- Know the “emotional blind spots” too!
The Blind Spot
This weekend I have been teaching a young person to drive. Like all new drivers she was focused on what she was doing and not how others perceive what she was doing or might do. Why? Well, for her, driving is a new experience and her priority is her own personal safety. After a bit of practice, we pulled over to get a drink (“non alcoholic” of course). After commending her on her progress, I introduced another aspect of safe driving. First, I reinforced that her navigation and control of the car was getting better and better and safer and safer. But, I also introduced the idea that she would be a much safer driver if she communicated better with other drivers. For example, she needed to work on “signalling so that others would know what she intended to do. She needed to communicate her intentions so that she and others would be interact better and be safer on the road. By increasing safety for all, she would increase the safety of herself. We then discussed one of the most hazardous aspects of driving – specifically “The Blind Spot”. The “Blind Spot” is a place where a driver can be seen by other cars, but cannot see those cars. A driver in relation to his “Blind Spot” is in a situation where:
- He can see what he is doing.
- Others can see what he is doing.
- He cannot see what others are doing.
An “emotional blind spot” exists when one cannot see the effects of his behaviour on others.
I believe that that the REACTION to activity on the Isaac Brock blog, over the last few days can be explained by an inability to see the “emotional blind spots” of other posters. In fact, to some the reactions are incredible and inexplicable. To wit:
@ renouncecitizenship: I agree completely. I’ve never posted because I never had anything to say. I’m posting now because I am finding this latest exchange of posts unbelievable. Petros managed to create the most helpful, informative and essential website at a time when the combo of scare tactics by the IRS and the multitude of OVDI accountants turned all our lives into a living hell.
And now what? Some skirmish over exaggerated notions of political correctness is going to sabotage this amazing endeavour? Surely we’ve all noticed that this is possibly the most civilized, well behaved, intelligent website of it’s kind.
It would truly be a huge self defeating shame if intolerance of self expression and occasional satire were to be curbed by poring over every word and finding offense where very obviously NONE was intended.
This is the rational, logical, reasoned perspective. Of course it doesn’t account for emotions in general and “emotional blind spots” in particular.
What is the Isaac Brock Society and where are we emotionally?
From my perspective, the Isaac Brock Society plays two key roles.
First, it is an educational portal. Almost all people (including many cross-border professionals) are confused about FBAR, FATCA, OVDI, PFICS, and other realities of U.S. Citizenship abroad. The research offered is as good (and in many cases better) than any other online source. I didn’t say perfect. But, I have yet to see anything that is consistently better. For those who doubt this, take a look at the resource links on the right side of the blog. But, what kind of people would take the time to research and organize this wealth of information? Answer, only those U.S. Citizens abroad and immigrants who have been deeply affected – to use emotively neutral language – by the conduct of the Obama administration. For many the U.S. Citizens abroad, the events of the last year have permanently changed their lives, changed their perception of the United States as a country premised on freedom and justice, and caused them to question the viability of remaining a U.S. Citizen. Quite obviously, as an educational portal, the Isaac Brock Society has the effect of educating a large number of people (including legislators).
Second, (and this follows from the first) it is a place where a lot of frightened and confused people seek and find emotional comfort. “Form Nation” is a leader in job creation in the form industry. It has created lucrative opportunities in the area of international tax and compliance law. It has now also created the need for a new kind of therapist – “The FBAR Therapist”. But, not just any therapist will do. Those who have not been personally threatened by the events of the last year cannot even begin to understand the “emotional fallout” associated with it. (Because they have not experienced it, they have an “emotional blind spot” for what others are feeling.) What I will call “The Year of the FBAR”, has affected my relationships with those around me. I am sure that it has affected many of yours. But, my point is this:
When one is in a situation where emotions run as high as they are, people are less likely to see things from another point of view.
Our personal “blind spots”
Many of us have “blind spots” when it comes to the emotions of others. This point is quite evident from various comments on the Isaac Brock blog. Examples are easy to find. But, an example as good as any would be the sequence of comments starting here:
The issue is one of trying to understand the point of view expressed. Again, I am saying “the point of view”. The “point of view” is a combination of experience, logic, emotion and our “emotional blind spots”. I have been told that, anybody who has been through marriage counseling will recognize this. What are the real issues that are behind responses and behavior?
What is the context for determining the point of view?
I believe that I am on safe ground when I say that the context is:
“The United States of America, through the use of citizenship-based taxation in general, and very specific aspects of citizenship-based taxation in particular, has launched an attack on U.S. Citizens abroad and immigrants inside the United States. The purpose of the attack is to identify them as being in violation of U.S. Laws (which were never publicized) and then not allowing them to come into compliance without incurring “life altering professional fees” and indeterminate, but massive penalties. Or to put it simply: the United States is destroying the lives of its citizens abroad who wish to be law abiding and tax compliant. Interestingly only those who saved for retirement and wish to be compliant with the law are affected.
Furthermore, the U.S. Is taking steps to enlist other governments to seek out and join the U.S. Attack on U.S. Citizens. FATCA anyone?”
If anybody takes issue with this characterization fine, but I think this describes (and frankly minimizes the situation in emotively neutral language).
Recent posts/conduct at Brock have been dividing us rather than uniting us. Our understanding of the positions of others is a function of our “emotional blind spots”. Former Defence Secretary McNamara, in the movie “The Fog of War” explained how the mistake made by the United States was a failure to see the world from the perspective of the Vietnamese. Whether we are dealing with friend or whether we are dealing with foe, it is vital that we understand the perspective of others. Our ability to “problem solve” with others is a function of our ability to understand their perspective.
So, what’s this got to do with Isaac Brock?
Although this has been brewing for some time, the fact pattern that seems to have been MOST responsible for igniting the controversy was the Hitler spoof video. The depiction of Adolph Hitler in a video was extremely offensive to some people and it had little effect on others. The particular “blowout” has its antecedents in earlier posts, including the the infamous “Bobby Fischer” post.
That post included a video of Fischer saying very disparaging things about Jews. I am the author of that post. I am not Jewish. From my point of view, the purpose of including the video in the post was to demonstrate how the conduct of the U.S. Government can generate hatred and irrationality. Now Fischer may or may not (to use the words of one commentator) have been a “nutbar”. But, he is clearly an example of the U.S. Government treating its citizens as property – and that was the purpose of the post. When I wrote the post, it never occured to me that the video could have been interpreted in any other way. But, I was wrong. I was wrong because I had a “blind spot” for the effect that the inclusion of the video, could have on someone who was Jewish. Furthermore, I can also understand how for some, the content of Fischer’s remarks could have been so emotionally upsetting that it would make it impossible for them to see the central message. Therefore I understand, how my “blind spot” (which was an inability to see another person’s “blind spot”) made it impossible for some to see the central message of the post. That said, I am NOT retreating from the content and the purpose of the post. The purpose was to demonstrate an example of how the U.S. Government treats its citizens as property. Even disagreeable U.S. Citizens like Mr. Fischer have the right to fair treatment.
So, what is the purpose of this post?
Let’s consider the recent post featuring Adolph Hitler in the context of his wanting to “round up” U.S. Persons in Toronto. Very powerful stuff! But from a purely objective perspective, how is it different from the videos about the banks hunting U.S. citizens abroad? The answer depends on who you are. The way we interpret things is a function of who we are. Who we are, is a function of our experiences. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. What are the dominant experiences of those who might have seen the video?
Group 1 – U.S. Citizens abroad or immigrants who have unquestionably been subjected to a vicious assault by the U.S. Government. They (with justification) experience the U.S. Government as being a government of unfairness, oppression, unreasonableness and irrationality. I suspect that many of them feel a strong sense of betrayal from a government they believed they could trust. That is their logical and emotional paradigm. They understand that Hitler was an oppressor and they see the personification of the U.S. Government in Adolph Hitler.
That said, some U.S. Citizens abroad have been damaged by oppressive governments (for example Hitler) and others have not.
Those who have NOT been damaged by oppressive governments are less likely to understand the effect of a Hitler video on those who have been damaged. They can focus only on their own pain.
Some U.S. Citizens abroad may be part of families who have been damaged by oppressive governments. The Serbian community is an example of group that most certainly bears the scars of Hitler’s oppression. How might a U.S. Citizen abroad with Serbian roots interpret the Hitler video? I could imagine a variety of responses. These responses could range from one extreme (no reference to Hitler should be tolerated) to the other extreme ( a conviction that there is a parallel between Hitler’s conduct and that of the U.S. Government). This explains why some U.S. Citizens abroad are offended by the Hitler video and others are not.
Group 2 – People who are not U.S. Citizens abroad or immigrants. These people will understand logically why U.S. Citizens abroad feel oppressed and persecuted. But, they will never experience it on an emotional level. There is no way that they can. Furthermore those who are NOT U.S. Citizens abroad or immigrants fall into two groups.
One group may be composed of members of ethnic or religious groups who were so damaged by Hitler that any reference to Hitler incapacitates them from seeing anything else. In other words, members of this group have an “emotional blind spot” when it comes to understanding the position of the first group.
A second group would be those who are not emotionally invested in the oppression of Hitler, but at the same time, can never be emotionally invested in the plight of U.S. Citizens abroad.
What does the comment stream reveal?
Most comment streams are an attempt at some form of dialogue in the sense that people are talking about the same thing. What is striking is that although people are talking about the same set of facts (the Hitler video) they are not talking about the same thing at all. Although everybody agrees that the video depicts the Hitler’s oppression of a number of groups, all commentators are hostage to their “emotional blind spots”. A U.S. Resident with a strong emotional reaction to the Hitler atrocities has a “blind spot” that makes it difficult for him to understand how a U.S. Citizen abroad would perceive the video. A U.S. Citizen abroad who is on the receiving end of “U.S. Exceptionalism” has a “blind spot” that makes it difficult for him to understand how the U.S. Resident might react to the video.
Who we are is very much a function of our “emotional blind spots”.
How to deal with our “blind spots” as members of a community
Drivers must contend with the “blind spot” in their driving. Individuals in a community must contend with their own “blind spots” in relation to other peoples “blind spots”. The need to be aware of the “emotional blind spots” has nothing to do with free speech or censorship. Anybody on this blog (as far as I know) is perfectly free to say what they want. But, our job is to encourage dialogue and participation for the purpose of nurturing a common front which will make make a difference. If people won’t participate in the discussion then we cannot achieve that objective.
To be clear, I am not taking any position on any content. That is for each of us to decide. But, in deciding on that content, it might, from time to time, be worth asking the question:
What “emotional blind spots might come into play in interpreting what I am about to write?
A necessary step on the road to helpful discussion is to become aware of our own “blind spots” and the “blind spots” of others. As former U.S. Defence Secretary Robert McNamara said:
That’s what I call empathy. We must try to put ourselves inside their skin and look at us through their eyes, just to understand the thoughts that lie behind their decisions and their actions.
That’s the only way we can understand what somebody is really talking about!
The road is long!
Some of you have mentioned that our struggle with the U.S. government will likely be a long one! As I suggested in an earlier post:
@renounce,
Thank you so much for your wise analysis and words, not just this time, but most everything I’ve ever read that originates from your mind and heart, to your computer keyboard to this blog (and yours). You are one that truly understands and conveys what those of here are about.
I appreciate all you have given us here and will continue to contribute. How did you get so smart, IQ and EQ, intelligently and emotionally?
@Calgary – I appreciate your kind thoughts. I was a bit hesitant to put his post up (not sure why).
As far as the “smart” – no such thing – I have just made a ton of mistakes and try to learn from as many as I can.
Thanks again!
Yes, I can agree completely with Calgary about your analysis, and I appreciate your honesty.
Now, I’m going to say something honestly too. My blind spots are probably evident to everyone by now. I was completely blindsided by the charges of anti-antisemitism, racisms, etc. Ok, so I am cheeky–I will admit. But antisemitic? Race-baiting? A whackjob, kook, weirdo, KKK?
So I tried to change tack. I put up a post which subtly accused the US of paternalism in its relationship to its own citizens and other countries, and we saw a vivid example of that, in my thinking, of at least one of the self-anointed representatives of the United States here on this blog treating me, if not the rest of us, in a paternalistic manner. So far two comments. One note of appreciation via email. Isn’t colonialist style paternalism an atrocity in itself? It treats adults as children and slaves. Isn’t that pure evil? Hasn’t it led to many atrocities such as the massacre in Rwanda in 1994? So why is that ok, with everyone giving that post a pass? A ho-hum, nothing to see here, let’s move on? They should be accusing me of a being a total whack job, if the United States government is only made up of nice, well-intentioned people, shouldn’t they?
It’s almost as if in order to cut through the absolute indifference of people, you must compare the US to Hilter, but once you’ve done that, the outrage falls on you instead upon the government which invited the comparison. This is my blind spot. I had no idea people were like that.
Petros – The core contradiction that I see is that for you to provide the energy and direction to Brock that you do, you have to be super cheeky. Many people like the existence of Brock. Many people cannot take cheeky. Friction city! Vulnerability to oppression stands in direct proportion to lack of shameless cheekiness. Fewer would die if more were cheeky. Good go on paternalism – that’s one facet of the inherent demonic nature of the state.
@Petros
“at least one of the self-anointed representatives of the United States
here on this blog treating me, if not the rest of us, in a paternalistic
manner.
I’m not sure what that’s about, but if it’s a reference to Mr Mopsick. I think it is a little hard on him. He expressed his opinions, and as Renounce so wisely says, even if you disagree, it is important to understand what people are actually saying.. Maybe one of the “blind spots” that many of us have, quite understandably, is understanding the mentality behind opinions that seem to represent the “enemy”. I don’t think he was our enemy, but he may have seemed that way to you. He probably didn’t always understand us either. For whatever reason, you and he seemed to have been butting heads from the moment he appeared. But I am at least some others found it useful to hear his perspective on the situation.
Point 3 of my Paternalism post:
@Petros
Not sure how to interpret the first part of your comment, but just to be clear, this post is not about you or about anybody else, period. It is about the general situation over the last week or so. It is just an attempt to reconstruct the difficulties in dialogue – or to put it another way – the inability to have a dialogue.
Furthermore, the suggestions that you are ” antisemitic? Race-baiting? A whackjob, kook, weirdo, KKK?” are ridiculous. I admire your consistency in not allowing censorship on the blog. You have and continue to do a fantastic job and I hope that (exhausting as it must be for you) that you continue. You have done a good job, on the tightrope of both moderating the board and participating in the discussion.
You say:
Yes you are right in your assessment in what it takes to cut through the indifference. But, that’s because “Hitler”, “The U.S.”, these are things and ideas that trigger emotional responses. Rwanda is NOT part of the general consciousness in North America. I takes work for people to get up to speed on that one. Here is another one: “The Rape Of Nanking” (Japanese in China). For whatever reason few people know about it.
So, yes the word “Hitler” induces a specific response. And of course, in this politically correct world, the person who introduces the topic gets the blame. It’s a lot easier to blame and avoid a reasoned discussion than to have the discussion. People are like water. They will take the path of least resistance. One would think that a discussion of Hitler would be welcome just to minimize it not happening again.
I agree with USXCanada that Joe Smith needs to come back and join the discussion. But, again, in this PC world he who introduces the “topic of evil” gets the blame.
With respect to your Paternalism post, you comment that:
Yes, good way of looking at it. Another way of bottom lining it might be Lord Aktin’s dictum that:
“Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely”
This is what has happened to the U.S.
Thanks again for your achievement in organizing and moderating the blog. As I once put in a post, we are: “Living History”.
*renounceuscitizenship, excellent post. It would have been so sad if you had not posted it.
@Petros: you da man! Personally I have little time for a lot introspective analysis. In this age of multiple webs of interwoven lies it is the light of truth that is required. But what is the truth? Well most IBS readers have faced a hard slap of truth across the face. Some readers want to limit that truth from disturbing the intricate pattern of lies that they have based their lives on. Sorry, they won’t find any sympathy from me.
To impress people with the seriousness of our problem, I don’t use comparisons to anything. I send on the actual stories of what this US policy is doing to the lives of real people, right now, plain and simple. People seem pretty shocked to learn of it, so I’ve found it to be a pretty effective means of consciousness raising.
Petros, you are not allowing censorship. That is the bottom, unwavering line.
That others at times comment with what some of us will perceive as negativity, sometimes in a demeaning way, has now been addressed in the disclaimer. Each individual is responsible for his or her own writing and it is up to the rest of us to accept or not accept different points of view.
We can do this respectfully. With a modicum of civility, we can keep alive this valuable resource we’ve all created.
@pacifica. Right on.
@renounce, thank you for opening this dialogue which I think will be therapeutic for some.
@pacifica, right on indeed! Hitler’s dead, let’s leave it there.
@petros, a certain person’s paternalism bordered on obsession, me thinks.
Hmm.. renounce, I liked bubble’s comments.. something to the extent of “We have had to deal with so much, why should we really care if someone posts one little offensive thing?” I really have to agree with this. I can really care less, and I see/saw a lot comments that were childish.
Also, you really have to be suspicious of these people that have never posted, yet want to complain about one specific issue. I like Stephen, but I always thought his icon was incompatible with this place. Life goes on… sorry to see him go, but I always sensed soem incompatibility there.
(Peter, you were called an anti-semite because you treaded on Jewish territory. There’s not a single religious-group that I admire more in this world, but if I did the same thing, I would probably be called something similar.) You also have to continually remember that you are dealing with people that come from a culture of complainers: one little thing, and they drop all sorts of heated remarks. To me, when I read those remarks, it makes me remember why I left!!!
@Renounce…
It is hard work overcoming your “blind spots” and empathizing with another person’s view you have never met except by the words written on a blog. Thanks for focusing on this subject and leading the discussion. If we can all keep cool heads, and avoid assaulting each other, the community will survive.
The issue is, often you do not realize how your written word is received and perceived on the other side of the world. It is very easy to respond negatively to something you read and over react to a pointed comment, that the other person may not think is pointed at all. It is also easy to be too quick or cheeky in response, as Petros says, especially when you do not know the other persons sensitivities. I stand guilty of that at times.
I feel bad that we have lost some valuable input on this blog from some who have decided the conversation was getting too heated, but so it goes. Maybe if this post helps balance things again, they will return. I keep thinking of the new person coming here out of fear looking for answers on what to do, or how to understand these changes in U.S. practices. The last thing we want to send them running because we seem too radical. We want to help them get through the trauma that is real for them.
@Just Me, Please understand that USX captures much better my self-intention for the term “cheeky”. I did not mean hasty, ill-thought out or rude responses in the comment stream, as you suggest. I mean defiance. USX captures it perfectly: “Vulnerability to oppression stands in direct proportion to lack of shameless cheekiness. Fewer would die if more were cheeky.” The on-going difference between Mopsick and myself is that I was saying F-You to the United States, and he was acting as if I was still the inferior, in the lower position. I defy the United States–I am doing Noisy Non-Disclosure with regard to FBAR. He threatened me, on behalf of the IRS, on several occasions, both on the blog and in private–I know he was just trying to “protect” me (see point #1 on paternalism). He said I was putting a big target on my back. He warned that I shouldn’t give the appearance that I’m leading a tax protest movement; and yet now, he has essentially declared me a tax protestor and a terrorist. You see I didn’t heed his warning–he gave me notice, and now he must withdraw his protection (Paternalism #1). In response to Mopsick’s warning me against starting a tax protestation movement, I replied that I am trying to stop the United States from continuing to commit acts of war against Canada. He continually mocked my positions and finally said that I sounded like a raving moron (see Paternalism #3). But the problem for Mopsick was that I never once ceded to him the idea that it is legitimate for the United States to collect taxes from the Canadian tax base. Just Me, Roger Conklin and many others here say the US should move to a residential tax–some here also admit that US citizens in other countries are a Trojan Horse for US overreach and extra-territorial taxation. If these good folks are all right, then I have justice on my side and Mopsick has no right to declare me a target for the IRS–but that is how Paternalism works. You must punish the disobedient and cheeky (Paternalism #1, #3)
Mopsick remains always an IRS man proud of his tenure and a continued apologist for the Internal Revenue Code and the righteousness of the United States. He concedes that the way that Shulman is doing it is wrong, as does Nina Olsen. Yet for both Olsen and Mopsick, the goal is compliance, and finding a way to make a million people in Canada and 6 million world wide compliant.
My cheek is this: I prefer such people renounce their US ties, because I want to protect the sovereignty of Canada. This is my community now. This is my home. And I want to defend her from people like Shulman, as well as Mopsick and Olsen. To me, Obama, Geithner, Shulman, Bush, Romney and Schumer are Paternalism Full-Blown; Mopsick and Olsen are Paternalism Lite. I want freedom from an oppressive overload. I want independence. I want to get rid of colonial rulers and their overlords, by sending them back to the homeland. I am cheeky.
And for this cheek, what do I get? Mopsick now tells the world that people who take my positions are crack pots who hate the United States and wish America ill (i.e., terrorists) and he must expose such people. Thus, the not-subtle message of the Paternalistic Overlord is this: Don’t you dare be cheeky, because now the United States can target you with drones under the NDAA!
Anyone who acquiesces to this level of rhetoric has an inferiority complex (Paternalism, #2). Cower in fear people! The Overlord has spoken and pronounced his judgment. So yes, he was damn helpful when he was participating here. But does anyone know what his true agenda (see Paternalism, #3) was?
@ renounce
Thank you very much for what must have taken you considerable time and effort.
To everyone-let’s concentrate on the original purpose of IBS.
As Joe Friday would say “Just the facts ma’am”. (Or is it “Just the Fatca ma’am”?)
The Canadian government has encouraged a Canadian Cheek Movement (CCM) by saying that it would not collect FBAR fines nor would it collect taxes for the IRS from a Canadian citizen. Thus, Canadian residents must understand their rights and stand up for them. This may require cheek, and it requires audacity. But it may lead to accusations of rebellion, stupidity, and extremism, coming from both Paternalism Full Blown and Paternalism Lite.
Our purpose, according to the About page (14 December 2011):
By having an uncensored blog which fights Paternalism, we are staying true to our purpose.
@petros
Canadian Cheek Movement, LOL! I thank you for your conviction to such a noble cause and the clarity of mind in continuing to identify to the root of the problem, which is citizenship based taxation. Your recognition of Nina Olsen as something other than a heroine is spot on, appreciating that her office can lessen the severity of the beatings, it still supports them. You are a true Canadian patriot, I pray no more so than our government reveals itself to be in spite of their endorsement of the CCM!
@bubblebustin, thanks. Still, I don’t want to be the first martyr of the CCM.
@petros, if you stay true to your convictions that may just be in the cards for you. but you will be in good company 🙂
don’t let the judgement of a certain former IRS agent get into your head too much. you may have served as his mirror and didn’t like what was reflected back to him.
@renounce, I haven’t had time to respond more thoroughly, but this post was greatly needed. Thank you for doing what needed to be done, so thoughtfully, and so well-crafted.
Well, Petros, if you’ve got a target painted on your back then I guess I have one too. I kind of backed up into the wet paint and there it is. I have not done and will not do FBARs or 8938s. As a Canadian I consider those penalty laden information forms to be an egregious affront to my self-declared sovereignty. Besides, I honestly thought FBARs were for US citizens. US personhood for taxation purposes is an absurd concept for a Canadian living in Canada. (Note to IRS: My American husband has done these information forms and he will continue to do them until he is emancipated by renunciation.)
My biggest problem right now is how to disengage myself from the 1040 filing. We have an extension for 2011 so there’s still some time to figure it out . Maybe we’ll just make the change to he-does-I-don’t filing (would that be a quiet undisclosure?) and then wait for the intimidating IRS letter — don’t know yet. I’d have to fend for myself because we certainly can’t afford a lawyer. My husband thinks we are such small fry they won’t even notice. I see a certain degree of vindictiveness in IRS behaviour so I think there is a good chance they will notice. (IF they are reading this they will definitely notice.) In hindsight we should never have been filing jointly but back in those innocent years it just seemed easier and somewhat logical because we did joint banking (pretty common for a married people I’d say) and I did not know then and still don’t know if he had filed on his own if he could have recorded those bank accounts on the FBARs and the interest on the 1040s at 50% — hardly fair to only get 50% of the deductions while taking 100% of the tax liability. This is a 100% certainty for me though — I am bone tired of all this and want to get on with solving other problems like how to get the front yard watered with a temporary water hook-up attached to our outdoor spigot (water and sewer upgrade on our street for the next month). Yes indeed, I am 100% tired of it all.
I wobble between defiant and despair but I have to say (and this is 100% too) that I admire your “cheekiness”, Petros, because darn it, you are right, the system is wrong and nothing short of putting it right is acceptable. Tweaking won’t work. Now I have another worry. Will a drone flying over Alberta be able to take out wobbly defiant me and spare my silent but simmeringly angry compliant husband? Or will he just be considered collateral damage?