It’s easy to be narrow
minded. Dig a trench and fill it with those who agree with you, don’t accept
any arguments or alternate viewpoints, defend your right to an opinion without
caring for those of others.
It’s harder to be
open-minded, it takes effort and few of us have the time or energy for that. It
starts by trying to accept that there are always other ways to think about
something. I was prompted to explore this concept having heard a Ted Talk by Rory Sutherland.
He was arguing that money spent in one way could be better spent in another if
we thought about the experience in a different way. His argument was against
speed and for comfort but the hypothesis applies in a lot of different areas.
Looking at the
desperate plight of Syrian refugees it is easy to take sides pro and anti but
the situation is inevitably more complex. Our government seems pitifully bad at
taking responsibility for crises that it had a role in instigating. It’s
sometimes as if the consequences don’t enter our thought process. We’re always
looking for the right and wrong, the black and white. Perhaps there’s another
reason it’s called grey matter.
Those that were able
to flee Syria and get any distance did so with luck, and money. A great number were
the intelligentsia, the middle-classes, those that could afford to pay
traffickers. The vast quantities of money that entered the black market as a
result of this conflict is frankly disturbing. Paying crooks absurd sums to get
aboard overcrowded dinghies because the west couldn’t face up to its
responsibilities.
When thinking about
the plight of refugees it seems that the English (and our media) think only of
them as a drain on resources. Aside from the moral viewpoint Germany may have
had different reasons for accepting more of them. Apparently they could see an
ageing population and a declining workforce, a demographic vacuum. Do we not
have those issues?
Imagine instead,
morals aside, that the money paid to traffickers had instead been filtered
through a central European fund to re-house and re-establish the individuals
concerned. Instead of an immediate (or short-term) drain they brought wealth
into the countries that chose to take them.
Ignoring the obvious
and oft-spoken truths that migrants often contribute more to the economies of
countries they take residence in, this simple move would’ve prevented money
being in the black-economy and instead been used for humanitarian purposes.
There are many reasons
why it wouldn’t happen, not least of which are the ethical ones. It’s an argument
I never heard voiced though and thus felt compelled to share it.
Sometimes an argument
breaks out over irrelevant things. Witness the MP’s debate over a vote whether
to deprive Philip Green of his knighthood. Sir Philip could – and does – argue that
he didn’t do anything illegal. What Government might therefore have been better
to debate is how to change the laws to prevent/discourage such corporate
behaviour. Of course that’s a longer process and likely to upset companies who
donate to political parties and employ lots of people in the UK. Consequently,
they went for the cheaper headline-grabbing instead.
Abstract concepts are
all well and good in a think-tank environment where no ideas are bad except the
ones that are awful. Applying them in real world circumstances is difficult
because vested interests usually get in the way. When those vested interests
are powerful and have large circles of influence it becomes harder still.
What we need and
rarely get is educated analysis. We hear so much about big data but seldom see
it employed. You’d think that pretty much everything can be predicted based on
the past and models that can be created for analysis purposes. This could
define and create the logical approach for the optimal outcome. Sadly, there
are vested interests here also, where Government often decides to work in the
best interests of those most likely to vote for them – or most likely to vote
at all.
It takes effort to
think about and ask the right questions. Whether you agree or not this feature nails some facts just by
asking in whose interests the lies are told. You can do the same, just by
taking these steps:
Try thinking
different, thinking properly, thinking at all.
When you’re reading
something ask yourself whose perspective is being served by the conclusions.
Ask where’s the
contradiction? Like – if we’re doing so well economically why can’t we fund the
NHS
As with everything
your perspective will be served by your own experiences and desires, your own
viewpoint. Try using someone else’s for a while, it really is an eye-opener.
Comments