Empathy

Human beings are animals. This is a scientific fact. Sure, we're typically smarter than most other animals, but we aren't special. We live and we die like any other living thing. No offense to any religious folks out there, but I do not believe we are children of any kind of god. We weren't created in the eyes of any omniscient being. We don't exist for any special reason. We exist due to random chance is this crazy, complex universe. Until recently, I felt special. I thought humans in general were special. I thought we were somehow more than just the collection of molecules that comprise our bodies and minds. 

We are all genetically very similar, but we're all wired differently, in a psychological sense. It's a mixture of nature and nurture. I used to think that since we are all human, we can all understand each other. I thought we could all feel empathy toward each other. I thought that being human, everyone must feel the same as I do, deep down. I don't believe this any more.

No matter what you do. How logical you are. How clear and articulate you are. Some people will feel a certain way no matter what you say to them. No matter what happens. Often, people act on feeling rather than logic. Often, it doesn't matter what the logic says. And sometimes, life isn't logical, so you have no choice but to act on feeling. Or perhaps, one cannot understand the logic or what the communication is attempting to convey. 

People are selfish in a way that they have no regard for others. Some are innately power hungry. Some feel superior to others, often in the form of racism. Many believe they know what's best, regardless of the logical views of others. In my experiences so far in life, I believe there is a spectrum. Most people I've interacted with are similar while a few select others are outliers. The outliers include the people who are racist, power hungry, or extremely selfish. The others are calm, logical, empathetic people that seem similar to myself. 

I am a pacifist to an extent. Popular historic pacifists include Einstein, Helen Keller, John Lennon, Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr (MLK). Avoid war at all costs. As we are humans, we should be able to resolve any issues in a logical manner. However, this is based on the gigantic assumption that all humans feel empathy. The assumption that all humans are logical. The assumption that all humans can be convinced, given a clear argument. Take Hitler for example. Do you think he felt empathy? Do you think he could have ever been convinced that his race was not superior to those of others in the world? I don't think so. Therefore, war was necessary. 

MLK contrasted with those such as Malcolm X. How do you bring about change in a world where not all can be convinced? MLK believed in peaceful protests. Malcolm X, at least earlier on believed peaceful protests were not effective. Are riots effective at bringing about change? That is hard to say. Maybe. Personally, I react better to calm, logical arguments. Personally, I can be convinced given a sound argument. If I see a riot with violence, destruction, and looting I generally don't react well - especially if people are being hurt, but I do see why some people feel it is necessary. 

Some people are evil in the sense that they have absolutely no regard for others. Note that I am not using the word, "evil", in the typical understanding of good and evil or right and wrong. As long as they thrive, it doesn't matter one bit if everyone else suffers. Sometimes these people are very obvious about their disregard for others. Others hide it. Some hide it so well, they appear altruistic on the outside, but actually have evil core. It might not be obvious in their look or in their speech, but if you look closely at their actions, you may be able to catch a glimpse of it. Sometimes, it's very obvious to some, but not to others. 

So, here's a question. Are billionaires evil? This obviously depends on your definition of the word evil, but, let's phrase it another way: do billionaires have an extreme lack of regard for others? I would say for the most part, yes! A billion dollars is a staggering amount of money. Hundred (100), thousand (1,000), million (1,000,000), billion (1,000,000,000), trillion (1,000,000,000,000). These are just words. If you have a hard time grasping just how much larger one billion is compared to a million, here's a nice visual drawn by yours truly. I know, I should have been an artist. If you stack $100 dollar bills, 1 million dollars will be about 5 feet tall. A billion dollars will stack up to the height of the tallest building in the world. $1 trillion would reach outer space. The drawing is not to scale, so the $ 1 billion is even taller. 

$1 million is the amount of money many people work their entire lives to acquire so that they can retire comfortably say around the age of 65. Sadly, most of us aren't able to even do that. There are about 2000 billionaires worldwide. Because they have such vast amounts of money, this gives them power. Because they have such a vast percentage of wealth, this means A LOT less for everyone else. $1 trillion is an obscene amount of money for any one person to have. I think it's pretty obvious they have an extreme disregard for everyone else. They live like kings and queens while the large percentage of the world's population suffers. 

My guess is that unregulated capitalism is the cause of the world's billionaires. Without any rules or laws in place set by the government, people can continue to gain wealth at an exponential rate like Jeff Bezos, the CEO and creator of Amazon whose net worth is about 200 billion dollars. He may be on track to be the world's first trillionaire. As disturbing as this is, I find it even more disturbing that people continue to buy products on Amazon. Some billionaires give some of their money away to charities, but it's not enough. We need a wealth tax. Period. These people are forever greedy and selfish. Because we can't expect them to change, the government needs to step in. Sadly, many people in government are affiliated with these billionaires, so government may not do a thing. 

Well, that was a rant and a half. Now, getting back to what I originally wanted to discuss... humans, despite being 99.99% the same genetically, how different and animal-like they are. Nature and nurture are contributing factors. Location and environment is another factor. For example, in Japan the collective good is emphasized as important. In America, it's a free for all, everyone for themselves. Japan, Canada, and several others countries have excellent country-wide government-funded healthcare. Have a major accident in one of these countries? Your bank account is fine. Have that same accident in the US? You could go bankrupt. In the US, your healthcare is tied to your job. Lose your job, lose your insurance. The government doesn't care about you. 

In general (unless we're talking about family), other people don't care about you. That is, unless you can do something useful for them. Does it seem like your boss at work cares about you? Probably. Do they actually care about you? No, probably not. They only care about how good you are at your job. If you don't provide any value, people won't care if you disappear off the face of the earth tomorrow. That's reality. That's what we are. For the most part. There are humans who do care for others who have no requirement that the other person do anything of value for them. You've heard of a parent's unrequited love for their child. Some parents don't have this, but I would say most do. A child can do absolutely nothing of value for the parent, yet the parent will always care deeply for them and are willing to do anything for them.

There are some people who have unrequited compassion for non-family members. Have you ever seen someone give money to a homeless person? These people are obviously expecting nothing in return. They feel for the less fortunate. They care. I would argue that this action makes them feel good, so they are actually getting something in return - but not from the other person directly. The same applies to people who give a portion of  their salary or time to charity or those who volunteer as soup kitchens. I like to think of these people as angels on earth. But, there aren't enough of them. And not enough of them are wealthy or in positions of power.

We have to get more of these angels on earth in power to shift the balance of empathy and selfishness. To do that, we all need to vote. In every single election we have the ability to vote in. Get more involved in politics. Research all the candidates. Vote for people you like and share common interests in. Otherwise we're letting selfish people rule our country and write our laws. Your government will not automatically care about you. People are animals. Do not expect one human in power to care for another simply because they are the same species. The government is a group of humans. If that group of humans is filled with uncompassionate people, the rest of us are doomed. 

Bank Accounts

‘Put your money in the bank’ is what I always remember hearing growing up. This is partly true. What you really want to do is put some of your money in the bank and the rest in the stock market.

Keeping all your money in an average bank, or simply in cash under your mattress, causes it to lose value over time due to this horrible thing called inflation. 

So how much money do you want to store in the bank? Enough to cover an emergency, commonly referred to as an emergency fund, typically 4-6 months worth of expenses. That’s it! The rest of it should be in the market where it can grow. 

However, if you are saving up for a large purchase such as a car or a down payment on a home, you may also want to keep these funds in your bank - BUT, more ideally they would at least be in a certificate of deposit (CD) until you are ready to buy. A CD is a type of savings account mostly offered by banks to grow your money for a relatively short period of time.

So, checking vs savings accounts. I always wondered why it was called a savings account. I did not find out until recently that savings accounts actually have a growth factor called an annual percentage yield (APY). I never noticed all these years because the banks that I have used thus far have such a TINY APY. They would deposit pennies in my savings account every year and I wasn’t sure why. Well, what do you think your bank actually does with all this money? They are investing it in the stock market! They are making tons of money off of your money and then giving you pennies in return. Because a lot of these funds are locked up in the market, banks will typically have limits in place for withdrawals. Checking accounts on the other hand likely aren’t invested by the bank, so there are no withdrawal limits.

It wasn’t until recently that I discovered ‘high yield’ savings accounts. These are just savings accounts with relatively high APY. For reference, most banks in America have savings accounts with an APY of just 0.06%. Currently (August 2020), high-yield savings accounts have an APY of 0.8%. That’s a HUGE difference. Keep in mind this % changes and fluctuates according to the current financial climate. The 0.8% used to be upwards of 2% just several months ago. As soon as the market recovers, this 0.8% will increase again. 

Here’s some quick math: let’s compare a bank with an APY of 2% and one with 0.06%. Let’s say you have $10,000 in your savings account as your emergency fund. After one year, your high-yield account will have paid you 0.02 * $10,000 = $200. Your other account would have paid you 0.0006 * $10,000 = $6. $200 vs $6: which would you rather have?

One downside to most high-yield accounts is that they are online only. I really have no need for a brick-and-mortar physical location bank, so this isn’t really a downside for me personally. Below I listed a few popular banks that offer high-yield savings accounts. These accounts are ideal storage locations for your emergency funds as well a safe place to grow the money you are saving up for a large purchase if you decide against a CD.

A few other minor downsides: - You cannot deposit cash. For this reason If you have a need to deposit cash, I suggest having a separate bank that has a physical location - then you can initiate a transfer between banks if needed. You can deposit checks via smartphone and of course set up direct deposit like any other bank. - The way you get cash out of your account is through any ATM. They provide you with a debit card (assuming you also opened a checking account with them). Unfortunately, there's a limit of $1,000 per day at ATMs. Therefore, should you have a need to withdraw all of your funds in cash in one day, this would not be possible. You can however write a check for any amount OR transfer funds online via Zelle.

Despite these minor downsides, a high-yield account is a wonderful thing to have. Depending on the inflation rate, a high APY account will allow your money to more or less retain its value over time.

High-yield savings (bank) accounts:

Ally Bank

Capital One (360 performance savings)

Marcus (Goldman Sachs) 

Cancel Culture

I'm 34 years old. I grew up in the time of the original Power Rangers. I had a black and white Gameboy the size and shape of a brick. I'm a bit out of touch when it comes to recent culture and trends. I typically live under a rock when it comes to social media and new-age terms and movements like, 'cancel culture' and being 'woke'. I spent the majority of my life living under a rock - both intentionally and unintentionally... but that's a story for another time.

As I'm becoming more interested and involved with politics (regret not being involved earlier), I realize these things matter and I need to learn about them.

Dictionary.com definition of cancel culture:

"Cancel culture refers to the popular practice of withdrawing support for (canceling) public figures and companies after they have done or said something considered objectionable or offensive. Cancel culture is generally discussed as being performed on social media in the form of group shaming."

It sounds like a form of Boycott (link to my blog on the subject). I actively participate in a several long-term boycotts of certain companies that I have philosophical differences with. Cancel culture sounds like a boycott of people and even just one individual. However, a big issue that I am discovering is that people are 'cancelling' people sometimes without much proof or for a silly reason such as an insignificant difference of opinion. General Boycotting also has this issue, but I feel it's more prevalent with cancel culture because of social media and the all too easy spread of disinformation. 

Boycotts can be very effective given enough people are on board. Typically they start small and then gain momentum. This is the same process for cancelling someone, except it likely occurs very fast. The problem is that it often happens prematurely. Say a popular music artist is accused of sexual assault. They might then immediately 'cancelled' by large swarms of people. The judgement happens before the truth is out. 'Innocent until proven guilty' is often thrown out of the window. 

It could be a smaller offense. You could give provide an opinion that might offend someone and heavy backlash could follow given it reaches enough people. Boycotting and cancelling are a form of social justice. The people have the power to choose to support or ignore certain people, groups, companies without the need for legal litigation. People like to feel like they are a part of something. They like to feel like they are making a difference. If they hop on a particular bandwagon that is boycotting someone, they feel like they've done something important. But have they done their research?

I think this ties into social media induced A.D.D. Scrolling through endless streams of media posts provides us with an endless dose happiness-inducing chemicals in our brain. By latching on to a movement such as a cancellation, we feel even better. This allows us to feel like activists. It's fast and easy. But is it right? Is it fair? Are we judging too quickly? Our attention deficit prevents us from looking too deep into the actual issue. Doing any kind of significant research is probably not very fun, so our happiness-hungry brains quickly move onto a different topic.

To cancel something or someone is just another term for Boycotting them. It's just a modern, more hip term. It's a new branding. In with the new, out with the old like a new trendy pair of jeans. Maybe it'll be called something else in a few years. It's Boycotting brought to the world of social media and public shaming. You hop on a cancel train and all of a sudden you feel 'woke' and informed and aware of the problems in the world and by being on the train with a host of others, you feel you are making a difference.

I am all for Boycotting. Since cancel culture is Boycotting with a new label, I'm in favor of it. But, people need to do their research before committing to something. You cannot judge too quickly. The world is a complicated place. Your actions have consequences. If you are going to publicly shame someone, you better make sure aware of the facts. The world is not black and white. 

Resources:

Excellent (warning: very long) speech on 'wokeness':

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sni7ghqHBJw

HuffPost UK video explanation of cancel culture:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bisnMOujqFs

Harvard professor against issues with cancel culture:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-erKC_TT9dQ

Barack Obama on 'call-out culture' and being 'woke':

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qaHLd8de6nM

Communication in 2020

Communication is hard. And I feel it's becoming more difficult, despite all of our technology. 

There are methods of direct text communication such as text message (SMS), WhatsApp, LINE, Signal, Telegram, Facebook messenger. And then there are social media platforms, which offer a direct and indirect communication methods such as Instagram, Twitter, Facebook, Snapchat. We obviously still have the ability to make a phone call, but often default to the digital option. Then there are the video chat options such as Facetime, Skype, Zoom, Google Meet, Google Duo. 

Some of these become less popular over time and get phased out. Remember AOL and AIM instant messenger? Google has had a several they experimented with and retired such as Google Allo. In true Google fashion, Google Duo will now be phased out and replaced with Google Meet. 

We have all these methods and options, yet I feel we're actually communicating less effectively compared to the earlier days of email and even snail mail. The communication is also much more shallow. We switch from one topic to the next in the blink of an eye. There's so much information out there, it's hard to focus. We are bombarded with never ending streams of social media and news feeds.

There are a few problems. 

1. While options are good to have, too many options cause a lack of communication because people choose to use different methods. There have been attempts in the past to combine all methods into one, but I don't think they gained much traction. There's even an episode in the show,  The Office where Ryan attempted to make an App called, 'Woof' that does exactly this. WUPHF - The Office ("Woof") (Youtube)

2. Information coming in at the speed of light, so many connections to many others cause a sort of social media induced attention deficit disorder. We're connected to people around the world, which is good, but there are endless streams of information that we feel we need to pay attention to - because we either feel it's important or just plain entertaining. 

What's the solution? Well, awareness is step one. Two, you need to establish what's really important to you. Is it the constant bombardment of hourly life updates from all your Instagram buddies or personal messages from your family? From there you need to force yourself to focus on what's important while filtering out all the other junk. 

You ever get a text message or an email and forget to respond to it? This was much less likely in the days of snail mail. You'd get a letter which you probably put it on your desk or kitchen table. Having the physical piece of communication not only made it more difficult to forget, but it also likely felt more important. 

One problem I have is that I refuse to use Facebook while most of my family uses it. Because it has the same ownership, I also refuse to use Instagram and WhatsApp. That leaves me with Twitter. Sadly, barely anyone in my family uses Twitter. So, I resort to using text messages and Email if I want to communicate with them electronically. This is issue #1 discussed above. 

Issue #2 is a broader issue, but nonetheless effects communication. Technology-induced ADD is what I like to call it. There are so many TV shows to keep up with and binge, so many Twitter, Instagram, and news feeds to scroll through. So many notifications from your smartphone that you need to dismiss. Before you know it, it's bedtime. So much for all those hobbies you wanted to start or continue. So much for that book you've been meaning to read. So much for responding to a text or an email that you forgot about that got lost in the sea of digital distractions.