Writing, interpretation, and a fragile ego...

I have been writing this blog since Dec 1. It causes me a surprising amount of anxiety.

I started out feeling stress about putting my thoughts on public display. Conversation is more nuanced than writing. One can soften the blow of one's opinions when in conversation. Writing down one’s thoughts subjects oneself to much more angry rebuttal. Interesting. But, my anxiety is no longer about people disagreeing with me, it’s about readers interpreting my thoughts in ways which I did not intend. Now my anxiety is more around being seen to believe things which I simply do not. This blog has been a great lesson in the difficulty we have communicating with one another. Justice, politics, policing, journalism, etc. Contentious issues are really hard to discuss because people with strong opinions tend to strong bias. 

I try to write with precision. No doubt there is some sloppiness in this area and my intended meaning is not perfectly clear. Still, the propensity of readers to interpret this blog coloured by the lenses they are wearing is rather remarkable. This is a form of observer bias. And, it has me wondering about my own bias when I read opinion pieces in the Globe and Mail or National Post.

In the U.S., the Innocence Project reports eyewitness misidentification occurred in 75% of overturned convictions in the United States of America. Eyewitnesses are fallible. The context of the observer (or reader) obviously matters.

Studies have shown that witnesses of a mock crime who did not witness the whole crime, nevertheless testified to what they expected would have happened as though they had actually seen it. Our brains fill in details that suit our expectations.

Confirmation bias is the tendency of the individual to interpret evidence in a way that will confirm their own beliefs. Two individuals with the same information may well have very different interpretations and they will tend to perceive the information in a way which confirms their pre-existing beliefs. I see this phenomenon repeatedly on this blog.

Context matters. Each reader brings his or her own context.

In 18 years as a broadcaster I received very few complaints. I was not in the business of controversy and, consequently, I didn’t cause much. Almost without exception any complaint I did receive was what I came to call an “agenda driven complaint.” That is, a complaint about something that I was alleged to have said which was offensive to the bias of the listener. In most of these cases, the complainant had not even actually heard me. They had been told by a friend, “You will not believe what Rambling Dave said,” and then they called to complain. It was rarely something that I had actually said in the first place. And, mostly I had the very same bias as the listener. 

My favourite blog to read is by Ken Levine an Emmy winning writer/director/producer/major league baseball announcer. Every Friday, Ken answers questions from blog readers. This past Friday the following question and answer appeared:

I just started a writing job (in a very different field than TV/ Movies) and am terrified every day that I'm a fraud. Did you ever feel this way and if so, how did you fake (and ultimately develop) your writing confidence? My sponsor says vodka is not an option.

Becky, here’s the dirty little secret – ALL writers are terrified that they’re frauds. And worse, they’ll be exposed for the frauds they are. So you’re in good company. You just have to suppress it.

In writing this blog for five weeks I feel exactly as Ken describes. In part because I worry about my writing and in part because I worry about its interpretation by others.

I spend an hour a day on this. It is not as well written as I would like it to be. I don’t have enough time for editing as I would like. But, that is part of the exercise. 

More interesting, to me, is how broadly interpreted my thoughts are and how frequently I am taken to mean something which at worst is completely the opposite of what I have written and, more commonly, is taken to mean something which I did not intend.

Dalhousie University has a big, big problem.

Thirteen male Dalhousie dentistry students are, for now, suspended from clinical activities. This suspension is brought on by misogynist, sexual comments made about their colleagues as part of a private Facebook group revealed to the CBC. This story continues to be chaotic and these students’ academic future, even the mechanism of punishment, remains uncertain. The future of their female colleagues also remains unclear. Are they expected to attend clinics or classes with these thirteen young men? Surely not. And therein is the big, big problem that Dalhousie University has. 

A couple of things are clear.

These students believed that they were indulging in a private conversation. Indeed, they took steps to see to it that it was private. Namely, the Facebook group that they started was not public, you had to be a member to take part. It’s not clear who captured screen shots of the conversations and leaked them to the CBC.  Nonetheless, I think the evidence is clear that these young men thought they were indulging in a private, harmless, juvenile conversation. This may not be what, in fact, they were doing. But, it’s what they thought they were doing. It is similar to a private locker room conversation being recorded either by someone in the conversation or by a third party, and then having the recording released to the media. 

Secondly, there has not been a crime. Conversation can be a crime. You can threaten someone, for instance. But, this was intended as a private conversation and in criminal law, intent matters. Even still, private conversations can be crimes if, for instance, they are conspiracies. There was some conversation about drugging and raping women but there is nothing to indicate that these were legitimate plans. They were awful, repugnant jokes but they were not a criminal conspiracy.

Here is the problem that the administration of Dalhousie University is facing. On one hand they owe it to the women affected to provide a safe school environ. On the other hand, what censure of the Dalhousie Thirteen is appropriate for a private conversation that has been made public?

There is no law against being offensive, misogynist, and just generally an ass in your private affairs. And, Dalhousie can’t punish these young men for their private affairs.

Donald Sterling was censured by the N.B.A. when his horrifically offensive attitudes on race became public. They were able to do this because of the covenant of N.B.A. owners. Namely, the owners hold complete collective power over everything and if they want to censure you, they can. This is not the case with Dalhousie.

Members of dentistry profession are to conduct themselves “to the esteem of the profession.” Failure to conduct themselves in accordance with their professional responsibilities can result in discipline from the professional association. But, that’s the professional association, not the university. And, these are students. I don’t think the Nova Scotia Dental Association has any jurisdiction. They could, perhaps, later refuse admission to the Dalhousie Thirteen just as some provincial legal associations have refused to recognize Trinity University graduates. But, that’s another conversation as it’s not between the university and these students.

There is a Dalhousie University Code of Student Conduct. Students are prohibited from behavior that one would reasonably foresee as making another student feel demeaned, intimidated, or harassed. But, this was as a private conversation. Who would reasonably foresee a private conversation demeaning anyone? Once it’s made public, it is horribly demeaning and I can’t imagine any of the women affected want to head into the clinic and share the space with any of the men involved. But, was it a breach of the Code? This was not reasonably foreseeable (the men will argue) because it was a private conversation that was surreptitiously made public by someone with no right to do so.

This is why the university has been so slow to act decisively. It seems to me that Dalhousie administration is in a very difficult place. On one hand there is the security of the female colleagues of these thirteen men. They deserve a rich, safe, secure workplace – or, in this case, school. It’s a shame that these men did not know better. But, apparently they didn’t. It’s a shame that these men are such asses. But, apparently they are. 

On the other hand there is the potentially massive economic loss to these men. It they are expelled and subsequently successfully sue the university there is a lot at stake. How much is the monetary loss associated with denying a dental career? To one? To thirteen? I am certain that this number would be in the millions.

I predict that Dalhousie will propose a solution that protect the female members of the college by providing a safe school environ. The female dentistry students will finish their studies with no further contact with the men in question. And, these thirteen men will be allowed to graduate, thus passing the buck onto the professional association and avoiding a potentially massive lawsuit. 

This is a solution that will not satisfy anybody.

I am shockingly ignorant (we all are, each in our own way).

I love learning. I get it from my father, I think, who is a lifelong learner. Now, at age 84, he is working on a book about photography – still trying to decipher what makes for a great photograph and reading, thinking, writing, and learning every day.
 

Mostly, I love having my ignorance exploded. I love discovering how little I know.

I learned an interesting perspective on Ebola from South African comic Trevor Noah on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart. Here is food for thought. The United States has had four confirmed cases of Ebola. South Africa has had zero cases in the last eighteen years. I was previously aware of the difficulty spreading Ebola and never considered it to be much risk to Canada, for instance. Nonetheless, the ego and ignorance of American representatives who would ban all travel to and from Africa shows a complete disregard for evidence. South Africa is a long way away from the epicentre of the Ebola outbreak.

Trevor Noah reminded me that I am completely ignorant as to the size of the continent of Africa.  Fly from Ottawa to Mexico City and the distance is 3600 KM. Fly from Casablanca, Morocco (the northwest corner of Africa) to Capetown, South Aftrica and the distance is 7990 KM. Africa is a big, big place. Social and political problems in Egypt, Sudan, Congo, Sierra Leone, and South Africa are very far removed from one another. I must remind myself not to think of Africa as a single place which a lot of us do. I am embarrassed by my ignorance.

This morning I had another shocking fact presented to me. In 2014, according to the Syrian Observatory for Civil Rights, 76,021 people were killed in the civil war. Over 17,000 civilians. Over 3500 children. It is no surprise that Syrians refugees are climbing aboard derelict livestock carriers in the thousands and hoping for refuge anywhere. This despite the fact they must know they are at risk of being abandoned at sea as has happened twice in the past week. 

More than 200,000 people have been killed in Syria since the conflict began in 2011.

In perspective, Canada lost 45,400 people in World War II, about 0.4 percent of the population. In three years Syria has lost 0.88 percent of its population. 

I am not sure what I would have estimated the death toll to be in Syria because I have no perspective. It’s a news story on the periphery of my awareness in a part of the world in which I have very little understanding. This stark fact – almost 75,000 people killed in 2014 – brings home the scope of this story to those who are living through it and trying to escape it.

We are so very lucky in Canada. We have, each of us, won the birth lottery and find ourselves surrounded my wealth, prosperity, and security. 

Happy New Year.