Dodson, Wes

English

Texas ScholarWorks

Mar 1Thinking Historicallywes dodsonTwo economists encounter one another on Dirty Sixth, and the one inquires of the other, “How's the wife,Bob?” Bob, not entirely understanding the question, replies “Relative to what?”This joke exploits the irony inherent when a member of society does not toe the line of social convention.The convention that is confronted in the joke is the idea that our society seems to have accepted the notionthat the proper “frame of reference” for our general condition is other members of our society, typically themembers of society with which we regularly interact.That is why it is funny when the economist seems to suggest that the proper frame of reference for his wifeare his previous and subsequent spouses. Operative in the joke is the rejection of the notion that thosearound us are a proper measure for how we are doing. What is really questioned in this joke is why we limitour frame of reference for “doing well” to the narrow scope of a given time, culture, nationality, orcommunity.Imagine, for a moment, that we decided to arbitrarily set the parameters for that frame of reference. Let’s useas our “relative to what,” the Royal Family of England. Now stipulate a presumed set of average readercharacteristics: probably a UT student, neither fabulously wealthy nor particularly destitute, living inAmerica, not a member of Austin high society, most likely a member of The Texas Orator.V O X  P O P U L IGiven this presumed reader, and the English royals as a frame of reference, the typical answer given to “Howare you?” as “Doing well” would likely become something along the lines of “Well, I am not living in a palace,with servants attending my needs, or engaged to Meghan Markle, but thanks for reminding me of the fact,”with some expletive likely attached.There is something intuitively nonsensical about using the elite of a society as a frame of reference. However,the problem with using that as a frame of reference seems difficult to pin down. A possible consequentialistclaim is that such a standard is impracticable — no society could function if everyone assumed that the life ofthe elites was the natural mode of existence.Empirically that is true, but it is not, I believe, the source of the squirm-in-our-chairness of the idea. Rather,the source of discomfort is the idea that such a frame of reference seems to arbitrarily limit pieces of thehuman experience that seem pertinent. Discounting the experience of the “average Joe” in a given society andtime period dismisses valuable data for understanding how to judge our own situation. We are discomfitedbecause there does not appear to be a strong justification why such experiences should be dismissed.The “average Joe” then seems like a good place to start and one consistent with the way we treat other datasets. Using averages is a good way of understanding where we stand relative to others on any number ofmeasures, with the most familiar one to most readers being the arbiter of our entire future/career/allhappiness in life — the GPA. We understand that even when we fall short, or even well short, of our 4.0dreams, we are still above the 2.7 average first semester GPA that we all remember learning about atFreshman Orientation.Understanding data points in relation to the average is a perfectly reasonable way of establishingrelationships, and is inescapable in a way. It is the basis of many social interactions and plays a crucial role inthe way free markets work. As such, it is not the idea of averaging across a data set that underlies therelational problem in society. Instead, it is the mistaken understanding of what constitutes a valid data set fora frame of reference that is limiting our ability to appreciate our modern circumstances.In the scenario of the English royalty as frame of reference, the underlying problem was that relevant datawas arbitrarily dismissed, but what, then, is wrong with the data set that gives us the “average Joe?”Many would suggest that nothing is wrong, that it is perfectly reasonable to judge yourself in terms of theaverage, and that, should you find yourself lacking, you ought to work to better your material circumstances.Conversely, should you find yourself far exceeding to revel in your success and enjoy the fruits of your labor.However, I believe that the use of an average from a given time, even that of living memory, suffers from thesame arbitrary dismissal of evidence as the English royalty example, namely the dismissal of the vastness ofhuman experience accessible throughout history.In considering my suggestion, using as much of the human experience as we have access to as a proper frameof reference, I find it helpful to look at what sparked the idea. As someone addicted to information, I am on anear constant IV drip of audio. I mainline my drug of choice at 1.5x speed when walking to the Six-Pack, andthe track marks in my eardrums comprise the path of least resistance for information to enter and alter myconsciousness. It was during a euphoria induced by the particularly potent Reason podcast Festivus Airing ofthe Grievances, that Nick Gillespie prompted the idea for this article, remarking:For me the paradigmatic moment of 2017 came in, I think it was late November-early December, and Iwas riding on a subway in New York and I was watching an Amazon streaming show on my Kindle FireHD which cost me like $70 bucks . . .  I was downloading the episode, while riding on a subway train,using my phone as the tethering device and watching the show even as it began downloading and I waslike you know what. . . we are living in a world of wonders. And maybe we have to be underground sowe don’t think about Trump or the Democrats or Benghazi . . . there are amazing things going on, and ifpeople actually think a little less about politics . . . and look at what’s going on in the world . . . these arenot the worst of times, they are certainly not the best of times, but they are pretty amazing times.Such revelry in the wonders brought about by technological advances was unusual for Gillespie, typically aget-off-my-lawn curmudgeon. Nick’s comments help to illuminate why we are missing out on much of the joyinherent in an increasing standard of living — we lack the proper conception of an “average Joe,” one basedon broad understanding of the average human condition throughout history.Far from arbitrarily dismissing evidence, using a historical average of the human condition as a frame ofreference includes as much evidence as possible. History, then, provides the least arbitrary data set averagingthe human condition and has the added benefit of being a more stable data set than trying to keep up withthe Joneses.The argument also has consequential appeal, allowing many people to locate their troubles on the scale ofmankind’s broader suffering, which has been immense. In this way, history allows access to comparisons suchas the daily struggles of the average college student to that of the average farmhand in 1300.Understanding that the historical average of man has lived a life that Thomas Hobbes famously dubbed,“solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short,” provides the proper frame of reference for considering how ourmodern day problems deviate from the mean. With history as a benchmark, we can begin to appreciate thatRelated PostsMar 4 Pro Choice, In a Better WayFeb 27 A New Texas Has Heart Like ThisFeb 7America's Favorite BloodsportCulturehistory, referenceW E S  D O D S O NWes Dodson is a co-founder of The Texas Orator and a contributing writer on State and NationalPolitics. He champions constitutional liberties and the exercise of reason, all while juggling schooland an expensive podcast addiction.Leave a commentwe do truly live in a world of wonders, and hopefully when asked how we are doing, we can start to say“Pretty amazing, relative to the (historical) average Joe”.Mar 10The Nationalization of StudentGovernment ElectionsMar 21The Economics of SG Voting: WhyEvery UT Student Should VoteThe Texas Orator is a nonpartisan, peer-reviewed political publication that was founded and is maintained byUniversity of Texas at Austin students. We value thorough analysis in our articles and strive to protect theideals of free speech and unhindered access to information on campus and nationwide. We seek to keep thestudent body informed of the implications of ever-changing political climates, both domestically and abroad,from a range of voices and perspectives.Join Our CommunitySubscribe to our weekly newsletter!Email Address  SUBMITD O N A T EPowered by Squarespace

Thinking Historically

https://repositories.lib.utexas.edu/bitstream/2152/64636/2/www-thetexasorator-com-blog-2018-3-1-thinking-historically.pdf

Thinking Historically

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Texas ScholarWorks