Does it matter?

Everyone always says that things are too complicated these days. We have too much information, too many stories trying to get our attention, and too many people trying to rile us up for various causes. What is a [nearly] sane person to do? Well, I am developing a formula so that I only get upset at the most upset-worthy things, and rest just slides away so that I can catch up on Facebook in peace.

(Issue + Viewpoint 1 + Viewpoint 2)PossibleOutcome - OutcomeSoFar = HowMuchICare
*Please note that this only works with a minimum of two viewpoints.

Let's take a rather controversial example to illustrate my process. When Barak Obama bowed to a foreign dignitary, much of America was in a firestorm over the event. Me? My main thought was "What's for lunch?". I just wasn't revved up for either side of the debate.

I'm going to give a little detail into how I got my Viewpoint, PossibleOutcome and OutcomeSoFar variables, first:

1. The meaning of a bow is cultural and there are tons of contextual nuances to consider.

a). Viewpoint 1 is that the bow was a sign of respect. If that's the case, I'm okay with that. I like to think that we respect other nations, and I'm sure they appreciate such sentiments (PossibleOutcome). It just seems like something positive that helps keep everything spinning.

b). Viewpoint 2 is that the bow was a sign of subservience, in which case it could be taken two ways. It could be a sign of disrespect to Americans. I grant that. But it also occurs to me that the symbolic gesture could actually do us a great deal of good in international relations (PossibleOutcome). I know this is incredibly hard to believe, but a good portion of the world sees America as kind of arrogant and pushy. If we really are as powerful a nation as we believe, I'm pretty sure we can absorb a hit to our pride for the cause of goodwill and future cooperation. So, I don't consider the disrespect thing to be a heavy hitter.

c). Whatever happened symbolically, in the more relevant matters of America's power and safety and nationalism, it really doesn't change anything (OutcomeSoFar). Our military is still there, our economy (such as it is) is still ticking, our government still meets and our bargaining power with other nations doesn't seem to be affected.


Now, I'm not a math genius, but if I add all this up I get:
(Bow + PossibleRespect + PossibleSubsurvience)AngryAmericans/ PositiveInternationalRelations - NoChange = More Cheetos.

...Oops. Make that, "= Doesn't change anything, hurts only pride in a country famous for arrogance, so not feeling the urgency".

As another example, let's take the scenario of a magazine announcing that researchers may have found another clue to curing some disease. I see these fairly often. Then I read the article and realize that the discovery, albeit in a promising direction, has so many "might's" and "maybe's" and "possible's" attached, it's like navigating a minefield to find the meat of the article. Basically, many of these wonderful discoveries are actually akin to getting the gas cap off your car so you can fill up for a cross-country road trip. When I encounter one of these, I just skim the article before moving on to truly enlightening discoveries- like about how to achieve bikini abs.

(Discovery + ThisIsPromising + ThisIsn'tGettingUsAnywhere)CouldCure - Hasn'tCuredAnythinYet = Don'tBetYourLifeSavingsOnIt

On the other hand, we really do sometimes have things that affect us. Take the illness of a close family member, for instance:

(Illness + LessNaggingNow + ILoveFamily)GuiltLaterIfNotHelpingNow - OpportunityToHelp = Yes,ICare

Now I must come up with a name for this brilliant new formula...

Look me in the eyes

I have a theory that our society is both too connected and not connected enough. We are too connected in the sense that we can immerse ourselves in news from across the country or across the world, but we often don't have any sense of the undercurrents and background behind the stories. And yet, we have so much information at our fingertips, we assume we know what is going on. That is how we are too connected.

As for how we are not connected enough, we know a lot of people and hear stories of many more, so it can become hard to assign individuality. It is much too easy to become callous and forget that these people have faces, stories, and feelings. We do not live near them, nor do we see them at work or the store, so we are not confronted with their reality.

That is how we are not connected enough.

For myself, I am working on a phrase to ground me whenever I catch myself falling into one of the above pitfalls.

"Would I say the say the same thing if I had to look them in the eyes?"

I have my moments of a Social Darwinist attitude. If people are not competent enough to survive, it is the way of nature that they are eliminated from the gene pool. But if confronted with someone who fits the profile, would I voice my attitude? I don't know.

If I don't like the health reform and say that those of us who work should not have to support those who don't... would I hold to that if I had someone unemployed in front of me? What if I knew that person's reasons for unemployment? Or what if that person had a serious illness and got caught in the "doughnut hole" of coverage? Would I stand firm on principle?

If someone is ranting on an online post in a way that I don't like, do I jump in and start firing back? Or do I moderate my words, remembering that just because I don't have to face the person directly, that doesn't mean that words don't still hurt?

Since I cannot take one position from a distance and another from closer in without becoming a hypocrite, I feel that this approach will only benefit me and those around me. If we all conducted our lives as if every interaction were face-to-face, I wonder what differences we would see...