“That said” has become one of my favorite expressions lately. That said…
The other night, I was having a conversation with a professional political analyst whose judgment I value highly, and one of the subjects that happened to be fit for this family-friendly blog—it was a Friday dinner fueled with cocktails and wine—was the noticeable difference between op-eds and even reporting in mainstream journalism on one hand and analysis on the other. Our first conclusion was that the former dug up facts that suited conclusions dictated by ideology and conventional wisdom while the latter tried to let the facts dictate the conclusion.
Confession: We were being unkind and judgmental; we both know many a journalist or talking head who is more than a match for the better-than-average political analyst. (on fact, some of our best friends are…) And you know how badly financial analysts failed their clients during every economic bubble. Perhaps, then, the takeaway is this: The facts, ma’am, just the facts.
But no, the analyst had a further insight: It’s the context created by the analysis that matters, since the consequences of any investment accrue to the investor and the investor alone. At the end of the day, the call is almost trivial,, since it is the responsibility of the investor and the investor alone. The analyst can only provide the context.
Is that a copout? I don’t know. You make the call.
A collateral point that I noticed later is that it’s much easier to agree on the context than on the conclusion. And that, my friends, is the fundamental basis of a civil discourse. JM, with whom I so often have to agree to disagree, will agree to that.
Showing posts with label integrity. Show all posts
Showing posts with label integrity. Show all posts
Sunday, March 28, 2010
Thursday, July 17, 2008
Anonymity, Pseudonym, Identity, Individual
I’ve always wondered why so many people in liberal democracies choose to post and comment anonymously. I have nothing against consistently-used pseudonyms, even multiple ones, though I have chosen to adopt a single Internet identity under my own name. A pseudonym confers an identity on the user. The user must maintain the integrity of that persona; to the extent that its integrity is diminished, the user is proportionately diminished. An online pseudonym is analogous to a real-world! stage name adopted by entertainers. Public fickleness takes its toll on the very best; family and friends may love the individual as much as ever, but the public persona suffers, and the individual is diminished accordingly. The user suffers the consequences.
Anonymity has no such identity. There is no persona to connect the consequences—good or bad—of an expression to the individual. In principle, someone living in a liberal democracy usually does not have an ethically defensible reason to choose anonymity. If you have thoughts that you cannot share with general public, keep them to yourself, or among people that you feel safe sharing them with.
There are, of course, many cases, even in a liberal democracy, that the positive societal consequences of the disclosure of the information so outweigh the potential negative personal consequences of the disclosure of the identity that anonymity is justified. Sometimes, a comment is so inconsequential—like a catcall at a rock concert—that failing to adopt an identity for that specific occasion is trivial. In other cases, it may be nothing more than the kind of casual rudeness associated with the lack of preexisting social connections. But, so often, online anonymity breeds irresponsible, harmful, and even criminal expressions without any consequences to the persona of the originator. There is something supremely unethical about that—corrosive to the soul (if there is such thing). And with that thought I must satisfy myself.
I suppose I should be happy with any traffic, even some of it happens to be hostile, poorly-reasoned comments of the anonymous kind. However, I was prompted to gather my thoughts on this point by a particularly insidious form of anonymity that came my way, fairly recently. I began receiving on this blog a series of not-so-favorable comments anonymously and under a variety of pseudonyms, apparently from the same person. I would figure out where they were coming from—I have my ways—and indicated as much on counter-comments without exposing the originator. Eventually, while implicitly (though not outright) admitting to the fact, the originator sought to meet me and I agreed. The meeting turned out to be cordial, and we continued our correspondence. However, there were, if I remember correctly, a couple of anonymous comments on this blog later appeared, apparently from the same source. Accordingly, my correspondence became more brutal and direct, though not as potty-mouthed as that of the originator. Fortunately, a misunderstanding on the part of the originator ended the correspondence; I had referred to certain Congressional and parliamentary bodies as moral cowards with regard to certain acts and omissions of theirs and the originator took it as a personal accusation, a mistake no one who had actually been reading my blog instead of just scanning it to confirm preconceptions would have made. Which, I suppose, is the silver lining on a small if unfortunate cloud.
But why now, this moment, you may ask?
That is for me to know, and the curious to find out.
Anonymity has no such identity. There is no persona to connect the consequences—good or bad—of an expression to the individual. In principle, someone living in a liberal democracy usually does not have an ethically defensible reason to choose anonymity. If you have thoughts that you cannot share with general public, keep them to yourself, or among people that you feel safe sharing them with.
There are, of course, many cases, even in a liberal democracy, that the positive societal consequences of the disclosure of the information so outweigh the potential negative personal consequences of the disclosure of the identity that anonymity is justified. Sometimes, a comment is so inconsequential—like a catcall at a rock concert—that failing to adopt an identity for that specific occasion is trivial. In other cases, it may be nothing more than the kind of casual rudeness associated with the lack of preexisting social connections. But, so often, online anonymity breeds irresponsible, harmful, and even criminal expressions without any consequences to the persona of the originator. There is something supremely unethical about that—corrosive to the soul (if there is such thing). And with that thought I must satisfy myself.
I suppose I should be happy with any traffic, even some of it happens to be hostile, poorly-reasoned comments of the anonymous kind. However, I was prompted to gather my thoughts on this point by a particularly insidious form of anonymity that came my way, fairly recently. I began receiving on this blog a series of not-so-favorable comments anonymously and under a variety of pseudonyms, apparently from the same person. I would figure out where they were coming from—I have my ways—and indicated as much on counter-comments without exposing the originator. Eventually, while implicitly (though not outright) admitting to the fact, the originator sought to meet me and I agreed. The meeting turned out to be cordial, and we continued our correspondence. However, there were, if I remember correctly, a couple of anonymous comments on this blog later appeared, apparently from the same source. Accordingly, my correspondence became more brutal and direct, though not as potty-mouthed as that of the originator. Fortunately, a misunderstanding on the part of the originator ended the correspondence; I had referred to certain Congressional and parliamentary bodies as moral cowards with regard to certain acts and omissions of theirs and the originator took it as a personal accusation, a mistake no one who had actually been reading my blog instead of just scanning it to confirm preconceptions would have made. Which, I suppose, is the silver lining on a small if unfortunate cloud.
But why now, this moment, you may ask?
That is for me to know, and the curious to find out.
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
Some Thoughts on Blogging
As you can easily figure out from its title, I started GlobalTalk 21 with the intent to put down my thoughts on international relations. In the beginning, I translated all my posts into Japanese; the need to make a living put an end to that very quickly. This did not really matter, since my posts over time began to revolve mainly around Japanese politics. After all, with 130 million Japanese and counting (down), there must be someone, somewhere who must be posting the same things that I’m saying on any particular post to a much wider Japanese readership than mine. But in English? And that is how it came to pass, or so I think. I’m trying to rebalance that by setting up a Japanese-language blog around US politics and other subjects that might be of interest to Japanese readers—I am realistic enough to know that few English speakers will come to me for bits of wisdom on US politics. Any subject, of course, could turn up in one, the other, or both blogs.
Also at the very beginning of this blog, I decided to blog under my own name. I did this, partly to brand myself, partly to assume responsibility for every word I would come to write. I also give my real name with any comments that I make on other people’s blogs. Moreover, I respond to every comment that I receive, friendly or hostile, self-identified or anonymous, and will continue to do so as long as I can. I owe that to the people who not only read my blog but take the time to comment.
Speaking of anonymity, I obviously have more respect for people who blog under their own names or some other permanent identity. They are putting their reputations at risk. Not that I cut them any more slack for that, as you can see from some of my counter-comments to a MTC, and he/she happens to be a good friend. Nevertheless, anonymity is not a part of the Internet Blovination that I find particularly attractive, as my dismissive posts and comments about the Japanese Internet forum 2 Channeru will testify. But all traffic is inherently good, and some intelligent, otherwise perfectly upright people do comment anonymously (although often more pungently, if you will, than people who disclose their identities). Unfortunately, there are people who say good things to you or about you, but act differently towards you under the cloak of anonymity. Even when I’m sure of their identities, I’ll tolerate them on a social/professional level—no man is an island—but it’s not a very pleasant fact of life.
080513I’m Not Sure What These Polls Are Trying to Tell Us about Our Political Parties and Their Leaders
Shinzo Abe, Yasuo Fukuda, Gordon Brown, Nicholas Sarkozy, Lee Myung-bak: What do these heads of state or government have in common? They all started their jobs with high opinion poll numbers that fell steeply, very early in their respective administrations.
Popularity Gap between Political Leaders and Their Parties
...remind myself not to start multiple drafts on single Word file...
Also at the very beginning of this blog, I decided to blog under my own name. I did this, partly to brand myself, partly to assume responsibility for every word I would come to write. I also give my real name with any comments that I make on other people’s blogs. Moreover, I respond to every comment that I receive, friendly or hostile, self-identified or anonymous, and will continue to do so as long as I can. I owe that to the people who not only read my blog but take the time to comment.
Speaking of anonymity, I obviously have more respect for people who blog under their own names or some other permanent identity. They are putting their reputations at risk. Not that I cut them any more slack for that, as you can see from some of my counter-comments to a MTC, and he/she happens to be a good friend. Nevertheless, anonymity is not a part of the Internet Blovination that I find particularly attractive, as my dismissive posts and comments about the Japanese Internet forum 2 Channeru will testify. But all traffic is inherently good, and some intelligent, otherwise perfectly upright people do comment anonymously (although often more pungently, if you will, than people who disclose their identities). Unfortunately, there are people who say good things to you or about you, but act differently towards you under the cloak of anonymity. Even when I’m sure of their identities, I’ll tolerate them on a social/professional level—no man is an island—but it’s not a very pleasant fact of life.
Shinzo Abe, Yasuo Fukuda, Gordon Brown, Nicholas Sarkozy, Lee Myung-bak: What do these heads of state or government have in common? They all started their jobs with high opinion poll numbers that fell steeply, very early in their respective administrations.
Popularity Gap between Political Leaders and Their Parties
...remind myself not to start multiple drafts on single Word file...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)