The Hopeful Muser

What Will The Future Look Like?

2012-02-09T08:43:00.000-08:00

As in all of my predictions, the basic assumptions that I am making is that trends that are presently happening will continue. I don't assume any paradigm shifting innovations beyond the success of current research projects. I also am not brave enough to predict beyond a few decades. These are changes that I expect to see in my lifetime.

The first thing I want to say about the future is that things will look very much more the same over the planet than they do now. The wealth of the poor is increasing much more rapidly than the wealth of the rich on a global scale. By this I don't mean to suggest that there won't be multi-billionaires and the relatively poor. I am suggesting that the wealth of Botswana will be similar to the wealth of Spain within a couple of generations, forty or fifty years. This may seem remarkably unlikely, but those who have read this blog will hopefully be familiar with the statistics of the world through the presentations of Hans Rosling. My prediction may well be conservative.

The second thing I want to say about the future is that there will be a lot more people in the world, but a lot less than you probably think. UN predictions suggest that the world population will level out at around 9 billion people somewhere between 2050 and 2075, with the present population at around 7 billion people. So there will be something like 130% of the present population in the world, and most of this increase will happen in the poorest places in the world, so mostly sub-Saharan Africa. This means that in the USA and Europe the density of people will be about the same. The continent mostly densely populated is Europe, and so at a maximum there will be no area more densely populated than Europe, which is often very beautiful and has wilderness, parks, fields etc.. The future will not be a mega-city. However, I fully expect the current trend of movement from rural areas to cities to continue. People like a dense amount of opportunity to do things, and cities are really the only place to physically do those things. It may be that technology makes physical location less important in the future, but I don't know if and when this will happen.

The third thing is about age demographics. Family sizes are shrinking and life expectancy is rising. Basically the average woman will have something like two children in her lifetime, but will live at least ninety years. Even with the increase in time that children stay in the home it is very unlikely that parents will spend more than thirty years raising their children. The default position of people in the future will not be the family unit, it will be couples and single people in good health. My parents and parents-in-law are both around seventy. When I was born that was the life expectancy of a white person in the USA, when my parents were born life expectancy was in the low sixties. I am glad to report that none of my parents and parents-in-law look in any way likely to die soon, and can all walk, talk, think, and travel. Life expectancy estimates have been consistently low (actual average age of death now is about eighty in the USA). Not only are people living longer but they are able to be active for a longer proportion of the time.

I have previously said that people will continue to be more wealthy, both in absolute terms and in the quality and efficiency of their belongings, although with a slower rate of increase than was true in the last fifty years. People will also be working fewer hours as technology becomes more efficient than people in more and more areas. People are also increasingly migrating to different countries, and this will happen increasingly in different directions. Not everyone will be coming to America, Americans will also be going to Thailand. While culture will become more and more the same wherever you go, that monoculture will be worldwide in the diversity of its elements. A Buddhist temple by an Argentinian restaurant in an Italian Piazza populated by people wearing jeans listening to a live band playing Moroccan music.

So, people around the world will live in more similar conditions. The norm will be single people or couples living in cities, working in what would now be considered part-time service jobs, who are healthy and active. What does this look like? Imagine the sitcom Friends, but for most age groups. Circles of friends and acquaintances living in nice apartments in the city with money to spend and time in which to spend it. The lives of people in their twenties, and increasingly, their sixties.

What will those cities look like? What has happened in the last fifty plus years is sprawl. Cities have spread out along the ground after an initial period of spreading upwards as transportation moved from walking to cars.

What will happen with more people in cities? Let us look at the trends that are going on now. If you are unfamiliar with urban renewal, gentrification, then you are missing out on the major trend in the architecture of cities. Relatively poor areas are being reconstructed as multi-use areas, with offices, retail, community spaces (parks, squares, art centers etc.). These are very dense, with the ability to walk to everything you need being considered vitally important. They are essentially urban villages, and a major attraction of such places is having public transportation (particularly light rail) close by. Suburbia will be changing from a uniform concrete sprawl to a web of interconnected "villages." Here's an expert on the subject, of course from a TED talk. Each of these villages will have a localized theme or feel. People don't want cookie-cutter, they want a neighborhood, and a neighborhood requires character.

With similar populations and areas of increased density inevitably there will be areas with reduced population densities. What will these areas look like? Well, they will be areas that provide services that people want. What do people want when their basic needs are met in an urban environment? They want parks, fields, wildlife; ecologically friendly areas that are accessible. So, mini-city environments surrounded by rings of green spaces.

Finally, as technology increases and the pressure of climate changes increases, these city areas will become more and more sustainable. They will also be designed to be increasingly people friendly. If you have a choice between living in a Manhattan block or around an Italian town square, which would you choose? Walking friendly community areas (squares, pedestrian streets, parks) surrounded by cafes, shops, restaurants and bars, decorated with flowers, bushes, trees etc.. Here is an excellent talk by a Danish architect about future projects that really demonstrate this process.

This process will be incremental, piece by piece. You will probably not even really notice that it is happening. This sort of thing is the environment in which "hipsters", the cool people of the present, want to live, and are constructing. The hipster meme is spreading throughout the USA like spores from a fungus. Even in Houston, Texas, there is an old area being retro-fitted to be a modern urban environment, with the opportunity to walk and bike to places, with parks and squares integrated into the neighborhood. It's called Montrose, and even the politics and values are those of a West Coast city, it's where you can be gay and unafraid. It is also one of the more expensive neighborhoods in which to buy a house or apartment in the area. These sorts of environments are among the most desirable available.

I know this may seem utopian. A world of modern European villages, full of parks, squares, trees, cafes etc. surrounded by farms and parks, where wealthy, healthy people, with plenty of free time live. However, this just requires present trends to continue. This really is what will probably happen. This is really what the future will probably look like.

Dream House(s)

2012-02-07T07:31:00.000-08:00

My darling wife and I make plans. Part of how we do this is by thinking about what we would really like if the circumstances enabled us to choose it. A substantial portion of this thinking involves where we would like to live, a dream house. I have three sorts of dream house, in a range from temporary and cheap to permanent and expensive, and I believe my wife has similar if not identical ideas. I highly recommend the multiple dream approach. There are many different ways for each person to be happy and the more ways you look for happiness, the greater the chance you will find it.

I'll start with the things that the three houses have in common. They all are in, or around a university town. We would like to live in a place where a substantial proportion of the inhabitants are younger, smarter, and more educated than the average. We would also like to live in a place where a substantial proportion of the older people are well educated. It also helps that college towns tend to be liberal places, and it is unfortunately easier (but less challenging) and more rewarding (but less educational) to be around people who share your values. I like the energy of college students, and the opportunities to do interesting things that come with a university. It's alright to have fun, and young people have fun. I still don't understand why many people stop having fun. A college town has an atmosphere of significance, of the possibility of change, of creativity. We want that.

The second thing that the houses have in common is the climate. We wish to live in a place that has all four seasons to which we are accustomed. However, the winter cannot be very cold, prolonged or dark because that sucks. Snow a couple of times a year, those clear winter skies, and frost overnight is perfect. We also don't want the unbearable heat of a Texas summer. We don't mind some hot days or weeks, but month after month of pounding heat is awful. I don't want to have to hide from the outside in summer or winter. Let's face it, we want to live in the same climate that most people want, a Mediterranean/Californian climate. However, we do want enough rain for there to be trees and greenness year round. In the USA this either means mid-California (the Bay), or strips on the north and south borders of the Appalachian mountains, from North Carolina to Kentucky. The second area is much larger, cheaper, and more realistic. This area is our target for the future.

The third thing that the houses have in common is in ease of maintenance. This involves two separate qualities, the functionality of structure and appliances the furnace will work forever and the roof will stay on), and not having to care about resale value. In my dream house I never have to think about what the consequences of my actions will be for anyone but myself and my wife. There is no housing association with my dream house. Ideally it is made of stone blocks, the windows are bullet proof, and the garden is full of large, flowering perennials that you just hack back with a machete as the whim takes you.

So, to the actual houses. The most temporary (possibly) and straight forward is the Craftsman bungalow in a college town. I'm sure the English readers will be initially panicked by the concept of my dream house being a bungalow, but in the USA they look like this:

These houses are a staple of towns that grew up in the first half of the 20th century, are made of the cheaply available lumber of the time, have therefore stayed up for more than fifty years, and are just the essence of homely comfort. Hardwood floors, a nice porch, a rational layout. You have a porch to look out upon the sidewalk so you can wave to those walking by, and a private back garden for hiding. For a temporary situation I would like to rent one of these that has been used by students. So, walking distance to the college, beaten to the point where I can't do more damage. The sort of place in which you can hang Jimi Hendrix posters and Tibetan prayer flags. The kitchen is entirely linoleum. There's a fence around the place so The Face of Evil can terrify the locals. A more permanent situation would be a house very much like the one in the picture, near a large park or multi-use trail. Basically one of our dream houses is a nice Portland, OR. house in a Mediterranean climate within biking distance of a college.

The second house is where the English should actually start panicking. This is what the Americans call a ranch house, and the English call a big bungalow.

That looks horrible, doesn't it? Well, this is the starting point. This would lie about five-ten miles from the edge of a college town, just in the next county, a rural county. So we could ride bicycles to town and back in a day, and the property taxes would be very low indeed (for the USA). We could also probably purchase the house outright with our present equity, and so living there would be astonishingly cheap (less than $400/month). This is part of our long term financial strategy, low costs are the same as good investment. It would be on a piece of property of at least two acres. This is just a starting point. With just two of us and a dog we only need two bedrooms and general living space. However, what we do love are porches, decks, patios, etc.. So, over time what you see in this photograph would become invisible, surrounded by decks, fences, porches, climbing wisteria, roses, hops. We would have a little private enclosure for our hot tub. We would have an enclosed porch to hide from mosquitoes and to look outside in the winter. A deck for barbecue, perhaps with a wood stove. Another porch with a swing and Adirondack chairs to while away the evening. A sophisticated sound system would be strung through the house, inside and out. A trestled walkway. The garden would have a pond, bushes, trees, bamboo, a small ruined Greek temple in bleached concrete. The house is simply a core in which to retreat to sleep, eat and vegetate in front of the television. Think of the above picture surrounded by these:

The final dream house is the one that costs money. It is essentially the same thing as the last house, except for being closer to the town, with more property, and being built from scratch. The front of the house, that which faces the road would be in the guise of a hobbit hole. Constructed by interlocking geodesic domes and covered with sod that reached the ground around it, the house would look as though it was part of the landscape itself. A native grass and wildflower meadow would stretch out in front of it. However, in the back, hidden from view by the grass, would be a sunken, roman courtyard, overlooked by a balcony. The entire house would be constructed in order to minimize the environmental impact (insulation, solar/wind powered, reclaimed water, climatic appropriate plants, recycling). A discreet distance from the house would be the cottage/folly of our gaffer, our Samwise Gamgee, the guy who would make his living mowing the lawn, fixing things, puttering and hacking back the plants. We already have someone who has agreed to fill this role should we somehow become very wealthy.

What Happened to the Occupy Movement?

2012-02-02T08:41:00.000-08:00

It is just about six months since the Occupy Wall Street group started getting national attention. The movement swelled rapidly over several months, even going worldwide. While the goals of the movement were unclear over time the story coalesced among the general public into essentially that the rich were getting richer while not paying a proportionately greater sum in taxes, and in order to do this they controlled government with money. There was sympathy for this story among the majority of Americans, although not necessarily sympathy for the methods involved in telling the story.

In mid-November the encampments in a number of cities were cleared by police at the instruction of their mayors. While there were a number of incidents I would characterize this process as remarkably peaceful considering the circumstances. At that point there were a lot of people asking "What next?" and I don't really remember there being much of an answer. Since then the movement has largely vanished from America's consciousness. There are still activists, but these are generally very small in number, other than in the city of Oakland, CA where there have been clashes with the police. There it seems that essentially anarchists have decided to go to war with the police, largely subverting the original intention of the movement. I experienced this during the Iraq War protests in Portland in which marches for peace were used by groups of young people dressed in black and wearing masks to break things and fight with the police.

I wanted to be fair when writing this blog and so not only did I go to the mainstream media but also to OccupyNews.ORG. Even at this extremely pro-occupy site the news consists largely of blog posts about the media not reporting or understanding the movement, and I thought it consequently ironic that the news site has nothing about the Oakland clashes.

What has happened to the Occupy Movement? Essentially the movement has disappeared. Once the police moved in the vast majority of people simply went home. The movement failed to generate any organized structure, any coherent political movement, any sustained presence. So, this seems like a failure, doesn't it? I'm not so sure that is true. I blogged that the only way the Occupy movement would have any impact was if it became a political movement affecting the election of politicians and the passing of laws. The Occupy movement never managed to get to the point of presenting candidates, forming a party, or anything else one might usually associate with a political process, and I had stated that such an effort was necessary for there to be meaningful change. However, the message of the Occupy movement has got into the consciousness of the electorate, and politicians are noticing.

Senator Bernie Sanders has proposed a constitutional amendment to remove the ability of corporations to affect political campaigns. He has also co-sponsored a bill to require millionaires to pay at least 30% in taxes. Barack Obama talked about income inequality in his State of the Union speech. Even the Republican nomination race has had the issue raised to the detriment of the front-runner, with Mitt Romney's taxes and method of income being questioned and resulting in a negative reaction from the more conservative of the conservatives (Republican primary voters). People are now talking about income inequality, tax regulations, corporate subsidies, and the influence of money in politics. This is going to be a campaign issue.

The real question is whether this is a campaign issue only, and not actually a law-writing issue. The senate bill about millionaires has almost zero chance of being passed with the present make-up of congress. the constitutional amendment has a smaller chance of happening. Conservatives are going to vote for Mitt Romney over Barack Obama. However, Republicans voting against the bill, or campaigning against the amendment, or supporting the rights of corporations, or protecting the tax laws for the rich, or condemning the presidents statements are all going to be negative positions in the election. That these issues are in the election is not only a driver of left-wing voter turnout (there are more liberals than conservatives, they just vote less), but also a damaging situation for conservatives and a win for the Occupy movement. The message of the Occupy movement is now a factor in mainstream politics. This is quite impressive.

However, it still all boils down to what is done politically. The Tea Party formed a political unit that got people elected who actually followed through. With the economy turning around just in time for the Democrats, and the obstructionist policy of the Republicans being thoroughly despised by the electorate, Democrats could make moves in the House of Representatives (although are unlikely to get a majority) and may be able to hang on to enough Senate seats in an uneven election (23 of 33 senate seats are held by Democrats, in 2014 it is 20 of 33, in 2016 there are 24 Republicans and 10 Democrats so 2016 will be the most important election in many years as Democrats have a chance for a super-majority, all three legislative branches at the same time). By far the most likely outcome is Obama as president, and an evenly split House and Senate.

It is therefore unlikely that any substantial change will happen, but Democrats may use the ideas raised by the movement as a stick to beat Republicans with over the next five years. They won't be able to really do anything about it, and may not even wish to. In the short term the consequences of the Occupy movement will probably be a somewhat better outcome for mainstream Democrats in the 2012 election, and perhaps the 2014 election as Democrats propose multiple campaign financing and tax bills that they know the Republicans will kill. The real test will be whether the message of the Occupy movement can be sustained all the way until 2016, when something could be done. With the inevitable rise in the US economy over the next four years I think that unlikely. As with almost everything (sadly) "it's the economy, stupid."

Normal Bipolar Reaction

2012-01-26T13:22:00.000-08:00

I have been on medication for my bipolar disorder for about six months. The medication has worked, I no longer am on the roller coaster of energy and emotion. Now that this is established I am feeling a very typical reaction. That is that my life is just way less interesting than it used to be. There is simply so much more to life when you have bipolar disorder, and mine was not of the most extreme sort. Each day is fine, anything I have to deal with is simply whatever problem there is in the environment, and when you have dealt with vast, unpredictable mood swings and the problems of the desperately poor and mentally ill, these environmental problems really don't seem that big of a deal.

I imagine for most people that sounds great. A life without really experiencing problems, so you can just do what you want to be happy. Who could ask for anything more? The reason why that doesn't work quite so well for me is that having had bipolar disorder I have had a vastly greater range of feelings than most people.

My bipolar disorder had two components, an emotional component and an energy component. Last year (my hardest mental health year in two decades), about once a month I would have four to five days in which I felt exhausted. To give you an idea of what that was like, before I was diagnosed I used to think I caught the flu all the time. The feeling was just like the exhaustion of the flu; a need to sleep fourteen or more hours a day, so little energy that climbing a flight of stairs was an act of will. However, about once every six weeks I would have about a day of unceasing energy, up at six am, exercise for several hours and still be walking at midnight to try and burn off the excess energy. This is a very unusual form of bipolar disorder, only diagnosed in the last decade or so. To be precise I have ultra-rapid cycling bipolar II.

With the emotional component last year I spent about a third of my time emotionally down. Most of those days I would work very hard to be positive, to have hope, to look for joy in the world. It was difficult to do so, and every day I would wonder to myself whether I should keep living. I didn't really come close to suicide, but I thought about a very large amount of the time. On the other hand, perhaps a month I would have an experience of the most sublime beauty. Now that I am well I realize how hard it is to try to explain the power of this feeling. It was like falling in love, watching the most beautiful sunset, riding a roller coaster, swimming through tropical waters, and feeling the applause of a crowd, all at the same time, and for hours at a time.

These different components would cycle at different rates, and at different intensities. Sometimes I would be exhausted and things would be beautiful. Sometimes I would have unlimited energy and be in the depths of despair (the worst times). Sometimes I would have enormous energy and feel beautiful. This last experience is so powerful that I felt such joy that it was almost a physical pain, a joy that seemed more than my body could contain. I have talked to my sister about this experience and she described it beautifully, she said that you felt so sad for other people that they would never understand how beautiful the world is. Even more than this, by May of last year the cycling was happening at such a rate that I would never have the same mood at the end of a week that I had at the beginning.

Whatever you can say about such an experience, and there's a reason I went to see a psychiatrist to get help, it is not dull or mundane. In contrast my present life is dull and mundane. It's the bit of a night at the movies where you are driving home from seeing an epic blockbuster in your grey sedan. There's nothing particularly wrong with it, but you aren't laughing and crying and jumping out of your seat anymore.

So, what is the normal bipolar reaction? It's the temptation to stop taking the medication. It's thinking that those sublime moments might be worth the rest of the pain. It's thinking that you have survived all of those years without the medication. It's asking yourself whether a richer but more painful life is better than a more pleasant, but poorer, life. Until last spring I always told myself it was, but then last spring was rich and painful to the point of howling.

Don't worry, I have no plans whatsoever to give into the temptation. But I am a little sad that my life will never again have the same poetry, richness, or moments more beautiful than most people will ever experience.

Plan Update

2012-01-24T10:51:00.000-08:00

From looking through the posts on here I have realized that it has been a long time since I updated people about our plan. Since we started dating Christina and I have always planned for the future, with such choices as deciding that the mortgage on our first house would be small enough that if either of us lost our jobs the other could afford (just) to pay the mortgage. This worked out well since I was laid off on the day we received the keys for the house. We have also made sure we saved money on a regular basis, avoided credit card debt, bought only the car(s) we need, and made sure that we have generally done things that we wished to do (foreign trips, hot tub, flying to concerts and to see friends).

A little over three years ago Christina was informed that we could move to Houston or have no income. We spent a long time deciding which choice to make, and it was a difficult choice. We decided to move to Houston for a number of reasons, obviously the financial reason, secondly because of Christina's seasonal affective disorder, thirdly because of potential for advancement for Christina that would lead to being able to be financially secure pretty close to anywhere in the USA, and finally because living in Texas would be like living in a foreign country - an adventure.

The results on these four reasons are as follows:

1) Financially we have greater income than ever before and we have avoided the pain, worry, difficulty, and financial collapse experienced by many people during the recession. However, our house has probably declined somewhat in value, it is a difficult time to sell a house, and we have spent many thousands fixing problems with the house. To sell the house we will need to spend thousands more on landscaping, duct work, painting etc.. There has always seemed to be something that stops us from getting ahead (ahead of a very lucky position) and so Texas has been substantially more expensive for us than Portland was, but probably not more than it would have been to stay.

2) Christina's seasonal affective disorder has essentially disappeared in the sunshine. We still keep a close eye on the situation but there has been a dramatic difference. It is easy to forget how much of a good thing this is. It is a very good thing indeed. While my bipolar disorder got substantially worse just over a year ago and peaked in a very disturbing manner about nine months ago, thanks to the support of my wife and sister I have a medication that is working very well. This is also a very good thing.

3) Christina has not so much advanced as moved laterally in her profession. This means that while she hasn't become anyone's boss, she has an astonishingly broad range of skills that should stand her in good stead going forward. It has been (to me) surprising that her attempts to find other jobs have not succeeded as yet. Still, at some point the economy will improve, reducing the competition for jobs, we will be able to sell the house, and therefore have a realistic opportunity for Christina to find a decent job in a nice place.

4) We can now say we have lived in Texas. Texas sucks, but I still have moments, such as looking out at a palm tree waving in a balmy wind in January, that I am truly living abroad. Texas will be something we can tell stories about over the next forty years.

What is the plan going forward? It isn't really much different than it has been, other than delayed, less profitable, and more painful than we had imagined. What we need to do is save some money, which will take a year or two, in order to make the house presentable to sell and so that we don't have to be in it while that happens. Christina's work is in the process of a muddled downsizing/increased efficiency process/impending sale which means that there is some anxiety there. I have much more of this anxiety than Christina, which also makes me somewhat anxious. The work environment had been unbelievably atrocious, but Christina has moved to an untouchable, unassailable position - an absolutely vital one person department run more efficiently than ever before - and Christina is approaching zen master status. So, if the position remains intact over the next couple of years that will be fine, and there isn't a negligible chance that the incompetence elsewhere will result in a promotion.

I have tried a number of times to meet people, be social, play music etc.. It has all failed. The closest thing to a friend I have is a guy we meet in the bar on Thursdays, and a nice guy he is. However, I am basically at peace with living in a vacation home and talking to my wife. It's good enough and there isn't much I can do about it anyway. Adding everything up I have a much less exciting, fun, interesting life than I did in Portland, but I think I am now substantially more serene.

We still have our plan of living near a small college town in the Appalachians. At this point Christina should be able to run the energy needs for an entire county (yes, really) which would be about the most secure position I can imagine.

In the short term we'd like to go to our favorite place in Costa Rica but we have to find out when Christina's parents will be visiting since they are arriving at an unspecified time right around when we are planning to go. And we are going even if it gets us into debt for a bit because some things are just important. I had hoped to go to Portland for one last gig with the old band (since the "final" gig didn't materialize last summer) bu that seems to be beyond our resources at the moment. Mostly we'll be chilling by the pool, watching the palm trees in our little haven, surrounded by the horror beyond the gates.

Natural

2012-01-23T10:11:00.000-08:00

There is a an idea that there are some things that are natural and there are some things that are unnatural. There are also things that are man-made, which while not being natural are not considered unnatural. There is a sense in which natural things are considered better, purer, unspoiled, beautiful, even more moral. Unnatural is the opposite side of the coin to this perception, there is a sense of ugliness and wrongness to how we think about what is unnatural. Man-made is simply that, without any sense of rightness or wrongness.

What is actually natural, and what is not natural? Really, everything is natural. At the bottom the word doesn't even have a meaning. There is not one thing that has not been formed by nature. However, we do know what the word means, it means not altered by human beings. Where does this concept come from? It comes from the age-old concept that people are qualitatively different from everything else. It's the separation between humans and animals. It's the religious belief that we were made by God or gods, and that the rest of everything is ours to rule or use. What is natural then is everything that does not separate us from the rest of the universe.

Of course we know that there is not really such a separation. There are things that only humans do, but we are finding that these are fewer and fewer than we had previously thought. We are apes, genetically far more similar to other apes than different from them. The thought that speech, empathy, thinking, tool-use, culture etc. were all only human characteristics has been shown to be false. Rats free other rats from cages at a disadvantage to themselves. Dolphins protect other species from sharks. Killer whales around the world have different cultures. Gorillas can learn sign-language, the communication between wolves is quite advanced. Monkeys use tools in a multi-step process. Octopuses build structures. The difference between humans and other animals is largely a simple matter of degree.

This is still not how the word is used. "Natural" nowadays is used most often as a marketing device. If something is derived from natural ingredients then you can charge more money for it and people think it is better for themselves or the environment. This is regardless of what the ingredients might be. As an example, people use tobacco as a pesticide because it is a natural product. Tobacco has 28 carcinogens in it. If you bought a product in a plastic spray can with 28 carcinogens in it would you spray it around your garden? However, on the whole it might well be a good strategy to go for natural products over artificial products, my point is that people automatically assume that this is so. Somehow natural is better.

Whether something is natural or not is also used in moral decisions. Some of the arguments against certain behaviors (homosexuality, recreational drug use, performance enhancing drugs in sport, etc.) consist of these being "unnatural" as is to assume that all behaviors should be natural.

Finally there is the concern about the environment, that "destroying nature" is wrong. We must work to save every species we can, even at the cost to ourselves. We must ensure that through our activities we don't change the world around us.

To start, everything is natural, it comes about through natural laws. However, even in the colloquial sense of the word it doesn't make much sense. While animals do sometimes show sympathy for other animals this sympathy is pretty isolated, is always in direct proximity, and is quite limited with regard to species. There is no other animal in the world that thinks it is a bad thing that a plant species on a different continent becomes extinct. people think of the balance of nature, but really that balance comes about simply because the form of life that tries to kill other forms of life can only do so to a limited extent and survive. What is natural is to kill whatever is in front of you until satiety. In truth, caring about nature is unnatural, it is uniquely human.

My second and last point on nature is that for humans, nature really isn't that great. Imagine being a human that lives naturally, that is to only use the abilities that are shared by other animals. You are a hunter-gatherer who at best lives in a hut. Your life is nasty, brutish, and short. Not only that, but when humans arrived in North America and Australia there was an immediate vast extinction of large mammals. It is natural for humans to kill without caring about the consequences to the environment.

Caring about nature is really a method of arranging the world in a way to make humans happy. There is a reason why we cared about dolphins being trapped in tuna nets, but not tuna being trapped in tuna nets. We like dolphins more than tuna. This is a picture of an English country garden. It is beautiful, and almost no-one would think that it was unnatural.

However, the only thing in the picture that might be the same without humans are the trees in the very far background. England naturally would be almost entirely covered in old oak forest. The clearing is unnatural. The grass is unnatural. The foreground trees are unnatural. The flowers have even be genetically modified to be more beautiful to the human mind. Humans like diversity in their environment because omnivores prefer a wide variety of food sources, and so when we alter the environment to our needs we produce a startling diversity of species. My garden has a range of plants from palm tree to rose bush within fifteen yards. By far the greatest number of large mammals on Earth have been genetically "engineered" by humans to serve their needs. Cows, sheep, and dogs are all unnatural.

I care about what is natural or not. I don't like vast swathes of concrete. I want more trees, more flowers, clean air, clean streams, and abundance of life. I want there to be nature preserves for animals that I like. I want to be able to walk in nature. However, I want this for myself, because it makes me happy. I recognize that the concept of "nature" doesn't really make any sense. Just like every other animal we act in our own self-interest, and I think that's OK. I want to live in a world full of gardens, and parks, where plants and animals flourish but I don't want to do this because of a nebulous concept of nature. Such a world would be unnatural, a bizarre creation of humans. I think that's OK. I think it's OK for me to care whether snow leopards survive or become extinct while wishing fervently for the man-made extinction of mosquitoes.

I think human beings should use and alter nature in their own best interest (but really their own, long-term, sustainable interest) because that produces a better life for humans, and is actually natural.

Fulfillment

2012-01-19T08:24:00.000-08:00

Satisfaction or happiness as a result of fully developing one's abilities or character.
The achievement of something desired, promised, or predicted: "winning the championship was the fulfillment of a childhood dream".

Fulfillment is generally thought to be the key to a happy life, or at least so the people who read this blog will believe. I have read a number of advice books about happiness and they all emphasize the importance of setting goals, doing what you love, avoiding regret. It seems clear to me that the vast majority of the people I have met believe that they must have some goal, some task, some effort to improve themselves or others. Without it their life is "pointless" or "feckless", "hedonistic". Any pleasures are "fleeting", without "meaning". People ask themselves "where is this relationship going?" or "have I done everything that I want to do in my life?" "Life is short" and "I don't want to waste my time."

If you look at how the people we know live their lives, most of them right now, and probably all the time you have known them, are devoting a substantial amount of their time, effort and money towards some achievement in the future. It is assumed that the achievement of these goals will make them happy, will improve their lives.

This is taken for granted, a fact about human nature. However, this is taken as a fact only by western cultures, and only relatively recently. Throughout most of history in most of the world happiness has been equated largely with satisfaction with one's position. The religions of Buddhism, Taoism and Hinduism are about understanding and accepting how things are right now. The idea is that once you have fully achieved this you experience bliss, living entirely in the now without ego or desire. The largest state for most of recorded history, China, spent vast periods of time bent on ensuring the least amount of change possible. The people of Europe were told for more than a thousand years to serve God and their Lord, and thank them for their mercy.

It is only with the advent of substantial numbers of people wealthy enough, and with adequate education, to need to fill their time that this concept of working towards some goal in order to be happy has emerged. A peasant farmer doesn't think in terms of a long-term plan, perhaps a couple of years, in order to better himself so that he can feel good about himself. A peasant farmer works his arse off to provide for himself and his family and takes what pleasure he can in the company of friends and family, and in the land that surrounds him. it is only the otherwise idle rich who feel the need to fill their time, to justify themselves through some endeavor.

My point here is not to dismiss dreams, goals, plans, self-improvement etc. or to deny that having achieved a goal there is not great pleasure involved. Every achievement in history required a concerted effort to achieve something. My point is that the concept that such things are required for happiness is a cultural concept, a human invention, and a relatively recent one at that. In other words, if you think that you can't be happy without some effort to get somewhere, and then getting there, you only believe that because you have been taught that. It is not inherent in people, and some people think it to be highly detrimental to your happiness to believe it.

You don't have to better yourself to be happy. You don't have to try, or work hard, or learn something to be happy. If you didn't do anything today you have not necessarily wasted your time.

On the other hand what is the happiness that you get from the achievement of a goal? I have taught myself a number of sports, I have a degree, I have learned instruments and played them successfully in front of people. I have traveled to different places, operated in different languages, driven through mountains, climbed mountains. I have saved lives. All of these have made me feel good, even elated, satisfied with my effort and skills. All of the happiness was gone in a week or less. The happiness was in that moment, doing the thing that I had learned, rather than in having done it.

We tell ourselves that we need to achieve goals to be happy. We feel badly if we don't have goals, or we skip a bit off the path, or we delay the achievement. We feel guilty at wasting these precious lives. We don't have to do so if we don't want to. Sometimes we are taught things that we don't even know we have been taught, and those things aren't always true. Happiness is doing what you want when you want to, even if that thing is nothing at all.

There is nothing new in this from me, so why am I writing it? What is the point? Did you see that?

Still, I am writing this because I was told today in a lecture that we need to be reminded of true things. It isn't enough to learn useful things, we must keep those useful things in our minds to use them. I am reminding myself of this, firstly because I wish to do so, secondly because one of my goals is to keep thinking and saying what I think, and finally because I am getting bored with playing music by and to myself, and learning Spanish is becoming more of a chore.

Movie Review: Sherlock Holmes, A Game of Shadows

2012-01-18T09:45:00.000-08:00

My darling wife had four days off in a row. While I much prefer these days to the ones in which she works, they do involve me doing a trifle more work myself (three meals a day instead of one, etc.). Also, while our home is the sort of place you would be very happy to find yourself while on vacation, even a vacation home is very much the same after a while. Therefore, last night we went to the Movie Tavern, ate dinner and watched a film.

The idea of the Movie Tavern I first encountered in Portland. Basically a few seats in a theater are taken out, replaced with small tables or shelves, and you get to eat pizza, or some other unhealthy delicacy and drink beer while watching a film. It is an excellent idea. My first experience was at the Bagdad, Willy Wonka, pizza and McMenamin's beer. It was a substantial reason why I moved to Portland as I figured that any place where such an event could take place was a good place.

The film we watched was Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows. One of the reasons why I am reviewing this film is I am interested in the contrast between my take and my friend Dade, who also watched the film and reviewed it.

We expected this to be a silly, fun film, that required little intellectual or emotional investment. Our expectations were met. I also had steeled myself to attempt to completely ignore the concept of it being a Sherlock Holmes film as I was raised on Basil Rathbone as Sherlock Holmes rather than Robert Downey Jr.. The Sherlock Holmes I knew was a detective who used deductive, logical reasoning to solve crimes rather than leap to the obvious, emotional conclusion. The films were rather slow paced, full of dialogue, and while a gun may have been fired Sherlock Holmes never broke into a run. From the trailers I knew that this film would be quite different and I wished to not have my pre-conceptions of the character destroy the film. I was not entirely able to do so.

I'll start with a basic summary, not of the plot because the plot is essentially irrelevant. Well, alright, here's the plot. There's a bad guy, with a vast bad plan, who must be stopped. Sherlock Holmes is the only one who can stop him. Shenanigans across Europe ensue. This film is not really a detective story. It does not give you the opportunity to work out what has happened and try to predict what will happen in advance. There aren't clues for the audience, and the bad guys are identified as soon as they are introduced. No, this is super-hero movie.

Sherlock Holmes is a super-hero. He can essentially see into the future and the past of a place simply by noticing everything. This isn't the deductive reasoning of a detective, this is an intuitive, superhuman skill. The movie is also an action film. Sherlock Holmes engages in multiple kung fu flick action fights in the film which require an intense amount of the suspension of disbelief. Sherlock Holmes can also withstand vast amounts of physical punishment and still ride a tiny pony from Paris to Switzerland in a day or two. The pace of the film is unrelenting, either there is action or there is humor, and the action is really a lot of action, and the humor really is quite funny. The action has the modern penchant for extreme speed (I find myself too old to even keep up with what is happening, it's just a blur) interspersed with slow motion sections for the really good bits. Personally I prefer Sean Connery as James Bond simply punching or shooting someone, but you certainly cannot look away from this sort of stuff.

The humor essentially is the funny guy and the straight man, Sherlock Holmes is wacky, Dr. Watson is a straight man, and other than the magnificent cameo of Steven Fry that's about it. Still, it is well delivered and of a good variety, there are chuckles aplenty in the film.

The sets and costume were clearly historically accurate, even with the liberal use of CGI, but the scale and lighting were definitely big-budget, epic story. There is very little sense of intimacy in the film. The views are high tracking shots of recognizable landmarks, viewed on a clear day. There is no rain, little cloud, none of the smog of victorian cities, the populace are clean and healthy. This is not the brooding shadows of a victorian detective story.

To sum up, this is a ridiculousbut fun film of the modern super-hero genre. It is grand in scale, small on plot and character, full of action to the point of being almost beyond the abilities of middle-aged humanity to comprehend, and witty. It is exactly what most people go to the cinema to view: larger than life personalities with larger than life abilities, fighting evil along with friends and sidekicks, cracking jokes along the way.

Within this genre I somewhat preferred the recently released Captain America, The First Avenger.

This is no Sherlock Holmes.

Cars

2012-01-16T12:39:00.000-08:00

Cars aren't weird. They are machines designed to transport small groups of people efficiently. The internal combustion engine has been around for more than a century, the arrangement of pedals and steering wheel has been omnipresent for not much less than a century. Cars are everywhere perhaps the most common machine in the world.

People and cars are weird. People name their cars. They think their cars have personality, like being willing. or stubborn, or wicked. People spend vast amounts of money on their cars, many times more than necessary to get essentially the same result. Status is attached to cars, personality traits assigned to the owners of certain cars (in the USA essentially everyone can tell you something about the owners of Subarus, Ford Mustangs, and the Hummer). People love or hate their cars with real emotional attachment. None of these things happen with washing machines, or stoves, or refrigerators.

What is the difference in these machines? The most obvious difference is that cars move, that there is something about movement that causes these effects in people. However, the last time you got on a bus, or a train, or a ferry, or a plane, did you feel emotionally attached to it? Did you feel like you wanted to name it? Not whether it had a name but rather did you want to name it? The pilots of planes and the captains of ships want to name their machines and feel attached to them. I think, therefore, that emotional attachment happens when a person controls a machine that moves.

We unconsciously think of things that can move as alive, as inherently having motivation and "thought." In the world in which we evolved, everything that was as big as our hands or bigger, and could move, was an animal. While we may not believe that animals think, we do believe they have motivation, and experience pain and pleasure. Our default setting is therefore that cars have the same qualities. Our minds are set up in such a manner as to be biased towards assigning the qualities of a mind to cars.

We also operate cars, and not just sometimes, but frequently. Most of us drive a car at least once a day. Our intentions are directly transferred into motion, in ways that are rare with other machines. No only does a car do what we want, but it moves us to where we want to go. How does the brain make a machine move? The same way it makes a body move, it identifies with the machine as "itself", internalizes routines for movement (you don't consciously think how you move your legs to walk, or how you drive a car), and then decides where to go.

The most important thing about that is identifying oneself with one's car. Think about when you operate a car in tight spaces. Do you constantly make measurements in your head as to where the edges of your car happen to be? Or do you actually "feel" where the edges of the car in the same manner as how you know right now where your right foot is even without looking at it?

Cars are special because they fit into an unconscious category of "alive" from their basic function of movement, and because in a very real sense we consistently identify our car as "us." That's why calling your 1981 Toyota "Gladys" isn't weird, or thinking she was a stubborn old bird who refused to lie down. It's why you can have a touch of sadness when your 1984 Honda Civic is passed on to other people. It's also why some people will spend $100,000 on a new Mercedes when a $2,000 used Nissan does essentially the same thing. How many people would spend fifty times as much on a better washing machine? Cars are special.

See, I Was Right

2012-01-12T09:31:00.000-08:00

I have made predictions and statements on this blog a great number of times. Both are nothing but idle fancy unless they are at some point confirmed or proved false (or mostly something in between). I have noticed a few things that suggest I have been right about some things. Now, I am fully aware that I am greatly predisposed to confirming my statements and predictions. I want to be smart, and I want people to think I'm smart. Still here are some things that I have seen that have, at least somewhat, confirmed what I have been saying.

The first I have already mentioned, my prediction that we will be able to download our brains into computers during my lifetime. In this post I have shown that scientists are well on the way, having constructed a functional portion of a rat's brain on a computer.

In another post I discussed questions that don't need to be asked. Specifically "why?" questions that aren't "how?" questions, "why?" meaning "what purpose?" but have no prior indication that there is a purpose. Ironically this was in response to a Sam Harris blog post, and Laurence Krauss, an eminent cosmologist, on the same blog had this to say, "Finally, it is the “how” question that is really most important, as I emphasize in the new book. Whenever we ask “why?” we generally mean “How?”, because why implies a sense of purpose that we have no reason to believe actually exists. When we ask “Why are there 8 planets orbiting the Sun?” we really mean “How are there 8 planets?”—namely how did the evolution of the solar system allow the formation and stable evolution of 8 large bodies orbiting the Sun. And thus, as I also emphasize, we may never be able to discern if there is actually some underlying universal purpose to the universe, although there is absolutely no scientific evidence of such purpose at this point,"

In Creeping Miracle I talked about the increasing wealth, health, and freedom in the world, in contrast to the pessimism that abounds. Over the last five years world life expectancy hasn't changed much (still going up and fastest for the poorest), GDP per capita is UP (yes UP) from 2005 by 5%. At the worst of the worldwide recession GDP per person was still higher than 2005. If you are pessimistic about the world please go here and move the bar at the bottom through time. Finally, although I didn't know it at the time, the Arab Spring was just beginning, toppling dictatorships throughout the Arab world. Even during this time of terrible crisis the world has been getting better, wealthier, healthier, and more free.

In December of 2008 I complained about some medical problems that hadn't been fixed yet. One of them was why can't they inject cartilage into joints? Sure enough, last year University of Pennsylvania scientists announced that they have discovered a way for people to grow cartilage in their joints using their own cells. This is good because I'm starting to feel my knees. Laboratory to procedure usually takes about ten years, I believe.

In September of 2008, in a post entitled Doom and Gloom, How Bad Could it Get? I commented upon the economic situation in the USA as the financial "collapse" started. In that post I discussed the worst possible scenario (a depression the size of the Great Depression) and what that would actually mean (only being as rich as in 1990). My last words were to "Buck up people, show a little gumption." I described the problem not as a question of wealth but as a problem of distribution of wealth and of social services. Here we are just over three years later and the US GDP is back to where it was. The US economy did not collapse, neither did the economy of any other country (although it was much worse in Greece, Italy and Spain). The worst consequences for the US have been high unemployment (still under 10%) which is now dropping as is usual after recessions, and a high government debt. What is the political problem of the moment? Income distribution.

I still have to see whether Obama is a "near perfect President." I would say the results are probably "No, but pretty good considering the circumstances." Another Bill Clinton, essentially. When he gets reelected I expect a similar result for his second term as was produced by Clinton.

What does all of this mean? It means that a fair amount of the time I get things more right than most people, at least in the big picture. Will this make people take what I say here more seriously? I seriously doubt it.

I Got To Say It Was A Good Day

2012-01-11T10:14:00.000-08:00

I didn't even have to use my AK.

Is there anyone who follows this blog who will get that reference? Maybe Emily.

Anyway, it's 11:30 am, I have been out of bed for two hours, and today is a good day.

I haven't written a blog in a little while, not this month, but that's through gentle nothingness rather than a problem or success. Then yesterday I felt a little tired, like I had walked ten miles before waking up. This has been the first symptom of my times of exhaustion. No sickness, just being tired. It usually lasts four days, and the middle two days have previously been times of utter exhaustion. I also hurt my back, I do this twice a year or so after injuring it thirteen years ago, climbing in through the bathroom window after forgetting the keys to the house. So, I went into last night in pain, facing exhaustion.

This morning my darling wife took The Face of Evil to daycare. I got twelve hours of sleep and my back feels better. The expected exhaustion is not there. My back feels better, but most of all there is peace in the house. I am alone.

This may seem strange, that being alone is special. After all, don't I spend all day during the week alone? In terms of humans this is true, but in terms of a presence, a consciousness, a being that impinges on my awareness, I am almost never alone. I am either with my darling wife, or with The Face of Evil, and often with both. The Face of evil is without doubt a conscious being. It knows what it wants, it reacts to what I do, it communicates, it has plans, it can feel sad, rejected, unloved. It can also lie and scheme and pressure you to do what it wants.

The main reason why social work was so damaging to me was that I am completely incapable of switching off my attention to other people. I find it very difficult to sleep if other people are talking, or moving, because my mind has to pay attention. If someone says something to me it almost always stops my train of thought. If someone laughs, or cries, or exclaims in surprise, I must know why. I have seen people capable of doing this, my father-in-law being an astonishing example, and my wife isn't bad.

The Face of Evil is a pack animal. I am alpha male. It is vital in a pack animal that attention is paid to the alpha male. The alpha decides where to go, when to sleep, when to eat, who to befriend, who to attack. The beta has its wants and desires, but must filter all of these through the alpha. The methods used are begging, wheedling, being obvious, being sad, showing delight when it gets its way, etc.. Dogs have been interacting with humans for ten thousand years or more, and subject to the most rigorous selection pressure in evolution (breeding for domestication). As a result dogs are true experts at reading the emotions of humans, the only animals that can do so. The Face of Evil is a very smart dog indeed.

What we have then is a consciousness whose focus is overwhelmingly towards me, who can read how I am feeling, and manipulate those feelings for its own interest. it is only when I am alone in the house that I realize how omnipresent The Face of Evil truly is. I realize that with almost everything I do there is an automatic, unconscious check on how it will affect that infernal canine. Before I leave the house I often use the toilet. As such, whenever I go to the bathroom The Face of Evil appears expectantly, and if I don't leave the house obvious disappointment results. If I lie down, he lies down in the room. if I go upstairs he does too (in search of a treat). If I start doing anything he inspects it. In the evening, if I sit down, he stares at me with liquid brown eyes, often putting his face just on the edge of my personal space. His presence is omnipresent. He expects more than two hours a day out in the world, at certain times, specifically for his enjoyment. I imagine anyone who has had toddlers knows exactly what I am talking about, although my brain hasn't been altered by parental bonding.

All my life I have been someone who treasures time alone. From perhaps six years old I would go for solitary walks. I would read alone. Play alone. Alone I am at my most free, without that constant vigilance (which I believe I at least share with my sister Emily, perhaps other family members, it certainly was important to be constantly aware growing up in my family).

The Face of Evil has probably kept me from despair, from deep loneliness, here in Texas. He is the antithesis of alone. I spend most days around another conscious being for all twenty-four hours. When I don't, it is usually no less than twenty-two hours. Today I feel free, happy, joyful. A weight has been lifted. The Face of evil is like a vaccine against loneliness, but a vaccine given with a big needle every single day.

Who's a good boy then?

Respect for Opinions.

2011-12-30T08:51:00.000-08:00

In the country where I live there is a pervasive idea that everyone has a right to their opinion on any topic, that as a result opinions are essentially equal, that there must be equal time and respect for differing opinions. This is most noticeable on news programs in which the most common method for the discussion of a topic is to get two people with different views and then give them equal time to give their opinion. However, this idea has spread throughout society so that I frequently hear people with no qualifications in a subject knowingly declaim positions that are flatly at adds with the opinion of experts in the field. Examples are: support for protectionism (rejected by economists throughout the entire spectrum of political beliefs), rejection of global warming (supported by every national scientific body in the world), rejection of evolution (the scientific theory with the largest amount of supportive data).

To argue against these positions, particularly if you bring forth the problem of ignorance, that the person doesn't even understand the thing which they say is wrong, is considered rude. However, to state your own opinion is fine, you are entitled to your own opinion. This doesn't make any sense. If you state an opinion that differs from another person's opinion you are stating the opinion that they are wrong. In all the specifics that differ between two opinions each opinion is saying the other opinion is wrong on specifics. If you say that you have your opinion based on what experts say, you are saying the other opinion is ignorant. It makes no sense, but the framing of a position can change how it is perceived from harmless to deeply insulting without changing the position.

I suspect that this position is rooted in the concept of universal human rights. Human rights are about treating everybody equally and I think you have to be a pretty awful person to be against the basic concept. However, extending the concept of rights to everything can become ludicrous. Does everyone have the right to be thought of as equally attractive? Does everyone have the same right to win the 110 metre Olympic hurdles? There is a difference between everyone having the right to think what they want and thinking that all thoughts are equally right. The advent of modern communications has now vastly increased the validation for any idea. On the internet you can find numbers of people who agree with you, regardless of how idiotic your opinion might be.

The scientific method has produced a greater number of truths, at a greater precision, than all the rest of humanity's intellectual efforts put together. Essentially how the scientific method works is that someone produces an opinion about something and then a large group of other people try to find anything in that opinion that they can demonstrate is false. Only once those efforts have failed is the opinion considered to be valid. This stringency with regard to valid opinions is such that only people who have demonstrated through extensive work that they actually understand such opinions are allowed to comment on the subject. In order to even rise to the level where an opinion can be considered for discussion it must be formulated in such a manner that it is supported by other valid opinions and a very large amount of data precisely quantified. The scientific method is as far away from the concept that opinions are of equal merit as you can get, and it produces the largest amount of truth.

Opinions are not of equal merit. This very post is not as valid an opinion as a published paper in a social science on beliefs about opinions. Some people are more informed, more intelligent, and produce opinions that are actually closer to the truth. This is so self-evident that the only way that I can understand this phenomenon, that "My opinion is as valid as yours", or "He's entitled to his opinion", is by thinking that it is more important to people to feel right than to be right.

If it hurts you to be wrong (and I think that is probably universal, it hurts me) then the idea of the right to an opinion is a way of lying to yourself to stop feeling bad. It is self-protection through self-deception. The anger and perceived insult of being told you are wrong is a reaction to the perception of being attacked. Someone is making you feel bad.

So, it comes down to whether you care about the truth, or feelings. Or does it? We all have ways that we know we can improve ourselves. One of those methods can be to try to be honest with ourselves, to admit when we are wrong, to realize that criticism is educational. The method that I try to employ, with admittedly mixed results, is to realize that the greatest intellectual achievement a person can have is to change one's opinion. It means that you have not respected your own opinion, have internally subjected it to testing and criticism, and found that it is wrong. It is quite possible to feel a great sense of pride in having been wrong, as long as you acknowledge it.

Opinions should not be respected. They should be treated with suspicion and assaulted with every honest thought available. The ones that survive are almost always good opinions. The opinions that are respected simply for being opinions are usually bad opinions. I'm sorry, but some opinions are stupid, and if the truth matters it should be alright to tell people so, even if it is someone telling you.

Withdrawal.

2011-12-29T07:59:00.000-08:00

When I was a teenager I was very shy. I think this was mostly because I went to an all-boy's school and started puberty late. I essentially lagged behind in becoming interested in music, fashion, coolness, sex, and therefore didn't fit in with cool people. The other factor was that I lived in the countryside with no-one of my age that I knew within three miles. There is also the English culture, which raises embarrassment to the most powerful social force. The English love their eccentrics, those who manage to be brilliant and strange, but if you don't make it to brilliant then all of society will laugh at you.

Shyness is simply this fear of public humiliation. All of us make predictions, models of the future, all the time. These models range enormously, from predicting where the ground will be under our feet to what it will feel like to go on vacation next year. They happen consciously and unconsciously, the vast majority unconsciously. Shyness is what happens when your predictive models come up with humiliation as the most likely outcome. If you think saying something will make you look like a fool you will become terrified of saying things, and will try not to do so. If you think you will be rejected you will try not to meet people. Of course, being shy is an excellent way of being rejected and making a fool of yourself.

When I first came to the USA if anyone wanted to talk to me, if the phone rang, if I thought someone was going to ask me a question, my heart rate rose, I started to sweat, adrenaline poured into my body. I became frightened. However, as a freshman with an English accent people wanted to meet me and talk to me as I was different and interesting based purely on being English. Most 18 year old Americans have never met an Englishman. As an aside, my accent was often called a "British accent" which is marvelously evocative of the ignorance many US people have about foreign parts. The difference between a Glaswegian and a Cockney accent is greater than between any two accents in the USA. Every American can understand any other American's speech, almost nobody can understand a Glaswegian, and a full-on Cockney isn't far behind. The decline of the regional accent in the UK is a sad thing.

Anyway, as a freshman in college I would meet many people everyday. This wouldn't be one person a day, but many people. The numbers were enough that most days someone would say, "Hi' to me on the street, remember my name and start a conversation but I would have no idea who they were. When you meet one Englishman a month you remember him. When you meet 100 Americans a month you will not remember most of them. After a very short time I realized that all of these people were interested in the same things, asking the same questions, finding the answers interesting, and trusting me implicitly to have the right answers. This is about the most perfect way possible to develop confidence in meeting new people, have predictable conversations in which you will be interesting and have authority. In psychological terms this is called flooding, and is an acknowledged treatment for some phobias.

As a result of this period I became a very confident person, very outgoing, very socially active. I made friends easily, comfortably talked to strangers, and looked forward to new situations and new people. This has been generally the case ever since. That is until possibly now.

My social interactions in Texas have been generally poor. Or at least any interaction that goes into any depth. Superficially there is no problem. I can smile at people in a store, have a brief exchange in a bar, or make small talk about sport. However, as soon as the topic wanders away from these social niceties there becomes trouble. I disagree with most people around here on everything from politics to religion, to art, to environment (both generally and the suburbs). My exercise is different, my clothes are different, my education is different, my conversation style is different, how I think is different. If there is one thing I have learned about Texas (or at least the bits I have encountered) it is that difference is not liked.

My other social interactions outside of the home have been on the internet. The internet is particularly disposed to expressing opinions, and particularly disposed to people being displeased, upset and angry. I can't remember the last time I was called a liar or dishonest in real life, but it happens regularly on-line.

This means that for the last couple of years my environment has taught me that social interactions are probably going to go badly. I have been taught that I can either fake it, or be disliked. I am bad at faking it, or at least I really, really dislike it. Perhaps that is what makes me a "genuine person. The result is the opposite process that happened to me my freshman year of college. I am becoming more withdrawn, nervous at the prospect of meeting people, less interested in social interaction. When I do meet people I am becoming less animated, less involved, less confident.

I can feel this process happening even with this blog. This blog is supposed to be me expressing myself freely. It feels like this has annoyed people that I know to the point that they don't wish to comment or even read it, hence my request for people saying "Hi" in the last post. This impression might well be false. I was just shocked to discover that this blog has had nearly 700 views this month. I think that actually it is my feelings about social interactions that color this impression more than the actual situation.

I do not like this. I think my greatest chance of changing this state is to move to a more supportive environment, a place populated by "my tribe." Until then I should attempt to tell myself stories about my being an interesting, kind, empathic, intelligent person. A person that interesting, kind, empathic, intelligent people would like to meet. One thing Texas has taught me, it feels better to be confident and wrong than to be dispirited and right.

Chapter Six

2011-12-22T12:11:00.000-08:00

It was while Alyami was sitting in the dust that he saw the great love of his life. Sitting in the square of the caravanserai he had been trying, with meager success, to conjure up enough pennies to purchase a meal through the kindness of strangers and the playing of his rabab. While there was money aplenty in the purses of the merchants striding across the square, the dust, the heat, and the noise rendered his playing a pretty tinkling in the background.

Upon finishing a tune he looked up, the dust and heat parching his throat, and there she was. Their eyes met and nothing else mattered. His chest thrummed and his eyes glistened. It seemed that her eyes penetrated into his mind, through his eyes and into his soul. She looked away, gave one more glance and scurried away, all grace and elegance under her robes.

She was part of the entourage of a particularly ostentatiously wealthy merchant. A peacock of silks and gold, sadly bedraggled with the journey and the dust of the square. Hulking bodyguards brooded and glared around the edges. Clerks fluttered around their master like chickens, clucking for attention while terrified of receiving it. At the back of this troop were the women, wrapped in dark robes, huddling together, only their eyes giving proof of their humanity.

Alyami was wounded. All thought of hunger, or tomorrow vanished. Those eyes! Those eyes! When he closed his eyes in sweet pain he saw them. He saw them look right into his heart. The pain swelled until there was nothing else. He must see her again.

That night he wandered the halls of the caravanserai, looking for the merchant's party. Through many a question, an outraged threat, a suspicious stare he wandered/blundered through hallways. He knew he was earning a reputation as a probable thief, and wasn't it truly earned? Was he not trying to steal love away from its rightful owner? With the moral certitude of the young artist he told himself that this was false, certainly false! You cannot cage love. You cannot own love. Love is given and taken freely, or does not exist at all.

Finally he saw a woman in robes hurrying across a hallway carrying a jug. He noticed that the robes were the same as those in the square. At last he had found where she, or wonderful she, was housed. He turned and scampered down the hall, his heart full of joy and certainty. He didn't even notice the hands moving to swords and knives. What was a running man at night in the caravanserai but a thief? The lack of cries was his only protection.

Alyami told the guards at the gate that he wanted to stroll in the night air, to play his music in the solitude of the desert. While this was clearly the act of an insane man, it was well known that musicians were insane, and so he was permitted to pass. After all, better to let a demon out of your abode should it wish to leave.

He wandered around the walls to the tiny windows of the apartments of his love's captor (or so he had begun to think of him) and quietly tuned his rabab. He thought of what to play. The Love Song of Prince Mahmoud? Nehri's Dance? The Gaoled Heart? None seemed right, as they were the loves of others, and his love was special, the grandest and most beautiful love that had ever been. He determined that he would let his heart guide his hands, and began to play.

The music uncoiled across the sands. It yearned, it tempted, it pleaded. It sang to the stars, it flew with the wind, it brushed the mind, the heart, and the skin. Alyami knew that it was right, that it was pure. If there was any truth or justice in the world she would hear his call and know that there could be no love like his.

Four hours later, exhausted and grimy, he returned to the gate. The guards poked and prodded him, looked for horns or forked tongue. They checked for potions, scrolls, and daggers that dripped poison. They uttered protections and incantations. Finally they grudgingly accepted that this was but a human being and admitted him. Alyami found a corner and collapsed and slept and slept. For a musician must be used to late nights, disappointment and a hard bed.

For four nights he repeated his pleas from the desert. For three nights he returned to his dusty corner. For three days he searched for those eyes but only saw them when he closed his own. On the fourth night, oh at last! He heard a whispered call, "Demon, why do you try to tempt me into the desert? I know better than to heed the call of the djinn."

"Fair lady, I am no demon. I am the musician you see in the square. I am here only because I love you, I yearn for you. My heart is full of pain without you and so I pour it out into the sands." Alyami was quite pleased with this. He had rehearsed the last sentence in his mind for hours. "Come out and see me and I will prove my love."

"I cannot leave the caravanserai, demon, nor would I if I could." His lady was clearly no fool, and her voice was like nectar even through the croaking of her whisper.

"Then my love, name the place and time, and I will be there whatever the danger." Alyami fell to his knees with his pleading. He had hope, hope rising from the ashes of his despair.

"The east tower at midnight. That is your chance demon," came the glorious words upon the desert breeze.

******

At the next midnight Alyami flitted through the shadows of the east tower in his best impersonation of an assassin. It was such a poor effort, although whole-hearted, that the merest glance from a guard would have resulted in his imprisonment. Nobody who moved like that could be involved in honest work. Only years later would Alyami learn that the surest way not to be discovered is to walk in the open certain in the propriety of your action.

At the top of the steps his heart stopped as he saw a guard slumped by the door. It beat again when the smell of alcohol and the sound of snores reached him. His love was clever. Well, of course she was, how could she be otherwise.

He opened the door with the impossibly loud creaking that all doors have in the middle of the night, and entered. There she was, outlined in the moonlight, her in the flesh. He stood, dumbfounded, rooted to the spot, his mouth dry and his hands clenched.

"Ah, demon, you are so young and pretty. So daring. Are you not afraid of being discovered? They would remove that pretty head from those shapely shoulders."

"I love you. The greater danger is to be apart from you for I cannot withstand it." Alyami could say such things and mean them, as only the young can do.

"Then come here and show me your love, my brave, bashful lover."

As if in a dream he floated across the tower floor until her hands touched him; holding, moving, searching. Her face rose and their eyes met.

"You aren't her!" blurted Alyami in surprise.

"I don't know who she is, young lover, but I am truly myself, I am here, and the world is more than you know it to be." She caressed his cheek, and then his thigh. Suddenly Alyami recognized the wisdom in this woman. He had been foolish and this marvelous woman had shown him the truth. Over the next few hours and nights Alyami learned that there was much more to true love than the meeting of eyes across a square. he also learned a great many other things that throughout the rest of his life were a delight to himself, and all of his many one, true loves.

A Cold

2011-12-20T13:19:00.000-08:00

I have a cold. Not as badly as Christina, and I get to stay home.

However, I am sick, and sickness makes me very tired. Christina slept for twelve hours last night and was tired when she went to work. I slept the same amount but stretched it out into different naps and snatches. We have the most comfortable bed. Sometimes I just lie in it and feel the comfort.

Sickness removes motivation, even the motivation to have empathy. Christina is working while being more sick, and I really should feel bad for her but I am more focused on lying down and being comfortable. I have these things I "should" do. I should be writing interesting stuff. I should be reading about the philosophy of the mind. I should be playing music.

I am largely writing this so that I will have written something, a should completed. A pass on a pass/fail grading system. It will actually probably be more interesting to people than most of my stuff. It's a human interest story about a lack of human interest.

The wise men of the East (they do all seem to be men, even more so than in the West) advise to look at how animals deal with sickness. They lie down and sleep a lot. They don't feel like they should be doing this, or trying that. They just rest and get better, without guilt or worry, and so sickness isn't as bad and recovery is quicker. I'm not sure if they are right or not, but I'm going to give it a try.

If you repeatedly read this blog please say "Hi" in the comments. It feels very much like everyone has gone away.

Chapter 5

2011-12-15T09:55:00.000-08:00

While Little Mika's mother stamped on the last remains of the fire in the corner of the cottage, Old Nerwhal held Little Mika in his firm grasp while Little Mika sobbed his rage and fury at the injustice of it all. The tantrum was prolonged and violent, Mika squirming and fighting and sobbing, with the stinging smell of smoke filling the room. Old Nerwhal's dry, ancient voice whispered, "Hush, hush, hush Little Mika."

The screaming became sobbing, the sobbing became hiccups, and the hiccups became sulking. The ashes and charred blanket were taken out of the cottage by a woman with the look of contained fury that only a busy mother can manage properly. Finally Old Nerwhal asked, "Little Mika, would you like to hear a story?"

"Is, hic, is it good story?"

"Well, Little Mika, you will never know unless you hear it. I like it, but I am old and you are very young. I am old enough to remember when your mother was little like you and used to cause trouble just like you. If you tell your mother I said that she will tear your arms off and make you eat them! So let's have that as our little secret, OK?" Little Mika grinned with evil delight and settled in for the story, transferring vast amounts of snot from his face to his hands.
"A long time ago, when my grandfather's grandfather was as little as you, things were very different. Each of the villages had their own gods, and demons, and costumes. They would look at the other villages and say, 'Look at those wicked people with their bad gods, and their wicked demons. They must be very bad people, and bad people want to steal our women and crops. Let us grab out spears and stop them before they do that to us.'"
Little Mika's eyes grew wide. This might be a very good story, with stabbing and blood and killing.
"So, one day the men of the village of Nervwahla drank too much water-of-lightning.."

Little Mika chirped up, "You drink lots of water-of-lightning too!"

"Hmmph, well, um, there is the right amount of water-of-lightning, and then you can drink too much," extemporized Old Nerwhal.

"How much is too much?" asked Little Mika in that disconcerting intelligent way children have of getting straight to the point.

"Listen to the story Little Mika and you will find out,"
"So, the men of Nervwahla drank much too much water-of-lightning, not a sensible amount like a wise grandfather, and decided they would go attack the neighboring village, which was Atvwahla, and kill the men, and take their crops, and maybe the nicer women."
"Do you remember the village Atvwahla, Little Mika?"

"Is it the one by the river with the funny fish?"

"No Little Mika, that is a different story. Wait, how did you hear that story? That isn't a story a little boy should hear. When your mother tells you to stay in bed, you do what she says! I don't want to see you having to eat your own arms."

"Not little boy," grumbled Little Mika with infinite resentment.

"Atvwahla is the village where He From Whom Our Blessings Come was born. Remember the tiger? Anyway, the men of Nervwahla thought the men of Atvwahla were very wicked people who had stolen their crops instead of grown them through hard work, and the men of Atvwahla thought the same thing about the men of Nervwahla. So they both thought it was a good thing to kill the bad men, take what they had stolen, and rescue the nice women from that horrible place."
Little Mika nodded in satisfied agreement. He thought this was a very good idea indeed. Maybe when he was big he would go kill all the bad men and steal their stuff, although girls were icky, and his sister was really icky, so they could stay in the horrible place.
"So, the men of Nervwahla grabbed their spears and set off in the afternoon, because they had been drinking in the day, not like a sensible grandfather who drinks in the evening, and went to go surprise the village of Atvwahla. But! The men of Atvwala did not trust the men of Nervwala and so had a lookout ready. He saw the men coming and ran as fast as his legs could go back to Atvwahla and told all the men. They gathered up their spears and went to meet the men of Nervwahla."
This was very good news for Little Mika. This might be one of the really good stories, like the ones he heard the men telling when they had drunk the right amount of water-of-lightning at night when dumb people said he should be sleeping. Silly, dumb people.
"There on a mountain meadow, with the snow of the Roof-of-the-World in a ring around the bluest sky, the two villages met each other. Oh how they yelled, and taunted, and stuck out their tongues, and showed their naked bottoms to each other."

Little Mika giggled, "Bum. Ha ha! Bum! Bum!"

"Stop that now, Mika, stop that! Listen to the story. I'm warning you, if you don't stop saying that right now I'll send you to your mother and your bum, I mean bottom, will be as red as um, well, really really red."
"Sometimes you are just a very naughty boy. Well, hhmmmppphh, the two groups of men taunted each other. Taunted means being mean like you are when you tease your sister. Yes you do tease her. No she doesn't deserve it. She is not icky!"
"Anyway, where was I? Oh yes, finally one young man from Nervwahla plucked up his courage (because young men talk much more about being brave than actually being brave), ran up and threw his spear."
Little Mika wriggled in excitement. This was a really good story.
"The spear hit a man in the shoulder and he fell down, and it hurt him very badly. You don't like it when something hurts you, do you Mika?" Old Nerwhal was determined to make a point but only managed to get a frown and discontented muttering.
"The men of Atvwahla were suddenly really angry. They roared and yelled so loudly, grabbed their spears and got ready to charge at the men of the other village. Just then a seven year old boy walked out of the woods carrying some flowers he had been collecting for his mother, because he was a good little boy and everyone was nice to him all the time and he never got a spanking. Do you know who that was, little Mika?"

"No," grumbled Little Mika, who could pick out a giant hint when it was dumped on him.

"It was He Who From Our Blessings Come when he was a little boy. He walked out onto the meadow carrying his bunch of flowers, and he walked right between the men of the two villages, and he wasn't afraid at all. The men of both villages stopped and looked at the boy. 'Why are you fighting?' He asked them in his beautiful voice. 'That man is hurting, and you will hurt each other a lot if you fight. Isn't hurting bad?'"
"The men of both villages suddenly felt silly. They looked at each other across the meadow and saw that the men of the other village were men just like they were. They dropped their spears, and felt much, much better. Why would they hate each other when they could be nice to each other? The young man of Nervwahla who had thrown the spear felt very sad and ran to the man he had hurt. He pulled out the spear and wrapped up the wound and said, 'I'm sorry, so sorry' and the wounded man forgave him.
"The men of the two villages sat down in that meadow together. The men of Atvwahla brought water-of-lightning and the men of Nervwahla brought meat of the mountain goat, and they had a big feast and laughed and sang and had a great time. They promised never to fight again, but to be friends and help each other out when they needed it."
"Since then they have never tried to fight each other again, or steal from each other. Each summer they meet in that same meadow and have a great feast. That is why the Blessed Ones travel around from place to place and when they come to your village you must invite your neighbors, have a big feast and promise to be friends forever." Old Nerwhal took a breath. It seemed almost as tiring to tell Little Mika a story as to be in one.
"So Little Mika, what did you think of that story?" asked Old Nerwhal, with just a little spark of hope in his heart.

"Stupid story. Should have stuck spears in each other." and Little Mika slipped out of Old Nerwhal's grasp and ran out of the house, looking for something to burn, break, or tease.

Inanity

2011-12-15T08:36:00.000-08:00

I live in a situation where I have very little direct contact with people. I don't hang out with friends. I have my wife, and right now with her in Portland for a week I have had an excellent chance to see what that means to me (I function, but I am just treading water, not flourishing), but not really anybody else with whom I can have a conversation.

To ward off loneliness I have The Face of Evil, which works surprisingly well as loneliness doesn't care whether other people are evil or dumb, and the internet. I spend more time than would be healthy otherwise on forums and facebook. I repeatedly try to reduce my time on these places in favor of self-improvement, but find it very difficult to do so. Basically the internet works to reduce loneliness. As long as you can have a conversation, some contact between minds, there is a social interaction.

The difference between the internet and real world interactions is that with the internet you get time to think about your response, there is a flawless record of what was said to which you can refer, and there is distance. By distance I mean that there are no other emotional clues other than words. There is no intonation, no facial expressions, no body language, no chemical messages. We all know that you can say the same words and have two completely different meanings, and that in person those different meanings are obvious to everyone but the woman you are in a relationship with who wants to have a fight that will somehow be your fault.

I was raised in an environment where discussion meant that there was an idea that was talked about. An academic environment where disagreement was interesting and agreement was dull. Or more accurately, that environment was extremely available, which may explain why my sisters and I didn't talk a whole lot once I became a teenager. I have discovered that this is a really weird environment.

On the internet people express their opinion about something. It is very rare that I exactly agree with a position, when I do I say so and that is very brief. More commonly I differ in some way, and I have a tendency to say so. For me this is a starting point for conversation, or a pleasant diversion, a useful means of exchanging ideas and information. How it is usually taken is as a personal attack, often it is explicitly said that I am uncaring, or ignorant, or someone out to hurt people for fun. Basically I never actually insult someone, although after a while I may demean their particular opinion when they don't listen to me (nobody has to agree with me, they just need to understand what I am saying). In practice this distinction means nothing. To express a different opinion and continue to express it in the most convincing way possible is to viewed as attacking someone.

The other thing people do on the internet is safe updating, inanity. They discuss the weather. They say whether they have a cold. They say they are pleased to go on vacation. They show a picture of their children. Basically they are saying they are human, having ordinary experiences, but mostly they are just confirming they are part of a group. Part of being in a group is making noises without real meaning other than to reassure people that they are part of a group.

When I first came to the States people kept asking me "How are you doing?" I would answer this question honestly, telling them if I was happy, or sad, tired, etc.. I remember always getting these pained, baffled looks. It took me about eighteen months until I understood that people weren't interested in the answer, it was a meaningless piece of politeness, the same as saying, "Hello." the correct answer, under any circumstances is, "Fine." When I would point this out to Americans they were generally unaware of this, and about half said it wasn't true. After all, to ask how someone is doing and then not care would be terribly rude, if you were actually asking that question.

In summary, what people want is to be able to say what they think and have people agree with them. Or they want to say inane things to get along. I am very bad at these things. There are few things more excruciating in my regular life than to go to a social event because "We should" rather than because "It will be fun" and then spend the time ensuring we talk to everyone "We should" without saying "Anything that might upset them." The most fun portions of those events is to find the other people who hate it so as to talk about anything else. I am terrible at keeping my mouth shut when something is wrong. When someone says, "That socialist government health care is stupid, the government can't get anything right" I just cannot stop myself from saying "The French live longer and spend half as much money on health care."

Just about the perfect way to lose friends is to not to use small talk (because then you don't care) and to want to have a discussion with different views (because then you are rude, aggressive, insecure etc.). The perfect way to keep friends is to agree with them, tell them how capable they are, and never say anything that means anything significant. Of course, I do care about people, one of my problems is getting trapped in bars fixing the lives of perfect strangers at their request. I open my mouth to have discussions that are fun and interesting with people I think smart enough to learn and teach. it doesn't matter.

There are groups of people where my style works. They are academics, and at my level of knowledge of any particular subject, usually students. I think basically I never grew up. I have the moods, and the earnestness, and the desire to learn and then tell people what I have learned that college freshman have. Let's change the world, let's find out new things, let's really think hard about what we know, let's question orthodoxy, let's share what we know. The person I love more than anyone else has independent ideas, is smarter than I am, independently finds things out, and proves to me that I am wrong more than everyone I have ever met.

One of the goals in our plan, that seems to get more distant as time goes by (but probably isn't), is to live in a community where there are students. Students are more intelligent, more creative, more challenging, and have more energy than the general population. Mostly, they are more like me than most people. Until then I have to try to practice inanity, look for things to discover (TED talks, most interesting thing ever) and use this blog to express my thoughts. I don't expect to do well at this.

Unpopular Opinions

2011-12-13T16:42:00.000-08:00

There are opinions I almost never advance, because of their unpopularity. It is weird that I do this with some things, but not with others. After all, my experience with the internet, and many friends I have had, is that I tend to speak my mind too much. Why not all the way? Why not much less?

Anyway, here's a couple of my least popular opinions.

The first involves the military. I don't applaud the military for their service. I think the military in the countries that I have lived are people who have decided to be trained to kill people they don't know in other parts of the world for money. The difference between this and a mafia assassin is difficult for me to determine. The USA has not been attacked by a military force since the time that my parents were born. I understand the concept of defending oneself, and one's country, from outside aggression. I am not a pacifist, or against the idea of a military. However, if you join the US or British military you know that by far the most likely use of your talents is to be part of an organization that goes to a place full of poor people who couldn't attack you if they tried and kill lots of them.

I think this is horrendous for those who go and do it, as I expect being a mafia hitman is awful. I wish both groups would get all of the care they need, but I wish that of anyone. I think the reason for the flags, and the parades, and the talk of heroes, and the great sacrifice, and the concept of protecting our freedoms, are all devices used to get people to do this stuff. If you just looked at the job description nobody would dream of accepting the job.

My second is about children. There is a concept so universal within our culture, and almost every culture around the world, that children are more special than adults. It's a great tragedy if a child dies, a lesser thing if an adult dies. Hitting a defenseless child is worse than hitting a defenseless woman, and a man who can't protest himself is likely to be held in contempt.

Now, I agree that children are less capable of taking care of themselves than adults. I agree that children have less skills. If a child comes up to me and asks me to help them get home I will do so without question. If an adult asks me to help them get home they are going to have to come up with a pretty good reason why they need help. I agree that children need more protection, just as disabled people do, and for the same reasons.

I also agree that we should all chip in to help to educate children. I will have no children but have willingly paid thousands of dollars to educate the children of other people. In fact, I willingly pay more than others to do so (we do not fight our property tax assessment as is usual here). This is because educated children become educated adults, and produce a better, wealthier, healthier, safer community. However, I would just as willingly pay for graduate degrees for thirty year olds, for the same reasons, while this is far less popular generally.

However, what I really object to is the idea that because other people have decided to have children that this then requires me to do anything. The casual nature with which parents (with notable exceptions) have told me to look after their child, get them this, be wherever at whatever time, has always struck me as appallingly self-centered and contemptuous of me. There is an assumption that because someone has decided to have children that I must then help them or be considered a bad person. If I don't want to hang around watching Barney so that children won't stab themselves in the eye then I don't feel like I should have to.

I understand there is a thing that happens to the brains of parents, and for excellent evolutionary reasons, that their children are the most important things in the world. What I object to is the idea that if I disagree I am an awful person. Children are very pleasant and interesting in small amounts. Most of the time they are deeply unpleasant. If they weren't we wouldn't need to spend so much time teaching them how to behave. You would never in a million years dream of having a friend who acted like a three year old. I have no objection to children, and am actually pretty good with them. They are simply not my responsibility because I didn't choose to have them, and thinking so does not make me evil. However, liking this song does.

The Greatest Force for Social Change in the World

2011-12-09T09:38:00.001-08:00

I like the grandeur of the title of this post. Sometimes I delight in pomposity, a word that has a music of its own. Still, I think I'm on to something here.

OK, we'll start with the idea that there is something we wish to change about society. The elimination of racism is a good example. what is the best method of going about it? What really works to change the opinion of society?

I think the answer is shame.

I have already talked about a number of things to do with human motivation. I have spoken that, in the case of most people, putting forward a rational argument for your position based on evidence and logic does not work. In fact, it often strengthens the beliefs of the other person because they feel under attack. People tell themselves stories, and those stories strengthen group cohesion, self-esteem, and definition of the inferiority of the other.

If you told white people in the 1850's that back people were fully human, with less hereditary differences (if you count DNA, not morphology) between the "races" than between a troop of chimpanzees on one hill in Africa (this is true) and that the difference in intelligence between white and black people was less than the average difference between white people, they would have dismissed your claims. Why? Because it would require them to change a belief held by everyone within their group, it would have raised the qualities of those thought of as "other," and it would have meant that they had been awful people.

However, the majority of people in the USA believe all of that today, or something close to it. How did things change?

I think the method is that there are two groups of people who are very important. There is a group in which the defining in-group characteristic is making rational decisions based on evidence. These are scientists/intellectuals. They may not be that good at making these decisions, but they identify with making these decisions. They also are required to find out or think up new stuff. Those who don't do so are expelled with shame from the group. Being a disgraced scientist makes you an outcast, and would be very high on the list of concerns for such a person. The other group are young people who haven't made their minds up yet. Young people identify with their peers while growing up, not with their parents. To identify with a group you need to have characteristics which are different. It is not hard to see this in the interactions between teenagers and their parents.

So, we have a group of people who find out what is true, and find out new things. They then tell each other this information, and as many other people as possible. There aren't many scientists or intellectuals who find out something new and amazing who then don't bother telling as many people about it as possible. It is, after all, how such people achieve status. We then have another group of people who don't have fixed opinions and want to define themselves in opposition to established beliefs (to some extent). If those who find or think of something new can get the information to young people, there is a decent chance that young people will believe it as a group defining belief. Most of the time this won't happen.

In groups with a defining belief you can either believe that belief or be shunned, disgraced, expelled. The shame of being different is an extremely powerful force in the lives of young people. Just remember high school for about thirty seconds and you will remember this. We then get groups across the country who shame others for their stupid belief. This is why new social movements happen in geographically centered locations (women's rights groups didn't spontaneously appear simultaneously in Bombay, Johannesburg, and San Francisco) and in the areas with the greatest concentrations of differing groups with the greatest amounts of information (cities).

Over time, given enough groups of young people and the right idea, this idea will spread until it reaches a point where the majority of people in a culture believe something to be right. In the 1950's old people thought big band jazz was great and rock and roll was simply noise. By the 1980's most people couldn't name a big band jazz musician and the idea that rock and roll wasn't the greatest genre of music ever would have been laughed at. It's simply happening again with hip-hop.

Why do people change their minds? It's because young people want new ideas. There are people who are paid to produce new ideas (fashion, music, science, authors, entertainment). Young people want to define themselves in a new way, and they want that way to be smart, cool, new, but mostly in a way that makes them look good to other people. Those who don't conform are shunned, meaning that those who care less about opinions than being part of a group (almost everybody) will go along with having that opinion.

The fear of shame, of being different, of being laughed at and sneered at is the greatest force for social change. Try being against racism in the 1850's and you would be laughed out of society. Try being racist today and the disgrace will be unrelenting. Given the right ideas in the beginning shame can be just about the greatest force for good on the planet.

The Litany.

2011-12-06T08:34:00.001-08:00

This is a post that I have been thinking about for a long time. That isn't because the subject requires great thought, it is simply a list. I have been thinking about this post because the subject matter is something that I would prefer not to think about but cannot prevent myself from doing so. I hope this post is therapeutic for me, that is my intention. Of all the posts that I will write this is probably the only one in which to a very large extent I wish people would not read. That particularly goes for my wife Christina, there isn't really anything new here for you and you have already been such a massive help to me with this.

On Sunday night I found myself unable to sleep. I snatched a few moments here and there when complete exhaustion overcame me. I had memories and feelings and visions of things that have damaged me, one after the other, and I sobbed in pain through the night. This used to happen very often to me. For a while it happened at least weekly, and often in public. It hasn't happened in many months, long enough that I can't remember when.

I don't know if these memories are especially hard. I suspect they are, at least among our modern Western culture. It may well be that, as my sister said to me this summer, I am simply too sensitive to the world. Here is what I call The Litany.

I remember the sound my mother made when her rib was broken. A deep "Whhoooff" of surprised pain. But not surprised enough not to try and keep the sound inside, to keep it away from her children. I found out what had happened and how years later, but somehow I had always remembered the sound.

I worked at a rehabilitation center for children in Michigan. The Saint Louis Center. There was a child of fourteen who lived there, among a small group of young children with brain illnesses, or damage. This child of fourteen was the size of a six year old, unable to talk, who spent much of his time on the floor like an infant who could not walk yet. He was physically unable to tell when he was full, when his hunger was satisfied, and so he was constantly desperate for food. When this hunger became too much he would smash his head into the ground, over and over again, in order to get what his body told him it needed. The protocol was to ignore this behavior as to reward it with food would be to reinforce it. So, I had to stand in the room while this child smashed his head repeatedly into the floor and screamed.

Another child in this facility could not talk. Or perhaps would not talk, I always suspected he was intelligent enough to do so. He was in a group of six children, but he wanted the emotional attention and love of an only child. To get this attention he would destroy his room, throwing his feces at the walls. There was a small window in the door to his room, so that we could check on the children. When in one of his tantrums he would stare through the window at me. Every few seconds he would smash his head against the window, look me straight in the eyes with the most beautiful blue eyes I have ever seen, and if there was no reaction he would do it again. he would do this until there was a large lump on his forehead. He also would bite people, because then he would be restrained by an adult. Restraint consisted of being held, enveloped in the arms and legs of an adult. I am certain that he worked for this, that being held in restraint was the most like love he felt there. I learned that when he would bite me, if I looked at him in those amazing blue eyes and pushed my arm into his mouth a bit, offering it to him in a gesture of trust, he would not bite.

There was third child there, a creature kept alive through religious dogma and a lack of courage. This child was a late teenager, but had an IQ just about adequate to stand, and push food into his mouth with his hands. He understood no words but could grunt with desire or moan in distress. One of my tasks was to bathe him, stripping him naked and soaking him in water and scrubbing and drying him. Throughout this procedure (and it was a procedure, medical in its necessity and manner) he would moan and turn away, flinching, frightened and confused by it all. Frightened and confused by being bathed every day for his entire life.

When I first came to Portland I got a job with United Cerebral Palsy. Generally the only trauma here consisted of intense workloads, rushing around Portland to serve the needs of the disabled in the most respectful way possible, understaffed and with a schedule down to fifteen minutes all day, every day. On one occasion I was on emergency call and in the evening went to the house of Kasumi. Kasumi was nearly a quadriplegic, born with legs that simply flopped, and hands that moved so slowly and imprcisely that they were nearly useless. She had a grip like iron. She could barely speak, you could see her strain like a weightlifter to get out each monosyllable. She was a seventy year old woman, born into a Japanese family within a culture that held the disabled as a cause of shame within a family. I have never met any person who laughed so much in my life. She was, without doubt, the person with the strongest will I have ever met. the call was to her house because she had been ill with bronchitis and she seemed in great distress. I carried her into the emergency room, with her coughing and wincing, and they asked her to point to the rainbow chart with numbers to describe her pain. "Ten" was her reply, the highest number. I remember the x-ray technician trying to force her twisted body into a position from which a useful x-ray could be taken. The look on her face was what I remember, such pain. She had broken her rib by coughing over and over in her bed, unable to move, unable to do anything but endure.

My last job was at Park Tower Apartments in downtown Portland. An apartment block funded by HUD (Housing and Urban Development) for those classed as "very low income" with priority given to the disabled and seniors. One of my jobs was to check on the well being of people we hadn't seen for a while. I would head up through the elevator, down identical hallways with the same carpet and walls, like a scene from a David Lynch movie. I would knock on the door, call loudly, and if I received no answer I would unlock the door with my master key and look within.

Some time in my first few months I walked down such a hallway and smelled a distinctive smell. Somehow sweet and sour, the smell of rot. I opened the door and there was the old gentleman face down in front of me, wearing just his underwear, unmoving. His flesh was mottled and blackened by the rot beginning in his skin and pooling, dried blood. The stench was intense and deeply disgusting, and it somehow inspired an animal fear. Something far below my unconscious prevented me from moving closer. I now know the root from which all our feelings of disgust originate. He was a gentleman. A quiet, soft-spoken man, who always treated me kindly and had a ready smile. I had never really thought that death would affect me so, but it shook me powerfully.

After this I performed a good number of "well checks" as they were known, at least once a week. Usually the person was home and well, or simply out and about, but I never knew this before my check. Sometimes I was greeted with smiles and gratitude and sometimes by irritation and abuse. A few weeks after my first death I opened a door to see a man apparently asleep in his bed, lying on his back in the dark. I called to him repeatedly but with no response. I looked closer and it seemed that breath was coming from his nose in little bubbles. I went over and placed my hand on his shoulder, felt the chill of it, and realized that the bubbles was the gas from his decomposing lungs. When the light came on I saw his face in an expression of shock, the face of someone right before the car accident. He also was a gentleman, self-sufficient and understanding of my job. He never wanted to cause anyone any trouble.

The third death was a mean old bastard, who wore a stinking lumberjack's shirt and showed contempt for all around him. He would see the Raam a janitor and then deliberately spit on the floor and smile. To get into his room the maintenance supervisor Harold had to take the door of it's frame. We looked at each other, both knowing what was next. I said, "It's my job" went in and did the formality of touching his shoulder to see if he could be jarred awake. He was stiff, a heavy weight, lying alone in his filthy apartment, in that filthy shirt, in a filthy bed. I felt empty, not devoid of feeling, but as if who I was had been poured out through a hole in my chest, leaving just a shell.

The fourth death I heard about from Raam, in a panic. He said that he thought a resident had killed himself, thrown himself out a window. He was one of the very few married people in the building, someone with schizophrenia and his wife had been in the hospital for a week with her own issues. We went to his apartment and rushed in. He wasn't there and I saw the broken window screen. I looked out of the window, six floors down and saw him lying on the concrete roof of the neighboring building. He was lying in the classic position you see in television shows of the chalk outline, his body smashed. The force of the blow had broken the concrete around his body. Raam said that he heard him as he fell yelling, "Oh no!" His delusions had got him without his wife around to help. The hardest part for me was calling her to give her the news.

Telling people the news might be the hardest part, because it takes an act of will, you must decide to do it. The person is dead whether you check on them or not, you don't cause their death. But when you tell someone that a loved one is dead you have shattered their heart with a few words, and their life will never be the same again. There is nothing you can say to make things better, nothing you can do to try to help, and they cry, and cry.

The first time I told a mother that her child was dead I walked up the stairs in dread, hoping that she would not be home. I told her as simply as I could, completely without any idea of how to soften the blow. Her face crumbled and she asked me what had happened. I could tell she was searching for an error, some mistake. I told her about an accident that a sheriff in another town had related to me on the telephone, not knowing the sheriff, the town, the daughter, or the mother. The mother told me, a nearly anonymous stranger bringing this news, "Thank you, you have been very kind."

The second time was somehow worse because I knew what it was like. I have felt that the more times you experience something tragically sad it gets harder, not easier. It's as if you only have a certain amount of protection, or resources, and they get used up. I believe I developed essentially a phobia towards these experiences. Knocking on doors became harder and harder. When I returned to visit after I had left the job, it took me three times to walk in to the lobby. The sight of the carpet made my heart race, and I felt the urge to run, and I did run.

The second mother was a one-legged woman wrapped so deeply into her faith that it was a part of every moment of her speech. She was obsessed with the color red, and wore it at all times, and wrapped it around her crutch. Red and the crucifix were with her at all times. I told her that her daughter had died from a very sudden illness. I had not been told which illness, and simply had a telephone number written on a scrap of paper. She cried, "My baby, my baby, my baby's gone!" It turned out that this was her second child to have died before her. She thanked me profusely, and worried about how hard it had been for me. She said I had been so good to have done this. Apparently I have a knack for breaking this news. It seems the best method is to stand there witless, broken apart, with nothing to say but "I'm sorry" from time-to-time.

There was a woman who lived high up in the building. Her color was purple, and she had a strange way about her and spoke with an oddly formal manner. She had an aura of something like a Harvard educated witch. She called me up from my office in the basement bowels of the building, a place with no natural light, no weather, no trace of the world outside. She apologized but she needed to be taken to the hospital. This wasn't my job, I didn't provide services but connected people to them. There were over four hundred people for whom I had responsibility. She said that she had no-one else to take her, and that it was an emergency. It turned out that her son, a charming young man, was serving time for a plea-bargained count of sexual child abuse. It transpired that this woman had gone blind over the course of a few hours in the morning and so I led her as she held my arm so tightly, with a running commentary of where she was and where we were stepping next.

I led her into the hospital where she sat, straight backed and calm. So dignified. She asked me to remain in the consulting room with the specialist, who after a brief examination informed her that a blood vessel feeding her optical nerve had burst, killing it. In one morning she had been struck irrevocably blind, out of nowhere. In her total darkness she took this like a slap, but immediately gathered herself, calmly thanked the doctor and asked me to take her home. To my knowledge she never left that apartment again. Never learned how to get around, or where to get books on tape, or tried to be a part of any community. She rejected all help but someone to clean her apartment and get her groceries. She just waited there in the dark, waiting to die.

I remember sitting in another filthy apartment watching a man cry. He was a Vietnam veteran, a patient using the VA. He was a heroin addict, and had been since he returned from Vietnam. He wasn't a stupid man, not someone trying to wallow in decadence. He said that he used heroin because it was "the only thing that stopped him remembering what he had done." He had tried medication, other drugs, drinking, but nothing had worked. More than thirty years had passed and still his memories were intolerable. Only now was he faced with a choice. The VA had implemented a policy of drug testing, and if you failed the drug tests you could not receive medical treatment from the VA. If you were covered by the VA you could not receive other government health assistance. He was faced with the choice between no healthcare for his damaged organs, or living with his intolerable memories. He briefly thought of a third way out, suicide. I was there because he was asking for help, for another way out. I was helpless. I had nothing to give but understanding. It hurts so badly to see a man weeping because he is haunted, agonizingly haunted and with no way out.

That is The Litany. My list of things that keeps me awake in the night, that had me sobbing in public at times, that broke my heart. It is the reason that my wife convinced me to leave my job, my career, even though I knew that I was good at it, that I did great good, that there are people dead because I have left. I take a small measure of pride that this list is not a list of those who have done me wrong, of those who lied, cheated, and wronged me. I have had those experiences too, but they have faded into the backdrop of the past. The Litany is a list of tragedy, nothing more.

In an explanation given by someone who had been a friend who no longer was as to why we were not friend was included the words, "There is a darkness in you Dan." I would cry, rage, castigate, and demand the right to live my pain. This is all true. I was never asked why I was like that. In fact I don't think anyone has ever asked me about it, although I have been asked how I was doing, and people have been sympathetic when I would tell them. My darkness came through the uncontrollable scourge of depression, coloring everything grey and painting everything in hopelessness. But it also came from the grinding pain of helpless tragedy, that caused me to howl into the uncaring world.

Maybe these aren't anything special. Maybe I am just sensitive, or self-involved. Maybe these are experiences we all have in our lives, I am certain there are people who have worse. It's what I have to deal with in the darkness of the night, and although it is getting better, it is still there.

Side Effects and Update

2011-12-06T06:31:00.001-08:00

It is very rare for a drug to not have side effects. I mean, drink too much water and you can kill yourself. I have been taking Lamictal (lamotrigine) for nearly five months, and there are some side effects. Here are the ones I have noticed so far.

1. Caffeine used to have an enormous effect on me. Not so much any more. I can now drink coffee in the evening and fall asleep without a problem.

2. I get dizzy spells of a very, very short duration. Always less than a second, and dizzy isn't quite right as I don't feel like I have lost my balance. They are more like tiny moments of confusion. I think these are probably very small seizures as Lamictal was initially an anti-seizure medication. Don't worry, these happen in over half of those taking the medication without it causing extra problems. They don't even last long enough to effect my driving.

3. More dreams. I either have more dreams or I remember then more when I wake up. I don't think my dreams are more vivid, or extreme, or frightening, I just have more of them.

4. I may have made up this last one, but I believe that I have an improved sense of smell. It is well established that women smell things better than men. However, recently I have noticed more smells (and even unfamiliar, subtle scents) that Christina has not noticed before I point it out.

Overall I can report that it is working very well. If I could describe the results is that my happiness level has generally been increased, but there is still some cycling. Essentially my "normal" is really pretty darn happy. I'm now one of those borderline-irritatingly cheerful people, always looking on the bright side and smiling a lot. My wife is somewhat disturbed by this new me. Now, on a pretty regular basis I have my "down" periods. These consist of me being where my old normal used to be. I feel fine. These periods happen about once a month for a week, but the difference between this and my new normal is pretty small. My mood can change based on good things (we scored! yes, yes, yes, yes, yes!) and bad things (something broke in the house again?), so I am not a tranquilized zombie.

Poem Fragment.

2011-12-06T06:17:00.001-08:00

Gracious goddesses of ancient times were naught beside my Chrissy,
And when she sees her name so writ, cometh apocalyptic hissy.

Building a Brain.

2011-12-02T12:48:00.001-08:00

I have talked about the likelihood that within my lifetime it will be possible to download ourselves into computers and so create new, personal realities for ourselves. While this seems absolutely crazy at first glance, my prediction just assumed that current trends will continue.

In my tiny blastula of a novel I suggest that this first happens in 2049. Well, science has already been thinking about this well enough that it seems likely that my prediction is too conservative, that this achievement may well happen before then. It is virtually certain that an analog human brain will be created before this.

Why do I say that? Because Henry Markam has already managed to do it with a substantial portion of a rat's neo-cortex.

Insight From "The Most Important Psychologist Alive Today"

2011-11-30T15:10:00.001-08:00

This is a short interview with David Kahneman, a Nobel laureate in Economics despite being a psychologist, by Sam Adams. David Kahneman is "The most important psychologist alive today" according to David Pinker, who himself is no slouch with regard to the human mind.

The entire interview is packed with useful information if you want to know how and why people do things. However, this is the bit that most interested me.

I used to hold a unitary view, in which I proposed that only experienced happiness matters, and that life satisfaction is a fallible estimate of true happiness. I eventually concluded that this view is not tenable, for one simple reason: people seem to be much more concerned with the satisfaction of their goals than with the achievement of experienced happiness....

... There is a road to convergence, but few will want to take it: we could suggest to people that they should adopt experienced happiness as their main goal, and be satisfied with their lives to the extent that this goal is achieved. This idea implies the abandonment of other goals and values, which is surely unappealing.

So, one of the foremost scientific experts on human happiness states that there are two sorts of happiness, experienced happiness and life satisfaction. Experienced happiness is how happy you feel from moment to moment, and life satisfaction is how satisfied you feel about your life, usually how well you feel you have met your goals. It is asserted that these are essentially irreconcilable, that since they use different methods and standards you will get different results.

However, a solution is given, that experienced happiness be your goal. That is that your life's goal is to experience happiness from moment to moment as best you can. Kahneman correctly states that people don't do this, in fact their goals are given greater priority than their experienced happiness. For most people it is more important to feel satisfied with what you have done than to have felt good while you were doing it. Does this not seem largely accurate, and yet really weird?

However, what Kahneman is describing, this synthesis of life's goals and experiential happiness, is exactly what the philosophies/religions of Asia are all about. The major psychological goals of over half the world's civilizations by population have been this precise goal, the one that seems untenable to almost all of us, and even to such an esteemed psychologist.

I think I was sixteen when I decided that the important thing in life was to be happy. To be happy has been my goal, and any other goals I have had have really been about being happy. I haven't done particularly well at it, but I don't feel bad about that, and I feel quite happy right now. My goal for tomorrow is to be happy. The same thing for next week, next year, next decade...

Is deciding that your life's goal is to be happy from moment to moment, as best you can, untenable for you? Is abandoning your other goals and values unappealing?

On Relieving The Frustration From Other People

2011-11-30T06:46:00.001-08:00

For most people, people are the source of their greatest frustration. While things can be difficult, at least we understand that things aren't trying to be difficult, they just are difficult.

Have any of you spent time going over the actions of another person over and over in disbelief, or bafflement at the actions of another person? Have you asked yourself, "How could they be so stupid?" Or, "Why would they be such an awful person?" Or, "Why are they doing that to themselves?" Do you find that these thoughts keep re-occurring and perpetually cycling through your mind? I do, and it's really frustrating to be there, and is very bad for my happiness.

Now, I don't think we are likely to change our minds about the stupidity of the other person's actions. I simply cannot even begin to suggest that all people continually do smart things. I can suggest that all of us do stupid things. What I can suggest is a different method of understanding how and why people do things.

I'll start by presenting a psychological test. Having told you that it is a test I expect you will do much better than the unwitting general public at it. For the best use of the test I ask you to get to your answer as soon as you can, which is the manner that people usually use with regard to other people.

Linda is a single 31-year-old, who is very bright and deeply concerned with issues of social justice. Which of the following statements is more probable: a) that Linda works in a bank, or b) that Linda works in a bank and is active in the feminist movement?

Most people pick b).

If you picked b) go back and just take a moment and you will pretty quickly see why the answer is a). Now, why do most people pick b)? It is because it makes a better story. People think in stories and the story of the a) is that Linda is concerned about social justice and works in a bank. There doesn't seem to be a story here, it just seems to be a flat statement, and one that our prejudices think seems unlikely. Our intuition therefore rejects this. It's a bad story. However, Linda being concerned about social justice and working in a bank, but is active in the feminist movement is a better story. Here's a person with deep convictions working towards her goals while suffering the implied contradiction of working in a bank. You could write a decent novel about that.

When given the choice between a good story (one with personality characteristics, a plot, and motivations we understand) and an accurate factual statement, in a snap decision most people will take the story.

This is a very powerful insight into how people work. It is a great tool for answering the questions that frustrate us, and actually answering the unspoken question, which is why do we ask these frustrating questions?

The first thing to remember at all times is people are doing things based on their story, and their stories with regard to other people. These stories do not have to be based on real facts, simply perceived facts, which are essentially assumptions. The base for these assumptions are the culture in which people were raised, and that other people think the same way that they do.

If you grew up in a culture where in high school good looks and going along with the crowd were important and doing well in class was perceived as arrogance, then a person who doesn't concern themselves much with their appearance, has some different interests to yours, and tries to help you to understand things will be seen as an arrogant know-it-all, who thinks they are better than you, and is trying to put you down. Once this story has been produced it frames everything in those interactions from that point on.

What else are these stories based upon? These stories are based on the almost universal human traits of being part of the group, intensifying the loyalties within that group (by demonizing the other), promoting one's own status within that group, and protecting one's own self-esteem.

So why does that guy just repeatedly do stupid things without asking for help, or admitting he doesn't know what he's doing, blaming me for it, and then gets rewarded by their boss? It's because they have told themselves that they are competent, that those who say they aren't are out to get them by trashing them in front of their boss, and the boss is part of that group and so believes it. Why is that when I smile at people at my wife's work I get looks of terror? It's because I am not dressed like an employee, and so I must be a thief, or a bum, or someone out of the tribe, and what am I doing there? and what am I after with that smile?

The other thing to remember is that you are telling yourself those stories too. When you bring your proposal forward you are doing it because you think you know more than other people about what is the right thing to do, you want to demonstrate your competence, and there's a really good chance you are trying to make sure that moron doesn't screw things up by getting things his way.

So, the next time that you become frustrated about the idiocy, evil, mean spirited nature of someone, try to work out what their story might be. Remember that their meanness comes from things most of us share, fear, self-esteem, distrust of difference. Remember that they probably come from a different environment but don't understand that you do too. Remember that their idiocy is probably something they are mostly unaware of and yet terrified of its existence. I remember my father, a man flown around the world for his intellectual authority on sophisticated matters, telling me that everyone in the world feels like they are faking being an adult, and that scared that everyone is going to find that out.

It doesn't stop you from thinking they are being dumb, or that the results of their actions are nasty. However, it does reduce your own bewilderment, your own judgment that they are just plain evil, and it gives you an excellent method to predict what they might do next. This reduces your frustration and gives you more time to watch butterflies wander through the flowers.

Studying Spanish

2011-11-28T10:31:00.001-08:00

For about two months now I have been studying Spanish through the use of the Rosetta Stone computer program. At some point I therefore expect to be able to write a blog post in Spanish, although it will be brutally simple, and horrifically littered with errors for anyone who actually speaks Spanish.

I don't actually expect to be able to really speak Spanish, after all language is an incredible complex thing that changes all the time. All of us have spent a lifetime learning our language, and all of us get it wrong some of the time. What I hope to achieve is to be able to go to a Spanish-speaking country and get around as a tourist using their language rather than requiring people in their own country to speak mine. To me, being a visitor and not at least trying to speak their language is simply rude. I don't think you have to be good at speaking the language but I think the effort is a requirement for politeness, and I think the effort is greatly appreciated. I find those who simply speak louder and more angrily when faced with a communication problem to be among the most boorish people around. I cringe in sympathy for the person subjected to it, feel embarrassed on the behalf of the boor, and feel sad that someone has missed out on the multilingual future.

I study the amount that people refer to as, "trying to study an hour every day." This means in practice that I study for somewhere between twenty minutes and an hour three or four days a week. I can tell that this is significantly faster than the program expects of me and at my present progress I should be finished with the entire program some time in the summer.

What I really want to talk about is the experience of studying a new language using the program. Rosetta Stone claims to teach languages in the same way that we learn languages, and I can see what they mean. Instead of learning grammar rules and vocabulary lists there is a constant combination of pictures and spoken words. The program revolves between vocabulary, grammar, speaking, and listening, combining these different components in what are essentially constant tests. Like a small child you are shown objects, given the name of the object wherever possible, and asked to repeat it until you understand and remember the word or phrase. There is a constant barrage of questions in which the correct word, phrase, or sentence is left out and you are given praise (a happy tone and a green check mark) or a sense of failure (an orange cross and a disappointed tone).

Mentally this is the hardest thing I have done in a long time. It is very reminiscent of the exhausting, almost physical, effort of doing sudoku puzzles for the first time. I can literally feel my brain straining to solve the puzzles, remember the words, make some sense of what is going on. The program functions essentially by starting you off in almost complete bewilderment for each new section. There you are, lost in sentences combining words you know and words about which you have no idea. As you take stabs in the dark the program says "Fail, fail, fail" until you start getting the right answers simply by a process of elimination. At least it feels like that although I still get the majority of the answers right at these points. There is something very powerful about being told you have failed. I understand very keenly the frustration of a child trying to get the right words out without knowing them.

Next the program goes over the different parts again, in slightly more detail, but with more clues. The tests become somewhat easier as a result. Then there is my favorite feature, Adaptive Recall. This consists of reminders from past lessons, repeated at different times over a period of days, weeks and months. So you find yourself moving between crushingly hard mental steps and very basic answers. It is only at this point that you really understand what you have learned, that "El tren sale a la cinco y veinte-cinco de la tarde" (or something close to that), means that the train leaves at five twenty-five in the afternoon, and realize that this could be a life-saver when abroad. That bewildering, painful, frustrating effort at the beginning transfers into understanding.

Studying Spanish is not really fun in the usual idea of fun. It actually reminds me quite a lot of playing really competitive sport. In the actual moment it is hard, exhausting, draining. When you have finished and realized what you have achieved it is uplifting, exhilarating. The other day I was cruising through the cable listings and simply read one of the Spanish program titles, and realized that I understood it. I listen to Mexican music stations down here (often just to feel more like a tourist rather than someone stuck in suburban Texas) and I can pick out words here and there.

However, most of the time as I slog through this process I remain mired in the belief that I will never understand Spanish, and any attempt to speak it is simply embarrassment in waiting. It takes effort to see that I am trying to learn an entire new language in less than a year, that of course that is hard. retaining motivation takes reminders that even now, after only ten weeks of study, I am enormously better equipped to get around in Costar Rica. I can ask how much something costs, where the bus station is. I can tell my right from left, and say I want a cup of coffee.

It may take ten thousand hours of mental work to master any skill, and I don't think I will ever master Spanish (at my present rate of study it would take about sixty years), but I am doing something worthwhile, soemthing useful, something about which I can be proud. But it is bloody hard work.

Experiment.

2011-11-17T10:21:00.001-08:00

I hear quite often the idea that this generation is the first one in America's history to be worse off than their parents' generation. Sometimes this is a prediction, or a fear that this will be so, and sometimes just a statement of fact. In what I hope is the spirit of scientific exploration I offer to those who may think this is true the following experiment.

Average age for first time mothers is now 25. So generations are about 25 years apart at the moment. So let's look at incomes over the last 25 years. it is very difficult to find the exact data that would be most useful, but I have found this chart.

I'm sorry it's a bit small, and it is broken off at both ends. Here's a bigger picture. However, I have seen data at both ends and incomes for the bottom four quartiles have ended up in a similar place to where they were in 2004, perhaps one or two percent lower, and 1986 numbers are a little lower than 1989, so it should even out. This chart shows inflation adjusted income by quintile. This is the closest method I can think of to comparing what you personally would make in 1986 to what you make now. You can look at your income on the left and see which percentile you are now, and then go back to the beginning and see where you would be before. As a hint, you would be making a little bit less money regardless of your percentile.

So, my suggestion is that you work out what your disposable income is now, and work out the percentage difference in income from now to 1989, divide that by 52 and you have how much disposable income you would have in 1986, one generation ago.

Then go for a week living off this disposable income, but restrict yourself to only using things that were available in 1986, or doing things that you could do in 1986. So, everything must be paid in cash or checks. You have to get your money from inside the bank. You have to leave your cell phone at home plugged in to the charger, and I don't remember answering machines being around then so you can't check voice mail. You can use 128k of your computer. You get your news entirely from network and local news and newspapers. Before you eat ask yourself if the food would have been available in 1986. And so on.

On the other hand think about what was available in 1986 that isn't around now. I must admit nothing springs to mind, but there must be some things. See if you can find ways to do that stuff if you wish.

Now, this won't be perfect. Some things have gone up in price and others have gone down. Most of the things that have gone up are essentials, non-disposable income stuff, so it shouldn't matter much. Also there are some things that were available in different forms. You can't get a 1986 car to drive around. You won't have an old tv, or cassette tapes, so just use your modern stuff. i think you get the idea.

OK, try that for a week, living like the previous generation, and then from your experience you can decide whether this generation is better off or worse off than the previous one.

Musing on the Point of Musing

2011-11-17T07:42:00.001-08:00

I keep writing this blog. I keep returning to a small number of topics, looking at them from different views but generally bashing away at the same few themes. I would say those themes are happiness, tolerance, and the questioning of assumptions. Basically I am trying to help people be happier by questioning their negative views, trying to open minds to other ways of thinking and understanding, and trying to demonstrate that there are good reasons to be happy and optimistic about the world.

My thesis is basically that it is possible to make yourself happier. To do this you must open yourself up to other ways of looking at things. This makes you a more tolerant and understanding person. This makes you a more compassionate person. Being more compassionate makes you happier. Happier people tend to be more grateful and optimistic, and more open. This then loops around in a circle. There are other versions of the circle (e.g. openness - learning techniques for happiness - happiness - compassion - tolerance - openness) but once you get on the circle it tends to keep going round.

The hardest part of this circle is getting on it. It takes a certain amount of faith, that it is at least worth trying to see if you can be more happy by trying something different than your habits. Or even more, that it is possible to start this process. Many people believe that they are simply who they are and always will be. The second hardest part is keeping the momentum going, as with all movements there is friction that must be overcome by putting energy into the system.

My musing today is first whether this is astonishingly arrogant of me? I'm just a guy, who do I think I am to be telling other people what they should do with their lives? After all, if there is something I hate, it is being told what to do. I know I'm pretty smart. I know I've had more motivation than most to investigate happiness because of my bipolar disorder. I know I've had a very large amount of time giving advice to people in difficult situations. I know that I have a psychology degree and am fascinated by how people work. I know that I am certain that I have made myself happier through this process.

On the other hand, I'm not an enlightened Buddhist monk. I am not a trained psychotherapist. I'm not Jesus. I am not a saint. Anyone who knows me is aware that I can be a thundering jackass. Who the hell do I think I am?

Well, isn't helping other people to be happy what we should be doing? Don't we all know that what we should do is try in our own way to make the world a better place? I think I know some things that can do that. If I can live a happy, beautiful life and maybe shift a few other people a little in that direction isn't that not just a worthy thing, but a beautiful thing in itself? Wouldn't it be wrong if I didn't try? Wouldn't it be true that if all of us learned how to be happy, and learned how to help other people to be happy it would be just about the best thing possible?

In the end, isn't it better to be a little like this guy, Jeremy Gilley, who with no qualifications had a crazy and beautiful idea that was essentially certain to fail, but went for it anyway, and has consequently saved thousands of lives and brought massive buckets of hope into the world. I beg of you to watch this video. Please, please, please watch this.

I have been wondering what this blog is for. On one hand it lets me express my views on topics. On another it lets people who care about me check up on how I am doing, which I think is perhaps the most common use of this blog. To a certain extent it then doesn't really matter what I say. Perhaps I make people think? Is that a good thing? I hope so, but as I have expressed before, that doesn't really matter if it doesn't change what people do. Has any of these 243 posts actually got someone to change what they do? Have I convinced anyone of anything? I think probably one or two people a little bit, a very small bit.

In the past I was someone who would have dismissed Jeremy Gilley. I would have dismissed the idea of being able to help make people happy. I would have thought that it wasn't worth trying to understand people who I thought were wrong. I would have thought being compassionate was largely opening up oneself to pain. I would have thought that you were stuck being who you are, and that I was better than most people.

I don't think that way anymore. I'm not sure I'm a good person, but I am a better person. Being a better person has made me a happier person. I have jumped on the wheel and I am trying to keep it moving. Even if I fail at convincing anyone of anything, I would much rather be a bit more like Jeremy Gilley and fail than successfully convince people to be like the person I used to be.

I believe that may be the most convincing argument I have.

Sheeple

2011-11-16T12:35:00.001-08:00

The term, "Sheeple" is now a part of the lexicon. It is freely used and generally understood. Sheeple are those who don't think for themselves, are spoon-fed what they take as the truth, and are generally apathetic. It is, of course, used entirely with scorn.

Who are the sheeple? Well, for a start, they aren't me, I, us. They are they, them etc.. I have never seen anyone refer to themselves as sheeple. I have, however, seen both left wing people and right wing people use it towards the other side. The left say sheeple get their marching orders from Fox News and the Daily Mail, and the right say sheeple get their marxist thought control from MSNBC and The Guardian. Each side then returns fire with the idea that the view of themselves being sheeple is just an idea implanted into the brains of the automatons from the left/right by their overlords. Conspiracy theorists are addicted to the concept.

Of course, it would be hard to ignore the largest political unit in the US (with a minimum of 37% of eligible voters in every presidential election for the past 67 years), and one of the larger political segments in the UK (with a low of 16% and a high of 40% over the same period) those who don't vote. As a group of politically uninterested, unthinking, apathetic people, this group is hard to beat.

My question is whether this term is accurate, useful, or should even be thought of as a term of scorn? Perhaps the sheeple have made the best choice of all?

Is it accurate? Well, if the use of the term defines its accuracy then sheeple describes almost anyone. To not be classed as sheeple a person would have to be viewed as a widely informed, independent thinker by everybody. I'm not even sure such a being exists. So, is there an objective standard for sheeple? I would say that getting information from a very small number of sources, and those sources being of a similar philosophical bent would qualify. That's almost certainly a large proportion of those who don't vote (more on this later) but I would imagine it is also true of those who vote one way or the other. How many people who vote for the right get their news and opinion from a couple of newspapers and a couple of tv shows with which they agree? Most of them I would imagine. How about on the left? I think most of my tiny audience are lefties, and I bet they get most of their information from NPR, The New York Times, The Daily Show, MSNBC, The Nation, and The Huffington Post. When you go to Google News do you pick equally from the New York Times and The Wall Street Journal? I think probably most people, wherever they are on the spectrum, are sheeple.

Is it useful? Well, has anyone ever been convinced by being called sheeple? Has it ever advanced the cause of humanity? No. Has it ever motivated someone to increase their efforts for the greater good of the planet? No. Calling people sheeple is simply a term of contempt, dismissing the views of others, the life of others, basically reducing people to objects. We are never sheeple in our own minds, but we sure can identify them in the general public. Ironically, calling people sheeple is likely to make you more sheeple yourself, as you are blindly dismissing the ideas, information, and conclusions of a whole swathe of people. Of course, those people might be ignorant buffoons, but you'll never really know that unless you consistently listen to their points of view and consider them. The final point is that you might be sheeple. I might be sheeple.

Then, how about a term of scorn? Let's take the platonic ideal of sheeple. This person barely has a concept of the news, couldn't name anyone in their government, watches mainstream TV more seriously than they do anything else, and is fine with just not caring. They never vote, don't care how the government works and can't understand why someone would. To them the whole exercise is pointless. OK, are they wrong? If they are generally happy with their lives and don't cause harm, why should they watch the news? What's in it for them? If they don't like watching the news surely it makes sense not to do so. If they like mainstream reality TV then they should watch it, it makes them happy. How much difference does their voting make? Absolutely none if the election isn't separated by a single vote. If their vote doesn't count why should they pay attention to the government, it's just going to do what it does regardless. It is actually quite sensible to believe that an individual person's involvement is completely pointless. If your involvement is pointless and you like doing other things, it is only rational not to care.

So, perhaps being one of the sheeple is the best choice of all. Then why do I feel the need not to be sheeple so badly?

The Future of Work

2011-11-15T09:31:00.001-08:00

One of the questions I ask myself is when is enough stuff enough? at one point do you have enough material possessions that getting any more of them doesn't do you any good? I have seen a number of reports that say different things. However, from what I can piece together this is how it works. There is a great increase of happiness when moving from genuine poverty to having all your basic needs met. So, getting electricity, basic health care, schooling, potable water, furniture, a refrigerator, a real stove, heating/cooling, a roof and walls makes a big difference in someone's life. This is basically going from say $1,000 a year to $15,000 a year. The more children you have the more money you need, but that's a substantially smaller portion of the amount necessary for these things (you don't need to buy a new house per child).

After the point of what in the rich world think of as necessities then we reach the area of nicer things. A house is nicer than an apartment. A garden is nicer than a stoop. Expensive food tastes better than hamburger helper. A new car is nicer than a used car. Nicer things make us somewhat happier than less nice things, but the rate of increase is much lower. Going from $5,000 to $10,000 is a hugely greater change in happiness than from $50,000 (median us family income) to $55,000. Indeed, it turns out that much of this change in happiness is not down to how nice the things are, but how nice they are in comparison to your neighbors. Happiness increases somewhat with wealth, but the amounts of happy and the curve at which they increase is largely based on differences within a country rather than based on your income.

In the USA I have seen figures given at which increases in wealth don't really make a difference in your happiness. They range from $60,000 to $120,000. Basically there is a law of diminishing returns. The richer you are the less getting richer matters. A billionaire is not going to get happier by doubling his wealth.

As technology increases we should expect wealth to increase because of an increase in productivity. Therefore what should we expect over time if people care about their happiness and make rational decisions about their lives? We should expect wealth to increase to a certain point and then slow and stop, and then (or earlier) we should expect hours worked to decrease, and eventually we should expect income to remain steady while hours decrease. What have we seen in the USA?

What can we tell from these charts? Well, I think the first thing to notice is that the economy is not a flat line. There are recessions and booms, and within these recessions and booms there are fluctuations. However, there are lines that we can draw given enough time.

The percentage of the population that has become employed has increased over time. More people have jobs, we are in a particularly bad trough, but we have always come out of these in the past, and the rate of percentage increase in jobs is slowing down. I attribute the greatest proportion of this change to the entrance of women into the workforce, and the slowing of this trend (and even reduction) to there only being so many women, and the increase in the retirment population as we live longer. We should expect this line to flatten out at around %60, and possibly fall with more and more people being retired.

The average number of hours worked has declined in a quite remarkably steady way. There is, however, a small curve, which if continued would level out at about 32 hours a week (presently the minimum amount considered necessary to be a full-time worker.)

From Franklin Roosevelt to the present day there has been growth in real income, with the rate of growth slowing down. If you assume that trends will continue average income will flat line in the next twenty years, somewhere around $50,000-$60,000. It is useful to remember this does not include the capital gains tax.

Making assumptions that technology will increase as it has and there aren't global catastrophes of some sort our best prediction would be that the future of work will assume about 60% of people working, overall averaging about 32 hours a week, with a household income of about $60,000 a year.

The increase in productivity has largely come in the production sector. What used to be done by lots of people in factories, mines, and farming is now generally done by machines. The growth areas for work done by people has been in service work, basically doing things that only humans can do for other people. At the moment only people make good predictions about what people want, and only humans can provide a pleasant environment for people when performing transactions. A restaurant is much better than a vending machine. People make much better films and music than robots. At some point technology is going to get good at directly doing things for people. At some point your house will be cleaned by robots, your food will be prepared by robots, you will be driven somewhere by robots, and substantial portions of your body will be robots.

So, with less to do, I imagine the amounts that people will work will go down again somewhat, while incomes will remain steady (and life expectancy will increase). Hunter-gatherer societies work between 15-20 hours a week, and it would make sense for this therefore to be somewhere close to the amount the human brain evolved to work (probably somewhat more as the effects of agriculture have been felt in the genome).

My prediction for the future of work is therefore a general steadying of hours worked, household income, and percent of the population employed for the next two decades, or so. This will require a shift in the thinking of Americans from the point being to increase money, but the point being to find an equilibrium that makes us happy. Hopefully this effect takes place with a narrowing of the gaps between sectors of society. Work will continue to move towards service industries, essentially doing things for people (which also helps happiness).

Sometime after those two decades there will be a relatively sharp decline in the number employed (massively long retirements and technology replacing service industries) while income remains steady. Within my lifetime I expect that the difference between hobbies and work will not be obvious.

Musings on Happiness with Resources

2011-11-11T08:58:00.001-08:00

This is the clearest description of the problem of happiness, the solution to the problem, and the evidence that the solution works, that I have seen so far. It is twenty-one minutes long. Twenty-one minutes for learning about happiness. It is possible to become consistently happier through consistent, simple practice.

However, I am not a Buddhist monk. I just said a couple of posts ago that who you are is what you do. If I talk so much about being interested in happiness, and I agree so much with M. Ricard, why am I not "being who I am" as a Buddhist monk? I have previously talked about trying meditation as a consistent practice and while I did experience greatly increased serenity, patience, and tolerance the result did not feel like "happy" to me. It felt like I was losing some things in order to get these other things. But people are different. If you believe that what is stopping you from being happy is worry, anxiety, frustration, and displeasure with others, then absolutely you should meditate. If you are such a person and I could make you do something, I would order you to meditate daily. To be honest, I think I was probably not doing the full program, and should have got some guidance from an expert.

How can you tell whom to trust with regard to happiness? It's a useful question, because there are all sorts of people everywhere "selling" you some path to happiness. Some people say it is self-esteem, some say it is the extinction of the ego. What I am saying is that there's quite a variation here. Here is my suggestion. People are really good at reading voices. If someone is trying to tell you how to be happy, or compassionate, then listen to their voice. I bet you will be able to tell very quickly whether they are happy or compassionate. Here's some examples of people I think have got something useful to tell you.

So, I am different from other people, and so the path from who I am now to a happier person is a different path from other people because I am starting in a different place. I have been told that The Buddha said to listen and try out his ideas, but if they didn't work for you, throw them out. If he didn't say this, he should have. I like straight forward, simple expression of ideas. So I like to be given the point of the idea quickly, in simply language. I don't need a myth. I have therefore found the translation of the Tao Te Ching by Stephen Mitchell to be the most helpful book I have read for happiness, just ahead of Siddharta by Herman Hesse.

Two phrases Christina and I use to help happiness when we start becoming annoyed or frustrated.

"Amused like a grandmother."

"In the abundance of water, the fool is thirsty."

I must admit that part of my attraction for Taoism was the discovery of the tradition of poets wandering off into the countryside, getting ferociously drunk, and then writing beautiful monuments to what life is really about. Here's one from perhaps the most famous of all, Li Bai (or Li Po).

Life in the World is but a big dream;

胡为劳其生. I will not spoil it by any labour or care.

所以终日醉, So saying, I was drunk all the day,

颓然卧前楹. Lying helpless at the porch in front of my door.

觉来盼庭前, When I woke up, I blinked at the garden-lawn;

一鸟花间鸣. A lonely bird was singing amid the flowers.

借问此何时, I asked myself, had the day been wet or fine?

春风语流莺. The Spring wind was telling the mango-bird.

感之欲叹息, Moved by its song I soon began to sigh,

对酒还自倾. And as wine was there I filled my own cup.

浩歌待明月, Wildly singing I waited for the moon to rise;

曲尽已忘情. When my song was over, all my senses had gone.

Chapter 4

2011-11-10T08:23:00.000-08:00

iNews Update

11/9/2049 - Shenzen, China

Scientists have announced in today's iScience the first complete electronic reconstruction of a human brain. Dr. Hsia Hsu, Head of the J.P. Morgan Institute for Information Technologies located in China's Guandong province announced that the state of the art Archimedes hyper computer, in tandem with deep-drilling magnetic resonance imaging, had produced a faithful reproduction of a human brain in digital form.

Dr. Hsia hailed this breakthrough as, "Possibly the most important scientific achievement in biology since the mapping of the human genome."

When asked whether the reproduction could think and feel, Dr. Hsia responded, "At present the brain reproduction is inactive. It is essentially frozen in a single moment. We believe that should appropriate input and energy be provided the brain would function in the same manner as a biological brain, otherwise it would not be a true reproduction of a brain. However, at this stage we believe there are grave ethical issues that must be addressed before we would feel comfortable in waking the reproduction. Imagine waking up to the realization that while you feel entirely human, you are in fact a computer simulation. This is particularly problematic for me because the brain in question is mine."

J.P Morgan reports that at present the brain reproduction will be used to model potential new technologies, such as a telepathic communications app for the upcoming iBorg cranial personal assistant.

Chapter 3.

2011-11-09T08:52:00.000-08:00

A rich earthy odor rose from the mud through which his caked boots slogged. The cart he dragged behind him squelched and squeaked up the road towards his goal. The sky lay low, weighty and huge in its grey omnipresence. Darkness was creeping up behind him as he plodded on towards the only light in the sky. Wind snatched at his felt hat, and caressed his face with cold, wet fingers. He was tired, but in a familiar way. A stolid, accepting fatigue, born of a life of travel upon the roads.

Ahead was rest, in the form of the vast, shambling Inn. This wasn't an inn. Oh no, this was The Inn. The place from which adventure began, plots were hatched, kingdoms toppled. Nobody knew when The Inn was first constructed. There was some debate about which had come first, the roads, in places sunken several feet beneath the surrounding fields, or The Inn. Furthermore, while there was an unending stream of theories, claims, and suppositions, nobody knew whereabouts within The Inn that construction had started.

The Inn stood, and hulked, and slunk, around the crossroads at the meeting of the roads from Hither to Yon, and There to Elsewhere. While not all roads led through this crossroads (after all that would be a foolish conceit, as a crossroads has but two roads) it was well known that an astonishing proportion of significant events involved a night at The Inn.

He tried not to raise his head too many times. It is an established fact that for any piece of toil that requires sustained effort, looking to see how far you have to go simply increases that amount. However, people being people, it is also impossible to entirely refrain from this activity. Humans are indeed cursed with an indecent quantity of hope. He looked to see what changes had occurred since his last visit, for there would be changes. In the gloom he noticed the old whiskey still rotting and collapsing into slow oblivion, and what was that in the far corner? It seemed as though a whimsically slender tower, barely wide enough for a stair to wind its way within its innards, was reaching for the heavy sky. What manner of subtle extortion would this bring for the unwary?

The Inn was always changing. The collapse of ancient buildings, the occasional fire, even the rising and falling of the rich, loamy earth brought low extensions, additions, follies, barns, rooms, and necessities. To counteract this siege of decrepitude there was an ongoing campaign of construction, alteration, and improvement. For centuries this campaign had continued with an unceasing enthusiasm, and a total disregard for the aesthetics of the rest of the construction. In summary, The Inn was a glorious shambles.

Almost without warning he arrived. Finding a sloped and somewhat leaky roof of indeterminate purpose he pulled his cart into its shelter. Seeing a young lad huddled beneath the sad roof's shelter, possibly in hope of a penny or two for the brief assistance in the grooming of a noble's horse, possibly with more nefarious activities in mind, he glared his best and tapped his dirk in what he hoped was a significant gesture. The boy remained unmoved, and dry, and our carthorse set out in search of warmth, sustenance, and drink.

The sound of voices and music were his first clue. He ducked through a low doorway and set off down what might have been a small portion of a cloister in a different age. He knew he was on the right path when the smell of roasting capon assaulted his pleading senses. True night fell upon him, as did the beginning of a storm as he turned into a large common room, awash in light, heat and people. He shouldered his way through an eddy of drunkenness, its members immersed in the inane hilarity so common to these occasions, and found a small table sitting empty against a wall. Probably it had been left unused because of its proximity to the roaring fire, but fresh from the road this was a glorious luxury rather than a discomfort.

Collapsing into the chair he stretched his legs, rubbed his eyes, and smiled that languorous smile that only the weary who have found rest can really pull off. A wench of stereotypical buxomness arrived to take his order for food and drink, returning with remarkable alacrity to deposit a tall, pewter tankard of dark, musty porter into his eager fist. A sip, a sigh of contentment, a roll of his head, and he was ready to look around the room.

Kocka's Tavern was a large room, supported with the blackened oak beams of a rather splendid barn, and lit unevenly by the large fire and a few lamps behind the bar. This provided the requisite shadows for vagabonds, itinerant mercenaries, thieves, pickpockets, and servants of the dark and gloom, to lurk in as sinister manner as they thought appropriate. Several of these seemed almost desperate for some neophyte traveler to require their help in some madman's quest. Of course, in the deepest gloom of one corner sat a man (probably a man) hooded and cloaked in grey. A glance, and then he was forgotten.

To the side furthest from the door was a tiny stage, flanked by doors, upon which a fiddler and mandolin produced reels, jigs, and one or two vulgar hornpipes. The music carried impossibly through the room, as the magic of music will on the best of days. A tableau of strumpets and lechers stumbled gropingly before the stage, with moments of uproarious laughter at the collapse of one of the bawdy dancers.

A gaggle of disapprovers, dressed severely in funereal black or virginal white, huddled together in formation, taking a thin pleasure of their own in their self-righteous hatred of the pleasure of others. In contrast a gathering of peacocks screeched around long tables in the precise center of the room, ostentatiously slumming in their bright finery. The rest were the meat of the room. Traders, carters, ploughmen. Men with dirt too deep to shift in their skin, and hands hard as horn. They sat in small groups, drinking with the practiced economy of skilled professionals and confidently opining on matters political, philosophical, and spiritual. After all, if a person does not know everything, and have solutions for that everything, then they have not been drinking properly.

"A remarkable world in which we live," said the ploughman.

"How so, good sir?" inquired the carter.

"I am remarking on the state of the inhabitants of this world. On the one hand there are we, those of ordinary flesh and bone. We who work the soil, produce the sustenance and goods upon which this world survives with our hands and tools. For us all is predictable. If it rains we get wet. If we trip our knees are scraped and we bleed. On the other hand there are those who are born into this world with characteristics that can only be described as magical. For no reason that we can ascertain they are immune to blows, can conjure fire and lightning from their hands, stride like giants across the land. From whence do they come? What are they for?"

"But there have always been heroes, villains and conjurers. There has not been a time without them."

"True, and well said dear sir. However, this does not explain why this should be."

"Well, why do you think it is so, my good friend?"

"Well, it almost seems as though there is something behind it all, as if we were merely playthings for the amusement of...bloody hell man! What do you think you are doing?" The last in outrage at a drunken lecher entangled within the bodice of his strumpet who had fallen full upon their table, sending their beers fountaining into the air.

"Sorry, sirs, but that man pushed me!" exclaimed the lecher pointing through a swirl of lacy underthings from his vantage point upon the sodden floor.

"Are you talking to me? growled a brute of a man in his closest approximation of innocent outrage.

"Yes, you oaf, you cretin, you barbarian.." were the last words exchanged before a fight of truly operatic proportions erupted within the room. Nobody noticed the grey hooded shape, slipping away between the tables and out into the night.

We Are What We Do.

2011-11-08T08:14:00.000-08:00

The age of the internet has made the dissemination of information astonishingly easy. We can communicate with people around the world instantly, and essentially for free. Lots of people, and including myself, spend a fair amount of our time reading what other people have to say, and making our own comments on the matter.

While there is the greatest access to information there has ever been, rather than a consensus being reached, or a debate based on information and respect, it seems humanity is intent on dividing itself into camps that then yell at each other. If you don't fit into a category, if you agree with some things, but not others then you are out of that group. Whether "you are with us or against us" or "if you aren't part of the solution you are part of the problem" the point seems to be that what matters is what you think and believe, and believing some of the wrong things is grounds for exile.

I, on the other hand, believe that what matters is what a person does. I think a person's opinion, and any statement they might make about that opinion, are simply words. Those words only have power if they change the actions of someone, even if that change is only new words. If your opinion and words don't change anything then you simply said them to say them. Maybe it makes you feel better, in which case you say things to make yourself feel better. I certainly do this.

People don't like the idea that you are what you do. We much prefer the subjective view of what we are to the objective facts of what we do. We like to feel we are compassionate people who are here to make life better for other people. We like to feel we are open-minded people who make our judgments based on the truth. We like to think we are healthy, well-adjusted people and so those who fundamentally disagree must have character flaws. We like to think we are egalitarian, free of bigotry, tolerant. Probably the most common thought about ourselves is that we are powerless, that we would do good things if only we had the power.

But what do we do? What proportion of our time, resources, and effort do we put into ourselves in comparison to everyone else on the planet? Now, it is quite unreasonable for these to be equal, after all the person best equipped to look after you, is you. Still, there are 168 hours in a week and we don't need all of those to keep ourselves alive, safe, healthy, and entertained. When searching for the truth how many of us look for a range of opinions, follow the science, go back through the history, give multiple views a real shot and then perhaps admit that we don't know the answer? Do we actually go to a place that we habitually visit because we find it easier, probably because the viewpoints there are the same as ours? Do we really know enough about those with whom we disagree to establish that their opinions are from a character flaw? who gets to decide what is a character flaw? Do we actually treat all people, from all places, with all views, in essentially the same way?

I have a friend I meet at the bar. He is an older Texan, believes in God, owns a firearm, distrusts the government and wants it to be reduced. He believes in pure free market capitalism, and that rich people don't owe anything to anyone. In terms of politics we disagree on almost everything. In terms of religion we entirely disagree. He devotes a substantial amount of his time to organizing, helping, and funding a charity, as a volunteer. More than anyone else I know. Is he more or less compassionate and caring towards the poor and disadvantaged than a lefty who marches in the street and posts their outrage on Facebook. I think so, because he does something.

Here comes the hard part. The stories we tell ourselves about ourselves are to make ourselves feel good. They are there often to hide things we dislike about ourselves. We all know ways that the world can be made better. We all know how much time, effort and money we put into those things. We are what we do, and part of what we do is lie to ourselves about what we do. We know that pizza we just brought costs twice as much as a life saving vaccine for someone in absolute poverty. We know somewhere around us is a hospital or shelter or food bank where we could volunteer and make a difference. We all know how the government can be changed and what is needed is a person of determination, honesty, ethics willing to be that person who organizes things to make a difference.

If we don't do the things that we think should be done, then we don't really believe they are important enough to be done.

I am not the 99%

2011-11-04T08:28:00.000-07:00

Well, of course technically I am part of the 99% since it is derived from wealth, and I am not in the top 1%. However, by this metric so is Eric Cantor, the Republican House Majority Leader with income at about two-thirds the cut-off and assets at just under the cut off (about a million in disposable assets). I would be surprised if anyone demonstrating in the streets would say that they and Eric Cantor are part of the same group.

So, if there is more to it than wealth what does "we are the 99%" mean? As far as I can tell it means that those with lots of money (and really it isn't the top 1%, more like the top .1%, 300,000 people) largely make their money by not working but simply getting return on investments, are not taxed at a fair amount, and have too much influence in government. The other side of this is that the rest of the people, those who do the work, are suffering because of this system and are helpless to fix it. I would even go so far as to say that those claiming to be the 99% believe the entire system to be broken.

Well, in polling, 60% of Americans show some basic level of support for these notions. I find this hardly surprising since I can't think of any time in history when people haven't felt like the rich are too rich and they should give some of their money to us. The amazing thing is that 40% of Americans are not supportive of these concepts. So, "We are the 99%" are, at the maximum, speaking for 60% of the population.

I am in the 60%. I am broadly supportive of a small level of wealth redistribution from those who make their money from asset investment to society at large. Mostly I think the income from investments should simply be classed as income, just like income from getting a paycheck. At present this investment income is taxed at 10%, while wages at this level are taxed at 35% of income. I would happy to split the difference and have income at the highest level be around 25% (this would increase taxes substantially since the very richest make their money from investments). I am supportive of this redistribution because wealth disparity results in a number of social ills, from health to crime. I think investment in infrastructure and social services improve the economy and actually pay for themselves over time. The US economy has actually grown faster with higher tax rates. I also think it a tragedy that there are people who don't have shelter, or food, or other necessities.

However, I don't the problem is that the rich are very, very rich. If the richest are a hundred times richer than you or a billion times richer than you it doesn't really effect how rich you are, or your life in general. I don't even think the problem is so much that there aren't enough taxes. The US spends the fourth amount of money for education per child in the world. It spends twice as much on health care per capita as anywhere else. Property taxes are high. The government has plenty of money, it just uses it less than efficiently. If the US had a single payer health plan, invested in preventative social services, cut the military budget in half, increased the age for social security, invested in job creating infrastructure projects, and used best practices for education the US would be transformed into a competitive, healthy, vibrant and compassionate society. All without raising a dime more in income.

So, I am not interested in fairness, I am interested in the health of society, and taking care of those in need.

So, I have some sympathy for the "We are the 99%" people, but I also disagree with a fair amount of the movement. I don't think Americans are really suffering. I am in somewhere about the 40th percentile. My household makes more money than average and we have more than average in assets. We are in the upper end of the middle class (the thing that is supposed to have disappeared). We have a beautiful house, two cars, health care, are safe, entertained, can travel the world, and buy amazing things. As far as I am concerned we are filthy, stinking, grossly rich. I am often actually embarrassed by how rich we are. We are essentially an average working family (thanks honey) financially. Such families, when adjusted for inflation, have doubled their incomes in the last thirty years.

You may say I am ignoring those at the bottom. This is, in fact, a near universal when I raise these fact-based points with those supporting the "We are the 99%". generally it is claimed that I don't know what it is like out there. Of course, my not knowing what it is like is nonsense. I have been hungry, without housing, without income or assets at times in my life. At my poorest I was sleeping on a back porch and possessed a car I could not fill with fuel, $2.58 and half a loaf of bread. That was coincidentally the summer I mentioned in my last post about being happy. Also my last job was literally working with the poorest of the poor. I know better what constitutes poverty in America than anyone I know.

Given my bona fides on poverty I can then go through the facts. What I consider poverty is homelessness and hunger and health care. If you have access to basic health care, your own shelter, clothes to deal with the weather, food on your plate, running potable water, heating, and electricity, in my eyes you are not poor. This is a mild idea of what poverty looks like. In the US .6% of the population is homeless at some time in a year. That's not homeless throughout the year, that's at some time. This includes staying in a shelter. Yep, you can be homeless in the USA while sleeping in a bed inside a heated building. 99.4% of the US population in a year will not experience a single night without shelter, running water, electricity, etc.. That's not suffering, that's flourishing.

It is reported quite widely that one in six families in America go hungry. This is the actual list of what constitutes "hunger". The worst of these groups (very low food security) is about 1% of the population, and of these the worst case described is one in five don't eat for a whole day in three months. What 49 million go hungry actually means is that at some point about .6% of the population are hungry against their will sometimes. Nobody starves in the USA. Nobody. This isn't poverty, that was college for me.

It is an absolute, ridiculous, shameful fact that one in six Americans do not have health insurance. This kills people, about twenty thousand a year. However, US law requires any emergency room in the country to treat anyone who walks through the door with a medical emergency. If you have no health insurance and have a heart attack a hospital will spend $100,000 or more in treating you. You will be saddled with that debt, and that is stupid and unnecessary, but you will probably live. In the USA you will not die of intestinal parasites, malaria, tuberculosis, influenza, malnutrition, and almost all the major killers of people around the world. Those without health insurance in the USA have better health care than more than a third of the world.

A statistic that is often brought up is that 14% of Americans are unemployed. That's relatively bad for the USA. Lots of people are worried, stressed, anxious and afraid as a result. However, only a tiny fraction of these people face real poverty. The "poor" in the USA generally do not face poverty.

From my point of view, this "broken system" has been remarkably successful in meeting the needs of its citizens. If you had to roll the dice to randomly grow up in another country no rational American would take that risk. Americans keep getting richer, safer, and healthier. The "poverty line" in the USA is the average income of Portugal. This system, with its corporate cronies, fixed election system, disparate wealth, rigged financial system, sociopathic financial traders (and it has all of that) has done well by the vast majority of Americans.

Then there is the complaint that the average people don't have a voice, are not participants in the system. The government is elected by those people. It is often said that money controls what people think, who is elected, and what then happens. If you believe this you believe that the average person in the street is incapable of understanding what is going on, thinking for themselves, or making rational decisions at the ballot box. If this is true, do you really want them deciding the fate of the country? Those responsible for the government are those who elect them.

To be truthful there is one thing that really bothers me about the "We are the 99%" people. It is not that they are protesting, it's not that they are angry (although I think that is a shame for them), it's not even that they are largely wrong, it's that they claim to speak for me. They are not speaking for me, and it is a lie to say that they are. It's as much a lie as to say that I am a part of Pat Robertson's "Silent Majority". It is as much a lie as when any politician says anything starting with, "Americans believe..."

If you lie about what I believe you can fuck right off.

Is It This Easy?

2011-11-03T07:53:00.000-07:00

I could have titled this post 'Walking in the Wind" or 'Beautiful Dawn" since it was inspired directly by my dawn walk this morning. It was blustery as The Face of Evil and I walked through dead trees by the bayou, the sky lightening in the colors of the dutch masters. I felt my spine tickling, a smile on my face, just joy.

I have described feeling like this before. In fact, I have described feeling more intensely wonderful than this. A feeling that I have shared with my sister, that life is so delicious that you feel sad that most people never experience it. This is not the best I have ever felt, but I have felt basically like this for weeks and months, without interruption. My wife has been confused by this constant cheerfulness, she doesn't know what to do with this, who is this person? The last time I felt this consistently happy, for this length of time, was the summer of 1997, the summer I moved to Portland.

The reason for this is simply a magic pill. For the last fifteen years my brain had been subject to wild chemical variations, beyond my control, and the chemicals in your brain are what your happiness is. Your outside environment only has an effect on your happiness to the extent that it changes the chemicals in your brain. I have been taking this medication since July, and I have felt great.

This has led me to the question, "Is it really this easy to be happy if you aren't ill?" I see so much complaining, so much energy put into describing all the reasons that people can be unhappy. I am happy, I think life is special and great, and all that has happened is that my brain is consistent and stable. It just seems to me that this should be the case for everyone who is in a similar situation. By the way, this isn't a criticism of people who are dealing with an illness, mental illness is a real thing, a painful thing, something largely beyond the control of the victim.

The answer to my question is somewhat equivocal. On one hand it is not this easy for most people to be happy. Most people do not put happiness as a high priority. This sounds fundamentally wrong, but I am certain that most people put their priorities into prestige, wealth, looks, and reputation. I think if asked most people would say that these things lead to happiness, that if someone becomes rich, with high status, good looks and a reputation of wisdom they will be as happy as they can be. While these can help, they aren't the root of happiness. Why do people concentrate on these things? Because their brains are consistent. If you don't experience random misery then you don't appreciate your own mental situation. If you never experience ecstatic joy then you don't know how good life can be. Under those circumstances it seems silly to believe that you can alter your mental state to be consistently more happy. If something seems silly it is difficult to be motivated to do it. The best example of this is that meditation is a scientifically proven method to reduce worry, increase compassion, and increase your awareness of the world around you. It requires no equipment and you can start doing it in fifteen minutes a day. I have told everyone I know this, shown them the proof for it, and I know of only one person who has then taken it up (to great effect).

To maximize happiness it is necessary to "know thyself", it is necessary to understand what happiness actually is, and it is necessary to put consistent effort into learning the skills to be happy. Happiness comes from establishing a mental state that notices where you are, appreciates where you are, and only worries about things you can change (and then changes them). I have been fighting deep misery for more twenty years, suicidal misery just about every year at some point. Also every year I have experienced amazing joy, albeit far less often. As a result my understanding of what produces happiness has been higher than most people. this has given me far more motivation to study happiness, and then far more motivation to practice what I have learned. I have learned skills to make depression bearable because otherwise much of my life would have been unbearable. Now that I am not depressed I have not forgotten those skills, indeed these skills have largely been ingrained as habits. This makes me happier, it makes me happy. It is no harder for anyone else to learn these skills, practice those skills, and become happier on a consistent basis.

Optimism, compassion, calmness, awareness of what you have, all can be learned through simple practices. They make you happier, they make your life better. It is that easy. You just have to choose to do them. I wonder why people don't?

Questions That Don't Need To Be Asked.

2011-10-25T14:05:00.000-07:00

Sam Harris, the neuroscientist and philosopher most famous for his strident opposition to religion, has a blog. recently he has been talking about the mystery of consciousness. This mystery he sums up as "that there should be 'something that it is like'" I think it can be put more clearly that all the machinery of our brains has inputs, outputs, inner communication and so on, but it is very hard to work out why there should be some sense that there is an I that is aware at some level that there is going on. He believes that this problem is intractable, that why there is a "sense of I" will never be worked out even if we understand completely how the brain works.

There are many other people who ask themselves what is their purpose in life. Why am I here? What should I do? What is the point of this existence? The answers that come from science, that we are here through a very long natural process based on complex chemical interactions and the survival of self-replicating chemical structures, are often considered to be unsatisfactory.

Usually people who consider these questions extend them into the Universe at large. Why is there anything at all? Why is that a tree and not a hedgehog?

For me, these questions all have a fundamental flaw. They are questions prompted by the brain to produce answers that satisfy the biases of the human brain. The human brain is biased to see patterns, meanings, stories, and actors (an entity causing something to happen). I have talked about all of these before.

Each of these questions are 'Why?" questions. "Why?" is a question that asks the purpose or reason for something, and the fact that there is the same word for both of these definitions is highly instructive. This conflation of purpose and reason is absolutely at the heart of humanity, and at the edges of intellectual thought can become quite problematic. In fact, even the word, "Reason" is a conflation of several independent ideas (how things came to be, the purpose for something coming to be, a description of a method of thinking).

Why are we here? The reason we are here can be stated with a fair amount of assurance for it being true is "why" means the same thing as "how it came to pass". How it came to pass that we are here, while enormously complex is a story science can generally tell. We can answer the question. It is a good question to ask because we can explore the evidence and come up with an answer.

However, if the question means "what is the purpose of us being here" we have greater difficulty. With "how it came to pass" we are going off vast amounts of data, essentially all the data there is, that the way things were in the past give cause to the way things are presently, and out present will cause the future. From this we can assume that there is a way that things came to be, there is a how, which is merely a description. The Laws of Nature are not actually laws, they are descriptions of how things happen.

With questions about the purpose of things we have greater difficulty because we don't have vast amounts of data that there is a purpose of all things. When human beings make a decision to do something there is generally a purpose. I go to the store to buy food so that I can eat and not be hungry, which is unpleasant. What is the purpose of the vast vacuum of space, the bit with nothing in it? Surely a purpose requires a goal, and a goal requires a plan, and a plan requires someone to make the plan. Who made the plan for vast areas of nothing? it seems to me quite reasonable to think that some things have a purpose, and that these things derive their purpose from someone deciding what their purpose is. Purpose is given to things from an outside source, it isn't inherent in things.

That there is not even the beginning of a consensus on whether there is a being outside the universe, on what such a being might want, how we might be connected to that desire, how me might bring it about, or what most of the Universe is for, seems excellent evidence that the assumption that there is a purpose is at least highly questionable. Asking, "Why are we here?" without meaning, "How did it come to pass that we are here?" seems to me to making an enormous assumption, that there is a purpose. A scientist operating according to science should at least have some evidence that there is a thing about which there are things you can discover. A scientist would never investigate the properties of a thing for which there is no evidence. "Why is there...." is simply a question that shouldn't be asked without the knowledge of a someone involved who might have a purpose. Why is this a rock, not a tree? Because then it wouldn't be a rock, the question inherently makes no sense. How did it become to be a rock? leads to a whole chain of causality that can be investigated.

We ask these "Why?" questions because of our biases. We think in terms of patterns, plans, intention. We automatically assign intention "A tree struggles towards the light so that it can receive the energy of the sun" when actually under the circumstances a tree simply must grow or not because of its nature. A tree doesn't try to grow for a purpose. Even though we know that this is true (the tree simply doesn't have the intellectual apparatus to try or struggle or have a goal) it is very hard to think of it in another way.

Essentially there are two directions from which human beings can approach a question. We can come from the direction of ourselves, our minds, and look for the pattern, meaning, and purpose of an event. We can come from the direction of describing the event and then seeing if this event has pattern, meaning, and purpose.

I think this is the problem that Sam Harris has in his idea of a mystery about consciousness. He starts from the idea that consciousness is a special thing, unlike everything else, essentially that it is entirely purpose. It is the thing that is "Why?" rather than "How?" Consciousness is what searches for purpose, and meaning. The mistake that is made is mistaking the thing that looks for "Why?" as therefore requiring an answer to "Why?" for its existence.

I think consciousness is simply what happens when matter is arranged in the way it is in the human (and other animals) brain. Why is their consciousness, a sense that there is an I experiencing things? Because it would be impossible for there not to be under the circumstances. Why does a rock fall? Because a rock and the Earth have mass, and mass is the inherent quality of things that attract each other. A rock falls because it is a rock, and a rock is a thing that falls. A human brain has consciousness because it is a human brain, and a human brain is a thing with consciousness. There is no mystery beyond the human invention of a mystery. The answer is intractable because the question has been constructed about something that doesn't exist. It makes as much sense as asking 'What are the dreams of the color yellow?"

How did it come to be that human brains have consciousness? I think it is because consciousness is simply a rather messy method of providing a feedback loop for improving the chance of survival and reproduction. A consciousness is something that is aware of being a creature. It is aware of the environment, of the past, can make predictions about the future, can test theories about the future, and change the way that creature goes about doing things. Evolutionarily this is enormously useful, that the creature with the most developed consciousness is now the most successful creature on the planet speaks to this.

Just because you can frame a question, or wonder about something, it doesn't mean that there is an answer to the question, or that the something is real. Sometimes, even though you can ask a question, there are questions that don't need to be asked because they don't make sense to ask.

Education.

2011-10-19T08:40:00.000-07:00

On ESPN, the cable sports network, there is a show at the moment called Rise Up. It is a show where a high school is picked (almost always a school in a deprived inner city) and the network arrives, examines the sports facilities and then does an "extreme makeover" of the facilities, leaving them in an astonishing state. The high school is left with running tracks, a full weight room, brand new equipment, one had a climbing wall. It really is amazing stuff. What is consistently said from teachers and the show is that poor, run down equipment engenders a sense of low self-esteem, that going to a ratty school means that children don't care, and this effects their expectations and results in their schooling.

The first part of the show consists of an earnest woman (who really needs to eat a cheeseburger) touring the facilities with a look of concern on her emaciated face. My reaction to this "before" section has consistently been, "What nice stuff they have." All of these high schools, specifically chosen for their degraded state, are nicer than the school I attended.

I went to Bishop Wordsworth's Church of England Grammar School For Boys. This was part of the old fashioned system in England in which an examination was given to children at the age of ten to determine which school they would attend for at least the next five years. The top 25% went to my school, the other went to a different school. Since this was old-fashioned the local council had decided to break the system by sending most of the funding to the other school and letting my school starve.

My home room was a twenty-five year old temporary building on breeze blocks (cinder blocks in the USA). I did not have a text book less than five years old at any point while I was there. Institutional paint from decades ago peeled off the walls. There was no piece of sports equipment from within the last decade. However, the educational achievement at this school is among the best in the UK. When I went to the University of Michigan I found that I was about two years ahead in terms of what I knew (and how to think) than most students. U-M is a really good school.

Looking at the record of US students (and UK students are actually worse in some respects) against other countries we find the US lagging behind in basic skills, the three 'R's. By my count the US is seventeenth on that list despite spending the fourth most amount of money of any country. However, US students score the highest on self-confidence of any country. One of the primary goals in US education is being met, ahead of the money spent on the problem, American pupils are self-confident. However, this does not seem to translate into education success.

During my schooling I cannot remember receiving any positive statement about my performance, character, work ethic, basically anything at any time. This is from both my teachers and parents over thirteen years. I remember telling my father once that about my good grades and his reply, "You should be getting all A's on everything." Now, as far as I can tell, all A's in US high schools is relatively easy, with correct test scores somewhere in the upper 90% range. In my school, and in the public examinations at the time, an A was somewhere in the 80% range, and few students, even good students got them. Passing grade was around 50%. Remember, I knew more arriving in college than my American peers. Self-esteem wasn't encouraged to achieve success, success was assumed, was difficult, and you were not ever going to get everything right.

So, Americans spend lots of money, work on self-esteem, encourage their students, have good facilities, and have relatively poor results. My school had no money, worked to reduce self-esteem, expected good results and had no encouragement, had awful facilities and achieved great results. What is the difference? The difference is that I was taught by good teachers who demanded success and discipline, in an environment where it was assumed that you were there to learn. I'm sure it also helped that the students had been pre-selected based on prior achievement.

This means that I am entirely unsurprised at the findings of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation that teachers are by far the most important factor in the education of children. Furthermore, teachers in the USA have not been effectively taught how to teach, or been measured on the effectiveness of their teaching. In the USA more money is spent on education than most wealthy countries but less on teachers. Teachers also spend more time teaching than most countries. I think a cursory look around at the news will tell you to what regard teachers in the USA are held. So, lower pay for more work and less respect with poor instruction and poor measurement means you get a lower quality of applicant, with less skills, poorer improvement, and motivation to perform.

The Left think education should be improved by greater investment in schools, fee-form education emphasizing a love for learning and led by the initiative of children. They hate tests. The Right think teachers are lazy, good-for-nothings, who are paid too much for what they do. Both are wrong. There is no need for more money in US education. It should simply be redistributed in educating, measuring, and paying teachers who should be treated as respected professionals. These teachers should spend less time teaching and more time improving themselves and preparing their classes. You should be able to teach a high level of reading, writing and maths to kids by the age of ten. Seriously.

The rest of the time children should be playing, outside. You don't need hours of repetition on the same subject or problem. You need to do it enough to get it, be retaught in a different manner if you don't understand and then tested later to see if you retain it. Hours of similar math problems, or compulsory reading, or page after page of essay writing are done simply to fill the hours of schooling. There is an obesity epidemic among children, even a promotion by the National Football League to get children to play a full hour hour a day. An hour? How about six hours? It is supposed to be fun being a child. Homework is useless and not fun. All you need to do to supervise children playing is one adult who can watch it.

Sometimes it really is as simple as it seems. Respect and pay teachers and you will get good applicants. teach good applicants and you will get good teachers. Good teachers mean educated students. Educated students make good employees. Good employees make a good economy. A good economy produces good revenue. Good revenue produces good services.

Words and the Modern World

2011-10-17T14:39:00.000-07:00

In England at the moment a professional soccer player has accused another professional soccer player of racially abusing him. The player making the accusation is a french black man. The person being accused is an Uruguayan white man. In the United States I am not sure if those terms are correct. Those who were once negroes, then coloreds, then blacks, are as far as I know now labeled African Americans. This makes it difficult to define which group a French man of somewhat African descent might be called, particularly if any of his family had lived somewhere other than France or Africa in the intervening period.

The word that is suggested was used is the deeply offensive "Nigger." Of course, the accusers first language is French, in which that word would be "Negre", equally offensive. The accuser also speaks some english having lived there for some time. The accused speaks primarily Spanish, with almost no English as he has lived there for barely six months. In Spanish the word would be "Negro" which means "Black" in Spanish, but can also be considered a racist descriptor of a, hmmm, black (?) person.

To unfortunately complicate the situation the use of the word, "Negro" towards someone has different meanings depending on the country of origin. In Spain or Mexico it is deeply offensive. However, in Uruguay, Venezuela, and Argentina the word is used as a term of endearment regardless of race. A mother might well call her little white boy "un negro pequeno." It is also used between close friends and so on.

So what we have is a French black man, who couldn't be called that in the USA but can in England, being offended because someone said something in Spanish that in many places would be considered a deeply offensive racist remark, but isn't in the place where the speaker came from.

This is a complicated issue, that involves intent, meaning, legal ramifications, language, and culture. The most widespread area where a discussion that could elucidate and educate people's understanding of the issue would be in forums and commentaries on-line. I have found out that any mention of the word, "Negro" on any forum will have the message removed, and all follow ups removed too. This is regardless of the meaning of the word, or whether its use is intended to educate or denigrate. Even further, any comment about whether it is appropriate to delete the message is also deleted.

So, a complex issue about offense taken involving race and culture cannot be commented on if at any point you talk about the offense and involve words about race or culture. Fear of the offense of racism taken to the point where it cannot be explained that it might not be racism in the first place. Ah, the modern world.

Material Things

2011-10-13T09:23:00.000-07:00

In the Pyrenees, sheep farmers moved with the seasons. In the winters they lived in the valleys with their sheep in small fields or pens, fed on hay reaped in the autumn. As spring turned towards summer they moved up the mountains to high pastures to take advantage of the growing grass and to save the resources in the valley. In the time before motorized vehicles it was too far to walk up the mountain each day and return in the evening to sleep in their houses in the valley. As a result the farmers built little cottages high up in the mountains in which to stay, in Scotland these are called "crofter's cottages."

Today there are cars and trucks which make the ascent and descent quick and convenient. As a result the farmers live down in the valleys all year round with their families and the comforts of the modern world. But the cottages still remain, in various states of disrepair. Being from a time before the modern world these cottages don't have electricity, or sewage, or really anything that we take for granted. Heat comes from a fire.

There is someone I know who lives in one of these places, a 47 year old man, someone who has wandered the world, drifting from one place to another, but this is now his home base. He makes his living by busking, or picking grapes, or other odd jobs here and there. He cannot drive and makes his way around Europe by walking, hitch-hiking, or public transport. I have never heard him complain that he hasn't enough, and he's happier and healthier than most of the people I know. This man is my brother Peter.

He has spent a considerable time in India, wandering around with a backpack. He has told me of returning to London after such a trip and seeing the beggars on the streets (there is no shortage of these) and feeling the urge to laugh at them. Why? "Because they didn't even know what being poor was," he said. After having seen the truly destitute on the streets of India, living skeletons starving to death or dying from disease, these comparatively plump people with access to shelter, daily food, and potable water, were rich in his eyes.

As for myself, for several years I worked in a building in downtown Portland that was available for those with "very low income." Practically this ranged from a low of zero income to a high of about $300 a week. In my capacity there I helped hungry people find food, those without furniture to find a bed, those without money to pay for their electricity and heating. It was a horribly depressing place to be, and perhaps some time I will write the list of things I saw there that have damaged me. Suffice it to say that entering the building fills me with dread, my heart rate rises, and I have an animal urge to flee. However, nobody starved, nobody died of exposure, nobody died of dysentery, or cholera, etc..

All around me in the USA at the moment I hear cries of anguish against the terrible plight affecting the poor, and even the middle class. A few days ago I heard some one say, "You can't live on $35,000 these days." I have heard tragic stories of people committing suicide because they have lost everything. There are people around the country publicly demonstrating to get their fair share. I have heard people complaining that they won't be able to own a house, or keep the house in which they presently live, in disbelief that this would be allowed to happen. I have heard the story of a retired veteran who was a teacher for forty years (and therefore gets social security, a pension, and free health care) complain that he has to live in an apartment and struggles to pay the bills (on what must be about $25,000 a year).

People say it isn't fair for them to be poor like this. That the rich have taken it away from them.

Well, the truth is that the poorest people in the USA, in the middle of the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression make as much money when you adjust for inflation as they did in 1979. before the downturn they made about 11% more than they used to. This does not include any technological improvements (most people on welfare in the USA these days have a color tv with cable and a cell phone, the objects of only the rich in 1979). In fact, over this period, all sections of the US population have become wealthier. The middle class have become about 1/5th wealthier in the last thirty years. While it is usually mocked and derided, it is actually true that "A rising tide lifts all boats."

The US has one of the highest average incomes in the world. In fact the standard by which Americans are designated as poor is about the same as the average income in Portugal, and higher than the average income in Costa Rica. These are not third world countries, these are stable democracies with school systems, health systems, roads, bridges etc.. While it is deplorable that there are homeless people in the US the highest estimates for the number of homeless is 1 in 600, 1/6th of one percent. The poor of the United States are rich compared with the rest of the world.

What then are people complaining about? People are complaining that they have not had "their fair share of the pie", and a very, very large pie it is. It is absolutely true that the better off you are the greater your increase in wealth. It is absolutely true that the wealth disparity in the US (and the UK) is growing. It is absolutely true that this is not as good for the future of the US as a more equitable distribution of wealth. It is absolutely true that I think the wealthy should be taxed more and that money spent on improved services. But the truth of it is that rich people are complaining vociferously that they are not rich enough while the fabulously wealthy try to hold on to their fabulous wealth. In the US the class warfare is between the rich and the very, very, very rich.

Why then are people complaining with such anguish? The first reason is that most Americans are literally entirely unaware of what real poverty is. It was a repeated theme of my work in that building that those who had lost their money through bad luck or illness were in literal disbelief at how few services there were for the poor, and this being a place with food, shelter, furniture, bathrooms, and electricity. Most Americans have never seen a family living in a corrugated iron shack, eating the same meager meal every day and washing their two sets of clothing in river water. Actually living like that is literally unimaginable. Most Americans think that living in an old apartment with ratty carpets, peeling paint, shopping in bulk at Costco, and driving a fifteen year old car which is difficult to keep full of gas, is really poor.

The second reason is that people have forgotten the lessons that every single one of us is taught from an early age, and then repeated over and over again. The best things in life are free. Love is what really matters. You can't buy happiness. Be grateful for what you have. These things are true! I mean that, they really are true. Has any material thing ever come close to making you as happy as a friend?

It is a good thing to wish that the world was a fairer place, a kinder place, a safer place, a more beautiful place. It is an even better thing to work to make it so. It is an absolute tragedy to make yourself miserable as a consequence. It is possible to be like my brother, high on a mountain, owning very little but a love for life.

Recycling Ideas

2011-10-11T08:24:00.000-07:00

Over the last twenty-four hours I have had a discussion that some of you may have noticed on facebook. This discussion is essentially about the meaning of the word "socialism." His meaning (in this case) when boiled down to the basics is that a meaning of socialism is traffic lights and public roads, because right wing pundits have equated some government programs as "socialism" and therefore if they really understood what they were talking about ALL government programs would therefore be "socialist." My position is that socialism means what it says it means in dictionaries, encyclopedias, in classrooms, and what socialist mean when they call themselves socialist.

This frustrates me, because I think the meaning of words matters. If words don't have a precise meaning then it is impossible to have a precise conversation. I understand that the meaning of words changes over time because the meaning of a word is what people think it means. However, I do think that at any one time there must be an agreement of what a word means in order to actually communicate. That's why we have dictionaries and encyclopedias etc..

The alternative to having a consensus on the meaning of words is best described through the lens of the Theory of Evolution. There is a precise meaning for those words, available in dictionaries, encyclopedias, from scientists, and in classrooms. However, in the effort against the belief of evolution people distort the meanings of the words. "It's only a theory, just a guess. They don't really know if it's true." Well, a Theory backed up by vast amounts of evidence and never falsified is as close to a fact as there is in the world. 'Evolution says that we came about from just luck, even for one bacteria to become another bacteria is so unlikely that it is less than one chance in a bigger number than all the atoms in the universe." Evolution is precisely the theory that describes how change happens in life in a non-random manner. "Nobody has ever seen a monkey become a cat." This is true, but evolution doesn't say this is so. These are "straw man" arguments, arguing against a position that nobody holds (see the first paragraph for another example). However, if there are not actual, real meanings for words it is impossible for there to be a straw man argument. Each person is able to define what the other person says regardless of what they mean.

The biggest problem for me is when there is already a word that means what people want to change a word to mean. In this case there are the words, "government programs" which everyone understands. Changing "socialism" to mean "government programs" means you have eliminated a word with real and useful meaning from the vocabulary.

Now, I know my frustration is counter-productive. I know that in an argument, if the person does not immediately take an interest in your position and try to come to a consensus on what the argument is about or disagrees twice, then it is impossible to change that person's mind. What is important to people is whether they fit into a group, and maintaining their reputation as never being wrong.

So, I should go back to working towards a dream, not involving myself in fruitless arguing but immersing myself in mindfulness, in living a good life, in bettering myself and remaining optimistic. I should work to make these things true habits.

I may manage this for a while, but I am pretty sure I'll be back to this again, equally frustrated again. We are who we are.

Wins Over Replacement

2011-10-10T11:40:00.000-07:00

For a long time in sport people made decisions essentially entirely upon what their perceptions were either from themselves, or from other people they trusted. Experienced people brought up with the fundamentals of the game in question would make decisions based on their own thoughts, what they saw happening, and the traditional accepted view.

In the late seventies a man named Bill James started looking at baseball in a different way, he started evaluating the game objectively, through the methods of measurement and statistics, with the goal being to see what helped teams win rather than what people thought helped teams win. It took about twenty years before this approach was taken on by a Major League team, the Oakland A's, as a useful addition to their method of running their business. There was a noticeable improvement of the team in comparison to the resources the team had when this transition was made. This has been made famous by the book, and now the film, Moneyball.

Now, the majority of sports fans view this approach still as less useful than their own eyes and knowledge. A minority of sports fans have embraced this approach and in discussions will provide objective evidence for their opinions, with usually a vast amount of scoffing. However, in the enormously competitive world of professional sports almost every single team in the world now using statistics all the time when making decisions. this doesn't mean that statistics make all the decisions, just that they are a vital part in informing those who make those decisions.

One of the new statistics was something called Wins Over Replacement Player. Essentially what this means is an evaluation of the contribution a player makes (with a combination of offensive statistics and defensive statistics plugged into a formula) towards the team winning. it isn't a measure of whether the player hits the ball, or looks good, it is a measure of whether the team wins more or less, and roughly how much, when the player is playing compared to what you can get as a replacement. The replacement concept is not an average player, it is what is freely available, what you can just pick up.

Why am I talking about this sports statistic for a group of people who probably don't care much about sports, and almost certainly not about sporting statistics? It's because I want to bring across the concept of "Better Than Replacement Value" when making decisions. I see people all the time saying that the USA is crap, a politician is crap, this corporation is crap, my coworkers are crap, management are crap, my bank is crap. These are all value based judgments and so I think it useful to think crap compared with what? If you work in a big company there are going to be people you think are bad at their jobs. So, are they bad at their jobs? It depends what you compare them to. Are they more crap than Bill Gates or Paul Krugman, almost certainly. are they crap compared to a member of the Taliban? Almost certainly not. Does Houston suck? Yes compared with Tuscany, no when compared with Somalia.

So, how "good" something is depends on what it is compared against. Are you disappointed with Barak Obama? If so, you are probably disappointed because of the large difference between what he said he was going to do and what has happened. I want to change the way you think about how to evaluate the job he is doing, not necessarily change your opinion but how you go about making that decision. I want you to judge Obama against replacement value, that is evaluate his job against those who could have been President. On the Democratic side everyone but Hilary Clinton and Barak Obama had dropped out of the race because they knew they had no chance of winning. On the Republican side John McCain, Mitt Romney, Mike Huckerbee, Alan Keyes, and Ron Paul managed to get past January, but only Mitt Romney and Mike Huckerbee got enough delegates to really be considered viable candidates.

This means that the replacement values for Obama are Clinton, McCain, Huckerbee, and Mitt Romney. This means that you can either value the job Barak Obama has done against the job these other candidates would have done, or you can evaluate him against something that is not possible in the real world.

When buying a car do you make your decision based upon how the car matches up to a car you have made up in your head that you would like to own? Do you make a decision on whether you like your car or not based upon how it matches up with a Ferrari you cannot afford, or based upon how it does compared with a car you could actually buy.

When deciding whether you are disappointed or not with living in the USA under the present system it seems sensible to me to compare your conditions with other real possibilities. Would you be wealthier, safer, more content and healthier elsewhere? Would you be better off living under a theocracy like Saudi Arabia, a socialist country like Venezuela, a parliamentary system like the UK, or a different republic like Russia? If the answer is "yes" I strongly suggest organizing things so that you can move.

This does not mean that people should not be thinking of different and new ways of living. It doesn't mean that we can't strive to make the world a better place. This way of thinking simply evaluates things against reality, against the alternative rather than a fantasy. Work towards your best fantasy but only by acknowledging what is actually possible right now. The best now can only be achieved by choosing between possible nows.

On Chrstianity

2011-10-07T09:38:00.000-07:00

I had attended many, many church services, sang hymns, been told the well known stories of Jesus but I hadn't read the Bible. I think this is actually very common. i assumed that the New Testament simply said what are the dogma of Christianity, that Jesus plainly said that he was God, part of a Trinity, and that if you were good, kind and humble you went to Heaven after you died, and if you were naughty you went to Hell after you died.

In order to converse reasonably intelligently on this forum I have since spent some time researching what the Bible actually says. This has been a real eye-opener. In my estimation Jesus never plainly says the things that I thought he said. All of these things are either made up after Jesus had been dead for some time (the Trinity, Heaven and Hell are after you are dead) or inferred from somewhat vague phrases (I am the way. Before Abraham I am. The Son of God (also used by recent predecessor Caesar Augustus)).

Here are some portions of the New Testament that I think are vital when considering what was Jesus and what was he teaching.

Matthew 3: 1-2 1 In those days John the Baptist came, preaching in the wilderness of Judea 2 and saying, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven has come near.”

Mark 1:15 “The time has come,” he said. “The kingdom of God has come near. Repent and believe the good news!” (This is Jesus speaking).

Mark 13 2-4 2 “Do you see all these great buildings?” replied Jesus. “Not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down.” 3 As Jesus was sitting on the Mount of Olives opposite the temple, Peter, James, John and Andrew asked him privately, 4 “Tell us, when will these things happen? And what will be the sign that they are all about to be fulfilled?”

Mark 13:30 I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened.

Mathew 16: 28 - "Assuredly, I say to you, there are some standing here who shall not taste death till they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom".

Luke 17:19-21 - When he was asked by the Pharisees when the Kingdom of God would come, He answered them and said, "The Kingdom of God does not come with observation, nor will they say, 'See here!' or 'See there!' For indeed the Kingdom of God is within you."

Matthew 5 17-18 17“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.

Luke 24 4-7 4 While they were wondering about this, suddenly two men in clothes that gleamed like lightning stood beside them. 5 In their fright the women bowed down with their faces to the ground, but the men said to them, “Why do you look for the living among the dead? 6 He is not here; he has risen! Remember how he told you, while he was still with you in Galilee: 7 `The Son of Man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, be crucified and on the third day be raised again.’”

Luke 18:19 "Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good--except God alone.

Mark 15 34 And at three in the afternoon Jesus cried out in a loud voice, “Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachthani?” (which means “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”).

Luke 24:39 - See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me,and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye behold mehaving.

So from these passages I get that Jesus was a faithful Jew who believed that the Kingdom of Heaven was on the Earth, before death, within people, and about to happen. He believed in a time of great tribulation including the destruction of the Temple within the same generation in which all his prophecies would come true. He said he was not God. When crucified he was forlorn because his predictions had not come true and he was simply dying before his prophecies had come true. After crucifixion he was living and not a spirit and still had the wounds of crucifixion.

The important thing for me is that these are not things said about Jesus or John the Baptist but rather direct quotes from them. The inferences I make from these quotes are simple and plain and do not require vast amounts of inference and metaphor. In the face of these quotes (which I am astonished have not been removed from the Bible) I find myself frankly amazed that Christian dogma is what it is.

I believe Jesus (and John the Baptist) believed he was an apocalyptic Jewish preacher in a nation that had turned away from the commandments of Jewish Law. As a result he believed that an apocalypse like Noah's flood was about to happen. He was crucified before this happened, despaired, survived the crucifixion and fled.

Matthew 24 36-39 "As the days of Noah were, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be. For as in the days before the flood, they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, and did not know until the flood came and took them all away, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be."

Advice for Putting Music in Children's Lives

2011-10-06T09:43:00.000-07:00

This is mostly directed at the Emilys but I think works for anyone.

Music is a wonderful thing, and being able to do a wonderful thing is a wonderful thing. Learning how to do things is enormously more easy for children, their brains are growing and teaching is basically altering the growth of brains so that certain tasks are easier. My only introduction to music growing up were the three albums my parents owned and about a month of trying to play a very cheap recorder in school.

At the age of thirty I was introduced to playing music again, and have worked to be able to play it now for eleven years. i think in those eleven years I have learned as much as I would have in two years as a child, and a foundation of childhood skill would mean that all my learning of music in the future would be much easier.

I don't want to suggest that all children should learn music, just like I don't think all children should be forced to play sports, or made to paint. I do think all children should be introduced to these things to see if they like them, because they can all add great depths of richness to a life.

The first piece of advice I have is to get the right sort of instrument. If your child likes to sing this is the greatest instrument that a person can have, but learning an instrument will help them to sing and result in a more full musical experience. The right sort of instrument is a quality instrument that a child can play. Too often parents buy a full-size cheap "beginners" guitar because they don't want to waste their money if their child gives up after a while. This is a terrible choice. A cheap instrument will sound terrible if almost anyone plays it, and much worse for a beginner.

A a full size guitar is too big for a child to operate, my hands are really too small for a guitar, and a child will have difficulty with the long neck. The guitar also requires significant strength in the fingers and callouses on the tips of the fingers that are earned through painful practice. A reduced size quality instrument will be easier to play and will provide vastly more encouragement because of the more beautiful sounds produced. Find your local used music shop, set a budget, and consult with the staff. You'll be hard pressed to find someone working in such an establishment who will cheat a child out of the opportunity to play the best instrument for them possible.

I really recommend starting with an electronic keyboard, you can get new ones for around $100. These have numerous advantages, the first being that they always make the right tone, the second that they are easily portable, the third that they require no physical strength or endurance to play, and the fourth is that the keyboard is by far the most intuitive way to learn music theory. The keyboard is laid out as music theory. Most keyboards have programmed songs in them and a vast array of different sounds. I recommend smashing these optionsto smithereens if possible for your own sanity and the learning of music. People do the most efficient thing and having the machine play songs for you or make lots of cool noises is the most efficient way to "make music" for a child of any age.

The second piece of advice I would give is to get a teacher early, and get one that teaches with tunes rather than theory and scales at first. Only when the child wishes to get better should these other approaches be introduced. It is fun to play songs but not fun to practice technique. You can make a child become great at an instrument, but if they associate music with drudgery they will quit as soon as they have the power to do so. It is not necessary to have a music teacher for your child at all times during their childhood for the child to become very good at music.

My third piece of advice is to let the child be the motivating force. It is unlikely that your child will make a living playing music or require competence at music to survive the adult world. Music is not a requirement but a beautifully enriching luxury. Music should be played for fun, not because a parent wishes it to be played.

My fourth piece of advice is to encourage performance. There is nothing that will make music more fun than finishing a song and hearing people clap and cheer. From a parent clapping for a pre-school child singing to a crowd cheering ten year olds in a rock band at the local coffee house, it all makes it more wonderful.

My fifth piece of advice is to find some fun group activity for child musicians to play together. Music at its best is a collaborative activity, and understanding this as early as possible can only be good. One of the greatest examples I have seen is The Black Peppercorns who started out of a wonderful project called The Rock and Roll Camp for Girls.

Psychic Activation Energy

2011-10-05T10:40:00.000-07:00

There is a concept in chemistry called "Activation Energy." Basically what this means is that for a chemical reaction (like burning wood) to take place a certain amount of energy has to be put into the system (the spark, or flame from a match). With an exothermic reaction (something that gives off energy, like the wood fire) once the activation energy has started the reaction, the reaction then provides enough energy for the stuff around it to also react. So a spark lights a fire, and the heat from that fire starts the burning of the wood around it, and so on until all the wood is used up. With a exothermic reaction the state after the reaction has less energy. Burned wood has given off the energy from the fire, and therefore needs more energy to burn (like charcoal) or simply won't burn (like ash).

I want you now to compare the different levels of energy to the ease of a person's life. Our lives have a certain amount of difficulty, which is analogous to the amount of energy in wood. Now, this can be altered by the environment (put a piece of wood on Mount Everest and the cold and the reduced pressure makes it harder to burn, you need more activation energy). If you get sick then everything is a bit harder. You can't do much about this.

However, most of us can think of ways to reduce how difficult our lives could be. Do you get anxious about things that you can't change? Would your life be easier if you had a little more education? Would your life be easier if you were in better shape? Would things be easier if you were a little more humble and apologised to people you have hurt with your opinions? These are analogous to the reduced energy state after a chemical reaction, the wood after it has been burnt.

Isn't it often very difficult to get to that lower difficulty state? Do you find you can't stop worrying? Do you think of all the difficulties with going to school, the cost and the time? Do you find it difficult to start exercising (or do it on consecutive days)? Do you find it painfully difficult to suck it up and humble yourself before someone else, even though you know you are right? This difficulty is the activation energy, the hurdle you need to get over until you can get to the new state.

This activation energy can come in different forms, and over different amounts of time. As I have said before, real change comes from changing one's habits. What changes our habits are the will to think about changing them, the knowledge about how to change them, the courage to overcome our fears, and the effort to make it happen. It is all very well to know that you would be happier if you stopped worrying about things you can't change, but this does nothing to help you if you don't find out how to do it, don't over come the fear of changing yourself or appearing silly, and without actually applying your knowledge in a consistent and practical manner.

We have all done it. Complained about our lives and then complained that what it would take to change the situation is too hard, and then gone back to complaining about our lives again. We have all also thought of big plans that we could do, who we could be, what we could achieve, and then done none of these things because of the effort involved. The thing is, with almost all these situations, the overall effort involved is less if you actually do the things. Just like a fire just needs a spark to get it going, psychic activation energy can get you to a place where your life is truly easier. Generally it is worth the effort.

This post is dedicated to my sister Emily, who has just made the effort, and as a result made me proud.

Public Demonstrations

2011-10-04T08:12:00.000-07:00

At the moment, to the delight of many of my friends, there is a public movement to occupy Wall Street in New York. Wall Street is of course the home of corporate America, and the demonstration is intended to express public discontent with the behavior and power of large corporations, and urges the government to change their priorities from corporations to people. I think it is a laudable goal to have government act in the interests of individual people, and I think very few people would argue with that statement.

This is essentially the Left's version of the Tea Party, which was a public demonstration to express disapproval of the government, and urging power over individual lives to be put in the hands of private entities, in particular individual people. Over time the Tea Party morphed into a political movement, organized itself into an active part of the government, voted in candidates and has had a real effect on the actions of the government. The Tea Party equates government action in general with acting against the interests of individual people.

I was a part of the largest global public demonstration of all time in advance of the Iraq War. This demonstration was enormous, organized, deeply felt and reported around the world. It had exactly zero effect on whether the war happened or not. However, in almost every single country in the world that participated in the war, other than the USA, the politicians who had been responsible for joining the war where voted out of office. When it came to actual politics, voting for candidates, the politicians were punished for their actions. This did not happen in the USA because the majority of Americans were in favor of the war.

The demonstrations against the Vietnam War had no effect. The demonstrations against corporate power in Seattle had no effect. Demonstrations in, and of themselves have no effect. This is exactly how it should be in a representative democracy. In such a system the point at which the individual has a say in their government is in the voting booth. If there is a massive demonstration against the actions of the government but the government is voted back into power then the majority of the country does not agree with the demonstration. The loudest do not over-rule the majority, and we should be very pleased about this.

So, these demonstrations will have no effect unless a public display becomes a political movement that elects people with similar views to the demonstration. This will only happen if the demonstrations become politically organized and puts forward candidates that can get elected. Such candidates can only be elected in places where the majority of voters agree with the thrust of the arguments of the demonstration. This means that at some point there need to be concrete, agreed opinions among a significant portion of the Left. This is more difficult for the Left then the Right since there is a greater diversity of opinion among the Left.

Furthermore, this political group has to be large enough in office, and committed enough while in office, to make a difference to policy. The Tea Party was large enough, and committed enough to refuse to vote for more mainstream Republican policies even at the expense of having Democratic policies be instituted. A "People's Liberal Movement" would need to elect something like fifty representatives and a couple of senators to really make any difference. This group would also have to risk the passing of right wing law rather than moderate, middle ground law in order for their opinions to have teeth.

However, the model of the Tea Party is instructive on what happens when such a movement out of the mainstream gets power. The Tea Party had its highest approval ratings right before the last election, at around 37%. After its actions in government it now has its lowest approval ratings ever at around 28%. It has never really achieved a level at which more people approved than disapproved, but now over half the country disapprove of them, worse than Obama, the President who has only been in office with the economy in the tank.

I would guess that the majority of Americans do not approve of the Wall Street protesters, although there would be some commonality among some concerns with many Americans (the rich getting richer while we get poorer being the main one). Without political power this movement will be pointless, possibly detrimental to the advance of liberal ideology. While in office there is a good chance that the opinion of Americans will turn against them.

In US politics what happens is determined by the Middle. Over time the Middle has moved consistently to the Left, at least on social issues. This is still going on. The Left is winning, but only as it manages to convince the Middle, and this happens generally by influencing the young. This Wall Street demonstration will not sweep across America and change things forever. It's greatest hope is to elect some politicians who can influence policy, and change the minds of some people in the Middle, edging policy to the Left. This can only be done over the long term by appearing to the general public as reasonable people. The more extreme the public movement the less effective it will be.

Book Report II

2011-09-28T13:09:00.000-07:00

While in Portland I had a discussion with my friend Dade. He's the guy that comments on this blog. Towards the end of that discussion he pressed upon me, despite my protestations, a large and heavy hardback book for me to carry with me back to Texas. This book is entitled The Thousand Lives of Jacob van Zoet written by David Mitchell. As with the last book given to me, I feel a responsibility to say what I think and feel about the book.

I will start with the writing style, which, for a work of literature rather than pulp, is generally forthright and straight forward. The writing is more about what happens than an ostentatious display of writing prowess. The descriptions are excellent, but brief and always for the purpose of adding to the story. There is a fair amount of dialogue throughout the book and it feels entirely natural, with each person seeming like an actual individual person rather than a piece of the author. Still, the writing has a depth of intelligence that is subtle enough that you often only notice it some time later in the book when the plot drops enough clues to put everything before it in a different light. In contrast to Tinkers, the writing is about a story and the characters within that story.

That story starts with a young Dutch clerk landing on a trading enclave in Japan at the very end of the 18th century. He is there to make an adequate fortune to return to the Netherlands to marry his sweetheart, to be achieved through a five year position for the Dutch East India Company. The plot unfolds from there through the combination of fate, and the steady removal of layers of ignorance. What was clearly so at the beginning becomes increasingly not so throughout the book. I will say nothing more of the plot since the book relies on this progression of fate and understanding for its effect. Suffice it to say the book is thoroughly researched and the story is excellent, far from cliched, subtle, and excellently written.

I can, however, put forward what I feel are the themes of the book. The first, and most obvious, theme is of aliens living within the constraints of particular societies. The Dutch trading post's dimensions are measured in yards rather than miles, and its inhabitants are forbidden from leaving it for the mainland of Japan. In addition all communication with the Japanese is through a very small group of officials, students and interpreters and all under strict Japanese law. Even the practice of Christianity is forbidden. This idea of constraint is repeated in a number of situations throughout the book, within the Japanese family, profession, caste and religion. This constraint is highlighted not only by the vagaries of fate, but also by the main characters who are all educated and seemingly reasonable people.

The second theme is an examination of honor. What is honor, and does it do us any good? Is it better to suffer for your honor or to bend the rules a little for your (and others) betterment? Are honorable actions always the right thing to do? Or even usually the right thing to do? Are people honorable? Is it possible to be honorable within the obscure complexity of humanity? What happens when the different concepts of honor inherent in different cultures come into conflict? As someone who has always despised the idea that honor is more important than people, I found this theme both fascinating and somewhat painful.

This is a very worthy book, one that I think all of you should purchase and read. It has fluid and excellent writing, a fantastic plot unveiled with patient skill, rich characterization, and thorough research that leads to a solid grounding in space and time. For its type I can only think of one "novel" (stretching to twenty one volumes) that I have read that I feel is superior, that being the Aubrey - Maturin series by Patrick O'Brian. Since that work has been called "the greatest historical novel ever written" and is among the candidates for greatest novel ever written, this is far from any suggestion of denigration for Mr. Mitchell's work.

The Road Goes Ever On

2011-09-27T13:29:00.000-07:00

The Road goes ever on and on

Down from the door where it began.

Now far ahead the Road has gone,

And I must follow, if I can,

Pursuing it with weary feet,

Until it joins some larger way,

Where many paths and errands meet.

And whither then? I cannot say.

- J.R.R. Tolkien

A short while ago I wrote that I didn't expect to write very much more on this blog. I am now happy that I was so equivocal since to anyone who has been paying attention I have been writing quite a lot recently. Why is this, you may (but probably won't) ask?

The reason is essentially that the circumstances of my own mind have changed from then to now. At that time I wrote:

"I feel that I have essentially said what I have to say that might be interesting with regards to my philosophy, how I see the world, and so on. What I might be interested in writing about would either be commentary about current events, and there's no shortage of available opinions in that arena, or talking about my life, and it's pretty clear to me that this is of limited interest to anybody."

In translation, I couldn't think of anything new and interesting to say other than my own difficulties, and thought nobody cared about that. If anyone cannot work out the name for this type of mindset I think they should read this, it's important. Since then I have become able to think of things that I find interesting, and have come to the conclusion that either some people do care what I say and think, or that I want to write down my ideas anyway. This is analogous to playing music. There are times that without noticeable improvement and the chance to perform I cannot find the point in playing music. There are other times where I enjoy singing and playing for myself.

What has been the difference? The difference has been that I have gone to see a psychiatrist. This psychiatrist has been sympathetic enough to listen me, agree with my self-diagnosis of rapid cycling bipolar 2 disorder and then prescribe for me a medication called Lamictal. I have been taking this for about three months now and my total symptoms during this time are eight days of minor "down" (tired and a bit sad for a day or so) and one day of minor "up" (talking more, more energy). So, on about one day in ten I have some minor symptoms, and this at the beginning of treatment. Side effects are a decrease in the effects of caffeine and about an hour less need for sleep. That's it.

What this really means for me are two-fold: first is the most important portion that a vast amount of personal misery has been lifted from me, second is that my mood is far more consistent. The first is self-evidently good and has led me to having ideas, self-assurance, etc. The second has more subtle effects. For quite some time now I have been thinking about what I could do if I could only maintain motivation consistently. Well, with a consistent mood my levels of motivation are consistent. I can start projects with some confidence that I will be able to continue with the project for some time, days, weeks, even months. As a result I have started a few projects. I am now "inspired?" frequently to write down my thoughts. I have started studying Spanish daily with the Rosetta Stone program, previously purchased two years ago and used for a total of four days previously. I play my mandolin almost daily. I exercise almost daily, have reduced my food intake and drink less. The house is looking better too.

This doesn't mean that my motivation for any activity has increased particularly. I still find exercise hard work, studying Spanish can be very frustrating, the rewards and trials of playing the mandolin are unchanged, and I like to eat and drink as much as I have before. Chores are unfailingly chores. The difference is that I have the energy each day to do what I did the day before. It is the consistency of effort towards a goal that is different. Our efforts usually fail because we don't consistently apply the effort. If you stop doing something for a week, it probably means you will simply stop doing it. If you can do something, even badly, for fifteen minutes a day you will improve.

There is a hypothesis called the 10,000 hour rule. Basically it means that for someone to master something, that is to become truly world class, you must practice that skill for 10,000 hours. For an hour a day that means over 27 years of practice. For eight hours a day it means three and a half years. The Cariaga rule requires a lifetime of 108 years of practice. I am frequently surprised that people are often astonished at my ability to converse with strangers with a multiplicity of problems and help them almost immediately. My surprise is that other people are so bad at understanding themselves and other people. However, I have spent over twenty years of my life working at this skill, a thousand weeks. It is therefore not surprising that I am good at this.

I don't expect to be world class at any of my hobbies but the ability to give consistent effort means that my chances of getting better and perhaps becoming good at something have dramatically improved.

Global Warming Hope

2011-09-26T09:23:00.000-07:00

A little over three years ago I wrote that while Global Warming was the greatest threat to humanity at present I wasn't that worried. I based that position on a belief in the advance of technology at a much greater speed than people project, particularly when allied to the opportunities for giant stinking piles of money. I even projected the possibility of organisms producing hydrogen, or producing fossil fuels that took in more CO2 than they produced.

My prediction was that within twenty years there would be a workable technology that could replace our present fossil fuel system.

Well, a clever man, Bruce E. Logan, has created a working prototype that produces hydrogen using common bacteria, organic material in water (as in sewage), and sea water. It doesn't require outside power to function. Now, this is simply a prototype, a small, very expensive device that demonstrates that the process works. At the moment this is quite some distance away from an industrial level system. We will not be altering our vehicles to run on hydrogen in the next five years.

However, I want you to think about the internal combustion engine. From the time of the first patent of a gasoline powered engine to the first reliable four-stroke gasoline engine was a period of 16 years, from 1860 to 1876. The four-stroke gasoline engine is what is used in the vast majority of modern automobiles. Now remember, this was in the second half of the 19th century and the four-stroke internal combustion engine is a complicated device. The hydrogen producing device requires salt water and sewage to be separated by at least one membrane (for osmosis), and the first prototype has eleven membranes, and collection of hydrogen and the other gases (more on this later). It is a simpler device than the internal combustion engine, but does require what are now very expensive membranes. Again, think of the computer chip, and the expense of the first prototype computer chip compared to the cost of a modern computer chip.

It therefore seems more than reasonable to expect that a working hydrogen-producing plant, economically viable and powered by sewage and sea water, will be in production within fifteen years. However, there seems to be a bit of a catch. Bacteria produce methane and carbon dioxide both greenhouse gases. Hydrogen burns and produces water, and so the fuel production is greenhouse gas safe. What should we do with these greenhouse gases? Well, methane is natural gas, and is used in heating homes. This produces 30-45 percent less carbon dioxide than coal or gasoline, and produces the fewest of other pollutants among fossil fuels. So the process produces another fuel, which is cleaner than other fossil fuels. The result could be huge numbers of localized mini-power plants that produce both hydrogen fuels for vehicles and natural gas for electricity generation and home heating. This would increase the efficiency of electricity production in the home removing the energy loss from transporting energy long distances.

What to do with the final big problem, the carbon dioxide? Well, the process feeds on organic matter. What does organic matter need in order to grow? Carbon dioxide. Increased carbon dioxide in plants increases the rate of growth. So pumping the carbon dioxide into greenhouses of plants for the bacteria to feed on will produce fast growing material for the process to feed on through recycling.

The overall system could quite reasonably produce fuel for vehicles, natural gas for electricity and heat, be partly self-sufficient, have very low CO2 emissions, and could produce locally-grown tasty vegetables in greenhouses. Seriously.

Remember, this is only one of the possible futures of alternative energy.

Review of Blog Views.

2011-09-22T09:04:00.000-07:00

Blogger changed a little while ago, and now it is really easy to see how many views each post gets. I strongly believe that this data was available before, but it would have required some sort of effort and expertise to find. This data is not entirely accurate. There are quite a number of posts recorded as having zero views, which seems odd since I am certain that at least two people have read every post. I think this is because people "save up" their reading of the blog and read multiple posts at the same time.

So, most posts get between zero and ten views. My estimate is that eighty percent of posts fall into this category. These posts are the ones viewed by friends and family, catching up and mildly interested in what I am thinking. There are then a few posts that get into the thirties or even forties, and I believe these must be posts either promoted by one of my friends or family to read, but more likely simply the result of a Google search by a tiny proportion of internet users.

In reverse order, the top five viewed posts.

#5 It's Not Fair! 56 views. I attribute this post's popularity to the title, and the ubiquitous nature of on-line moaning and complaining.

#4 How to Write an Irish Song. 61 views. I attribute the popularity of this post to it being instructional for the 150 people on the planet trying to work out how to write an Irish song.

#3 Critical Thinking, Reason, and Logic. 66 views. I attribute the popularity of this blog to people having to write papers on philosophy and logic. Although it wasn't available while I was in high school or college, I imagine a fantastic method of writing papers is to look on-line for blog posts and articles about your subject and then pretty much just copying them. because of the vast amount of material on the internet your chances of being caught approach zero. However, I do think this is one of my better posts.

#2 Genuine People. 382 views. On this one I have no idea at all. I'm simply baffled.

#1 Suicide Letter. 417 views. I'm pretty sure this was "popular" because it was the only place where many, many people who knew Scott could read his letter. I posted it because I could see how it helped people who knew him to cope, and also because in the letter he wished people to know what he thought and so make the world better.

Statistical Ignorance Part II

2011-09-22T08:28:00.000-07:00

People don't know what random looks like. People think they know what random is, but generally they are wrong.

To start, the definition of random:

1. Having no specific pattern, purpose, or objective: random movements. See Synonyms at chance.

2. Mathematics & Statistics Of or relating to a type of circumstance or event that is described by a probability distribution.

3. Of or relating to an event in which all outcomes are equally likely, as in the testing of a blood sample for the presence of a substance.

Let us take the rolling of a die. It meets all the criteria for the definition of random. Now, what would be the general thought if rolling a die three times came up with the same number all three times? I believe most people would think something non-random is happening. either the dice are loaded, or there is some supernatural quality attached (luck). Now, how about if you rolled two ones in a row, would anyone think that was non-random? However the odds of these two events happening is exactly the same, 1/36th. (chance of rolling the same number three times is 1/6x1/6x/1/6 (the odds of rolling a particular number three times in a row) x6 (the number of numbers for which this could happen) = 1/36), (chance of rolling two ones is 1/6x1/6=1/36).

Why do people think one is non-random and one is not? It is because of the power of coincidence in the human mind. People are pattern seeking machines. The human brain is not only able to detect patterns, it actively seeks patterns. The human brain actively tries to find patterns, and if it finds something that looks somewhat like a pattern the default position is to think there is one until something comes along to show otherwise, and as I have said before, the chances of the new information being convincing is pretty low. What produces the idea of patterns? It is usually coincidence, meaning that one thing happens nearly at the same time as something else.

In human evolution that was almost certainly extremely useful. Imagine hunting for game. Say you find the same animals in the same spot three times in three hunting expeditions. The human brain will then see a pattern, animals to hunt in one location, and so return frequently to that location. Now, if there is a pattern this is extremely useful. However, if there is not a pattern and the location of animals is random, the hunters are no worse off returning to the site than any other location. In very simple tasks with limited information a bias towards patterns does little harm and can do lots of good.

In the modern world lots and lots and lots of things happen. This gives a vast number of opportunities for coincidence. Human beings ignore and don't remember non-coincidences. If you go to the store for an entire year and don't see five red cars in a row and then see such a sight one day you will probably ask yourself "Why did those five red cars all park next to each other?" Various scenarios will occur in your mind until you come up with an explanation that satisfies you. It is very likely that the explanation will not be that in a random distribution of cars over a long period of time some part of that distribution will share a quality.

My best evidence for the difference between randomness and what people think is randomness is the story of the music setting of "random." At first the designers of musical devices did actually set the choice of songs at random. If you had an hundred songs each one had an equal likelihood of appearing next. There were massive objections to this setting because people said it wasn't random. What would happen is that from time to time the same song would be played twice or three times in a row, or that a series of songs from an album would appear, or that a series of songs in the same genre would appear. To people this did not seem random, because people think random means all the different items spread out in a way where there aren't any shared qualities. This is, of course, very different from random. As a result the "random" setting changed to the "shuffle" setting and was programmed to remove these coincidences. The shuffle setting is less random than random, but people feel like it is more random.

Statistical Ignorance

2011-09-20T07:59:00.000-07:00

To start off, I am not a statistical expert. I did poorly in my statistics classes, mostly because the first half was so easy I only started going after it suddenly became much harder. I don't know what a chi squared regression is, or even a correlation coefficient. This is very common with me, I am not an expert in any field, but I have a better grasp of the basics of many different things than most people. I am a generalist.

So what do I know that most people don't know about statistics? I know the difference between an anecdote and a double blind study testing the correlation between two characteristics. Most people actually value their own anecdotal experience over a statistical study. So, if all the climate scientists in the world agree that the world is warming, a person experiencing a cooler winter than normal in one part of the world is likely to say that the world isn't warming because they go outside and it is cooler.

Here is an absolutely classic case of this, from an intelligent person with an advanced degree, "The research may say that X has nothing to do with Y, but I have noted with A that an episode of Y, sometimes happens after X."

So what we have here are some data points that a person feels apply (it seems like Y follows X), and some other data points which don't apply (Y does not follow X) and (Y happens without X). We don't know any of the numbers involved. This means that we have stuff that wouldn't even count as data for a study and, even if it did, would not have anything like enough data to draw a conclusion.

On the other hand we have a statistical analysis of multiple studies, with multiple people, with clear parameters, from people unable to have bias towards the people involved by the nature of the studies.

Imagine you have dangerous cancer. You know a friend who says that she thinks she survived cancer by eating lots of bananas. The doctor says bananas don't do anything for cancer, and gives you the results of multiple studies that say so. Would you then eat bananas and not go with the medical advice? Of course not, because choosing anecdotal evidence over sophisticated statistical analysis is stupid.

Why do people do this? Because the brain is wired up to do this. Before there were statistical studies, how people learned things was by noticing what happened to them, and the stories of what happened to people they knew. People actively looked for patterns in this information in order to be better prepared for the future. This is a very sensible and efficient means of finding out about the world if you don't have better methods. It's like having a hoe for planting crops is really good if you don't have a plough.

This method of thinking is innate in people. But as I have said repeatedly on this blog, lots of innate things in people have been surpassed by better things. looking for patterns in the world around you is smart, and what we do naturally. Deliberately choosing this method over statistical analysis is simply dumb. the world would be a better place if we stopped doing it.

Perceptions Are Comparisons

2011-09-16T10:46:00.000-07:00

My main focuses recently on this blog have been the lack of appreciation for what we have, the lack of optimism among people, and the willful ignorance that produces this perception of misery. I have posted about the difference between a depression now and the Great Depression. The difference between the same GDP as 1990 and 1930 is immense, and is the same percentage of economic reduction in both cases. The average welfare recipient, by definition living in poverty, has a refrigerator, a television, a cell phone, and some form of health care. This is in many ways a more affluent life than the middle class of the "Golden Age" of Americana, the 1950's.

I have written about the enormous transformation of the lives of women, from a life of ignorance, hard labor, and lack of choice to a life of knowledge, education, freedom of choice, and freedom from hard labor.

I have written about the astonishing improvement in conditions worldwide, in everything from health to food to education. Essentially every indicator that matters points to an amazing improvement in the lives of most people around the world.

I have written about this being the time of greatest peace and security that the world has ever known.

I highly recommend the lecture below, part of what I consider an essential resource for someone who wants to be an informed and knowledgeable person, TED, Technology, Entertainment, Design. It's sixteen minutes long and talks about where we are, possible futures and the problem of scientific ignorance/denial.

Michael Specter lecture

I am actually more optimistic than even this guy (and I would definitely choose to go forward rather than back) because while I agree that the US is becoming more plagued by science denial than it has been in decades, this is not as true for other places around the world, like Europe, and the emerging giants of China and India. The consequences of science denial in the US are not so much that the necessary advances won't happen, but that they will happen elsewhere in the world. Technological innovation drives economic growth and education drives technological innovation.

So, even during a prolonged economic downtown, in general things are getting better over the long term. So why is a negative outlook so prevalent to seem almost universal? The reason is that all judgments of worth etc. are based on comparisons. Someone is a good woman compared to other women. The economy is bad compared to Japan. Violence is up or down compared to five years ago. These comparisons are choices, although almost certainly unconscious choices. In general we don't really seem to sit down and think about what time period, location, and population we are selecting to compare our situation against. We simply have a feeling about how things are going, and we tend to base that feeling on a comparison between how we feel now and how we felt in the past.

The problem with this comparison is that human beings naturally tend to forget the bad things in the past and remember the good things. The reason why I think this is that consistently over history people pine for the good old days (which were worse) and are terrified of the terrible future (which is usually better). However, people are so unaware of this process that they ask themselves why they remember bad things more than good things, even though this is false.

The advancement of human civilization has been based on the examination of our natural feelings on the basis of evidence. We may naturally want to rape teenagers, fight for property, enslave others, and unthinkingly follow tall men, and hate our neighbors, in fact I think all of those are true. However, upon examination of these ideas through the lens of reason we have largely squashed these concepts. We have managed to direct our innate sense of disgust towards these actions, and quite rightly so.

This means that it is possible to change how our minds work. We can use our conscious minds to reason and come up with different ideas and methods of thinking. We can change our perceptions based on the comparisons we make, and we can choose which comparisons to make. We can also decide to make these comparisons through evidence and fact rather than how we feel.

My most basic idea then is that there is an axis of optimism upon which you can choose to make your comparisons. You can choose to focus on the negative elements of the moment (so the relative decline of the middle class in the richest country in the world in comparison to the general rise of wealth worldwide) in comparison to your rose-colored view of the recent past. Or you can choose to focus on the positive elements of the present (the greatest amount of healthcare for Americans ever, increasing lifespans, new technology and discoveries, treatment for mental illness like never before, enormous improvement social values for races, homosexuals and women, better health, wealth and education in general around the world) and compare them to the history of humanity across the world.

One method will result in you feeling sad, pessimistic and hopeless. The other will make you excited and optimistic. Both comparisons are true in and of themselves. Which is a broader and more complete view of the circumstances? Which makes you happier? Which gives you more hope and motivation to improve the world? The choice is yours.

Cannabis

2011-09-13T08:43:00.000-07:00

This post isn't really going to be about the legalization of cannabis/marijuana/weed/ganja/pot etc.. The drug is perfectly safe (zero overdoses ever), is not physically addictive, psychologically addicted simply means you really want to do it all the time (like being in love, or listening to music, or watching tv). While smoking marijuana seems like it should cause cancer because of the smoke, apparently it seems that the cannabinoids are cancer reducing (which makes sense as the resin that is smoked is there to protect seeds from the mutating effects of sunlight as marijuana is a high altitude plant and more subject to the sun's rays). A study of decades long pot smokers actually found a slightly lower rate of lung cancer than in the general population (I was as surprised by this as anyone). The prohibition of marijuana throws tens of thousands of people in jail and causes an illegal trade that results in the deaths of innocents, police officers and drug dealers.

The most reasonable arguments against marijuana are driving impairment and it being a "gateway drug". Marijuana reduces concentration, reflexes, and coordination, all important things for driving. However, drivers under the influence of marijuana (which is different from testing positive for weed, the effects of marijuana last for a few hours but the metabolites can stay in the blood for weeks) are aware of these impairments and drive more cautiously. Police are given lists of clues to tell if someone is drunk (weaving, excessive speed, sudden changes in lane, late braking etc.) and the ones for pot are slow driving, early braking, early signals for turns etc.. In other words pot smokers drive like old people. They have poor reflexes, concentration and coordination but drive very cautiously. In statistical studies drivers with marijuana in their system are no more likely to be in a crash than those who are drug free. The reason why marijuana is a gateway drug, to the extent that this makes sense at all, is that kids are told that marijuana is an evil drug that causes harm, even psychosis. When kids then smoke marijuana they discover it is essentially harmless, and lots of fun. This tends to make them think that what they have heard about other drugs is also bullshit.

So, marijuana is essentially harmless, the prohibition causes lots of damage, and people really like to smoke marijuana. Basically, if you are in favor of marijuana prohibition for consenting adults you are either really uninformed, personally don't like it and think therefore it is bad for everyone, or are a complete moron. I think a more sensible question, and I mean this quite seriously, is whether we should put THC in drinking water. THC makes people happier, more aware of their surroundings, and less prone to violence. I don't actually advocate drugging the general population, but it would make more sense than prohibition.

So, I didn't want this post to be about the first bit above. I wanted to talk about what marijuana has done for me. That's right, I smoke pot. Is there anyone who either didn't know this or is surprised in any way by this revelation? It is actually rather like coming out as a gay person. Almost every enlightened person doesn't have a problem with it, but people still keep it secret, as if it was seedy in some way (pun intended). Most of the people in my life either smoke pot, have smoked pot, or regularly hang out with people who smoke pot. I have smoked pot in Costa Rica, Mexico, Ireland, the USA and the UK, without a moments trouble (other than being sold oregano once).

Why do I smoke pot? Well, 95% of the best, most beautiful, most wonderful experiences in my life have been while high. I have meditated at times consistently for more than a year, studying mindfulness, the art of being here now and appreciating this very moment. At my highest peak of this work it was mostly like being stoned on good pot. Time slows down, things are more intimate, beautiful, complex, fascinating. The sky is literally more blue, and the grass more green. The breeze is not just wind but a caress. People are truly astonishing when high. Just complex and interesting, and funny, and I love them so much more easily. I don't get angry when stoned. My thoughts (while far more disorganized) are free-flowing, creative, artistic, and free from the mundane. If I am blue, getting high cheers me up. If I am happy, getting high cheers me up.

I have thought repeatedly while staring intently at a shrub, with a beaming smile on my face, that I live separate lives. One involves chores, and work, and news, and politics, and bills etc.. This isn't a bad life, just usual, normal, mundane. The other life is the interspersed, but always connected, moments of being high, full of beauty, laughter, companionship, and joy. It literally is very difficult to overstate how importantly wonderful getting high has been in my life. Short of love (and weed has been around far more constantly and faithfully than love) I would say that getting high from smoking marijuana has been the best thing in my life. My favorite thing to do (yes, even better than that) is to get high and then ride my bicycle around in the sunshine with my MP3 player set to random.

Here at the bottom comes the warning label, with advice. Marijuana works by essentially increasing the activity of the brain, largely through the increase in serotonin. This means it intensifies your experiences. If you are experiencing stressful things it will make them more stressful. If you are generally anxious, smoking pot will generally make you more anxious. Smoking pot is not for everyone. If you hate the idea of smoking pot then actually smoking pot will probably be awful for you. If it sounds like a good idea then it will probably be better than you expect. The paranoia that people talk about is simply the intensified anxieties that you experience normally.

The increase of serotonin production while high means that after you are high you will have a drop in serotonin. If you smoke weed all day long you will get tired, dull, drawn out. If you smoke weed all day every day you will feel like this most of the time and after a while your brain will think being high is normal (not through physical tolerance but through getting used to the experience). Going to work high just makes it feel longer and more like work and therefore is a stupid idea.

The first time you smoke pot you should find a friend you trust who knows how to do it. Being high properly is a skill, and how you start will influence how you proceed. Don't just smoke a ton of weed and go to the mall. Getting high is an intense change in mental experience and so large amounts of stimuli can be frightening. Find that friend. Go to a safe but pretty place, I highly recommend a park or meadow. In fact I recommend eating a meal right before you get high (to prevent munchies) and then going outside as your default method for getting high as outside is much more fantastic than inside. Smoke a little bit of pot and wait fifteen minutes or so. If you don't feel anything (very common for the first few times, my friend in college actually gave me fourteen water bong hits to get me high the first time) try some more, but slowly. Look around at the beautiful world, relax, and just let it happen.

My final few words are a paraphrased quote from Sam Harris, a neuroscientist and philosopher, and a lyric from a song by the Beastie Boys.

"I have never met anyone who smokes pot every day who wouldn't be better served by smoking less, or anyone who doesn't smoke pot who wouldn't be better served by smoking more."

"Phone is ringing, oh my God!"

When Did People Stop Trusting Experts?

2011-09-02T09:04:00.000-07:00

A minority of Americans believe that the Theory of Evolution is true, despite the almost universal acceptance of it by biologists, the experts.

About one third of Americans believe that global warming simply isn't happening despite the combined opinion of all the academies of science around the world.

About one quarter of Americans believe that vaccines are harmful to children despite the World Health Organizations statement that vaccines are the greatest health success of all time, and the elimination of smallpox and polio by vaccine.

About one third of Americans believe the Bible is inerrant, without a single mistake, despite the Bible factually contradicting itself repeatedly and if taken literally it contradicting geology, biology, cosmology, some history, and probably more than that. Many Americans believe the gospels were written by the Apostles and have remained unchanged since that date despite the evidence from Biblical scholars.

Now, I am not talking about a lack of trust in a particular expert. There is an enormous slew of charlatans, honest people in error, nutjobs, the mistaken, and independent thinkers with impressive credentials. I even think it is good to an extent that such people exist. A great example is the vaccine scare. Essentially, a paper was written and published by an Andrew Wakefield M.D. that suggested there might be a link between the MMR vaccine and autism. he then gave a press conference saying MMR probably caused autism. The media published papers stating this as fact and vaccination dropped from 93% to 75% and cases of measles rose to 24 times their previous number in Britain. How is this a good thing? It is good because scientists then tested for a link between vaccines and autism, established there wasn't one and also established that not giving vaccines dramatically increases illness. Knowledge increased and therefore over the long haul health will increase as a result.

What I am talking about is the lack of trust in experts en masse. That the far less educated and intelligent are more correct than not just an expert, but the combined opinion of almost all the experts there are. This stance actually decreases with increased education. In other words, those least able to make an informed opinion on a subject are the ones most likely to hold their opinion above that of the experts.

Paul Krugman, a Nobel prize winning economist, attributes this in his New York Times blog to the vast increase of cable tv news programs. On cable news the problem is that the default method for discussion is to always get two opinions on a subject and then have a debate as if both debaters had equal justification for their positions. So you get instances where Richard Dawkins, a respected biologist, will discuss evolution with Bill O'Reilly, a talk show host with degrees in history and journalism, as equals on the subject. Krugman's essential point is that opinions are not equal. If you ask a cosmologist and a plumber how to fix your leak the plumber knows more than the cosmologist. If you ask the cosmologist and the plumber about the early stages of the Big Bang the cosmologist knows more than the plumber.

I think equally important is the rise of the "authority on everything." I think two excellent examples are Oprah Winfrey and Bill O'Reilly. Now, neither of these people are flash in the pans. They both have been around for at least a decade with a large and loyal audience. That audience trusts these people as authorities. When Oprah endorses Deepak Chopra as a spiritual and medical authority millions of people take that on trust, because Oprah said it. When Bill O'Reilly says that Hilary Clinton wants to control every facet of your life millions of people take that on trust. The thing is that in order for this trust to happen the "authority on everything" has to seem like "one of you." On other words they have to not talk in big words, or say things are complicated, or actually be qualified in the subject.

The sad thing is that once these opinions are established in someone's mind (yes, even you) it is extremely difficult to change. Research has shown (and a cursory look around facebook or internet forums should confirm for you) that a logical argument against an opinion, backed up by evidence, actually increases the strength with which that opinion is held. That's right, the more dumb you make the other persons opinion look, the stronger they will hold to it.

How can this change? Well, for a start I think it important to note that the opinions of populations do change over time, and generally towards the arguments supported by evidence. So there is hope, but only over time. Unfortunately I think that this happens through the process of shaming. Over time what happens is that those who are undecided generally are moved by the controversy to look at the evidence objectively and have an opinion. This usually means that over time a majority of people think the opposing view is foolish, and then they laugh at those who hold it. At some point there comes a tipping point when having an opinion makes you a laughing stock. Being a laughing stock is a far, far better method of convincing someone to change their mind than objective information.

Do you trust experts? A great way to test this is to think about whether you have any opinions that derived from experts with which you agree, but really wish were not true.

Hiding From The News

2011-08-24T07:28:00.000-07:00

In 2003 I became very interested in politics with the invasion of Afghanistan (to which I was opposed) having been underway for two years, with the results I had expected (initial military success followed by protracted guerrilla war that is essentially unwinnable), and the impending invasion of Iraq. I was part of the largest human demonstration in all of history which spoke out against the illegal and immoral prospect of the invasion of Iraq. It turned out that the Iraq invasion was more successful than the invasion of Afghanistan, but only if you don't count the hundreds of thousands killed, the collapse of US military standing and the consequent out of control spending that has contributed greatly to the current worldwide financial crisis. Imagine how large the stimulus package would have been without the cost of these two wars. We would probably be back to normal by now.

However, in 2004 there was a US presidential election, and the man that had been the most disliked president before 9/11/01, and then the most popular president in history because terrorists were successful, and then started two unnecessary wars was re-elected over a decent man, John Kerry. I was so disgusted by the idiocy of the US electorate that I decided to simply not watch or read the news anymore. I concentrated on sport and my personal interests. I became detached.

Three years later there came the prospect of finally removing George Bush Jr.. I became interested in who would replace him, confident that it would be a Democrat, but scared that it would not be a Democrat. My hopes were initially for John Edwards who had correctly decided that the greatest issue in the US was the increasing disparity of wealth. Once he was gone I thought either Hilary Clinton or Barak Obama would be fine, and I leant towards Obama with his message of hope, reason and reasonableness, and his policies of investment. Obama won, but only as the economy had collapsed through the greed of Americans both rich and poor (people often forget when assigning blame that mortgages are agreements between TWO parties) and the costs of the two wars. Since then I think Obama has done a remarkable but thankless job, unable to do what he wants in the face of unending opposition, while keeping the world out of depression, and be castigated from the right and left. Remarkably, in polls, Obama is still ahead of every Republican presidential candidate but Mitt Romney, with whom he is essentially tied.

The Right hates the Left for taking away their country as societal norms inexorably move to the Left, as they have done for centuries. The Left has a new-found hatred of the Right as a result of the disastrous Bush years. Both sides hate intensely, beyond any concept of reason, and without any regard for compromise or pragmatism. The middle, who actually decide elections, simply hate their government. Obama is disapproved of by the majority of Americans but remains the most popular politician in the US. The US hates the US Congress, with 16% of Americans approving of the job they have done. For an idea of how universal this hatred is, a greater number of Americans believe that the sun revolves around the earth than approve of their Congress.

The thing is for me that the answers are so simple. With social security simply change the date at which you get social security to a percentage of life expectancy. Social Security was designed to help those who could not work because of age, in a time when most lived less than ten years after retirement. People used to live 1/7th of their life on Social Security while now it is about 1/3rd of their lives. Clearly this is unsustainable and my solution simply adjust for the greater lengths of lives. Socialized health care is much cheaper and has better results. Schools and social services pay for themselves many times over through the entire lives of people, while also increasing health, happiness and economic success. These are areas where investment is only worthy, but necessary. Military spending in the US is ridiculous and should be cut by two thirds, as the US is in zero danger of being invaded. Your average plumber in Europe knows these things. Europe has now surpassed the US in the things that matter, health, knowledge and happiness.

I am again too disgusted with the news to pay attention until it becomes impossible to ignore in the last few months before the next election. I mean, Michelle Bachman is a serious candidate for President, and she is literally batshit crazy.

End of the Road

2011-05-25T06:45:00.000-07:00

I don't expect to be writing on this blog very much in the future. I feel that I have essentially said what I have to say that might be interesting with regards to my philosophy, how I see the world, and so on. What I might be interested in writing about would either be commentary about current events, and there's no shortage of available opinions in that arena, or talking about my life, and it's pretty clear to me that this is of limited interest to anybody.

The things that matter most to me, the emotional turmoil of a mental illness and the exploration of how an intelligent, rational person can deal with that, is unfortunately still an embarrassment to most people. I have thought it a worthy cause to be honest about what goes on in my life, but it turns out that this has largely been an inconvenience. Those around me would have been happier with secrets and platitudes and politeness. This is the lesson I continually fail to learn.

I am proud of this blog in that when I go back and read it again I find that the ideas expressed are clever ideas, written in a way that I enjoy reading. I think the central message of the blog is that while humanity is often a collection of bumbling fools, those bumbling fools are not different from you or I in any really important sense. We want safety, happiness, love and community and all around the world we show the willingness to help each other out. We also fear and condemn what is different in a reflex action rather than attempt to understand. These qualities of humanity are transforming the world around us in a genuine miracle of positive improvement unnoticed by most people and generally rejected because people emotionally feel differently.

A simple review of comments from previous posts will show what people are actually interested in from my writing, generally music and politicians. Good news about the world and personal difficulties are less interesting. There's a reason that newspapers are full of bad news and people who complain have no friends.

I find it a great irony that I am a person who spends substantial amounts of my time so personally miserable that I don't wish to be alive and yet I am also the person most positive about people and how the world is going that I have ever met or read.

It is quite possible that who I am as a person will change in the next few months and I may be led to try writing again. If so I hope that it will be in a different format and that I will have the discipline and consistency to write fiction, and perhaps that will be of interest to some of you.

Enjoy this moment, today, and I hope that you feel that joy and beauty continually through your life.

Fear.

2011-05-14T16:01:00.000-07:00

My fear today is that I will be in a mental ward soon. That may not be a rational fear, but it's not far off. This link goes to the scene that has always been the most frightening I have ever seen.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXXbIOc9h4g

My dreams are beginning to look like this.

By the way, there is no treatment for what I have. We must just hope I get better. I expect that to happen by Tuesday. That is what would be usual.

Attitude and the Arrow of Morality

2011-05-06T07:18:00.000-07:00

This week I have been fighting against a negative attitude. Physically I have felt exhausted even after a full night's sleep. Psychologically I have been fighting against a general disdain for humanity, a disappointment in people. When I am at the low pole of my bipolar disorder it isn't so much that I am automatically sad, it is that I am very vulnerable to negative thoughts and experiences.

My disappointment with people is that there have been examples of people still thinking in terms of "Us" and "Them". The first example was people celebrating the death of Osama bin-Laden, people not thinking of him as a person, either directly (I have read someone stating that he wasn't human) or indirectly (calling his assassination the "death of evil"). It isn't often that I follow the lead of the Catholic Church but I thought this release from the Vatican Press Office was excellent,

"Osama Bin Laden, as is known, claimed responsibility for grave acts that spread division and hate among the peoples, manipulating religion to that end. A Christian never takes pleasure from the fact of a man's death, but sees it as an opportunity to reflect on each person's responsibility, before God and humanity, and to hope and commit oneself to seeing that no event become another occasion to disseminate hate but rather to foster peace."

The second example was a blog by my good friend Dade in which he used this opportunity to disparage George W. Bush and his failure to kill Barak Obama. While I am no admirer of George W. Bush I am in no doubt whatsoever that he tried to kill Osama bin-Laden, and if he had the same opportunity as Barak Obama to do so he would have taken the chance. There's no doubt in my mind that George W. Bush was as prepared as Barak Obama to take political risks in using the military, after all how else can you describe invading Iraq in the face of the largest worldwide popular and political opposition of all time? When two people doing the same thing are described in almost opposite ways then what is going on is us versus them.

The reason that this bothers me is that I think the best way for the world to be is that there is an us or them but simply a we. Within that we, people will have different opinions, sometimes enormously different opinions and sometimes with terrible consequences. Deaths, misery can result from stupid, ignorant and unpleasant opinions. But there simply isn't a significant number of people in the world who do things because they think it is the wrong thing to do. The people who do horrible things are still trying to make the world a better place, just a better place from their point of view.

The thing about "Us versus Them" is that it is a built-in default position within humanity, but it enables people to think that other humans are really human. When you think that people aren't fully human it enables you to do things to them that you would never do to a person. It enables you to be outraged at how your mother, or son, might be treated while cheering someone else's mother or son being treated in the same way. It closes the mind to the ideas of entire groups, it removes sympathy for their position and it makes understanding, compassion, negotiation and compromise almost impossible. When you think there are the white hats and the black hats it enables you to think anything the white hats do is OK. In my opinion if you are willing to do anything you become the black hats. White hats versus black hats makes everyone a black hat. "Four legs good, two legs bad" as George Orwell put it in 1984.

So that's why I was feeling disappointed, because these are good people, kind hearted, warm, intelligent people caught up in this natural feeling. It is one of the characteristics of Us versus Them that people can be beautifully good people to those within the group and awful to those outside of the group. These aren't crimes, or sins. These are simply attitudes that I find disappointing.

However, I bucked myself up by remembering the direction of the Arrow of Morality. The lesson of history, particularly more recent history, is that of moving away from Us versus Them. It is a movement that expands what it is to be human, deserving of all the love, protection, and respect that any human is due. It is but a few centuries since it was considered morally reasonable to own human beings. It is around a century since women were considered human enough to be able to vote. It's only one hundred and fifty years since the Geneva Convention was first enacted in which the idea that the enemy had rights. In our lifetime the idea that you might be homosexual is moving from being an abomination to simply a part of some humans.

The world is not a utopia, and the human animal is still an animal that evolved in a frightening, violent and confusing world. It is a wonder how far we have been able to overcome that and I am certain that we will progress as time goes by. What is the namby-pamby liberal, wet blanket of the present is the foundation of the moral values of the future conservative.

A Moral Question

2011-05-03T09:48:00.000-07:00

So, Osama bin-Laden is dead and I have a blog, guess what happens next? I have actually tried to resist commentary, since it seems so cliched and omnipresent, but then a question came to me. The question started with what seems to be the debate that has occurred between those of a "conservative personality type" and those of a "liberal personality type." This is not a debate about whether killing Osama bin-Laden was a good thing, but rather whether it should be celebrated as a happy event? the "killing of evil" as I have seen it put, or whether it should be treated with the distaste of an unpleasant but necessary task? the "putting down of a dangerous animal" as I have seen elsewhere.

This led me to an exploration of the morality of the event in question. Essentially the United States killed a foreign national on foreign soil without trial or due process. An assassination. Pretty much everyone agrees that this was alright, even within the Muslim world. It is agreed that it is alright because Osama bin-Laden was an evil man who did great harm. Essentially he has been killed for his crimes, and his crimes were heinous enough for his death to be reasonable, or even a good result.

So here's the question: what crime had Osama bin-Laden been guilty of that Barak Obama has not also committed?

Osama bin-Laden's crimes are that of being the leader of a group that had a prolonged campaign to defeat the USA that killed US military and civilians. He was the figurehead who approved the funding, training, and operations of those who killed innocent people.

Barak Obama is the leader of the US military forces that have fought a prolonged campaign to defeat Al-Qaeda resulting in the killing of Al-Qaeda fighters and innocent civilians.

When put like that it is hard to find the difference in crime. But it really feels as though Osama bin-Laden was evil, and Barak Obama is not. What can be the moral difference?

The obvious and most distasteful reason could be that Barak Obama is a liberal, American. Someone like me, and Osama bin-Laden was a fundamentalist, Muslim, Saudi Arabian, someone very much not like me. I hope that this is not the underlying reason, but I must put it out there for examination.

The second reason that might work is that of precedence, that Osama bin-Laden attacked the US first and therefore Barak Obama was fighting back to protect the US. That's a much better reason, but if you look at the history of US involvement in the Middle East, from Afghanistan in the 1980's, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Saudi Arabia it isn't very hard to come up with a somewhat well-founded argument that the US has been attacking the people of the Middle East for decades. This is an extremely complex issue, one which I am not really qualified to describe. It does leave me with the question as to who decides what is an attack, and what is the legitimate defense of a country? Does it come down to me believing that people like me should be able to decide? 9/11/2001 certainly seems more directly heinous to me than funding the military that oppressed the Palestinian people and propping up the Saudi royal family. Is that simply bias?

The third reason is that of legitimacy. Barak Obama is an elected official under a Constitution, subject to law, subject to the will of the people, and accepted by a military that is supposed to operate under a code of conduct. This position is accepted by similarly legitimized people and organizations around the world. Osama bin-Laden was a rich guy who convinced other people to go along with what he was doing, and his methods to achieve his goals. In the same way that a policeman arresting a person and putting them in a jail cell is OK but me grabbing someone off the street and putting them in a cell is kidnapping, Obama's position gives his acts legitimacy. Legitimacy for me is suspiciously close to authority, it makes me nervous. Still, I am enough of a pragmatist to know that it is necessary for people to do bad things, and as long as we have checks and balances on authority, legitimacy must matter.

The fourth reason is that of intent. It is my belief that Osama bin-Laden intended that innocent civilians be killed to further his cause. His intent was murder. It is my belief that the innocent civilians killed as a result of Barak Obama's orders were not the intended target. They were accidents. The difference between manslaughter and murder. While this doesn't make a shred of difference to those killed, or to their families and friends, for some reason it makes a difference to me. I don't know why, but the intent of the matter is significant to me.

So, the crime that Osama bin-Laden is guilty of that Barak Obama has not committed is the intentional killing of innocent people without the legitimacy of official position. Barak Obama has merely accidentally killed innocent people while fulfilling his legitimate official duties. An office and a different intent is what separates the two morally. Emotionally I wish my head could come up with an intellectually more rigorous distinction.

The Mental Health "System"

2011-04-28T09:36:00.000-07:00

I am planning to see a psychiatrist to talk to them about my bipolar disorder. I tried to do this once before, in August of 2008, but gave up without managing to actually make an appointment. It's three and a half years later and I'm trying again in a different state.

Here is my experience this time. I started by going to see my regular doctor to get a referral, while I was there I thought I would also get a physical. What happened was that I got an extensive physical, right down to full blood work and an EKG of my heart. The doctor said I didn't need a referral to see a psychiatrist and that I should call the mental health number on the back of my insurance card. The only question he asked was whether I was very depressed at that time, basically whether I was a danger to myself at that precise time, and when I answered that I wasn't he went on with his tests. His reaction was essentially that I shouldn't be bothering him with something that wasn't in his area of responsibility.

To give you an idea of how irresponsible this is I would like to give you some statistics about bipolar disorder. 2.6% of the population (nearly 6 million in the US) have been diagnosed with bipolar disorder, although the actual numbers may be higher because many are not diagnosed (perhaps half are diagnosed). Of those diagnosed 60% attempt suicide and 20% die as a result, that's a mortality rate of 1 in 5 which is higher than that for diabetes (10-15%). A million Americans are going to die from this disease and those with bipolar disorder don't do cries for help, the rate of "success" in suicide for bipolar is about four times higher than for the general population.

However, I am not suicidal, when I started the process I was actually feeling fine. I called up the number for mental health on the back of my insurance card. After pressing button 1 for English, button 3 for finding a doctor, and so on for some time I reached a real live human. They informed me that I could go to a web site and look for doctors, and they told me not to interrupt them while they were giving me information (which I did not need).

I went to the website where I was able to search for providers near me in the area of "Behavioral Health" because clearly what I have is a problem with my behavior rather than a crushing mental illness with which I have coped heroically for twenty years. After searching through a list of 150 providers in the area I was able to narrow down the search to three psychiatrists working in mood disorders. I was able to do this because I know the difference between counselors, clinical psychologists and psychiatrists and know that only psychiatrists can prescribe medication, and also I know that I have a mood disorder rather than an anxiety disorder, or some other problem. I know the difference only because I have experience in the field of social work, if I had been a plumber I would simply have had to guess as to what I needed.

I called the closest person on the list, didn't get a human being, pressed #1 for ...(you get the picture) and left a voice mail which informed me I would get a return call within 48 hours. 36 hours later I was informed that the next available opening was nearly two months away (even though they are "accepting new patients." I said I would try elsewhere. I called the second number, hit #1 for ..., #229 for ..., #3 for... and got a human! I was very excited by this until it turned out that the number was for an inpatient mental hospital at which the psychiatrist worked and the receptionist had no idea how to hook me up with the psychiatrist for other practice, didn't even try, and didn't offer to take a message. I called the third number, hit #1...etc. through three stages and then left a message. It's been three hours now since my message without a return call.

It's almost a certainty that I am going to give up again. I am depressed now, with very dark thoughts going through my head and a strong urge to cry. Grocery shopping was quite hard yesterday and dealing with the plumber is no joke. Two weeks ago I had surging emotions of indescribable beauty. Circumstances seem to have conspired in such a way that the money we would need in order to move out of Texas has been taken away simply so that we can maintain our position, so prospects for the foreseeable future are more of the same.

I think it's important to remember through all of this that I am enormously more qualified to deal with this sort of stuff than most people with a mental illness. I have a degree in psychology. I am much more intelligent than the average person. I am no where near as sick as many people. I am not delusional. I have someone who loves, understands, and supports me. I have many years of experience in dealing with medical and social work systems. Each time I hear a recorded message I despair at what this must be like for someone who really needs help now. This is literally killing people. It's killing them in the worst way possible by demonstrating beyond a shadow of a doubt that even the people who are supposed to care for those who feel alone, abandoned, hated, held in contempt, crushed under a great weight of impersonal misery, don't care if they live or die.

"If you wish to live, press #1 now. For caring, press extension #229. Have you looked for concern from us before? Press #3 now. If this is your first attempt to find help for something that has devastated your life for press #7. We are sorry, we haven't bothered to have a human answer the telephone, leave a complete, lucid, and detailed message and if we find the time in the next couple of days we might call you back. Should we call you back it will be to inform you that we cannot manage to care for you until our schedule is open. Good luck."

Artistic Rollercoaster of Confidence

2011-04-18T09:01:00.000-07:00

It's been an interesting week.

A week ago today I put some extra time into playing the mandolin, as I work towards achieving a dream. By the end of the second day I really felt that there was some hope that I was going to be able to play a particular song through from start to finish, although it was going to take time and work. This was important to me because the song is the Battle March Medley, and at times I have called it the greatest piece of music I know. Essentially if I can play my favorite song to a standard where it sounds good I will have reached an important milestone in becoming what I think is a real musician. I was very encouraged.

By day three I was writing about how happy I was that there was sunshine and I was happy.

Day four had me becoming extremely angry at imagined slights.

Day six had me listening to music through the most fabulous invention ever, MP3 and ear buds makes the greatest songs that have ever been produced play inside your head with essentially no physical clue as to the source. In this manner you can hear music as great artists hear it, simple the notes perfectly played inside your mind. Some of the music that I heard was so heart-wrenchingly beautiful that I despaired at ever being able to play anything that could be put in the same category. I was just a duffer, an amateur without much talent, someone whose performance was more like those of a children's play where any applause is the polite reaction to an incompetent trying hard.

Day seven had my mind slightly bruised, like a body after extreme physical exercise. I wanted boring and easy and uninspired. I knew that the previous week had simply been a case of my mental weather, moods like cold and warm fronts passing through the landscape of my consciousness. Even at the time I knew that anything I was feeling was simply temporary, that it too would pass, whether for good or ill.

Today I will pick up the mandolin again, but right now I have no idea if I can actually play it or whether it has all been some sort of sham.

Sunshine.

2011-04-13T10:42:00.000-07:00

As I was walking along the sun-baked sandy ground of Elizabeth Myers Park this morning I thought of the words of an old hymn, In the Bleak Midwinter. After a brief muse about how myths happen (the hymn is about Jesus being born in a stable all surrounded by snow and frozen cold, we don't know when Jesus was born but we can be pretty sure it wasn't in feet of snow in Israel) I looked around to see limpid pools of golden sunlight dappling the verdant trees. It was beautiful.

It was beautiful, and I was happy.

No weight on my soul, no worry in my head, no dream unfulfilled.

There must be people who feel like this on a regular basis, that without any particular difficulty they feel good. It is a very nice thing indeed that there are such people.

Now I am going to return to the park with my very spoiled dog, sit under a tree and work a little at learning The Battle March Medley on the mandolin.

Another Year in Surburban Texas.

2011-04-07T09:44:00.000-07:00

So another year older, and what have you done? To somewhat plagiarize John Lennon. It's now been two years since Christina and I moved to the northern suburbs of Houston. Therefore I am taking a moment to take stock of the time.

Here is the first post on this blog about living in Houston. It's not very positive, is it? Well, I would say my opinions on the place, and the life I am living in it are not really very different. I am more comfortable in the place, in that I have adjusted to the situation, but the situation is essentially the same. I'm just treading water until the next thing, and I have discovered that it's not up to me to change it.

I tried meeting people, with little success. I tried starting bands, which failed. I joined a band, which I subsequently quit. It's now been a full week since I went anywhere but to a store or the park.

There is a pub that we go to where the people are generally nice to us. None of them I would say I could really call friends, but it's a place where I can have a nice time. It's big ass beer night tonight and I am really looking forward to riding our bikes there.

Life in a gilded cage. It's a hell of a lot better than life in a gutter.

Creeping Miracle

2011-04-05T07:54:00.000-07:00

For essentially the same point I am making in a video, watch this.

Around the world life is being transformed at a break-neck pace, and almost universally for the better. On the other hand the majority of people are worried and concerned about the present, pessimistic about the future and nostalgic about the past. I'm not really sure why this is, but I think it must have something to do with taking what we have now for granted, as if we always had it. Therefore I am going to write today about what I consider to be the miracle of our times.

Now, I am not one for the use of the word, "Miracle." I'm a materialist, a naturalist, I think things happen according to fixed laws. However, I think if most people from 100 years ago could experience what life is like now I think they would consider it a miracle.

One hundred years ago, in 1911, life was extraordinarily different for the majority of Americans. At the time there was no minimum age so many, if not most children worked. About one third of children went to elementary school and only one in ten graduated from high school. If you met an American from 100 years ago the chances are that they would be unable to read this post. Life expectancy was around fifty years. A study found that one in five children in inner cities in the USA were malnourished.

What was life like for most people back then? Well, it was mostly a life of drudgery. With electricity just beginning to become available to homes during this century the vast number of labor saving devices that we take for granted were not available. I want you to imagine living without a refrigerator or access to washing machines, or a vacuum cleaner. For women, without safe contraception and with extremely limited opportunities to find work outside of the household, this meant usually sticking with a husband regardless of his qualities, multiple children (average per household around three, with a one third chance that one of your babies would die as an infant) and a life that consisted almost entirely of chores. Hand washing for a family of five, often heating the water with firewood, would take hours of hard physical labor. Cleaning the house would consist of you on your hands and knees with a scrubbing brush and some soap. Grocery shopping would be a daily activity because food wouldn't keep, requiring walking in both directions carrying your bags.

To get an idea of what it would be like back then I suggest thinking of what it would be like for you to recreate for a week the life of the average American from 1911. First of all you cannot read anything, watch tv, check the internet, make a phone call. Secondly, you cannot refrigerate anything, or eat anything that is imported. Third, all chores for the house must be done by hand, and for real verisimilitude anything that requires water should be done out of a bucket. Oh, and by the way, no zippers, or bras. all information that you receive would be simply by word of mouth, what someone told you (as you have no way of checking any information). For entertainment you can eat out once in the week, or go to see a movie, or see a play.

Now, I suggest that there is not one single one of us who will have any intention whatsoever of going through with a plan to see what such a life would be (and still an improvement because of health, low crime, social programs, increased education, mental health, etc..) for a week. Why is this? Why am I so sure that this life has no appeal to any of us? It's because such a life was so obviously markedly worse than the lives we live now. The experience of the average American has so dramatically improved over a hundred years that the average modern American doesn't want to experience how life was for even a day.

Now, why is this a miracle? It is a miracle not just in the ease of our lives. It is a miracle in the transformation of the experience of people (particularly women) from almost entirely uneducated, ignorant, laborers into thinkers, feelers, and dreamers. There are about three times as many people now with undergraduate degrees in the USA as used to graduate from high school. The average person in the USA can now travel to other places for vacations on an annual basis, something that would be the most amazing experience of someone's entire life 100 years ago.

This freedom to learn and experience, to think about our lives and how to improve them has transformed our lives in other ways. Health care so that you don't have to worry that your loved ones might sicken and die at any point, mental health care so that those with depression, labor laws so that you and your children don't have to kill themselves slowly for money, laws and attitudes to stop men beating their wives and children, and on and on and on.

This miracle has happened in the USA, and is still happening. However, the grander miracle is that this is happening around the world. This transformation from a lifetime of ignorant, manual labor to a lifetime of educated freedom has happened to nearly half the world in the last three decades. The rate of change is faster elsewhere than it was for the USA, since the technology has already been invented. In our lifetimes we can expect that the experiences of the "golden age" in the USA, that of the 1950's and 1960's, will be the norm for people around the world.

Why does this matter? Why should we, who have not only the benefit of this miracle but also no realistic expectation that we or anyone we know might have to deal without this miracle, care about this miracle? It matters most importantly because a happy life is one that acknowledges the good things in life, and almost every single moment of every day there is something that is better than it used to be, and for this we should be grateful. It matters because it is so much better to feel good about how things have gone and therefore to be optimistic about the future. It matters because if we acknowledge that this is a transformation miracle in people's lives then we can work to encourage more of these miracles. Happy, optimistic people trying to improve the world produces more happy, optimistic people, and an improved world.

While many of us spend our time bemoaning politicians, corporations, the system, the terrible economy, the instability of our culture, our greed, the vileness of human nature, and the idiocy of those with whom we disagree, these are the things that have produced the greatest change for good in the history of the world.

There is a miracle going on around you, and it is a miracle of great goodness.

Working Towards A Dream

2011-04-03T07:40:00.000-07:00

I've talked a lot about the difficulty I have in remaining motivated by something for an extended amount of time. This is of course only with regard to certain things, I am pretty consistently motivated to have naps, read books, be around the woman I love and so on. But things that most people would consider productive I have struggled with generating and maintaining interest. I have considered graduate school, writing novels, grand treks across the world, deep spiritual practice and never really seem to get much farther than the beginning.

However, there is something that I continue to do that is productive, gives some level of self-identification, and is working towards a dream. I play the mandolin and sing. I don't play everyday in alignment with the Cariaga Doctrine (if you play 15 minutes every day you will get better) but I play the mandolin more days that I don't, and I tend to play longer periods of up to an hour and a half.

It is odd that I put so much effort into the process. After all, my total number of songs I am play is perhaps forty. I have played most of these songs hundreds of times, and I am playing them to myself in my own home. As time goes by I work on more and more difficult stuff to play, and that largely consists of trying and failing at something, then trying and failing less badly, until something sort of OK comes out. Learning how to play music is hard work, and often very discouraging. About half the time I put the mandolin down in disgust at my failure.

The reasons I still play are several. I really do love music. I'm one of those awful people who will put on a piece of music and say, "See that, that! That emotion right there is what I am talking about!" while people who like pretty tunes will look at me blankly. The music I play brings images of home back to me, the greenest, thick-bladed grass blowing in the wind. Moss on stone. Something older than cars and telephones and records.

Music is also a lifelong skill. I'll always be able to sing a folk song now that I've learned how. Unless arthritis cripples my hands I expect to always be able to pick out a song or two, and really I expect simply to get better. Getting better at something beautiful is a reward. To be able to play something new, or something better, is always a recognizable achievement. The little pieces matter to me, and this is how you know you are doing something that feels worthwhile.

Then there are the memories. I don't think there is anything more rewarding that people can do than to be part of a team that works together to achieve something that makes life better. I have been very fortunate to be part of teams full of good, kind, funny, interesting people making music good enough to bring joy to others. Being in a band has been very special for me, with people becoming somehow more than friends through the process, more like family.

Finally, there is the dream. If I keep playing, keep trying to get better, still feeling the music, then at some point I believe that I will become someone worthy of being called a musician. I'm not talking about being a star, or being famous, or amazing people with my technical ability. What I mean is that I will be able to play a large group of songs beautifully, as one would think they should be played. I will be able to sit with a group of other musicians and find my way into songs. I will be able to play in the town I live at least weekly. Who is Dan? He sings Irish songs and plays mandolin. I don't know if that is five or ten years away, much depends on my own perception.

The perception of improvement, or adequacy in music is a funny thing. I have played in bands on stages for money. Two of the bands I was in have been (on some memorable occasions) asked to play enough encores so that we had to repeat songs for lack of repertoire. Is this not adequate to be thought of as a musician? Not to me. I am still an amateur, still someone concentrating on curling those fingers to get right there while ignoring the cramping and the pain in my fingertips. There is no-one who can find an error in music with quite the same level of perception as a musician listening to themselves play. I remember with a smile the times that bands I have been in have listened to recordings of ourselves playing. Everyone says how good it sounds, and everyone cringes at a litany of their own mistakes unnoticeable even to others within the band.

The best thing that has happened to me recently, in a string of somewhat difficult moments, was being asked if my old band Sam's Cross would play a friend's wedding in Portland in August. A high point in my process of working towards a dream, a comfortable dream of quiet satisfaction, friendship, and beauty. It all started with a question from a friend, for which I will always be grateful.

Suicide Letter

2011-03-30T12:59:00.000-07:00

Christina and I received the following letter in Tuesday's mail. This is not, I repeat not, a letter written by myself or Christina. Neither of us are thinking about suicide and neither of us think that we will or could commit suicide. Scott McKinnon was a co-worker and friend of Christina's at PPM in Portland. I knew him less well through work parties and a weekly bowling evening.

To My Dearest Friends and Family,

I wanted you to hear this from me directly, but first, please let me start by saying that I love you all. You have all been wonderful to me and, for this, I have been extremely grateful.

I have decided to end my life voluntarily. By the time you are reading this, I will already be gone. My apologies for any pain this might cause you. I wish that I could have simply vanished; erasing all memory you have of me. The decision to end my life was very easy for me, but the decision to hurt you all has caused me great distress. I have never wanted to bring anyone grief, but I must simply exit. I must leave this world and I must do it by my own hand.

Pain is a relative beast and I have been in a great deal of anguish for as long as I can remember. As a child I was overly sensitive to this world. I would frequently and secretly go into my bedroom and weep for hours at a time, with no particular understanding as to why. As an adult, I have learned how to mask this pain relatively well, but it has always remained with me. Until recently the cause of this anguish has been a mystery to me. Regardless of the source, the pain has always been there, hiding in the background. As such, I have decided to finally take mercy upon myself. I am nothing short of exhausted.

Let me be very clear about one thing; other than me, no person is to blame for this action. Not my ex-wife. Not you. Not anyone. This is my decision alone and I have done this with a clear head and a clear heart. In truth, I am looking forward to my death, as it means I will finally be at peace. We all must die sometime and I am making this decision to leave now. It is a luxury, honestly, to be able to choose the time and circumstances for your own departure.

I know that I could have asked any one of you for help and you would have certainly gladly given it to me. I chose not to go to any of you because I did not want your help. More than anything, I just wanted to leave.

If you need any evidence of this, that this act is intentional, non-spontaneous and genuinely desired, please realize the great lengths I have taken to reach this goal. In fact it is quite the opposite. Trust me when I say that dismantling your own life is not an easy matter.

I have not had anything to drink in the last two weeks, so I am completely sober for this important decision. I have sold off or given away all my possessions, so none of you would have to deal with the aftermath. I have also paid off my debts as best I can (everything except my own personal debts). I have written this letter and revised it over a period of weeks. I have said goodbye to each of you without actually being able to say goodbye. As you can imagine, this has been quite difficult. But, if anything, just such a truth should also indicate to you how very much I desired this exit.

I do need a favor though. While I could take care of most of my belongings, I could not find a home for my cat, Dora, without raising suspicion. She is a lovely kitty, my dearest friend in fact, and I want her to find a good home. If any of you have space for he, she will be waiting at my apartment in Eugene. I have left an envelope there with $500 cash and a $500 Amazon gift card, to cover her remaining expenses. Please be good to Dora K. during this last year she will have lost both her father and sister, so she will be very confused and frightened.

I was uncertain if it would be easier on you all if I simply disappeared altogether, but I understand that viewing a body can often be important for the grieving process, so even this was considered. I chose to leave my body behind, so that you might see this one last time, if you deemed it necessary or wanted. Again, this should indicate to you that my actions were not initiated in a fleeting moment of despair. This was a decision I made at great length and after a great amount of thought.

It is said that suicide is a selfish act and, certainly, this is partially true. I could have gone on living for you or for others, so as not to cause you this pain. But, I also needed to consider my own suffering, which was too great to endure any longer. If you believe in mercy and if you believe that ending suffering is a high principle, you must also understand why I have made this decision. For myself, there is no cure. Drugs would only dull the pain, as well as dull any positive emotions and thoughts (and those few I have, I cherish, as they are all I have left of value). religion, exercise, philosophy, meditation, family, friends....I have looked into each of these but, in the end, nothing gave me solace. I know this, because I have spent a lifetime searching for solace.

I do not find happiness in the pages of a book, in the arms of a lover or behind my camera lens. Sitting in a college classroom, hoping to better myself and the world around me, was the closest I came to finding happiness and meaning. But, in the end, even this was a temporary and shallow joy. I suspected it would be as such, but I had certainly hoped differently. I am quite happy that I had the opportunity to finally chance it.

We each have our own set of beliefs. Personally, I do not believe in a God or an afterlife. I do not fear death, as I do not fear anything. I believe that when I am gone, the World will simply go black. For this, I am extremely grateful.

As such I will not have tears in my eyes when I leave. In my last possible moments, I will think of all that has been Good in my life, I will think of all the beauty I have seen, I will think of all of you and I will be happy. You will all be there with me when I go. In truth, I am very lucky. I can think of no better way to leave.

If though, by chance, I am wrong and there is some form of afterlife, I will do my best to watch over you from there and help whenever I can. And, after you have passed (as we all must pass), I will meet you there for a fine game of poker, a hearty laugh and maybe even a glass of bourbon too. (I am fairly certain they will have the good stuff.) Regardless of what happens after, please forgive me. I have fought as best as I could, for as long as I could, which I believe is all that we might ask of anyone.

Still, I would have preferred to have done more good in the world before I left. In a small way, this letter is my last attempt to redeem myself.

I fully appreciate the irony and hypocritical nature of saying, in a suicide letter, all that I am about to say below, but life is inherently absurd, so I will forgive myself. If you are capable of doing what I could not, then these words will not have been in vain. hate me, if you need to hate me. Consider me a fool, if you must consider me a fool. I understand why and do not hold it against you. I am a flawed and illogical creature. I know this better than anyone.

It is not enough to simply act toward self-preservation; we must instead attempt to achieve self-creation. If there is to be any hope, we must all learn to think on a vastly larger scale, toward a far grander ideal and take far greater action towards that end.

If I could have remained here with you, this one statement is what I would have devoted my life towards realizing, for both myself and everyone else.

Our technology has advanced so greatly, but our morals have not advanced in kind. We once thought slavery was necessary and acceptable. We evolved. We once thought of women as inferior beings. We evolved. True, neither injustice has been completely eliminated, but we are certainly moving in the right direction.

The lesson here is that, again and again, we need to create new morals for ourselves and they cannot stem from magic or myth. We must continually learn how to create these ideals by ourselves, for ourselves.

If we are to evolve as a species, if we are to survive without destroying the planet, we must learn how to define our ends. And, if we are to evolve as individuals, we must learn to act towards those ends. Additionally, these ends must be greater than anything we have in place now. Simply put, our species must find a means of transcending here on Earth.

We are capable of so much more than we currently achieve. As of now, we lack the education, the imagination, the sense of scale and courage necessary. But, knowing that we lack these traits means that we can direct ourselves into obtaining these skills. We can evolve, if we wish to.

We must learn to control ourselves and master our short-sighted impulses. We must regain the ability to pause, at length, for genuine contemplation. We must educate ourselves, not just early in life and not just in trade skills, but throughout our entire lifetimes and towards a universal state of knowledge.

These thoughts cannot be vague or nebulous. They must be consciously acted upon; otherwise we will succumb to fear or greed instead.

Fear of losing our jobs, our health or our homes. Fear of death. These are understandable fears given our current situation, but we could easily change the situation so that these fears are no longer necessary.

Greed for more self-gratification, for more toys to play with, for more constant entertainment, for more sex, drugs and rock and roll... We often forget that these, too, can be a problem. These distractions are stopping us from ending the suffering of others. Of course, life is difficult and we each work very hard to survive, so this greed is understandable, given our current situation. But, again, we could easily change the situation so that these needs are no longer necessary.

If life were not difficult, would we feel the need to be rewarded constantly? Would we constantly feel the need for vacation if life itself was a vacation. It is possible, but only if we learn how to consciously limit ourselves. We must learn how to deny ourselves of some pleasures, so that we may eventually bring pleasure to everyone.

At best, we treat the symptoms of the disease, but never the disease itself. We occasionally feed the hungry, but do not question why there is hunger at all. There is hunger because we allow hunger to exist. There is suffering, other than chance uncontrollable suffering (such as my own crippling depression), because we allow it to exist.

Both locally and globally, it should be a crime (a genuine and punishable crime) for so few to have so much, when so many have so little. Why have we not done this? (I, myself, have lived with far too much ease. I regret this, as it has brought me no joy and I have certainly taken more than was necessary.)

It is a tragedy that we do not work together, as a species, to provide food, shelter, clothing, an education and health care for everyone on the planet, as love and a more endurable existence would certainly follow. Why have we not done this?

We could harness technology towards these ends, but we do not. Instead we make better toys for ourselves. Why are we doing this?

Children are wonderful creatures. they bring joy and happiness to nearly everyone they come into contact with. This is both a blessing and a curse, as we must learn to override our instincts. Our biggest challenge will be to find meaning in our lives other than through reproduction.

It is also a tragedy that the Earth, itself, now needs protection from our ever-increasing population. We must always give voice to the voiceless and this certainly includes all living things. We must find a meaning to our lives that supersedes reproduction.

To those who already have children, please know that I am not accusing you of making a mistake or judging you in any way. I love my friends and I love their children. Children are beautiful and, to those already with us, I would not wish them away for anything.

But to those who are considering having children in the future, I would ask that you take this larger concept strongly into consideration. We must find a way to protect ourselves, both globally and locally, from ourselves. we humans seem unable to control ourselves or understand ourselves.

This one truth, in essence, is what causes me the greatest amount of suffering. Living in a world in which people do not, or cannot, understand and control themselves has caused me a great deal of pain. If you must place blame on anything for my death, place blame on this: We are animals and nothing more, at least until we consciously decide to stop being animals. The author David Korten has written about this at length and, aside from his religious leanings, I believe that he gets quite a bit correct. If you have some time, please look into his work.

We can only decide to stop being animals if we are educated, taught to understand that there is a difference between instinct and intention. We must strive to help educate, not just ourselves, but all of those around us as well. We must learn to identify and override our instincts; otherwise we will simply cause more unnecessary suffering and destruction to both ourselves and those around us. Thus, education of the species should be one of our highest goals.

This is why I am writing to you now, to explain how I would like to be honored, should you wish to do so.

If you have children, please encourage them to read books for enjoyment and also make certain that they have the opportunity to go to college. In college, encourage them to learn as much as possible, in a wide variety of subjects. University should be more than just an advanced form of trade school.

Then, if you have the energy and time after that, please continue your own education as well.

And then, if by an even greater fortune, you have still more energy and time beyond that, please help in the attempt to change Education itself.

Society must be taught that a lifelong universal education for everyone is the key to ending all unnecessary suffering.

This meta-education (an education about education) is the most difficult and necessary step for humanity to focus upon. It is a challenge that I wish I could have tackled with you all. Unfortunately, I simply could not. In the end, I was not strong enough to remain.

Still I was happy to finally have a clear understanding of the need itself. I may not have been able to solve this grand hidden enigma we find ourselves embroiled within, but I was eventually able to clearly identify the problem. After all, we cannot hope to decipher the answer to a riddle we do not even realize is challenging us.

I have also left an envelope at my apartment with $2000 to cover my funeral expenses. I wish to be cremated and have my ashes thrown off of the large stone bridge at Whatcom Fall Park, in Bellingham, Washington. This is one of the few spots in the world that I found peace in. I am certain that this act, tossing my ashes, will be quite illegal, but please do so anyway. It is lovely to think that I will depart with a small, but meaningful, act of imagination and rebellion.

Thank you for listening to my final words. And thank you all for being such wonderful people. I could not have asked for a better set of beautiful, creative, affectionate individuals to fill the moments of my life with.

I love you all.

Goodbye.

-Scott Allan McKinnon / Mink Staccato

It's Not Fair!

2011-03-24T09:25:00.000-07:00

Is there a person in the world who hasn't felt outraged that something wasn't fair? The sense of fairness, that resources and opportunity should be distributed equitably, is not only innate in human beings but also other social mammals including monkeys and dogs. I would be quite surprised if this wasn't an attribute of all social mammals.

Is there a person in the world who hasn't been told as a result of the outrage that, "Life isn't fair?" The reason that this is so is because life isn't fair. It's a simple fact that people around the world in all places and at all times have different characteristics, different resources, and are treated differently based on attributes that they didn't earn (beautiful people have easier lives).

Human beings also have an innate tendency to attribute the cause of events to an intelligent actor. If you are a believer in God you will probably believe this to be a true insight into the nature of the Universe, if you an Atheist you will probably believe this to be an evolved bias (the person who consistently attributes the crack of a stick breaking in the bushes to an intelligent actor is less likely to get eaten by the tiger, or end up with a spear through them).

These three facts produce a difficult cognitive problem for people. There is the feeling that there is meaning or a plan to our very existence, and a feeling that things should be fair, and finally the fact that things are not fair. So much of our angst comes from this problem. Those of us who do less than others feel guilt. Those of us that do more feel cheated. Those of us with reduced opportunities (not so pretty, from a place with fewer resources) feel as though the Universe is against them. Those with more feel the spite of jealousy.

There are two concepts that exist to deal with this, reward/punishment afterlives, or the Law of Karma. Since life is so manifestly unfair the believer in a just God (something in modern monotheism and far less apparent in preceding religions) must believe that there is more than this life and Heaven is the reward for being good and Hell is the punishment for being bad, and each is so vastly more than this life that fairness results. The Law of Karma requires no God, but does require that the Universe is inherently just and that we are reborn by some unknown mechanism to receive our just deserts in the next life. These concepts are so emotionally satisfying to people that the overwhelming majority of people believe in at least one of them.

Humanity also has other issues in regards to fairness. For a start there are the scientific facts of social loafing, rationalization, and attribution bias. We work less hard in groups, we try to get unfair amounts of resources for less work, we tell ourselves that we don't do these things and we tend to blame the misfortune of others on their characters and our misfortunes on circumstances. Human beings are also innately pre-disposed to extreme punishment. Those caught not being fair are generally punished even to the extent that the results are a net loss for everyone. This is best illustrated by a poll of Wisconsin voters in which the majority indicated that they would prefer to pay more in taxes to get people off welfare than it cost to pay for welfare. People would prefer to be poorer than have other people get their money "for nothing."

For myself this problem of fairness is mostly experienced with regard to my darling wife, and particularly on days like today. My job today will be to walk the dog on a marvelous day, do some dishes, practice some music, make dinner, and be attentive and caring towards someone I love. My wife's job is to slave away in an environment I could not stand for ten hours. From my point of view there is no comparison in the amount of work, it simply isn't fair.

The thing is, should fairness be the measure of things? As a utilitarian I am in favor of making the most amount of happiness with the resources available. Between my wife and myself I am more qualified and capable at doing chores (in that I am capable of sometimes doing them) and in caring for people (my profession for two decades). Without a doubt my wife is more capable of withstanding the unholy bullshit of the corporate world and making money. This division of labor makes both of us more happy than if we were acting alone (in which each of us would have to work and do chores). Our lives are both enhanced by an unfair arrangement.

In a wider setting we can look at the problem of fairness. At the moment there is a vast inequity (although geographically shrinking) in wealth. The average worldwide income is $7000 a year, the average US income is over $50,000. For wealth to be fair the average American would have to give up almost everything they own and everyone in the world would have to try getting by on $7,000 a year. What would be the result? Worldwide economic collapse, most likely. The end of research and development. The end of large capitol investment for non-government activities. The Twentieth Century was (despite the common view) the greatest century for worldwide economic improvement ever. While I am certain that income inequality can go too far (and has) it still produces a better situation than a perfectly fair distribution.

It's not fair, I'm think it probably shouldn't be fair, and regret that it isn't fair without changing the situation is an entirely negative and useless emotion. I keep telling myself this but my innate feeling of fairness means that I can still feel guilty for making the world a better place by not being fair.

Waning Optimism

2011-03-23T11:40:00.000-07:00

I am by nature something of a pessimist, or at least a negative person. It has only been through the long term accretion of information and evidence that I have become optimistic about the future. It is simply by the vast amount of overwhelming evidence; from life expectancy, to decreased violence rates, expanding rights, increased democracy, improved knowledge, improved health, greater understanding etc., that I have come to the position that things are the best they have ever been and they are getting better. The alternative is to have a faith-based position, essentially a religious position, that things are bad and getting worse. I can't think of a more stupid position to have than that one.

However, I am coming to the realization that this improvement is essentially the work of my tribe in the face of constant and vast opposition. There is essentially an almost invisible group of intellectuals, academics, bureaucrats, scientists and artists who are working very hard to make the world a better place for people in the face of consistent opposition from the very people they are trying to help.

The great evil that is being faced are not the really stupid people. They are just really stupid and essentially have no voice. At worst some of them can be convinced to vote for something stupid every few years. Most of them do little harm, and their worst crime is that often they need to be taken care of when their stupidity might do them harm.

The great evil are the people with middling intelligence and knowledge, enough to know where the Middle East is and to name the Koran, but not enough to have been there or read it. The people who know that there is a central bank, and what an interest rate is, but who have never taken a college level economics class. The people who know that there is DNA, and it has something to do with genetics, but couldn't explain how evolution works in the simplest manner.

These people are the great evil because they know enough to have opinions on things about which they are not qualified to have an opinion. There is no way that the average American should think that they know enough about global politics to think they know how to deal with China, or Libya. There is no way that the average person should think they are qualified to have an opinion on a government budget. I certainly don't think I am qualified to have an opinion on these matters.

There are vasts areas of knowledge in which the sophistication of humanity's achievements and activities is only apparent to a relatively small portion of experts. These are intelligent people who have studied at great length to reach their level of expertise. Unfortunately, the average person on the street feels quite comfortable in dismissing all this intelligence and expertise because they think they know better. The truth is, they don't.

Incompetent people are incompetent to a large extent because they don't know they are incompetent. Incompetent people hugely over-rate their own abilities. Conversely experts tend to under-rate their knowledge and abilities (perhaps this is how their knowledge becomes so expert, because they check the answers). There is no person quite so completely cautious about the limits of their knowledge than a scientist talking about a subject that borders their own area of expertise.

I have been in the mire of the middling intellect, surrounded by idiots certain in their wisdom for too long. The dross of this idiocy is clogging up my mental works and killing my optimism. Oh how I wish to be able to have a conversation in which at some point I am treated to something new and useful, something kind and good, but most of all something based in real knowledge and expressed with a love of learning rather than a love of one's own self importance.