Every day that the Legislature is in session, various members make 2 minute statements on any topic they choose. Gordon Hogg is the member for Surrey-White Rock. Gord and I have become friends and I always enjoy his statements. This one was so unique, I asked for his permission to publish it here. I hope you enjoy it as much as I did.
Most of us know about Humpy Dumpty. He sat on a wall and subsequently had a great fall. But like so many mishaps, in life and in policy, there are many things that we don't truly understand about Humpty — like how did he get in that precarious position anyway? What was he thinking? Why did he go up there, anyway? How did he get up there?
Most of us know about Humpy Dumpty. He sat on a wall and subsequently had a great fall. But like so many mishaps, in life and in policy, there are many things that we don't truly understand about Humpty — like how did he get in that precarious position anyway? What was he thinking? Why did he go up there, anyway? How did he get up there?
Like so many of us get into difficult positions and then wonder: "What was I thinking? How did I get into this mess?" And why was it that all the king's horses and all the king's men couldn't put Humpty back together again? I assume the king's horses and the king's men were pretty good at fixing things that didn't go the way that was expected, so what was different about Humpty's injury that was so challenging, that he couldn't, even with help, get it together again?
It seems that our ideas about how things work can fail us. Humpty was, I assume, the only one on the wall. If so, he had a different vantage point from everyone else — or every egg else. I wonder if he knew that sharing similar views was part of being socially and intellectually acceptable? What if Humpty's view was so different, yet correct, and everyone else's view was wrong?
It seems that no one challenging the prevailing view of a group is deemed credible. Maybe the king's horses and the king's men didn't tolerate different approaches and really didn't want to save Humpty because he was just going to see things differently anyway.
It seems that to get agreement that Humpty should have presented information in a way that confirms rather than threatens his group's values. He probably should have found some validators, experts with diverse views. Then, just then, perhaps he could have solved his differences. He should have focused less on facts and more on social meaning.
It seems that it's only when we perceive that a policy bears social meaning congenial to our own values that we become receptive to evidence, because culture is cognitive prior to facts, and in policy disputes culture is political prior to facts as well.
[1030]
Humpty's story has so much to teach us. Seeing the world from different points and different vantage points helps us to better understand ideas and to better understand each other has so much to teach us. Seeing the world from different points and different vantage points helps us to better understand ideas and to better understand each other.
No comments:
Post a Comment