decisions.

Furthermore, the Senior Regulatory Quality Director does not work on the main manufacturing site. Ethnography can be critical to root cause investigation. Being embedded in the environment where the incident occurred is often necessary and ideal for a thorough understanding of the processes involved in the workplace. Psychologist and ethnographers have exhibited through research that competence is not readily separable from situational artifacts, including physical environments and social relations [20,28]. Likewise, being present during the investigation, and having a clear understanding of the situation that transpired during the incident, and the perspectives of the people involved is important to determine root and contributing causes and factors. It is not uncommon, and is usually prudent practice to visit the site of the accident and even recreate the incident as it occurred. This is similar to forensic assessment during criminal investigations. In this scenario, the Senior Regulatory Quality Director did not work in the area and did not participate in the on-location investigation. This senior leader therefore had very limited understanding, based on limited historical experience, of the environment and the processes in the warehouse. The lack of detailed information, and the failure to evaluate details provided by the investigation team, resulted in a limitation on perspective. This type of limitation seriously affects the potential for effective sensemaking, and can be particularly dangerous when people’s safety is at stake.

The effects of institutional factors on sense making

Research suggests that institutional context precedes and follows action, explaining that actors make sense within institutions, not outside of them or despite them. These institutional factors, including

position

authority

company policies and

hierarchical structure and

culture contribute to shaping what is also referred to as signification or meaning-making through interpretation [29,30].

It is no surprise that people who are powerful and advantaged have unequal access to roles and positions that influence construction of social reality, including those that drive decisions [8]. When sense making involves group votes, power roles may affect whether the votes are weighted equally. Power can affect sense making because of control over

cues

discussions

criteria for plausible stories

permitted actions

histories decided upon and

valued or derogated identities [8].

It was evident during the root cause investigation review that institutional factors played a role in the outcome. The Senior Regulatory Quality Director behaved with hubris, not only making statements regarding having worked with root cause investigations for over thirty years, but adding that the expertise of the past thirty years was not to be questioned. The demand to modify the root cause and CAPAs in the incident investigation report was a power play, regardless of their correctness. When approached with recommendations based on professional advice from the ethnographic experience, the Senior Regulatory Quality Director shut the advance down immediately, telling the lead investigator in a loud and stern voice not to argue and to do what is instructed, followed by walking away from the conversation. This was a textbook display of the use of positional power and authority. The root cause lead was hired based upon

leadership experience,

root cause expertise, and

straight forward and honest approach to communication and discourse.

However, when the opportunity to affect the process arose, the leader was not only ignored, but immediately silenced. Power in sensemaking can be expressed in many ways, including whether identities are valued or derogated [14]. In this situation, the position of the lead investigator and the status of the individual as a root cause analysis expert were not valued, and the actions taken by the Senior Regulatory Quality Director directly derogated. The senior leader exercised misuse of power and authority in order to control

the discussion,

who was involved in the discussion, and

the overall decision based on personal preferences and cues.

This does not mean that it was done with any ill will, but was ineffective sensemaking nonetheless, identifying an incorrect root cause and deciding upon inadequate corrective and preventive actions. The position, authority, and hubris allowed the senior leader to assign blame for the incident to an entity that certainly contributed to the incident, but was not the cause for it. As a result, preventive measures would not have been implemented if the other causes were not addressed.

Implications of the Senior Regulatory Quality Director’s decision

Sensemaking, as a subject, investigates two questions. The first question investigates what occurred in a given situation that led to a particular outcome. The second queries what to do about it. In other words, sensemaking is not just about organizing and figuring out what transpired in an event. It is about action [8]. Effective sensemaking in root cause investigation drives the direction of actions towards corrective and preventive measures relative to incidents and injuries. In the vacuum hoist injury investigation, the incorrect CAPA was finalized, not addressing the proper cause and therefore, not assigning adequate measures to prevent recurrence of the incident.

Furthermore, the team of investigators has witnessed the entire incident, and has experienced the non-constructive criticism and authoritarian approach regarding their work. As a result, they have lost confidence in their abilities to produce the necessary investigation product, and have lost the ability to make sense of what transpired during the incident review. They have limited understanding what the senior leaders want to see, particularly as a result of the noise in the scenario, and the disparate and nonsensical decisions. Furthermore, trust can be an issue in sense making. Trust is a key element that has been strongly connected to strategic partnership Adobor [18]. Trust is inherently needed in teams because when individuals in teams are interdependent on each other during work, they must be willing to risk reliance on each other in order to meet project deadlines. Thus, a culture of mutual trust is absolutely critical in supporting the core components of teamwork [31]. Trust is defined as the belief that no individual within an exchange will exploit the counterpart’s vulnerabilities [18]. However, the breaking of trust, such as that perceived by the investigation team, can directly affect future relationships as well as the sensemaking process going forward. Investigators will have the notion or complex thoughts based on the experiences with the Senior Regulatory Quality Director every time they attempt to make root because determinations. The situation has created confusion and disarray in the root cause investigation process. As a side effect, the team has experienced a loss or reduction in their sense of confidence over team effectiveness. According to [19] sensemaking methodology, the Senior Regulatory Quality Director did not demonstrate effective leadership in this scenario. By not supporting the team and the process, a wedge was created around trust and value, affecting the relationship between staff, site business management, and senior management.

Go to

Conclusion

According to [14], organizational sensemaking is birthed on the trajectory that moves processes from equivocal to actionable, driving towards agreed-upon facts and epistemological closure [14]. Sensemaking is a critical piece of the toolbox necessary for leadership effectiveness in groups and organizations, enveloping key leadership objectives such as

Discussion,

Information exchange,

Comprehension,

Understanding,

Interpretation, and

Agreement when it comes to attempts to resolve problems [32].

This process is vital for effective decision-making in many facets of organizational operations, including injury and incident investigations. Root cause investigations for occupational safety incidents and injuries are akin to sensemaking in that they also originate in chaos from which raw information and data must be organized using root cause analysis tools. These tools are used in order to create a comprehensive narrative of the incident and all of the factors that contribute to incident or injury.

Our research took a phenomenological, grounded approach, performing a qualitative retrospective analysis using naturalistic observation during ethnographic positioning and formulating and evaluating a narrative of an injury investigation case study within a manufacturing plant. We analyzed a sensemaking process of senior leadership after the conclusion of a root cause investigation. Our findings exhibited the complete failure of organizational sense making on the part of a senior leader as a result of flawed

perception,

perspective,

narrative assessment,

interpretation,

participation, and

institutional factors.

The resistance of the senior leader to participate in discourse and comprehensive evaluation due to ego and power, and the selection of root cause based on limited search and confirmation bias, resulted in poor decision-making that could have had drastic negative effects on the organization and employees.

This case study serves as a solid example of sensemaking, describing and defining the importance and exhibiting not only where sense making can go wrong, but also the potential implications of inadequate sensemaking by individuals within organizations. There is considerable room for further case study in sense making in industrial settings and other organizations.

Opportunities for Future Research

Weber and Glyn [30]credit Weick’s work as the cornerstone of organizational theory regarding sense making, but communicate that Weick’s focuses on the micro-level approach regarding the process, expressing that additional study regarding the macrolevel is needed [30,31-35]. Macro-level research is not absent from the literature, but there is room for additional research in a diverse group of topics related to sensemaking, including a deeper dive into institutional factors and their interplay as a substantive part of sensemaking, arguing that institutions themselves serve as a primer for sensemaking [36-41]. Essentially, although there are volumes of research on theory and application of sensemaking, there is a dearth of case studies related to industrial environments and issues of work place safety [42-45]. Ample opportunities exist for further exploration of sense making application in industrial environments and the alignment of theory with case studies for organizational effectiveness and organizational safety culture [46-48].

For more articles in Juniper Online Journal of Public Health please click on https://juniperpublishers.com/jojph/index.php

For more Journals in Juniper Publishers

please click on https://juniperpublishers.com/index.php

To know more details regarding our Juniper publishers please click on

https://juniperpublishers.business.site/

[jtk1009-772-blog]

Profile - Pauline Hanson

(Wiki)

Pauline Hanson’s introduction:

Pauline Hanson was born in 1954 in Brisbane, Australia (Parliament). After her studies at Coorparoo State School, located in Queensland, Australia (Wiki), she became a single mother of four and a small business owner from 1978 to 1997 (Parliament). Her career in politics began locally, as she joined the Ipswich City Council from 1994 to 1995 (Parliament). After being in the city council, she was then elected to the House of Representatives for Oxley, Queensland in 1996 (Parliament). After being elected and making her Maiden speech, the support for Hanson skyrocketed due to her unconventional style (Parliament). While this was important for Hanson’s political career, it was also important for Australia in general, as she was the first independent female to win a seat in the House of Representatives (One Nation). Although she won independently, she was a part of the Liberal political party previously, until the endorsement was taken away due to politically incorrect comments she made in regards to multiculturalism (One Nation). After serving on the House of Representatives, Hanson was defeated after one two-year term in 1998 (One Nation), and she will not officially return into Australian politics until 2016, 8 years later.

In 1997, Pauline Hanson founded the Pauline Hanson’s One Nation political party (One Nation). The political party used populist and protectionist ideologies (One Nation). Protectionism can be described as “political-economic doctrines that have in common advocating that government impose political barriers to international trade… in order to ‘protect’ a domestic firm” (Political Economy Terms). In Pauline Hanson’s One Nation’s case regarding a Protectionism platform, the party advocated the restoration of import tariffs (One Nation). Like this stance on import tariffs, Pauline Hanson’s One Nation party is very set-in-stone when it comes to other particular policies as well. To start, the party believes that Australia needs to reduce immigration to a great extent due to the party's serious disagreement with multiculturalism and policies that support it (One Nation). The reason behind their opinions regarding immigration and multiculturalism is because Hanson believes that these immigrants will not be able to properly assimilate to Australian culture, and she has even used negative terms such as “the Asianisation of Australia” (One Nation) to describe what she thinks will happen if changes are not made. This statement was made early in her political career (One Nation). The party also believes in increased support for small businesses in Australia (One Nation). This makes sense because of Pauline Hanson’s life before politics.

While Pauline Hanson’s One Nation party has not been very successful electorally, the political party has made somewhat of an impact on Australia politics. To begin, the party put great pressure on other political parties in Australia, particularly the National Party, regrading constituency support during Hanson’s most popular years (One Nation). Next, the party's edgy political style revealed some dissatisfaction between Australian citizens and the major political parties (One Nation). Hanson also believes that many of her ideologies have been implemented by other major parties after hearing what she has to say (One Nation). The largest impact that Hanson made on Australia was breaking “the chains of political correctness” within the country (One Nation).

Today, after years of being irrelevant since Hanson’s House of Representative term, the populist figure returned as the leader of the party once more in 2014 (One Nation). The same views that she founded the party on were once more being implemented in the same kind of ways she did back in the early 2000s (One Nation). These principles include nationalism, conservatism, and equality amongst all Australians (One Nation). In 2015, she once again renamed the One Nation party back to “Pauline Hanson’s One Nation” party (One Nation). Hanson has also made clear what the party is strongly against, and for the most part, nothing has changed. A few of these ideas that she is against include multiculturalism, different laws for different cultures, foreign ownership within the country, and radical Islam (One Nation). In 2016, Pauline Hanson made her official return to Australian politics as a Senator, where she serves today (One Nation).

Pauline Hanson and the frameworks of populism:

It is clear that Pauline Hanson fashions herself as a ‘Vox Populi’ for a few different reasons. To start, a ‘Vox Populi’ is a figure who presents themselves “as the true voice of the people” (Mudde, 2017, 68). The way that Pauline Hanson does this is by using her “sex to construct [her] outsider status” (Mudde, 2017, 69). An example of this is when Hanson stated that “[she] care[s] so passionately about this country, [she’s] like [it’s] mother, Australia is [her] home and the Australian people are [her] children” (Mudde, 2017, 68).

Hanson also presents herself as a ‘Vox Populi’ by attempting to act as a political outsider. A political outsider is described as someone who “has nothing in common with the political establishment” (Mudde, 2017, 73). Even though she was involved with local politics, Hanson stated in her Maiden speech after winning the House of Representatives election in 1997, “I come here not as a polished politician but as a woman who has had her fair share of life’s knocks” (Sydney Morning Herald). When Hanson showed the public that she was not interconnected with the currently established political world, she was able to distance herself from previous, disliked policies as well as ducking the possible ‘corruption’ accusation that many politicians face during elections (Sydney Morning Herald).

Due to Hanson’s stance on equality, the populist figure is very much so against “Aboriginals [receiving] more benefits than non-Aboriginals” (Sydney Morning Herald). She has previously stated that Australia’s “present governments are encouraging separatism in Australia by providing opportunities, land, money and facilities available only to Aboriginals” (Sydney Morning Herald). Hanson blamed the political elites for putting Aboriginals' rights over the ordinary Australian. Because of this approach, Hanson falls into the Rightwing populism category. Rightwing populism puts the people against an elite in which they believe are favoring a third party (The Guardian). Hanson is putting the people against the elites as she believes they favor Aboriginals. This, along with the amount of immigration that goes on in Australia are, is one of the main problems Hanson has with the establishment (One Nation).

Pauline Hanson’s relationship with the media:

Pauline Hanson has a very unique communication style that many would consider to be politically incorrect and borderline racist. In 1996, after she secured a position in Parliament, she spoke on the topic of immigration, and she stated in a speech, “I believe we are in danger of being swamped by Asians” (Sydney Morning Herald). A few years ago, in 2016, she also stated the same exact thing in a speech but instead replaced Asians with “Muslims” (SBS). Additionally, she has compared Islam to a “disease” (Huffington Post). Due to these statements, it is clear that Hanson is not afraid of breaking the political correctness rules and she is not afraid of what the media may say about her. Additionally, she has an interesting feature on the Pauline Hanson’s One Nation website. The page is titled “The True Victims of Political Correctness” (One Nation). The contents of the page show a video of a man holding white signs with texts that state what will be lost if Australia continues in a politically correct direction. One white signs says “No Merry Christmas”, while the next white sign says “No Happy Easter” (One Nation). The last white sign states that the “only way to stop this is vote one nation!!!” (One Nation). Hanson uses this video and others on her social media platforms in order to connect to her supporters who may be worried about how far political correctness may go.  

Although Pauline Hanson and the media do not often get along, Hanson would never have been so successful and popular if it was not for the media, due to her lack of grassroots campaigning (Deutchman, 1999, 34). Australia news media outlets and Pauline Hanson have not only been at war when it comes to political correctness, but Hanson has also accused the media early in her career of inaccurate crowd numbers being printed, and how she is “so sick and tired of [the media]” (News). Similar to President Trump now, Hanson often talks about how the media wants to see her “demise” (News). In the late 90s, Hanson banned ABC from covering the One Nation celebration, even though other outlets were allowed to attend (News). While it is clear Hanson does need mainstream news outlets to cover her, she puts in effort to create her own “direct paths to voters via social media” (News). An example of this is the live steaming she does on her Facebook page, where she is able to interact with the voters who are commenting directly (Facebook).  

[septembersung]

Looking at the posts I’ve accumulated so far for #500 reasons and counting, I realized I need to frame the various subjects I’m tackling. I’d rather post more quotes than original posts, but the trouble with a complicated history like the Reformation (and the internet in general) is taking things out of context causes problems. To do this right, we need a clear conceptual framework in which to lay those quotes (and my inevitable commentary on them). So while in my first post I talked about where I’m coming from personally, in this post, call it intro 2.0, let’s lay out some history and approach parameters.

Let’s get the approach parameters out of the way first: 

A) I’m trained in theology, not history, and I’m blogging about this as someone learning, not an expert. B) please charitably correct me (with sources!) if I get something wrong, but C) we should go into this realizing there’s a lot of room for disagreement (as you’ll see if you finish reading this post). D) I always try to represent the source I’m summarizing/working from accurately. That means: D-1) if you disagree with something I say, let’s first go back to the source and make sure I’m conveying it as they said it, and D-2) A good debater should understand the opposing POV so well that they can word their opponent’s argument to the satisfaction of their opponent. If I misrepresent an argument, it is not intentional. Please bring it to my attention and we’ll work it out. 

That said, now we can talk about bias. If we’re going to talk about the Reformation, its causes and effects, how it influenced our civilization and still affects people today - even, yes, all those pesky theological “details” many would say no one cares about and don’t matter anymore! - then we need to ask some pointed questions: Just what do we mean by the Reformation? Whose version of the Reformation and its legacy is correct? What exactly is it, septembersung, that you’re taking issue with and arguing against?

Well, if you ask three historians “what happened,” you’ll get thirty answers...

To a large extent, Catholics, Protestants, and secular historians tell the story of medieval Christianity (i.e., Catholicism) and the Reformation differently. Extremely differently. (There is a lot of overlap in some areas between Protestant and secular approaches, however.) You might think that “facts are facts,” but history isn’t primarily facts; history the story we tell ourselves about facts as we know them. Sometimes an assumption, or a “fact” that’s actually false, or a matter of opinion, or disputed, gets enshrined as truth, embedded in how the subject is approached and handed down, and then everything from that is skewed. (This is an exceptionally important point we will come back to frequently.) 

Everyone has a bias; this is unavoidable. In this context, bias means “where you stand to see the rest of the world.” Everyone has to stand somewhere. What’s important is to be able to identify your bias and see how it affects the story as you’ve received it and as you tell it. And, equally importantly, to differentiate bias, a fact of being an individual human person, from prejudice, which in this context means unfair and probably incorrect negation of a point of view you don’t share. An illustration of the difference: A secular, that is, non-believing, historian writes a history of the Reformation. Their bias is that they are not Christian, neither Catholic or Protestant. Their prejudice is shown in privileging the Protestant side of the story. To pick just three examples of how that prejudice could play out: using slurs against Catholics, the Church, and Catholic beliefs; accepting Protestant claims about Catholicism and Christian history a priori, as factual premise, without investigation or explanation; taking it for granted, as an accepted truth that does not need proving, that the Reformation did the world a favor. Here’s the kicker: this is not an invented example, but a summary of a large swath of writings on the Reformation.

As you know, I’m Catholic; that’s my bias. You should ask yourself: what’s yours? Do you know how it affects what you’ve been taught and the way you perceive history and the world around you? What prejudice might you be participating in that you don’t even realize is a prejudice?

(Sidebar: In addition (and related to) to the bias issue: intense specialization and the ways history as a whole is conceived and taught has led to such an overabundance of “facts” and narratives, particularly about this stretch of history, that there is little cohesion, and simply so much that trying to get a handle on the big picture can be completely overwhelming. You can drown in data and never learn a thing. (I always picture a cartoon child opening a stuffed closet and being buried in toys.) There’s a super good, though technical, layout of this problem in the introduction to Brad S. Gregory’s book The Unintended Reformation: How a Religious Revolution Secularized Society. I’m going to talk about that book a lot.)

The takeaway so far should be: the story of history that we receive varies by which community we’re in and which community delivered the story to us. I am not arguing that no objective truth about the matter exists. Quite the opposite: the first step to finding the truth is recognizing that what has been uncritically accepted as fact is an interpretation based on unreliable ideas. What I would most like to show my readers through this project, especially my Protestant readers, is that the reality and significance of the Reformation has been greatly misunderstood across the majority of communities. It’s pretty unlikely you’ll read my posts and come away deciding to convert to Catholicism. What is possible, and I hope it will happen, that you’ll walk away with a different understanding of Catholicism itself and Protestantism’s role the last 500 years of Christian history.

(Important sidebar: “Protestants” and “Protestantism” can only ever be a generalization. Not only do the vast number of denominations disagree with each other about Christian doctrine, on points big and small, but they have different biases, different understandings of history, different views of Catholicism - you get the idea. Whenever we use the term “Protesant/ism”, we should be aware that is a generalization.)

With all that said: here is a simplified summary of the story of the Reformation as popularly understood. What does that mean? It means this summary doesn’t cover everything, but it does encompass the broad spectrum of “not-Catholic” opinion, including both Protestant and secular views, which vary from each other and among themselves. And, of course, scholars and academia tend to acknowledge more nuance and complexity in the events of history than non-specialists. I spell this out to avoid tiresome arguments that I’m setting up a straw man or objections like “but I don’t believe that/all of that/that in that way,” etc. So as I said: the broad gist of the Reformation story as popularly understood by much of the world today:

The Catholic Church was pure institutionalized corruption. The hierarchy and religious lived immoral lives and oppressed the lay people. The Church was unChristian in deep and significant ways that were harming people. When Luther (et al) realized this, and that what the Church taught as religious truth was just a means of perpetuating its control and corruption, they got up and pushed, and the whole rotten structure came tumbling down. Suddenly the common people had access to the Bible, Jesus, real catechesis, spiritual and political freedom, genuine community, and (to use the modern terms) freedom and agency. There was some resistance, but the populace more or less welcomed the Reformation and joined in enthusiastically. The Reformation was a movement who’s time had come. With the suppression of “priestcraft,” superstitious practices and beliefs, and man-made ritual, the accumulated debris of centuries of ”Romish inventions” was swept aside and Christianity was given a clean slate. With this demolition of the Church, thus (believers would say) true, original Christianity triumphed; all the excess (at best) and demonic distractions (at worst) that led people away/separated people from Jesus was gone. With the demolition of the Church, thus (some believers and the vast majority of secular analyses would say) the road to modern society was paved: separation of church and state, the triumph of the thinking mind/rationality/logic over and against the deadening religious/organized religion influence, the growth of the sciences, freedom, tolerance, pluralism, etc.; the goods and wonders of the modern world exist because the iron grip of the Church was broken. Shedding the past launched us into the future. We’re lucky it’s over and done with and not relevant to us, in our secular society, anymore.

There’s just one problem with this narrative: it’s almost entirely wrong. 

That’s a large chunk of what I’m taking issue with and arguing against.

I can’t guarantee this tag is going to be particularly organized or exhaustive - I decided to do this just a few days ago and, despite being a fast reader, can only cram in so much - but I’m going to examine these kinds of claims (in their originals, please note, not from my general gist summary) through my own writing and through sharing the content of scholars and writers more qualified than myself, to argue for a contrary thesis: Not only is that understanding of Catholicism and Christian history factually incorrect, but the Reformation was not an organic, welcomed event/process but rather a violent uprooting of a strong, loved religious tradition and past that cut Christians off from their heritage, fragmented and splintered society, blew the foundation out of Christendom (society as Christian society,) putting Western civilization on the road to society’s secularization, the marginalization and oppression of religion in the public life, and opened the door to the moral, rational, and political chaos we know today. I will absolutely address issues like “but wasn’t the Church corrupt?” but to a certain extent I don’t think that’s actually helpful until some of the fundamental falsehoods in what is generally assumed about the Reformation have been examined. In addition, as we follow the ramifications of the Reformation down the centuries, we’ll get to talk about politics, American exceptionalism, Dracula and turn-of-the-20th-century English culture (it’s amazingly relevant), and - my personal favorite - iconoclasm and incarnation.

I highly recommend reading Karl Keating’s short article “Not a reformation but a revolution.” (Quotes are coming.) He says it better than I do.

The queue starts tomorrow, Sunday October 1st!