Survival lessons from Chile: leadership and faith
[Bumped up.]
My new piece is up at RightNetwork. In it, I compare the leaders who emerged under two extreme survival situations in South America: the recent Chilean mine accident, and the Andes plane crash of 1972 that inspired the book Alive.
[NOTE: And if you’re interested in watching a fascinating documentary about the Andes plane crash—much better than the dreadful Hollywood movie made on the subject—please take a look at this.]
Neo, you’ve hit on the key component, leadership. The miners had the advantage of having a recognized leader from the start whose years underground and experience leading a pretty tough group of men kept things going. (I know this–I have uncles and cousins who were/are miners.)
The Andean group at least had the advantage of a long time together though the circumstances and deaths made their lot more difficult. In their case I believe that they were lucky in a sense that there was a natural leader(s) who could emerge.
As a long-time military person (retired) I see the effects of what we call a “good command climate” in both case. That is something that always depends on the experience and personality of the person in charge and the willingness of the followers to contribute in a healthy way.
And, Neo, I liked your picture accompanying the piece. Good light, though we lose something with the bigger apple.
Gallagher (radio personality) was reading/discussing this article by Daniel Henninger yesterday (link below), as I was driving home. It’s a good article, and I found myself thinking of an old recording Danny Kaye did called “Stone Soup”. If you’re unfamiliar with it, try to find it online – but then, I loved the record for my children…Danny Kaye was terrific. Extra funny thing, and the reason I know it’s available online – one of my sons asked me if we still had the record. He couldn’t remember exactly who had recorded it…just remembered one or two of the lines from the stories (Oowangelema was the distinctive one he remembered) and want to know if I could help him get it for his kids. He found it online and downloaded it – and a good thing, because our record is damaged and I don’t know how to record it onto the computer anyway…
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703673604575550322091167574.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop
The key phrase in the piece is:
Italics are mine.
The miners references to their faith was a beautiful thing to see. And seeing how the Chilean President actually connected with those men topped it off.
Our country’s leadership and press infested with smug elitist snobs always bigoted toward religion and dividing our people into victim groups are disgusting in comparison.
The whole Chilean episode is a wonderful story. Folks of courage and competentence came together in a marvelous partnership.
Somewhat obscured in the overarching story of heroism and faith, was the fact that U.S. entrepreneurship played a significant role in the technical aspects of the rescue. Love those private sector entrepreneurs.
Many years ago I was part of a group training Chilean airline pilots. Several of my compatriots spent time in Chile; I did not. They all loved the country, and spoke half-seriously of emigrating.
try competence.
The question of able leadership making the difference in a crisis situation is one that I am sure made all the difference between the Donner-Reed wagon train party, who also became stranded in the snow in the high Sierras over the winter of 1846 – and another wagon-train party of two years earlier, the Stephens-Greenwood-Townsend Party who also became stranded in the snow. Both parties were forced by circumstances to break into smaller groups; some elements in both parties had to camp for all winter in deep snow with dwindling supplies, waiting for a rescue, while others in the party made heroic efforts to get out and to bring back help. But the Donner-Reeds lost half their members to accident and starvation, and the Stephens party arrived with two more than the started with, having lost none along the way. I explored this adventure in “To Truckee’s Trail” and the elements which made all the difference to them: the Stephens Party had several able and well-respected leaders among them, men with experience on the trail and in the mountains of the far west. The Donner-Reed party had none such, the ablest man among them being thrown out of the group, and those left falling apart into family-centered groups and unable to look after each other and pull together. It was an interesting comparison between two similar groups in an analogous situation – but with two radically different outcomes.
I think the Chilean miners did well to keep their faith in their comrades on the surface working to free them, that’s the only faith I can believe in, anything else is a waste of breath which is indeed a very precious resource in such situations I’m sure. See how the faithful, the religious entrepreneurs, have already started their disgusting work?
nyomythus: Have you ever pondered the offensiveness of your own arrogant certainty that you have the answer to the riddles of the universe? Nice that you know exactly how human destiny works, and what place faith might have in it.
As for me:
Speaking of those who are hostile to Christianity: “Criminal Minds” is running an episode tonight that has crazed Christians [it’s never anyone else, of course] who are torturing poor little Reed, trying to get him to admit he’s a sinner.
As I changed the channel in irritation, they were fixing to put hot coals to his feet. Man, you know how those Baptists are!
The bigotry is appalling. It’s the same hateful spirit that started the blood-libel against the Jews.
nyomythus:
What YOU believe in is not necessarily what others believe in. You are also ill-advised on speculating from a comfortable location aboveground what you would believe after spending two months trapped underground. You really don’t know, because you have never been there.
That YOU may be sure of that says nothing whatsoever about the probability of the truth of what you believe. The only thing we can be sure of is that YOU are sure of it; i.e, that it is an element of YOUR faitth.
nyomythus, you sound like I did when I was 14 years old. I now know less than when I was 14.
I would suggest that you do some reading in the history of science, especially pre 18th century, and figure out why after 1400 science exploded in Europe and not in China or the Ottoman Empire.
Neo: great comeback. When first I heard that song it enchanted me. I agree. Let the mystery be.
Oldflyer
A beautiful country, with three thousand miles of an incredible variety of landscapes, with a cuisine to match. But the Chilean accent of Spanish is perhaps the most difficult to understand.
nyomythus has part of the equation right for all his self-satisfied certainty. Faith in your fellows can carry you across the rough parts. My question would be, what do you do if you’re buried alone?
Neo gets it: life is a mystery–you can’t know and blustering that you do just betrays your ignorance. That’s why you need a friend now and then in the mine. Neo, I’d add this Nanci Griffith song to Iris’s:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ryIlAxH4Hjw
Oh life is a mystery. And you have all the answers. So where is that used car you want to sell me ..and tell me how much I owe you while your at it. Riggght.
Gringo, and figure out why after 1400 science exploded in Europe and not in China or the Ottoman Empire.
In Europe … Christianity made life so unbearable that there had to be a Reformation which later gave way to the Enlightenment — most leaders of which were not Christians but Deist, Agnostics, and Atheist. America became the manifesting jewel of this movement … a secular Republic with church/state separations.
nymothus
I cannot speak for others, but when I say that there is a mystery to life, I am also saying that I do not have all the answers: “I now know less than when I was 14.” [shorthand for moving from atheist to agnostic] You are therefore misrepresenting what I say.
It works both ways, nyomythus. I don’t want to purchase the used car that YOU want to sell me, your smug certainty.
I like the old saying…”He who thinks he knows doesn’t know. He who knows he doesn’t know, knows”.
Gringo: figure out why after 1400 science exploded in Europe and not in China or the Ottoman Empire. [Ottoman Empire as a stand-in for the world of Islam.]
nyomythus:
For one thing, the scientific revolution in Europe was well underway centuries before the Enlightenment, so reference to the Enlightenment does not answer the question why the scientific revolution occurred in the first place. Reference to America is also irrelevant because the scientific revolution in Europe began centuries before 1776.
Most studies of the history of science point out that Europe’s rediscovery of Aristotle in the latter part of the Middle Ages helped spur the intellectual underpinnings for the scientific advances later on in Europe. Islam also had access to Aristotle, yet science stagnated in Islam by comparison to what occurred in Europe. What is the difference?
Why in Europe and NOT in the world of Islam and NOT in China? Are you claiming that “Christianity making life so unbearable” was the underlying reason the post 1400 scientific revolution occurred in Europe and NOT in China and NOT in the world of Islam? Both were scientifically more advanced than Europe in 1400, but their knowledge of science stagnated, and after 1400 scientific knowledge in Europe exploded.
The fact that scientific advances also occurred in Catholic countries, which were not part of the Reformation, shoots down your Reformation theory as a universal explanation. Copernicus, the first major figure in the scientific revolution in Europe, was a Roman Catholic whose patron was both a Bishop and his uncle. Moreover, he lived most of his life before Luther nailed his 95 theses. While Roger Bacon, a 13th century Franciscan friar who is often considered the father of the scientific method, had his problems with the church hierarchy, he also had his supporters, such as Pope Clement IV. Moreover, Francis Bacon remained committed to the Church.
There IS something to be said for the Reformation acting as a spur for the advance of scientific progress, but it is by no means the universal reason, as shown by Catholics such as Copernicus. Darlington, in his “Evolution of Man and Society”, points out that the authors of nearly all the scientific and engineering advances in Great Britain in the 17th- 19th century came from religious Dissidents, i.e., those who dissented from the Established Church of England. You know, Presbyterians, Puritans, folk like that. Those horrible people. [Granted, not all Dissidents were of those particular branches, such as Isaac Newton.] One difference between Dissidents and those of the Established Church in England, or the Roman Catholic Church for that matter, is that a higher proportion of Dissidents CARED about religion than those of the Established Church or the Roman Catholic Church. [If you don’t care about something, you see no need to dissent from it.]
That you came up with such a pat answer indicates to me that you know very little about the history of science.
nyo: what are you talking about? When did I ever say I have all the answers? I don’t think I’ve ever written about my religious beliefs (or lack thereof) on this blog at all. When I say “mystery,” I mean it.
That you came up with such a pat answer indicates to me that you know very little about the history of science.
Which illustrates your smug certainty.
nyo: so when did the words “indicates to me” start equaling “smug certainty“?
nyo : then show me your knowledge of the history of science without introducing irrelevancies such as America post-1776 and the Enlightenmentwhich in no way explain why the scientific revolution in Europe began in the first place.
There was a reason why I initially stated “post 1400” and NOT “post-1750.”
Figure it out.
I’m with *nyomythus this time: it is silly to attribute the survival to religious faith. History knows many examples of survival in extreme circumstances – in Chilean mine or in Stalin camps in Kolyma or in Antarctic ice; yes, some of those who lived through it put their hopes to friends, some – to god(s), some – to themselves.
It seems, important thing is to not give up hope.
But to attribute their survival solely to divine intervention…well, most of the things believers believe in sound crackling-silly to me.
Superstition and need to believe in “something bigger than themselves” – I guess it’s part of human mentality. But oh, how silly it is!
But oh, how silly it is!
Tatyana
Silly is an adult having adolescent urges to disrespect someones beliefs.
Tatyana
I suggest that you read carefully what Neo wrote in the article she linked to.
Neo was NOT writing about attributing the survival of the miners to “divine intervention,” let alone “solely to divine intervention,” but to the miners’ religious faith, which kept spirits up in a difficult situation. Neo was writing about, in your own words, “to not give up hope,” not about “divine intervention,” Two different things entirely.
Regarding faith and works and divine intervention, there is a proverb in Spanish:
A Dié³s rogando y con el mazo dando [Praying to God and hammering away]. The English equivalent is “ God helps those who help themselves.”
There are very few people around, including devout members of the Roman Catholic Church, who attribute what occurred “solely to divine intervention.” “Solely to divine intervention ” is more of a Muslim POV than a Christian POV, though Muslims would be more likely to express it as “God’s will.” [Which goes back to what I originally said to nyomythus, and why the scientific revolution occurred in Europe and not elsewhere.]
Wow! Interesting how one self-satisfied individual can high-jack a whole discussion.
I expect that over time we will learn how much their faith supported the miners. I am sure that some will testify that it did. Others maybe not. Which raises another question, or two. I wonder how much the spirits of the unfaithful were supported by the strength of spirit of the faithful? Does anyone believe the opposite was the case? It will be very interesting to see if the ones identified as the spiritual, and temporal leaders happened to be the ones of faith.
Maybe you can see, Nyo, that the argument may not be as simple as you surmise. But, perhaps with time, all will be revealed.
In the meantime, can we enjoy this story of human courage (whatever the source) and ingenuity?
StevenH,
Silly are the adults that are taking opinions that differ from their own as an invitation to battle and as personal insult. Nothing is more cock-fight adolescent than that. Imagine, there are people who not only don’t believe in your non-existing deity, but laugh at your affliction! Ouch!
That doesn’t limit kinds of silliness, certainly. There are many, many more.
Gringo,
I didn’t mention Neo or or her words even once, did I?
As to religious faith – as I said, if you want to keep faith in phantoms when your life is at stake – that’s your business.
Personally, I find it silly (and frankly, shameful for rational adults) and I think *nyomythus’ suggestion to keep faith in your rescuers outside seems much more reasonable.
Oops, posted too soon.
Glad to know that Catholics are not entirely out of their minds – judging by the proverb and your translation.
By the way, Russians have similar proverb (Ðа бога надейÑÑ, а Ñам не плошай) – “Rely on god, but act yourself” [very bad translation, sorry. difficult to translate idioms in the vernacular]
Tatyana
Glad to know that Catholics are not entirely out of their minds – judging by the proverb and your translation. I didn’t mention Neo or or her words even once, did I?
Then WHOM, pray tell, were you talking about? WHO on this blog said the following, or something like it : “.. attribute their survival solely to divine intervention..?”
Who said it?
The theme of this thread was faith getting you through difficult times, not DIVINE INTERVENTION. I therefore do not understand why you ever said this in the first place: ” attribute their survival solely to divine intervention.” As as far as I can tell no one who was disagreeing with nyomythus ever made the claim that the survival of the miners was due “solely to divine intervention.” You agree with me that Neo never made that claim.
BTW, I have never been a churchgoer.
messup in my copy paste.
Tatyana :
Glad to know that Catholics are not entirely out of their minds – judging by the proverb and your translation. I didn’t mention Neo or or her words even once, did I?
Sorry for messing up my copying and pasting.
Gringo,
what do they (who profess faith) believe into, then, when trapped in mine few kilometers underground than not in divine intervention?
what is their faith is for?
what do they hope for?
that god will interfere and save them -through direct act or through acts of other people, is it not?
On this thread I find overwhelmingly “a gang-against -one” adolescent aggression towards non-believer (who offered rather neutral suggestion – that it is more rational to believe in people than in a “being” that nobody can prove exists).
And now you attempt the same bullying attitude towards me. I don’t care for you in-my-face screaming, mister. And I don’t care either you are a church-goer or worship phantoms from a desert.
And don’t twist my words. That’s quite Jesuit of you.
I didn’t “agree with [you] that Neo never made that claim.” I can’t agree or disagree with that statement -because I (ONCE AGAIN) never mentioned Neo’s words, nor I quoted her in any way, specifically or in summary.
This kind of behavior is one of the reasons I detest believers, btw. Sophistry and shifting tactics. Naturally: the faith in deity makes no sense nor reason whatsoever. Other than a source of folklore/romantic fairy tales, I mean.
Tatyana: I assumed you were addressing me as well, because of my comment here where I posted a YouTube video of the song entitled, “Let the Mystery Be.” I made a specific reference to the word “mystery” there.
I have found it helpful as a general rule, when addressing a specific comment of a specific person, to mention their name at the beginning of my comment, in the interest of clarity.
Tatyana
Glad to know that Catholics are not entirely out of their minds – judging by the proverb and your translation.
I hope that you wrote this in jest.
that is a hoot, because as far as I can tell there hasn’t been a Catholic in my family tree for 350-400 years. Or more. Certainly none that I know of on this side of the pond. I have been to Mass several times in Latin America.
I am not a believer. My parents were not believers. One pair of grandparents did not go to church. I was an atheist at 14, but for decades have been an agnostic. Yet I objected to what nyomythus wrote and to what you wrote.
The problem was smug arrogance on the part of nyomythus, about as bad as a TV preacher. His lame reply on the history of science also indicated to me that he didn’t know what he was talking about. Your following statement is what I objected to.
There are at least two problems with the above statement. First, it is unclear specifically WHO attributes the miners’ survival “solely to divine intervention.” Believers in the US? Believers in Chile? Had you clearly stated so from the beginning that you meant” the trapped miners who were believers attributed their survival solely to divine intervention,” there would not have been so much of a problem. When you do not write clearly, it is easy to misinterpret what you say. Or as you say, “twist.”
A second problem I have with your statement is “solely to divine intervention.” My main objection was that it was inconsistent with what I know of Christianity, where there is an emphasis on God and man working together. I referred to some folk sayings along the line of “God helps those who help themselves;” you added one from Russia. [Lincoln on the Civil War and God’s will in interesting.]. While it is possible that some or even most of the believing miners agree with your statement, I do not find it likely. I doubt that the trapped miners who were believers were theologians. Most likely they approached religion with folk sayings such A Dié³s rogando y con el mazo dando [Praying to God and hammering away], which as far as I can tell, is consistent with most interpretations of Christian theology. Which is not consistent with your claim of “solely to divine intervention.” A further objection is that until you have documented statements from the miners, you are putting words in their mouths.
Being a non-believer does not justify sloppy writing, ignorance, and incorrect representations.
Neo,
that is my rule as well.
If I didn’t address you specifically in my comments, it means I didn’t mean you.
Gringo,
a true “non-believer” cares not a jot about extensive load of religion. Just like an adult is not thinking about twists of plots of fairy tales that children hold so dear.
(there might be exceptions; a scientist studying old manuscripts, f.i.)
We are just not interested.
But you are.
Or, and about “Jesuit”. I’m glad to broaden your horizons. The word is used now (for some time, etymologists will tell you for how long) outside of religious context. To mean a sly, dishonest, twisting tactic in argument. Like other, of similar words and expressions that originated in religious practice.
oh, and Gringo:
you are such a bore!
neo-neocon Says: October 16th, 2010 at 6:46 pm
nyomythus: Have you ever pondered the offensiveness of your own arrogant certainty that you have the answer to the riddles of the universe?
I don’t claim the answers are revealed to me. I doubt these revelations, and by having doubt the host of the blog comes down to try to brand me as saying I know the riddles of the universe? I don’t know the riddles of the universe any more than I believe that the universe was designed with a plan for me, this is the humble position. We only have each other to rely on. You have the nerve to say that I’m offensive and arrogant?! You can’t be serious. Nothing has held back the people of South America more than faith and superstition and magical thinking.
“”(I detest believers)…(you are such a bore!)…(But oh, how silly it is!)
Tatyana
Lol!!
Tatanya:
Why have you been commenting on this thread about faith, if you “care not a jot” about it?
You are “just not interested” in giving accurate representations. You have set up a straw man of Christian “believers,” attributing to them a belief of “solely to divine intervention”, which is much more common in Islam than in Christendom. That your representation is inaccurate is something you “care not a jot” about: ”you are such a bore!”
I am interested in the truth, in accurately representing what people believe. But you are not.
If I heard a Bible-thumper stating that most atheists wanted to burn Christians at the stake, I would reply that is a falsehood. Most atheists want to be left alone. But according to you, were I to do so, in the interest of accurately representing what people believe, you would reply that ”you are such a bore!”
Ciao.
Gringo: my name is TATYANA. not TATANYA.
I have explained, per your request (yes, request; you were NOT asking nicely] why I invoked “divine intervention”.
I’m bored with you because of your style of conversation. You listen to yourself, not to me; you twist what i said in order to fit your vison of my argument; you generalize w/o basis; you are pedantic w/o being interesting.
Latest examples:
-I didn’t erect strawman re: Christianbelievers. Nowhere I specifically singled out Christians, in particular. Christian or not, I find ALL “believers” silly (to put it mildly. It’s because I am a tolerant person, charitable towards religiously-afflicted). That strawman is exclusively of your own making. Once again: you pick selectively from your opponent; you noticed “Jesuit” from my phrase and used it for a speech about Catholics, your family and whatnot – but you failed to register the 2nd part of my sentence, WHY I used it, mainly: I compared you to Jesuit style of argument because you twist my words. Which you continue to do.
– your bullying tone, I quote:
Tatyana:
“Glad to know that Catholics are not entirely out of their minds – judging by the proverb and your translation.”
I hope that you wrote this in jest.
You hope? And what if didn’t [write it in jest] – what, you well send a bunch of Italians with baseball bats after me?
This tone of unverbalised threats is very characteristic and frankly, boring.
Now I hope do not hear from you again.
nyomythus: I was referring to the “I’m sure” in this post of yours: “I think the Chilean miners did well to keep their faith in their comrades on the surface working to free them, that’s the only faith I can believe in, anything else is a waste of breath which is indeed a very precious resource in such situations I’m sure.”
It sounds as though you’re saying you’re sure that prayer is a waste of precious breath—although I suppose you might just be meaning you’re sure that breath is precious in such a situation (with which I can agree).
Tatyana , I apologize for misspelling your blog name.
That is “bullying?” Your fantasies about Italians and baseball bats? That says a lot more about you and your atttude about Italians than it does about me. That is a prime example of muddle-headed thinking- not your first on this thread- and is a good example why it is ultimately a waste of time to “dialogue” with you. Your thinking and writing lack clarity.
Tatyana originally wrote:
I wrote:
Tatyana replied
Through various back-and forth, I had previously come to the conclusion that those who were doing the “attributing their survival to divine intervention” were the miners underground who were believers, who most likely would have been Christian.
In any event, I will go with Tatyana’s latest “correction,” that she meant that
Who comprises the set of believers? A by no means complete set of believers would be as follows: Believers= [Bahé¡’és + Christians +Druze+ Hindus + Jews + Muslims]. Any statement that Tatyana makes about believers apply to any subset of the set of believers. Because Hindus are a subset of the set of all believers, the following statement is an accurate representation of what Tatyana means.
Similarly, the following statement is an accurate representation of what Tatyana means.
Sorry, Tatyana, that does not constitute a twisting of your words. That you consider it so is a salient example of muddle-headed thinking.
I was brain-dead and not careful in proofreading what I had written. Correction follows, for what it is worth.
Tatyana originally said:
I had left out “solely” in my subsequent attempts to accurately represent what Tatyana had stated, which was a proofreading mistake on my part. Corrections follow.
The first part of her statement, “But to attribute their survival solely to divine intervention,” was talking about ALL believers, according to Tatyana, so the following accurately states what she meant:
I had neglected to add “solely” in my previous comment.
Similarly, as Christian believers comprise a subset of the state of believers, the following is an accurate representation of what Tatyana wrote, as it applies to Christian believers.
Whether or not one agrees with that statement, it does NOT represent a “twisting” of Tatyana’s words. What she said about all believers, applies to Christian believers, or to Hindu or Muslim believers, for that matter.