Utopia or Dogma?

The fiction and non-fiction of exploring human happiness.

Chapters four and five of my philosophy book deal with the ethics and politics of psychotype theory – the theory that we are all born with a set of information filters for communicating with our environment and which, consequently, influence what we find important, how we learn, how we relate to authority and community, how we interpret abstract words, the emotions we feel, our beliefs, our sense of justice and everything else that is related to our inner person and how it survives the world of ‘others’.

The chapters have been given the names Typotopia and Typocracy, mostly because I wanted to explain what they are about in one word and because everything in the book is related to “type”.

Typotopia looks at the needs of individuals and what accepting that people are born with a different psychology means for the development of their healthy self-identity and their freedom, obligation and expression in the social group. In other words, it looks at the requirements for an ideal place; ideal in the sense that every type of person (that is all 16 psychological types) must feel respected and deserving and to have their needs met, so they can grow up feeling happy.

It is therefore no personal ideal, like those described by writers of utopias, who paint the best possible scenario from their point of view, and simply assume that everybody else must also consider such a life ideal. The criticism that usually befalls such books can be taken as evidence that this is not the case. Don’t get me wrong, I love those books.

Typocracy then takes that picture and explores how a typocratic (as opposed to democratic) society would be able to function. In other words, it takes a look at the social institutions (education, judicial, government, economy) and paints a scenario in which each of those is run with our inborn psychological differences in mind.

Thus, what I try to do, being aware of the different perspectives and needs of the different personality types, is see if it would be possible to create a “type friendly world”, a world that respects all typed of people, even if they are all different.

Like I said above, “justice” for example, is something people feel inside. It is not something objective, but we all feel a different sense of justice. So how would we be able to live together and still respect all those different senses? How, for example, would you deal with crime? Would there be crime? What would we consider crime?

But no matter how enjoyable speculating such ideals is, philosophical theory is still non-fiction.

But at times, philosophers take a more fictional approach; they invent scenarios that allow us to imagine what we would do in a certain situation, which they call a thought experiment. Usually, these ‘experiments’ are short exercises that require the thinker to deliberate over possible outcomes, in which the most logical answer is put forward as a resolution to the philosophical argument. But sometimes we need more than just logical outcomes. Sometimes we need to create a whole new world or large-scale scenario. That is where science fiction comes in with wonderful TV programs like “The Future is Wild” and “Evacuate Earth”.

But there are also scenarios that require that we consider more than just nature. In situations where we are dealing with people’s motivations and how they live together, we need to include their perceptions and their emotions and that is what my science fiction series does.

In essence, it takes the same perspective as my Typotopia and Typocracy chapters, but now we have characters with a history and experiences and prejudices and ideals that are not all the same and with different personalities. Not only do they all live on the same planet, but a large number of them decides to go on a space journey and start a new colony, so that they have to survive the journey (without killing each other) and create a new society that is better than the one they left behind. And they all know exactly how to do that. They are all like the utopia writers I mentioned above; each with their own ideal and equally determined to see it through. The only problem, of course, is that all their ideals are different.

And that is what human conflict is all about. We don’t need bad people to create problems; all you need is clashing personalities and each with the best of intentions.

But there is another aspect to the story. The planet they leave behind, which will appear a little bit dystopian in the eyes of today’s reader, is dogmatic and rigid. The problem is that their rigid social structure is based on type differences. In the course of their history, somebody actually managed to introduce psychological differences and they were adopted in several places. But over time, those running the place lost sight of the importance of being different and diverse, and started using it to pre-select children for certain jobs and social positions. Those who belonged to ‘controversial’ personality types, naturally ended up at the bottom of the social ladder.

They, more than anything, are determined to make sure that will never happen again. And since half the colonists are convicts, that makes their peaceful society a whole lot more difficult.

My question at the start of the book – because all my fiction starts with questions, which the characters then answer over the course of my writing – was whether they would be able to make it better or is every ideal doomed to dogma? Is my philosophy, my goal of creating a type friendly world, possible? Will we be able to create a world in which we prevent the natural tendency of groups to return to dogma?

 

 

 

Advertisements

Autonomous Individual

I am a writer for social progress and a positive future for all the people in the world. My books are based on a deep understanding of group psychology and what motivates individual people. This understanding includes the notion that not every reader will be able to accept my books.

To create a better world, change is needed; we need to change some things we are today taking for granted, even if we believe that those things are dear to us. Change cannot happen in a stagnant and dogmatic world. My job, as a writer, is to wake up the masses to the need for change.

It is well known that all innovative ideas get a lot of resistance, because most people will not accept something until it is confirmed by their environment. Novel ideas usually require a tipping point – a point at which enough people accept it for it to start spreading, sometimes aided by support from a celebrity or authority. Of course, soon after this acceptance, it tends to become dogma, because these same masses want everybody to believe what they do, so that the few who still resist the idea are dismissed as much as the originators of the idea were.

That is because, by their very nature, most people take things at face value and judge according to the current beliefs without putting them in context. Consequently, they’ll get indignant if you even suggest they might have believed differently only a decade ago. Good examples are ideas about ethnic and gender equality and, more recently, sexual orientation equality, as well as notions about beauty. And not only social ideas, but scientific ideas, like the environmental issues, need a tipping point.

Consequently, speaking out for innovative ideas or against the way the world functions today, tends to not be welcomed – especially not by those who are doing well in today’s world; those in power and those who naturally follow or are quite cosy not thinking about social change.

In short, if a writer for social change wants to have an impact, the reader needs to be ready to be woken up. They need to be able to reconsider the beliefs and truths they have grown up with, and to suspend judgment. People who are used to getting their opinions from their environment or from authority – even if they are not always aware of that – will feel an inner resistance to reading what opposes such notions.

My books are written to achieve a re-evaluation of our norms and values. Readers who are not, by nature, autonomous individuals, will feel uncomfortable reading my books. It makes no difference what age you are, because this is part of your personality. Some adults will not grasp the underlying message of my stories, while an 11-year-old of the right personality will get it instantly. I am therefore not hereby making accusations or dismissing the people who naturally follow or don’t like social change. I am only saying, you might not like my books:

In the Real World follows two 16-year-old cousins, who, when trying to make sense of real world issues like war and human rights, find themselves in conflict with their school about obedience and uniforms. Although it starts on Anzac Day, the story could be set in any location, as it deals not with the actions of war, but with the emotions of it – emotions that exist in all people.

The protagonist of Soup and Bread is Vonnie, a healthy 11-year-old, whose carefree life is disrupted when Mum decides she had enough of fussy eaters, and the new boy at school accuses her of being a bystander to the bullying. After a confrontation with serious health and food problems in other children, Vonnie learns that she can use her own “lucky” body and mind to speak out for those who cannot stand up for themselves.

Lohland follows Kaie, who turns from an easy-going 13-year-old into an obnoxious teen when his parents decide to move to the independent city state of Lohland – which lies two hundred meters below sea level in a time when “global warming is real” – and which means he has to give up his comfortable home, his language, his calendar and the celebrations he is used to. But his boycott ends when he discovers the architecture and engineering works needed to keep his new home safe from global warming. Could he help make a positive difference for the future?

 The Happiness Inquisition is a novella, primarily written for adults, but suitable for age eleven and up. It begins with the victim of an act of child abuse being admitted to hospital and, through the eyes of five point of view characters, each of whom has a role to play in the events that lead to the tragedy, deals with the judgment of a society that thrives on guilt induction.

Of a Note in a Cosmic Song is the title of a five-part science fiction novel that spans eight years in the lives of a large group of space colonists. From the heartbreak of deciding to leave their planet, through the cabin fever of space travel and the desperation of the political and environmental unrest of their arrival upon their new home, the books take the reader with the colonists on a high-tech journey from the oppressive planet DJar to the mysterious and eerie Kun DJar. No matter how advanced, it takes more than technology to colonize a whole new world.

All eBooks are currently on sale and can be purchased directly through the links provided, both ePub and Kindle format. Print copies can be ordered directly via my website, but they are priced to include shipping costs from New Zealand.

Thank you for reading.

Natural Talents and the Nightmare of Getting on Smashwords

Imagine a world in which, some two thousand years ago, every person was given a paintbrush and canvas, after which the result of their creation became the new standard for judging art quality and only those who matched this standard were allowed to paint. The work of people like Rembrandt and Van Gogh would have been repressed from childhood (today possibly with the help of Ritalin), since it was clearly not of equal quality as that of ‘most people’. Would humanity have enjoyed the cultural diversity that it knows now?

It is the same with every other talent; not just artistic talents, but talents like practical handicraft in trades, editing, accounting, technological skills, computer programming and writing. These talents come with a person’s inborn gifts and can be practised, but each of us has some talents and some weaknesses, which are part of our personality. That is necessarily so, because it is a result of how we process information and every personality type does that differently. If we all had the same talents, even potentially, we’d have a very boring world without progress.

In the writing world, writers used to be supported by publishers. A publishing house had some people with editing skills, others with marketing skills, others with illustration skills and printing or formatting skill and the writer could focus on their own natural talent, which usually had to do with the content of the topic they were writing on and not the technical aspects. Writers tend to initiate social change, prevent dogma and come up with novel ideas. Without those insights, the world would rapidly slip into dogma. Homosexuality, for example, started to get serious attention after writers (and filmmakers) started portraying it as normal. Until then the public opinion rejected it. The same applies to all other social issues, no differently than that hard science fiction writers often invent an idea for a technology before it gets developed. Writers, therefore, have a vital role in social progress.

But as a writer (in New Zealand), I am struggling to get onto the market. Not only can I not sell my hard copies outside of the country, because of the cost in postage, but local book shops and libraries go for what is popular, which tends to come from a foreign mass market. The local library will not accept my printed copies, but they have agreed to list my eBook titles. But, as they prefer to take them from Smashwords, I agreed to put my books there. It seemed simple enough.

But Smashwords is made for people who upload a word document (according to certain specifications) and then they make eBooks out of it, although they do have the option of uploading professionally made ePub files. But all my books were already professionally converted to eBook (both Mobi and ePub) by a converter who works to a high standard and there have never been complaints. Yet trying to get those books on Smashwords is an ongoing nightmare. With most of my books, I have to ask my converter to change something in the file, which tends to be explained in techno babble I cannot understand. Not only that, but the rejections seem inconsistent. For example, I have a five-part science fiction series, which all have a different title, but the same series title. Despite entering them with the exact same capitalization and punctuation, one was immediately accepted and the rest came back twice with requirements to change the title format. Now they have all been accepted, the reader might wonder why one of the titles does not match. If I try to change that, I risk it being rejected again. Additionally, the first book in the series, which was converted and created as ePub file, at the same time as all the others and according to the same format, keeps coming back as being faulty, so the readers can buy parts two to five, but not part one.

In short, Smashwords is nice if you have a word document and want to sell it as a book, but if you have already self-published, it is a lot of trouble. Sure, if you are skilled in electronic formatting, you have no problem, but that privilege is personality type dependent. That means that those personality types who prefer genres like hard science fiction and crime can upload their books easily, but not those who naturally lean towards the humanities (and social issues).

And Smashwords is one of the better ones. For one thing, it is trying very hard to make it accessible for all people, and the creators are most likely unaware of the personality types and therefore assume anybody can learn it as easily as they do. Yet it is exactly that understanding of personality types I am trying to promote with my books. So, we are stuck in a cycle: they don’t learn about psychology because those who write about it are less likely to be on the current market and therefore keep assuming that anybody can understand their technology.

In other words, not much has changed from before eBooks, when publishers rejected books for their content; if you expressed the already accepted opinion it was okay, because the objective of publishers was money, which also meant ignoring potential social issues. I have therefore no regret that the industry has changed to give independent writers more chance. But I am beginning to see problems if the new selection process ignores content and grammar altogether and only looks at the technical aspects.

But it gets worse. Contests are traditionally intended to find original and quality books and give the winners a chance to get their name out. Despite biases according to the chosen panel, the size of the contest and the entering requirements, there was the chance that a real-life reader recognized a book’s potential. But I recently saw an advert for a contest that selects their winner according to an algorithm that is created according reader behaviour – thus, no human judges involved – which is therefore outright selecting exactly that which is not original and puts us back at what the publishing houses used to do.

Bittersweet as this may sound, I am happy to give up trying to spend my time on pursuits like marketing, that are clearly not my expertise, so that, no matter how much time I spend on them, I will never stand out.

I am a writer by nature and I need people with other natural talents to support that. As long as our society is solely focused on money and promotes the misconception that everybody has the same potential psychology, it will continue to favour certain pursuits over others. All I can do is keep writing about it and know I have done everything in my ability.

What is in a Title?

Picking the title of a book is almost as difficult as writing its blurb and it is at least as important. There is no real agreement what makes a good title. Do they have to be catchy, original, outlandish, common, full of key words or simple?

Of my fiction books, two have a title that is common. I get at least one Google alert a day for those titles and they are never about my books.

My science fiction series has titles nobody else has, because I made those words up. I get no alerts.

I have two fiction books with original titles, but no indication that those get more or less attention than the common titles.

My non-fiction series has as its series title The Music of Life. This has resulted in it being put in the music section of some book shops, although the title is a metaphor and the books are about psychological types. The last of that series is just released, but the title for it had been created (and announced in the other books) at least six years ago.

I am not sure whether I would have picked a different title if I had to choose again. Personally, I tend to feel attracted to that which is different and am more likely to pick up a book with an odd title, just to see what it is about. But the the first thing many people say is,

Homological Composition! What does that even mean?”

Indeed, what does it mean? Does it mean that people are going to turn away, scared off by the title, or attracted to it, exactly because it is different?

Since the book is about psychological types and the theory explains why people react so differently to everything concerning information, I am pretty sure that there will be both reactions to the title, depending on the type of the person reading it.

And that goes for any title.

The reason I chose it is because “homology” refers to our common evolutionary origin that is expressed in similar, yet diverse, psychological human types, and a composition is an artistic or intellectual creation. Not only is the book an intellectual creation, but humanity with all its diversity is the composition that makes intellect and artistic expression possible.

9780473384722

Changing Beliefs

Group psychology looks at how the psyche (mind) of people is influenced by or influences the behaviour of the group and most theories rest on a few very basic and very old ideas:

  • true determinism: the idea that people’s lives are predetermined (usually by a deity or the stars) and that they have no self-determination
  • behaviourism: the idea that children are born blank slates and they are moulded into certain habitual behaviours by their environment ; the parents and teachers (the culture) forms the person
  • physical determinism: the idea that people’s inherited physical body (their DNA, their race, their gender or their brain) determines their behaviour, so that the nature of the parents predetermines a child’s development
  • complete free will: the idea that people are free to determine the cause of their lives, that every action is a choice, and that they can overcome learned behaviour, instincts, habits and emotions by will
  • combinations of any of the above:
  1. the most common current belief – which I have labelled “the brainstory theory” – is that people inherit their genes from their parents and that those determine how the brain works and the brain causes people to think and behave the way they do (their personality traits), but the environment can influence that brain with food, exercise, drugs (hormones) or lessons and so change the personality
  2. type theory; the idea that there are a limited number of psychological types of people (personalities). These type difference are inborn, a bit like gender differences, and they influence how people experience their environment (from the day they are born), but as these are tendencies and not specific traits we still have free will within our psychological limits – just like we can have free will within our physical limits: we have no wings, so we can’t fly, but that doesn’t stop us walking where we want

So the difference between the latter two is that the second believes that outward behaviour is not equivalent to the personality inside and that these inborn personality differences are not changeable by forces from outside.

So how does this relate to group psychology?

Well, these theories and beliefs are influenced by other beliefs. There was a time when everybody believed they were created by an omnipotent deity, so it was natural to accept determinism. The experts were trained by the church and they looked for (and consequently found) evidence of their belief in the people around them. But with The Enlightenment came the belief in a rational mind and free will, and as a result the belief about the cause of our behaviour changed to giving more power to the environment.

Thus, metaphysical beliefs – beliefs about existence itself, which give the members of a culture their reason to be alive and will therefore be defended at any cost – directly influence beliefs about what is considered true. This happens in all fields of knowledge, but the added problem with psychology is that those who make the theories about how people come to believe what they believe, are themselves immersed in the going metaphysical beliefs of their time – like how the determinists found evidence of God’s influence in what they observed, because that is what they expected.

Until the mid twentieth century, parents and teachers often had one acceptable standard of behaviour – schoolchildren wore uniforms, did not speak out of turn or get up from their seat unless told to – and if they didn’t abide by those rules they’d get chastised (in public). Pretty straight forward: the expectation was that people did not behave as individuals and that was enforced with moral rules, since moral rules are group rules about behaviour. The underlying belief may have been that such treatment would make them all identical on the inside as well – this was the time during which “behaviourism” as a theory was highly regarded – but nobody bothered to look; the focus was on what could be observed and not on inner personalities.

Things have changed in the last fifty years. There has been a social shift from behaviourism to believing in inner nature, a shift that resulted from the increasing popularity of evolution theories and DNA discoveries. The more science developed ways of looking inside a person, using brain scans and genetic research, the more everything a person did was attributed to their inherited genes.

This flourished with late twentieth century pshysicalism, but is today modified with the belief that the brain is pliable and that changing the external behaviour by will or the brain through hormones can change the personality inside – and this idea is spreading rapidly via mass media.

Today’s notion is that “we are all unique”, because we all inherit our special genetic make-up from our parents and we are all raised in different environments. Today  “individuality” is considered something to strive for instead of be ashamed of.

And yet, despite promoting this idea, there is the expectation that all people are identical in this need for individuality and that by looking into the brain of a person and comparing it to the brain of some others, the reason for different behaviour can be found and corrected.  Thus, there is discrepancy between the popular belief and the way the society expresses that, because it expects that all people are (or should be) identical; they still measure to one standard.

In the next post I will come back to the effect of this discrepancy on the children. The key here is to understand the reason for it: What is believed to be true changes all the time; knowledge isn’t permanent, ideas change and people look for evidence of what they already believe – science finds what it is looking for – and that happens unconsciously.

Of course, many viewpoints overlap at any one time – there are still plenty of people who believe in determinism (astrology is very popular) and most people will not yet accept that evolution isn’t as simple as survival of the fittest, which is becoming more evident with the study of epigenetics.

Every new idea takes time to grow. Most people won’t change their opinion until the public at large accepts an idea, which is usually brought about when the popular media keep repeating the messages, which reinforce each other and slowly more and more people accept them.

Because of this, popular ideas may seep into everyday life and education (which tells the children “what is true”) before being totally accepted, like when schools started teaching evolution theory instead of creationism in biology, but also held classes called “religious education”.

There are always going to be some people who are inclined to hold on what is and others who will jump on every new idea, so that what schools teach may be outdated in some aspects and the message they are sending in words (lessons) may not be congruent with the way the individual teachers behave (the subliminal expression of their moral beliefs and culture).

In short, moral and cultural beliefs are about people’s reason to be alive, so there is a tendency to try and make others accept those beliefs, because the alternative is doubt (about their very existence). This is why religions are so often the cause of war; they represent the need to defend an existential belief. At times, cultures totally isolate themselves and leave very little room for doubt in the individual members and at other times, cultures mix and there is more tolerance for different religions and rituals.

In Soup and Bread, the school is a public school in a time of cultural mixing (our current society), so it must teach evolution in its curriculum, but it has once a week classes called RE, during which those children who are not Christian (whether they are atheist or not) are allowed to stay out of class.

However, children are not allowed to skip physical education classes, because, as one character says, “Today everybody believes in physical exercise instead of in God.” – Our society has no tolerance for different beliefs about health, because the expectation is that what is good for one person is good for all of them, and sport is very much revered in western culture.

So despite using “individuality” and “tolerance” in its lesson about what values people should have, the school is selective in what it is tolerant about.

And this plays on a different scale in every group, because a group (a society, a culture, a club, a school) cannot exist unless its members have some things in common. Moral rules are one way of enforcing these common beliefs on the members of a group.

So, despite this slow changing of the “mass mind” being a good thing – it prevents eternal chaos or dogmatic inertia – it is where all social friction rests and this is why we have bullying. Some people will always believe that the individual should be subordinate to the group (despite fashions about individuality) and others will believe that any community that makes individuals subordinate, is dictatorial.

That, of course, brings me back to the theories about people’s behaviour and the currently popular “brainstory theory”, which claims on the one hand that every single person is unique and yet seeks all answers in the brain or hormones, comparing those to one ideal standard.

In my view, people are not psychological clones of each other – all the same in how we experience the world – but neither are we completely unique, because our inborn psychological processes are a result of how we deal with information, and there are only so many ways we can do that – the amount of information may be limitless, but the number of ways we can relate to it is not – which is why some people believe the individual should be subordinate and why some people are more traditional than others.

Sure, all people are unique in the sense of having had different experiences and a different upbringing. But fundamentally, way deeper than simple parental DNA, there are 16 different sorts of people –not 4, not 8, not 32 – different ways of relating to these experiences and that upbringing, and these differences are vital for a species as complex as ours to prevent psychological cloning with physical determinism or environmental behaviourism, both of which would have stagnated intellectual progress long ago.

So, our inborn differences are vital for our survival as a group and simultaneously, our collective actions and interactions are responsible for the social problems we experience today, including bullying and eating disorders, and we can only change those if we understand the problem at this deeper level.

Censorship and Independent Writing

In an earlier post I discussed why I have chosen to adopt a penname and to become an independent writer.

My definition was that independent writers won’t choose their topics according to the financial considerations of the big publishing houses, won’t adjust their style to the latest fashion in writing techniques and won’t limit their stance to the visions of political, religious or cultural groups.

 In short, independent writers won’t let social censorship determine how and what they write.

What do you mean “censorship”?

Writers, of course, come in all sorts and write about all kinds of things. But that does not mean that every person is born to become a writer or can write about the same topics.

Each personality type has a preferred topic, so that some writers write about social issues, just like others are born to be science writers. This is not a simple choice people make, but driven by the way they deal with information, which determines their natural talents.

For example, most theoretical physicists (writing about cosmology and particle physics) have a natural gift for mathematics, a gift political and ethical writers do not usually possess.

These gifts apply to all human activities – not just those we think of as the arts – and they don’t only apply to what people are good at doing (like maths), but also to what they observe and experience – their perceptions.

And so there are people who are naturally good at seeing the immediate practicalities of a current event and there are those who are good at seeing the long term consequences of a social situation that prevails today.

But those different talents cannot exist in the same people, since excelling in something means putting all your focus on it, so the other abilities are less developed. This provides humanity as a whole with the variety it needs to build civilization. It is not a question of some people are smart and others dumb; every person is smart in his own preferred area.

Thus, we have natural proofreaders with an excellent eye for detail in the immediate practical now and natural innovators who design the products and ideas we need tomorrow; there are caregivers, inventors, race car drivers, business people, people with a gift for logistics, practical problem solvers like mechanics, theorists of physics and cosmology and theorists who deal with the human world.

All of them may become writers, but each writes only about the topics that they are naturally drawn to – so that the cosmologist may write a science fiction story but probably not a family romance, the race car driver may write an action packed thriller but not a work on politics, and personality types like me write fiction that is intended to address social problems with an emphasis on dialogue, human character and contemplation but very little action adventure.

Suffices to say that people cannot simply become a writer because it is fashionable and neither can people simply stop being a writer – they may stop doing it for a living, but the natural drive remains.

Today, people have the option of going to university and get a degree in creative writing, but what they learn are techniques – the passion for the topic cannot be learned and neither can someone learn the perceptions that don’t come natural to him.

Publishers use market research to select the books they wish to publish – because they have to make a profit – so that they select on the basis of “what people want”; the assumption being that readers want a repeat of old ideas and more of the same.

Book reviewers  consider themselves objective critics of what constitutes good writing and tend to express themselves in objective terms, such as “this is a good book” or “that writer ignores the facts”, which many readers (and publishers), believing that writing is something that anybody can learn at university, accept as true.

None of them considers the influence of their own personality type on this misconception and many people argue that it is right for the market to decide what is good writing – or rather, what is good for people to read – based on the idea that every person has an independent mind and makes his choices objectively without being influenced by others.

But  we know that the vast majority of people believe something to be good because  it is popular or because some critic has said it is – we see this everywhere: in advertising and fashion and with celebrities – and despite using words like “critical thinking” and “creative writing”, most publishers, critics , agents and teachers use comparison to famous names or best sellers to endorse their choices and so they reject what they believe to be unrealistic.

Apart from that, the publishing industry, which originated to assist writers in having their voices heard, is now also struggling to stay alive due to eBooks and the ease of self-publishing, so that it is even more determined to take only that which is already selling well – escapism stories about vampires and super heroes, similar to those that allowed the masses to carry on pretending that all was well and ignore the warnings in the 1920s and 1930s.

The irony is that with it getting more and more easy to self-publish, it has both become possible for those writers who used to be rejected to get published, as well as increasingly difficult to be acknowledged as writers,  because of the avalanche of information and books now flooding the market. And those writers who try to self-publish without the financial means to do so, end up producing manuscripts that lack in proper editing, because the writer is focused on content.

Thus, we live in a society where publishers – who have an inclination to accept the existing order – dictate what writers can write about (if they want to get published by them), while writers are forced to do the editing and marketing the publishers are naturally good at.

Therefore, and unintentionally, the media and publishing industry have become social censors, making it difficult for socially critical writers to get their voices heard. These institutions are looking back (at what exists now), while social writers naturally look forward (at the consequences and what could be possible).

The result of censorship, whether intentionally or not, is that the masses are being kept ignorant of social dangers and dogmatic views prevail.

And it is simply not true that living in an “information age” protects us from that dogma – on the contrary, due to the information avalanche, most people only read the headlines, the gossip and their social networks anymore.

Hypocrisy.

Currently there is a tendency in the western countries to berate others for imprisoning writers who express criticism about their government – writers who due to their inborn nature address social issues.

And although I share the sentiment of organizations like PEN – I do not believe that people should be imprisoned (or worse) for expressing their opinion – I do believe that such judgmental actions from outsiders can only make the situation worse; criticism should come from within a society, from its socially critical writers.

But more than that,  I object to the idea of berating the neighbours for the state of their garden, while ignoring one’s own weeds. Western weeds are hidden censorship that is covered with slogans about freedom of speech, democracy, and free market opportunity.

In conclusion, I do not criticize the social media or the ‘information age’ for the danger that dogmatic thinking is causing in today’s western society. I think that the information avalanche does give those willing to put in the effort a much better chance of getting uncensored information, due to the willingness of so many people to write for free – to step out of the money-motivated media market. I certainly don’t think that the social media have caused us to become more selfish – on the contrary, through blogs and newsletters there is more and more free advice available.

But nevertheless, we need to be aware that the masses remain uninformed about the global issues and about the natural personalities that cause different people to be able to see what others cannot, so that those in a position of power may once again dismiss the dangers until it is too late.