Dan Erwin

Sometimes Life is Beyond Our Control

I regularly enjoy conversations with seven or eight friends, retired university faculty, social workers and businessmen. Recently, I’ve become aware that a couple of them are profoundly alarmed and emotionally upset by Trumpism and the Ukrainian invasion and their impact upon themselves. They talk about both quite often and seem personally frightened. I’ve intended to tell them just to take a good stiff drink, do what you can do, and go on with your life. But I’ve come to realize that won’t work for them...

I certainly don’t disagree with their politics. It’s fairly obvious to me that our past president was an evil, greedy bastard who, thus far, has evinced little interest in the common good. Yet human personal and political reality is never that clear cut. Most of us know that good people can do bad things. But my friends seem unaware that sometimes bad people do good things. The current situation seems to bode fairly well for financially and physical secure guys like them, although not for the lower-middle and lower classes. So, what’s really intriguing to me is why some of these guys get so profoundly alarmed by the situation.

The issue, I realized a few months ago, is what’s referred to as locus-of-control...

Surprising Research on Racial Voting

As a general rule, most people think that race and anti-race determine voting patterns. Many voters on the left thinnk that supporters of Trump are motivated by racism. One Psychologist recently said that "as a nation, we must face the possibility that a large segment of the white population harbors strong racist and bigoted beliefs."

But is that really true?

A meta-analytic study out of the University of Amsterdam (Netherlands) disputes that claim. Meta-analytical studies are the analysis of many different studies on a question. And the question is very important for today's presidential race. With Vice-President Kamala Harris as the Democratic candidate for president, are voters motivated by race?

The Amsterdam study included results from 43 experiments, based largely on US participants and including 305,632 participants. 

The authors concluded, "On average the political underrepresentation of racial/ethnic minorities citizens is unlikely to be caused by voters." Overall, race doesn't play a substantial role in voter decision about candidates. The study also indicated that it fits with other evidence that voters show a slight preference for women candidates.

I can hear a lot of people disagreeing with those conclusions. But that's what 43 different experiments reveal. It becomes more obvious that Western democracies are working toward "historically unprecedented levels of egalitarianism." It fits with the fact that about three years ago my 60 year-old daughter married a Liberian--a former student of hers. And absolutely no one gives a damn--other than the marriage is meaningful and happy. I, for example, think he's just a delightful guy! It's no different what-so-ever than the easy comment of my thirty-plus year-old coach  made, when asked about his family, that one of his brothers is gay. It's just ho-hum.

“NAPOLEON:” More Ridley Scott

Over the holiday I saw Scott’s Napoleon. When I walked out of the movie, my daughter asked what I thought of the movie. I paused, and then said, “I don’t know.”

“That’s an unusual comment, “she responded, remembering that I have a PhD in critical tools.

I usually like Scott’s stuff, but when I thought about this movie, I finally decided that he missed his opportunity. The movie just didn’t make much sense to me. It had scenes of big wars and bonking attractive females. But there was actually no

A Call for Community: UCBerkeley

In an intriguing and very human response, two Berkeley profs--an Israeli and a Palestinian--got together to write a call for community. Though brief, I want publish the note from the Chancellor, Carol Christ and the two faculty.

October 12, 2023
Chancellor Carol Christ sent the following message to the Berkeley campus community Thursday afternoon.

We are increasingly concerned by the growing prevalence of online threats, doxxing and harassment connected to the conflict between Israel and Hamas. We decry any calls for violence in any form or support for terrorism as we continue to mourn the loss of innocent life. We understand this rhetoric is creating deep fear and concern among many members of our campus community. With that in mind, we want to share an extraordinary message, written by two of our faculty, one who is Palestinian and one who is Israeli:

To our students,

We are two professors on this campus who disagree, vehemently. But we have always treated one another with respect and dignity. We love this campus with its diverse communities and all of our students and are heartbroken to hear of incidents of near violence between students in recent days. We will not...

My Passion Turned Toxic

So I left it, nearly 40 years ago. It was one of the four or five smartest moves in my life of nearly 90 years.

I’ve loved my life even more for the last 40 years, and found it very meaningful. Initially, both of my professions in the first 22 years were also very meaningful—and even very happy and successful professions with national recognition. But eventually, both professions became toxic. Or, as my wife referred to the culture where I worked last, very “plastic.”

Let me explain.
The term, toxic, is defined as “harmful or unpleasant in a pervasive or insidious way.” But that’s nothing more than a dictionary term. If you’ve talked to people who use the term in reference to a relationship or a situation, you know that the dictionary term doesn’t tell you very much. The term, like many others is ambiguous. It’s a classic case of polysemy. It has many meanings, but all the meanings are determined by the context. So what’s toxic to one person is not to another. Toxic is not merely sensitive to the context. The meaning of the word toxic depends completely on the situation for its meaning.

Of all the hundreds of people related to the last culture in which I worked, no one would ever think of that culture, except my wife and I, as toxic. In fact, when I talked to a leader from that culture, years after I left, he was very offended that I described the culture as toxic—even though I used my wife’s term—“plastic.”

Best Political Quote of the Year. . . Gretchen Whitmer

In an extensive article, perhaps thinking about a future presidential run, the New Yorker had a long and enlightening article by Benjamin Wallace-Wells on Whitmer. The current governor of Michigan, Whitmer is one tough, very smart lady. But she's not the only Democrat in the State. Both houses are also Democratically run--creating a very thick Blue Wall and knocking the DeVos family out of much of their power games for extreme Republicans.

She understood well that the low turnout of 2016, which gave Trump the state, was not about a radical turn to the right, but about "low voter turnout."

Whitmer's wins suggest a different story about the Midwestern heartland.

To the Givers Go the Riches: The Hidden Dimension of Work—and Life Relationships

Today’s political world would often have you believe that it’s the “getters” who have success—not the “getters.” But that’s a short term bias. And admittedly a few politicos seem to have success on that basis. But what you’re seeing is the gross exception not the everyday reality. The percentage of successful “getters” is very small, even though that few get a lot of attention. American writers love to call attention to the exceptions: it makes for great reading and sells a lot of copy. 

Just common sense
The people who look at the big picture recognize that a few of the getters succeed, but they know it’s a damned few. And that a terrific percentage of “getters” are very unhappy, frustrated people down deep. It’s just common sense that the givers make the great contributions to our communities—not the getters. The problem with that statement, however, is that common sense has become a rare ingredient in most cultures. And for a number of documentable reasons common sense has become a rare commodity in today’s world. It’s that loss, too, that drives all the craziness, fake facts and conspiracy thinking we stare at or listen to nearly every day.

The major reason common sense has gone the way of the dodo bird is the unique siloing of the universe since WWII. We’ve got academic silos, business silos, industry silos, religious silos, political silos, class silos, economic silos, race silos--and most people talking to themselves. No wonder the crazies are able to stir up manure by the ton load. If you know your history and literature, you know that silos have always been around, limiting and rejecting a common worldly sense.

The example that often comes to mind is

7 Reasons Why I will Never Retire

This is not for fifty-year-olds, but for thirty-year-olds—who, thankfully,  are also the greatest number of my readership. Besides, a lot of people in their forties and fifties have already made their decisions for good or ill. I’m writing this because the earlier you make the decision, the better prepared you’ll be for never retiring.

I decided shortly after I reached 50 years that I’d never retire. Now, at 88 years, it’s one of the four or five best decisions I’ve ever made. Initially my decision was about the fact that I love my business and my profession. Not least because it’s been exceptionally lucrative, making possible a lot of things that I’d only dreamed about.  But as time has gone on, I’ve realized that there are many more reasons than just loving my lucrative business. My decision has surfaced many reasons for never retiring, reasons that were not obvious to a 50-year-old, even within my wide knowledge base.

First, people who continue working have the best health future. I have a high school classmate who was university faculty until his retirement at 70. I chatted with him a short while ago, just checking in on him and how he felt. His response to my question was that he was “bored.” His health shows it. He’s diabetic with a neuropathy, overweight, limited in his ability to get around, and living with his wife in a way-too-small retirement apartment. No question but what you can have plenty of diseases while working, but work often focuses your brain on health. Jobs usually require basic health and so taking care ourselves simply because we’re still working is inevitable for many of us.

Should College Students Be Pampered--or Deliberately Made Uncomfortable?

Have we gone overboard on empathy? Has empathetically correct become the new politically correct?

Over dinner with some long-time friends, we were discussing the difficulty their grandson, a recent engineering grad, was having finding a job. Knowing that the religious school he attended was certainly not noted for engineering, I asked why he hadn’t gone to the University of Minnesota. At the “U” he would have gotten a far better engineering education, paid much less tuition and accessed the U’s magnificent engineering career network. 

“He wasn’t comfortable” with the University, his grandmother responded. Without thinking, I blurted out that I thought the purpose of college was to make the student “uncomfortable.” They were silent for a moment, then broke out into laughter, and agreed fully with my conclusion.

Political vs. empathetic correctness
Back in 2014 I first wrote about empathic correctness. While political correctness emphasizes the protection of marginalized individuals and groups, empathetic correctness focuses on protecting individual sensitivities. It shows up as students question the Western Canon and refuse to read materials that challenge their own personal comfort or cause “psychological distress.”

The most jaw-dropping display of empathetic correctness came in a New York Times article reporting on the number of campuses proposing that so-called “trigger warnings” be placed on syllabi in courses using texts or films containing material that might “trigger” discomfort for students. Themes seen as needing such warnings range from suicide, abuse, and rape to anti-Semitism, “misogynistic violence,” and “controlling relationships.” Astonishingly, some of the literary works advocates claim need warning labels for adult college students are often read by high school students, such as The Great Gatsby and the Merchant of Venice...

WHAT HAPPENED TO AMERICAN CONSERVATISM?

In a recent article in The Atlantic, the New York Times opinion writer, David Brooks, asked what happened to American Conservatism? A spot-on question. I've only voted for a Republican presidential candidate once in my voting life of 65 years. I voted for Richard Nixon--and for the wrong reason. I thought--at the time--that I didn't want a Catholic in the White House. That was a serious mistake for that reason alone. I left that prejudice years ago. And teaching at a Benedictine University was not the only dagger to put an end to such personal naivete. But I am perturbed by the fact that the majority of Supreme Court justices are Catholic. The notion that their faith doesn't impact their rulings is utter nonsense. With my Protestant background, I disagree on a number of faith issue that seriously influence their rulings. I have enough psych background to understand that religious neutrality in the practice of the law is nonsense. 

Still, I had a lot of satisfaction with many espousing a conservative judiciary, Republican legislators and governors for whom I did not vote, until--that is--McConnell took over the senate. It wasn't just Trump and Trumpism. I flirted awhile with Libertarianism until I realized that it was utterly pagan and totally irresponsible--a stupid stance. I've been a middle-of-the road Democrat with an occasional infatuation with progressive ideas. Unlike many older people, I haven't gotten more conservative over time. But I thought David Brooks' article spelled out the kind of Republican conservatism that managed the state of Michigan very well in my early years.

Much of my readership is too young to have experienced that healthy conservatism, so here's some Brooks' insight and commitment that made the two party system work for years--even though I disagree with some of his Burkean thought. But here some of his insights from the Atlantic article (January-February 2022).

The setup is that "the rich philosophical tradition I fell in love with has been reduced to Fox News and voter suppression....I fell in love with conservatism in my 20s. As a politics and crime reporter in Chicago, I often found myself around public-housing projects like Cabrini-Green and the Robert Taylor Homes, which had been built with the best of intentions but had become nightmares. The urban planners who designed those projects thought they could improve lives by replacing ramshackle old neighborhoods with a series of neatly ordered high-rises."

But Brooks came to his conservatism uniquely. .

It's Even More Important Now to Keep Your Friends Close and Your Enemies Closer

When I first wrote this back  in 2012, it was just fairly relevant. Given the status of our culture today, this article is extremely relevant. People aren't talking to each other about their differences. They are not just marching, but sometimes they are rioting over their differences. The issues that divide are numerous: politics, science, education, religion, pandemic, etc. The list is seemingly endless. Now, more than ever, people are just ignoring those they know differ with them, and sometimes behaving like irreconcilable enemies.

So why should you keep your friends close--and your enemies closer? It wasn’t the Godfather’s Michael Corleone who first uttered this well-known dictum. Actually, it came from Machiavelli in "The Prince," the definitive primer for how to be a dictator. You’d think that with my easy-going optimism, I’d never write a blog on this subject.  But, au contraire!

As a manager or leader it is inevitable that we’ll want to add to your knowledge base, try to sell ideas, get people on board and even change the direction of our organization. One of the involved persons just might be your enemy. That’s my basic rationale for acting on Machiavelli’s instinct. In my first vocation, the Christian ministry, I worked diligently to stay close to parishioners who disagreed with my orientation. The consequence was that unlike many in the congregationalist polity I maintained significant support not only from those of my ideology, but also those of more rigid, fundamentalist ideologies. They could have been "enemies" and capable in our polity of creating a lot difficulties. But over an eleven year period, that never happened because I was close to those who differed--and worked to make "adjustments" without compromises.

In the business setting, I refer to “enemy” as a person you have to interact with, someone who’s competing for your resources, who doesn’t follow through on his commitments, whom you don’t trust, with whom the “chemistry” isn’t there, or who disagrees with your perspective from the ground up. These are also people whom you’ll need in order to get your own personal and organizational objectives met. As both a manager and a consultant, I’ve found a number of people who fit in that same box. In short, I’ve found Machiavelli very useful for my own success.

But there are a number of exceedingly important reasons for keeping your enemies close...

So why should you keep your friends close--and your enemies closer? It wasn’t the Godfather’s Michael Corleone who first uttered this well-known dictum. Actually, it came from Machiavelli in "The Prince," the definitive primer for how to be a dictator. You’d think that with my easy-going optimism, I’d never write a blog on this subject.  But, au contraire!

As a manager or leader it is inevitable that we’ll want to add to your knowledge base, try to sell ideas, get people on board and even change the direction of our organization. One of the involved persons just might be your enemy. That’s my basic rationale for acting on Machiavelli’s instinct. In my first vocation, the Christian ministry, I worked diligently to stay close to parishioners who disagreed with my orientation. The consequence was that unlike many in the congregationalist polity I maintained significant support not only from those of my ideology, but also those of more rigid, fundamentalist ideologies. They could have been "enemies" and capable in our polity of creating a lot difficulties. But over an eleven year period, that never happened because I was close to those who differed--and worked to make "adjustments" without compromises.

In the business setting, I refer to “enemy” as a person you have to interact with, someone who’s competing for your resources, who doesn’t follow through on his commitments, whom you don’t trust, with whom the “chemistry” isn’t there, or who disagrees with your perspective from the ground up. These are also people whom you’ll need in order to get your own personal and organizational objectives met. As both a manager and a consultant, I’ve found a number of people who fit in that same box. In short, I’ve found Machiavelli very useful for my own success.

But there are a number of exceedingly important reasons for keeping your enemies close...