Blame Culture 47

[ScottyUK]

zdas04 rightly suggested that this belonged in a separate thread to where it was initially posted.

"I personally don't like some of the culture developing in the UK where everything is someone else's fault. No-one accepts responsibility for their own actions any more, however stupid those actions are. It is leading to increasingly restrictive legislation and in some instances corporate and state 'nannying', and an ever-growing level of paperwork designed to keep the ambulance-chaser lawyers at bay. How is it in the rest of the world?"

So - is it just the UK afflicted with this blame culture? Is it right? Or should Darwin's Theory of Evolution be allowed to take effect and reduce the number of stupid people in the world?



----------------------------------

If we learn from our mistakes,
I'm getting a great education!

 

[ScottyUK]

Maui,

In answer to your question a few posts ago, yes, in simple terms the legal costs are met by the 'loser'. Unfortunately there are an exponentially-growing number of "no-win, no-fee" legal firms infecting my country. These firms actively encourage compensation claims for anything imaginable, because they know their fees will be paid if they win. Obviously they pick cases where the doddering idiots who sit as judges are likely to find in their favour, or where the defence may settle out court.

As many contributors have said, the legal 'profession' are largely to blame, and the law-makers are guilty of allowing them to prosper. Many of our judges are at or beyond retirement age, some bordering on senility and almost all wouldn't be further out of touch with the population if they were on the Moon.




----------------------------------

If we learn from our mistakes,
I'm getting a great education!

 

[IRstuff]

And that would effectively mean the end of any consumer recourse whatsoever.

That also means that if your employer stiffs you out of your pay or you get screwed by a commercial company, you will have ZERO recourse. If your doctor screws up, you'll be SCREWED, since the likelihood of winning a malpractice suit was already low to begin with.

There are other ways to deal with frivolous lawsuits. Given that some of you had previously expressed negative feelings about companies and their behavior, it's rather curious that you're so anxious to protect them from being called into account when the need arises.

TTFN

 

[ajack1]

I think the last two posts pretty much sum up the problems.

Everyone should be entitled to justice however rich or poor they are, however when you offer this there is always someone who wants to abuse the system, be it compensation, welfare benefit, or any other benefit. To some it is what any “reasonable “ society should do; to others it is a free meal ticket. I guess it is human nature, not very pleasant creatures humans are they?

 

[EngJW]

Another thing about frivilous lawsuits is that many companies will ante up a few grand to settle quickly in order to avoid the much higher costs of defending themselves. If some pilot takes off in the fog and flies his plane into the side of a mountain, the manufacturer of every part on the plane gets sued. It adds up pretty big for the lawyers.

 

[rhodie]

Well, as they say, one man's religion is another man's belly laugh. As long as I pray to your deities, I am guaranteed a place next to you in the afterlife, right? Or do I have to contribute to your political party too?

Since we're speaking of a "culture of blame," if you have a supernatural being to pledge your allegiance to, you can be "right" and comfortably blame the gays, atheists, liberals, and illegal immigrants for everything that is wrong with society... isn't that how it's supposed to work?

Well, let's just say that the focus of your post went far outside the context, and point, that mine provided.

 

[ivymike]

The Theory of Evolution, and the subsequent invalidation of religion, means we are left to our own devices; and the product of the "There's no-accountability for myself and my actions due to no existence of a Superior Being to judge me, because I'm just here as an effect of progressive reproduction" culture has been quite simply to blame anything else but yourself for those problems. There's no reason to be accountable, just to make your time on earth as easy on yourself as you can manage to make it.

Fortunately for the rest of us, there are real-life and immediate consequences to the actions of individuals and groups. We don't have to wait and hope that supernatural beings will eventually intervene. There are real physical consequences to actions, and societies enforce their standards of acceptable behavior to prevent people from injuring each other unjustly.

Darwinian evolution didn't invalidate religion - any religion contradictory to it was invalid already.

 

[casseopeia]

As someone who works with attorneys involved in construction litigation on a daily basis, I feel the need to add some points...

SacreBleu, you are a wise and valued being, however you forgot to mention that some attorneys (not all) will also color or shade the facts to achieve a specific result (just about anything short of an outright lie).

jlwoodward, it is not necessarily 'The Company' that chooses to settle, unless you refer to The Insurance Company. Their attorneys are generally making all the decisions.

I had a situation when I was a part owner of a consulting firm. We were sued due a typographical error listing my company as the engineer of record in a condominium conversion report. We were not. Had nothing to do with the building whatsoever. My company wrote a short report for someone who did NOT purchase the building.

A motion for summary judgement failed in an Illinois State court, even though we demonstrated that we were not the engineer of record. I have nothing kind to say about the Illinois court system nor the cretins that inhabit it.

MY insurance company told us to just pay the $10,000 to make the case 'go away'. This was coincidentially the amount of our deductible. It would have cost our small company $10,000 and the insurance company nothing. At the time, my premiums were around $25,000-$30,000 per year. I refused to pay the $10,000, so our E & O insurance carrier threatened to not cover us if the suit was successful. I felt blackmailed not only by the Plaintiff in this case, but by my own E & O insurance carrier. I fired the insurance company and fought the suit without coverage, and won. I also managed to get the developer to pay our legal costs plus $40,000. This was a very risky and difficult thing to do.

This was a nighmare for a very clearcut case. I would hate to think of the pressure on companies if there is any degree of exposure.

If there is blame to spread around like so much manure on a field, a substantial portion of that stuff has to plopped right down on the E & O carriers.

 

[zdas04]

When I worked for a major company, I always tried to shift into "Damage Control" mode after an upset to get the operation returned to normal conditions. One of my last bosses wanted everyone shifted into "Find the culprit" mode. We frequently butted heads over that and on one occasion I was trying to stop a significant gas leak (corrosion) and he wanted me to find out who was to blame. After a couple of non-productive hours of this nonsense I called his boss and asked him to get this jerk off my back. The story has a happy ending, the guy that was my boss is now an individual contributor again.

I find it truly amazing how many "find the culprit" individuals end up in management positions (I won't say "leadership positions"). What is there about that type of person that allows them to gravitate upwards? Could it be that they tend to be ineffective engineers so they get elevated to positions where they won't have to make technical decisions?

Whatever the reason, I think that the blame culture starts with people who won't take personal responibility, evolves to those losers in leading positions, and finally reaches the court systems--the out-of-control lawyers are more a symptom than a root cause.

David

 

[weh3]

It's the Dilbert Principle. The incompetent and unproductive individuals in an organization are systematically promoted to where they can do the least damage--management.

William

 

[PSE]

casseopia,

You provide a good case study showing that nothing ends up as "clear cut" as it initially looks once the legal system gets involved.

ivymike brings case law into the discussion as a way of resolving conflicts between and within existing statutory law. It is when these exceptions are built upon so that they become the new "rule" that dangers can arise (my opinion). The current "fashion" within the practice of law appears to be working the exceptions rather than the rule in order to win.

Regards,

 

[SacreBleu]

Cass, I am glad for you to be in a satisfying career position. I once interviewed a company similar to yours, and was rejected. Probably because I was too honest. After a few scrapes with lawyers in both personal and professional situations, I can only say that my favorite lawyer joke is:
Lawyers aren't all that bad - it's only that 98% of them bad apples the make the remaining 2% look bad.
I would not be at all surprised if the E & O Insurance Carriers are owned/directed by lawyers.

 

[epoisses]

Nothing to do with religion, nothing to do with culture... Everybody would like to make somebody else pay for their mistakes, but there are only a few countries where faulty legal systems let those people get away with it!

So companies are forced to take counter-measures, disclaimers written all over the products they sell, making their customers look like and feel like they're idiots. My theory is that if you treat someone like an idiot long enough, he/she will eventually become one. So in that sense, yes, this faulty legal system is a kind of an anti-Darwinistic mechanism by which the unfittest survive and are even rewarded.

I personally don't even care to read the disclaimers page of any instruction manual of a product I buy, since it's simply not meant for the country I live in.

 

[ghghghgh]

ScottyUK, it's not Darwin's theory of evolution that applies to reduce the number of stupid people, I submit my theory of natural selection in an industrialized society:

Somehow, people still get killed at railroad crossings for example. It’s very well documented that trains are big, loud, and dangerous, but it still happens. Quite regularly too. And of course, their family sues: the railroad, the DOT, the signal maker.....

To me, it's just natural selection, but this does not float with a sympathizing, blaming culture. Have you ever heard the relative say "Well, the train was big and loud but my brother-in-law got hit anyway trying to beat it. It was his fault." Nope. Enter the lawyers.

 

[Zapster]

The basic underlying theme to the discussion here is interesting: Who or what is to blame for the “blame culture?”

So far I have seen greed, lawyers, lack of religious belief, religious belief, and the theory of evolution being blamed for the “blame culture.”

I choose to blame the popular philosophic position that is ingrained in society. People are largely held responsible for the intent of their actions and not the consequence of their actions. Evaluating intent results in less perceived personal responsibility, and as such, fuels the blame culture.

 

[Theophilus]

ivymike,

How is justice established? By what standard? Shall we take a poll? Of whom? Who is to say one culture is "better" than another? Hitler better than Mugabe or Chamberlain? Without an objective standard, how can any enforcement of any law be truly legitimate?

These questions underpin the problems we're facing in the U.S.--a culture in which almost all law can be challenged because for some reason it is not just to apply a particular law to ME, though it's right for some reason or other to apply it to others. This delegitimizes the concept of law and right enforcement of law.

Truth is that which conforms to reality. It is not merely asserted, but must be observed, tested, proven. Not all ideas can be tested empirically, yet they exist--they are true only as much as they conform to reality. And certainly some of reality is imperceptible (except to the materialist, who has an intangible mind, nonetheless). What do we do with such ideas? You seem a fan of Darwin's work--a brilliant man--but you also seem to have far more faith than I, judging by your bold assertions.

I don't want to wander too far afield from the topic of this thread. If you'd like to discuss this further, my email address is posted at the site listed below.

"And what is good, Phaedrus, and what is not good? Need we ask anyone to tell us these things?"
--Plato, Symposium (supposedly--I've found it only from Pirsig)


Jeff Mowry

http://www.industrialdesignhaus.com

Reality is no respecter of good intentions.

 

[ivymike]

Don't worry about going off topic - the whole thread is probably inappropriate for the site anyway (as are most in this forum - since when does whining about politics have anything to do with self-improvement to get ahead in ones job?)

Not all ideas can be tested empirically, yet they exist--they are true only as much as they conform to reality.

Is that part of the "true unless proven otherwise" philosophical technique? If it is impossible to test an idea empirically, then how can it be known to conform to reality? Does an untestable or unprovable idea with no testable corollaries or derivatives have any practical importance? I think not.

You seem a fan of Darwin's work--a brilliant man--but you also seem to have far more faith than I, judging by your bold assertions.

Which bold assertions are those? The consequences of the theory of evolution have been tested and confirmed experimentally on many thousands, if not millions, of occasions. It has been proven roughly as well as any physical law can ever be proven, and is understood by biologists at least as well as gravity or electricity is understood by physicists. Nonetheless, many people in the US are STILL trying to prevent it from being taught to schoolchildren, and.. (excerpt from the liberal secular humanist left-leaning media rag "National Geographic"):
According to a Gallup poll drawn from more than a thousand telephone interviews conducted in February 2001, no less than 45 percent of responding U.S. adults agreed that "God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so." Evolution, by their lights, played no role in shaping us.

Only 37 percent of the polled Americans were satisfied with allowing room for both God and Darwin—that is, divine initiative to get things started, evolution as the creative means. (This view, according to more than one papal pronouncement, is compatible with Roman Catholic dogma.) Still fewer Americans, only 12 percent, believed that humans evolved from other life-forms without any involvement of a god.

The most startling thing about these poll numbers is not that so many Americans reject evolution, but that the statistical breakdown hasn't changed much in two decades. Gallup interviewers posed exactly the same choices in 1982, 1993, 1997, and 1999. The creationist conviction—that God alone, and not evolution, produced humans—has never drawn less than 44 percent. In other words, nearly half the American populace prefers to believe that Charles Darwin was wrong where it mattered most.

Based on the recurring themes of discussions on this site, I believe that the proportions above are very similar amongst US engineers. I find that frightening - if anyone who isn't a scientist should understand the scientific method, how theories are tested, and what it means for something to be "only a theory," I would guess that engineers should. No such luck. Any science that doesn't match preconceived notions is summarily dismissed with a "they must have fudged the numbers" and a "they're just trying to make some money off of us." Heck, if someone simultaneously mapped the genetic codes of every living thing on the planet, and back-calculated a worldwide family tree reaching tens of millions of years into the past, that would still leave 44% or more of engineers saying "evolution doesn't apply to me." I wonder how often the same hubris results in botched designs ("this thing is going to work - I don't care what the test says")? It probably doesn't happen as often as the above commentary would imply - I'll bet the engineers who'd make that mistake find their way quickly enough to jobs where it can't happen, and those with a more keen investigative talent move just as quickly in the other direction.

One of my more memorable conversations with another engineer (a coworker at a major US vehicle mfr) went something like this:
"I saw a thing on TV last night about how the moon is believed to have been broken off of the earth in a huge impact some billions of years ago."
"There's no way someone could know that. It's just another theory."
"Well the composition of the moon certainly suggests that it is made from the lighter components of the earth's crust, and there is other evidence as well. The scientists involved put together a computer model and calculated the approximate mass and trajectory of an impactor that would result in the current arrangement of bodies, and the math seemed to work out."
"That doesn't mean anything."
"Did you know that the rotation of the earth relative to the moon is gradually slowing, and that the moon is growing ever more distant, which suggests that at one time it was much closer than it is now?"
"That's ridiculous. That doesn't happen. There's no way they can prove that."
"Actually, the recession of the moon can be, and has been, measured by reflecting lasers from an object on its surface."
"That's stupid. I don't know why anyone would want to know something like that anyway."

(At that point I walked away dazed and trying not to mutter to myself - no point in trying to inspire curiousity in someone who would rather avoid it, or was born without it.)

 

[rhodie]

"It (Darwin's Theory) has been proven roughly as well as any physical law can ever be proven..."

I think read that about Cold Fusion once.
One mistake: Theory equals Law

I think that ivymike's post, while not directly related to the topic at hand, does in fact bring up an interesting topic for another thread. We are all amacable here, and I think we are above the traditional "flamewars" prevalent on other forums. Let's discuss in another thread, if the board administrators do not object. I'm not certain if the resources of the servers are meant to be allocated for such topics.'

 

[Theophilus]

ivymike,

What about the other questions? In the first paragraph? Those are difficult to answer. Those are philosophical. Empiricists tend to veer sharply away from those sorts of questions. Yet the answers people assert drive societies and cultures. The answers either illuminate or dim the basis for justice, law, and civilization. There must be an objective standard, lest we’re faced with billions of subjective standards (anarchy). Am I rightly responsible for my own conduct or not? To what degree? We must go back to the basis of justice, or stop talking about such a notion.

“True unless proven otherwise”? No, that would be irrational, wishful thinking. Let’s not do that. (Yes, I’ve found plenty of theists and atheists who take flying leaps of faith into the irrational. Conceded. I don’t think that’s the point.)

One such difficult-to-test idea to which I alluded might include, “There is no such thing as God.” How do we truly put that to the test empirically? The fact is this statement is either true or false. This statement either conforms to reality or it doesn’t. How is it adequately tested? Should we conduct a test on the adherents of each side to see whether they are coherent and rational? Doesn’t sound very scientific to me. It’s not looking very empirically verifiable so far.

Another idea might be, “There must be a point to all this (life, the universe, and everything)”. How do we put to the test the concept of purpose? If there truly is no point to existence, why do we seem to look for purpose in everything? We even find it, and drive design with purpose. Why should there not be a purpose behind living much as we may find purpose in my vacuum cleaner? That, at least, would be consistent with our findings in things designed. Why do people ever despair?

Another is, “The beginning of all things happened without cause.” OK, I think empiricists would be quick to answer this. Then the question becomes, “How, then did the beginning occur?” Judging by the way things naturally decay over time, a beginning is implied. (Life is the only thing I can think of that swims up this stream of decay—and it eventually succumbs to decay.) Nobody observed the beginning. It is not empirically verifiable. We can test only circumstantially, as with all events in the past that cannot be duplicated.

Reality, it seems, is not nearly as simple as we would like to find it. Just when we think we have something figured out, deeper channels are discovered with vast complexity.

The cell, for instance, was once considered the basic building block of life. Soon enough, we discover DNA and its construct. Certainly the complexity of this protein chain is now an enigma—since such complexity would have difficulty evolving in a rich primordial soup within an oxygen-rich environment—which would oxidize (disassemble) the chain—or without oxygen—which would not permit the eventual life as we now have it.

Every theory has its problems. The problems lie not in the simple, larger concepts, but in the deeper details.

We must be honest with the problems associated with our theories—if we’re in search of science and philosophy—ultimately, of knowledge of reality as it truly is.

Your bold assertions demonstrate your strong faith in the veracity of the theory of evolution. However, that theory seems to leave some of the largest questions of life untouched—much as you left some of the philosophical questions in my post untouched. The questions of justice, devotion, love, and purpose need to be asked, or we’re not really looking for knowledge that conforms to reality.

People be what they are, this universe appears to be rational.


Jeff Mowry

http://www.industrialdesignhaus.com

Reality is no respecter of good intentions.

 

[GregLocock]

"I think read that about Cold Fusion once. "

Possibly, but since very few people could replicate the experiment, it must have been rather early in the whole fiasco.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fusion#Pons_and_Fleischmann.27s_experiment

suggests that substantial controversy and generally negative results were present within six weeks of the first public press conference.

Darwin/Mendel's 'modern synthesis' been around for 100+ years, and so far as I am aware no-one has come up with any generally agreed observations that this evolutionary theory cannot explain.

It would, after all, only take one example.

By the way, for the 'it's only a theory' crowd (from wiki again):

In plain English, people use the word "theory" to signify "conjecture", "speculation", or "opinion". In contrast, a scientific theory is a model of the world (or some portion of it) from which falsifiable hypotheses can be generated and be verified through empirical observation. In this sense, "theory" and "fact" do not stand in opposition, but rather exist in a reciprocal relationship.

Cheers

Greg Locock

Please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.

 

[Theophilus]

Obviously, not all theories make it to factual status. Many (if not most) fail. Many are non-verifiable (at least now).

Simply because we can imagine something to be true, does not make it a viable theory. A theory's viability can be measured by the problems it cannot explain. So whereas the theory of evolution allows almost anything that can be thought of to be rationalized, this alone does not make the theory viable. We need to look at the problems it cannot explain to measure its viability. (The same goes for intelligent design and all other theories.) Would you like examples of evolution's problems by which to better measure its viability?

This direction misses the mark of the thread, so I'll return. We seem to have a parasite-host relationship within litigious society. In almost every case a parasite and a host can be distinguished. Sometimes the parasite is an individual (insurance fraud), sometimes it's a corporation (Worldcom). From what does the litigious attitude sprout? It seems akin to the leech's attitude--feed self without regard for the host that feeds it. This collapses when the host dies (or quits, as in Rand's Atlas Shrugged).

Perhaps we have difficulty with leeches because litigious society allows leeches not to regard the law as something that benefits society, but as something that benefits themselves at the expense of society. And why are the strange decisions being made in favor of the leeches? Again, we’ve lost grip on an objective standard of judging right from wrong—what is just from what is not just. If one person can lay claim to what is right in one way, what stops anyone else from laying claim to doing the same? Soon, we have exceptions without rules. When that happens, true justice is no longer understood (or respected) and we enter a strange form of anarchy (in which case it strength of lawyer instead of strength of physical force that reigns).

My original questions are ignored in litigious society much as they are in this thread.


Jeff Mowry

http://www.industrialdesignhaus.com

Reality is no respecter of good intentions.