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?
Wednesday, November 30, 2011
On Relieving The Frustration From Other People
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.
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.
Monday, November 28, 2011
Studying Spanish
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.
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.
Thursday, November 17, 2011
Experiment.
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.
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
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.
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.
Wednesday, November 16, 2011
Sheeple
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?
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?
Tuesday, November 15, 2011
The Future of Work
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.
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?
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.
Friday, November 11, 2011
Musings on Happiness with Resources
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).
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.
Thursday, November 10, 2011
Chapter 4
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.
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.
Wednesday, November 9, 2011
Chapter 3.
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.
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.
Tuesday, November 8, 2011
We Are What We Do.
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.
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.
Friday, November 4, 2011
I am not the 99%
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.
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.
Thursday, November 3, 2011
Is It This Easy?
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?
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?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)