The Happiness Hypothesis, Jonathan Haidt

http://www.amazon.com/The-Happiness-Hypothesis-Finding-Ancient/dp/0465028020

I blogged on this once before, but since only a couple of people read it at that time I decided to update and post again.  It is one of my favorite books relative to both ancient wisdom and what science is finding about the way our brains are organized.

The subtitle of the book is "Finding Modern Truth in Ancient Wisdom" and the author is Jonathan Haidt. I LOVED the recommendation from the father of the Positive Psychology Movement (Martin Seligman) who stated; "For the reader who seeks to understand happiness, my advice is: Begin with Haidt." ;-) (it actually isn't pronounced "hate", it is pronounced "height" ... but still funny)

I love the metaphor that he uses and the picture on the cover, a shadowy view of a rider on a swimming elephant. Haidt had gone for a trail ride in the mountains as a youth, and has the horse neared a particularly steep cliff, he panicked that he didn't have the horse under control and didn't know what to do. For a brief few seconds he debated jumping off as he realized what he thought was his peril. Of course, the old trail horse had done this trail thousands of times and had no interest in going off the cliff. She calmly negotiated the turn and life went on.

The analogy is to show the the relationship between our consciousness (rider), a fairly recent add to our wetware package (in the evolutionist view), and the vast majority of our mental apparatus honed by millions of years of successful selection. Our chances of controlling "the elephant" (subconscious) by force are zero. Our only hope is to learn how to lovingly train the elephant to operate more as a team with our consciousness. The theme of the book is how this has been relatively understood for millennia and there is much wisdom on how to do this which can now be validated and improved upon by modern science.

Shakespeare said: "There is nothing either good or bad but, but thinking makes it so". Buddha said: "Our life is a creation of the mind". Unfortunately, science shows us that we are biased to think the wrong things. We tend to focus on threats that aren't there and useless worry. Three techniques are proposed for dealing with this problem: Meditation, Cognitive Therapy, and "Prozac" (SSRIs Selective Serotonin Re-uptake Inhibitor drugs). All of these work to varying degrees and all can work together. The objective is for the conscious mind and the "elephant" to learn to work as a team rather than fighting -- all three methods help calm a nervous or morose "elephant" (subconscious).

There is a chapter on reciprocity, which is basically "the golden rule". It turns out it really does seem to be written on our souls, and there is no better way to get people to do something for you than to do something for them (or in the case of politics, promise to force OTHER people do something nice for them!). One of the big problems with human society is that of the "free rider" -- someone that doesn't follow reciprocity. Sanctions, gossip, and possibly a lot of our brain size is involved in operating as a cooperative group, but minimizing "free riders" -- at least it WAS that way up until Bernie Sanders! ;-)

I liked the explanation of "naive realism". "Each of us thinks we see the world as it really is. We further believe that the facts as we see them are there for all to see, therefore others should agree with us." We see everyone else as impacted by ideology and self interest -- but WE are unbiased!  As I try to point out, this is INESCAPABLE -- the best we can do is be aware of it and do our best to understand the arguments our "opponents" use. If you are in the dominant ideology position, it is MUCH harder to see the "other side", since it tends to be simply discounted as it is less popular, and in modern times we have been drilled to believe that "the most votes is right! At least until they elect "the wrong guy", like Reagan -- then the masses are "manipulated", "poorly educated", etc. Our founders of course chose to form a REPUBLIC not a "democracy" because they agree -- the mass can be wrong!

Late in the book there is a chapter that discusses how we are "wired for religion". Since Haidt is an atheist,  and a pure evolutionist,  the reason we are that way must be "group selection". It turns out that religion and it's shared rules are an excellent way to make much larger groups of people operate more optimally. Even better when it is backed up by perceived supernatural sanction.

I chuckle a bit here -- sadly, that a brilliant pure evolutionist sees pretty clearly that large groups of people that believe in a supernatural God that has provided them with rules that they all must follow even when nobody's looking, and has eternal significance is BETTER, as in "more adaptive". So the universe "randomly" works out so that the most adaptive course of action happens to be belief in God -- so "smart people" should fight that naturally occurring adaptive concept! Perhaps they ought to give up sex as well? (it is also natural and adaptive)

Twist your head over to environmentalism and the LAST thing that ought to be done is "fighting nature"! If it is "natural", the assumption of the left (and science) is that "going against nature" is EVIL! The only consistency in situational ethics is that it is inconsistent.

While Haidt clearly doesn't say it, that means that that Christianity USED to have an "adaptive advantage", which we managed to kill in the west -- really a double advantage, since kids were a blessing and having large families was a good thing. Now Islam has that advantage -- and hmmm, it is on the rise! Doesn't seem that one would need to be a particularly brilliant evolutionist to explain that one!

In any case, the book is EXCELLENT! It is one of my top recommendations for understanding human nature.

Predictions, Strongest Hurricane Ever

CHART: Is Hurricane Patricia The Strongest Hurricane Ever? : The Two-Way : NPR:

We awoke yesterday AM to news that "the strongest hurricane ever" was bearing down on Mexico. Those of us with some skepticism always have the thought cross our mind ... "ever"? Just how long is that?

Turns out "ever" in this case is sometime in the 1970's.

"To make things easier, Klotzbach looked at just U.S. data, and he came to the conclusion that this is the strongest hurricane since the 1970s, when wind measurements are reliable."

Patricia formed very rapidly, it was not predicted to be nearly that strong, so we only had to deal with a single day of maximum hype as to it's likely devastation -- "catastrophic" was a word prominently displayed. Some might question our ability to predict climate decades and even centuries in advance when within a 48 hour period our current weather prediction capability goes from "storm" to "worst ever" to "tropical depression".

We awoke today to discover that there was no loss of life at all, very little property damage, and Patricia is no longer even a hurricane, but has been downgraded to a lowly "Tropical Depression", not even worthy of being a "Tropical Storm".

Patricia, which at its peak was a massive Category 5 storm with 200-mph winds before making landfall, quickly tapered as it crossed mountainous terrain and withered into a tropical storm early Saturday. By mid-morning, it had been downgraded further to a tropical depression.

As always with stories like this, there are two explanations -- incompetence and/or having an agenda. I'm sure this story has lots of both -- the rapid rise of the storm shows how little we really know about even weather, let alone climate. The hype shows how starved the media is to report "massive strong storms" that we were assured would be commonplace after Katrina. The ease with which these are foisted on a largely compliant population shows the extent to which the vast majority of people are simply pawns being told what to think by the dominant political party.

'via Blog this'

Politics vs Football

Benghazi and Character - WSJ:

I'm a Packer Fan -- but I have been accused on occasion of not being "true enough" when it comes to some of the officiating calls made. Often I can see how some call could have gone for or against the Pack, but for "true fans", the Pack receiver was always "mugged" even though there was no call made, but when it goes the other way, the Packer defender "never touched him" ... everything is perceived through the eyes of being fan.

In Football, that is fine -- the fans are the fans and the game is the game. There are no "votes" on calls, how the fans happen to see it affects the game not one bit. But Politics was not SUPPOSED to be a game! It is supposed to be an example of how large groups of people can have REASONABLE input to the governance of what used to be a great nation.

From my perspective, Watergate was a turning point. Plenty of Politicians did things worse than Watergate prior to Nixon, but media had grown more powerful and biased, Nixon was hated by the left, and the Democrats were licking their wounds after being so completely in charge of government from '64 - '68 that the Republican Party was irrelevant. It was their time and Republicans thought "it was for the good of the country". It was only good for the rise of "The Party" and a more leftist media.

In the '80s, political attack became a way of life for the left -- Iran Contra and the electronic lynching of Clarence Thomas were the biggest examples. In '88, Rush Limbaugh went on the air nationally, and in '96, Fox News joined the right side of the fray, and the perspective of the right was covered for average Americans. Issues developed two sides -- which the leftward establishment and those that cheer for the left has never really come to grips with. To the American intelligentsia, there is left -- which is CORRECT, and right, which is evil, misinformed, dishonest, dangerous, and needs to be SILENCED!

As the linked article laments, even in the case of the completely obvious -- Hillary knew that Benghazi was a terrorist attack, not an uprising due to a film, yet she, Susan Rice, and even BO spouted a lie for a number of days because they saw it as politically prudent.

Prior to Watergate, one might believe that "reasonable God fearing Americans" of EITHER PARTY would not put up with such mendacity and would NEVER consider someone involved for president, and would likely even seek to have BO removed. Nixon's greatest sin was supposed to be "He lied to the American people".

I would like to believe that we were better once, but it is absolutely clear we no longer are. Is there a lot of "political motivation" in the Benghazi hearings? Absolutely -- as there was in Watergate, Iran Contra, the Clarence Thomas Hearings, Whitewater, Monica Lewinsky, Valerie Plame, etc, etc.

THE ISSUE is if there are any political RULES, or if unlike Football, politics can be played with "The Party" being the rules committee, officiating staff and calling the games. As if the NFL was controlled from Green Bay (or some other franchise), and everyone else had to be happy with that.

The bottom line is that the vast majority of the media and well over half the country really don't care that Hillary ... and BO for that matter can lie right to their faces for political purposes. The Party is "their team", so they want everything called in favor of The Party. The Party gives them Free Stuff, assures them that things can keep going on with 10's of Trillions of debt and more in unfunded liabilities, a sputtering economy, and a third of the people not working with more not working every day, and "it will be fine".

So democracy has failed. We no longer care if leadership has even the most basic element of character, that of truthfulness. We are a nation of fans for a political point of view, and the only interest is in "winning" even if we can be completely assured that we can't trust a single thing that our "leadership" utters.

We definitely have got the government we so richly deserve!

'via Blog this'

Iranian Supreme Leader Khamenei Wants BO Prosecuted

Iranian Supreme Leader Khamenei’s Letter Of Guidelines To President Rohani On JCPOA Sets Nine Conditions Nullifying Original Agreement Announced July 14, 2015 |

"It should be further noted that in his introduction to the new conditions, Khamenei attacks the U.S. and President Obama with great hostility, and calls for Obama to be prosecuted by international judiciary institutions. "

The US press was always forthcoming with any idiot from anywhere around the globe that thought that "Bush and Cheney should be prosecuted for war crimes". Naturally, "The Party" and it's media arm thought that was a jolly good idea.



However, W wasn't handing over nukes to such people as BO has with the Iranians --  his buddies ... that want him in jail.



I have to admit that the Iranians seem much smarter on this topic than a lot of Americans -- but who really cares? Global Warming is a MUCH bigger threat than Islamist nutcases with nukes and ICBMS!





'via Blog this'

Double Damned Ryan

Ryan’s words show why he’ll be a bad Speaker | Power Line:

The Speaker situation in the House is a classic case of "Damned if you do, Damned if you don't".

I like Paul Ryan as a person, and I think he is generally brilliant -- possibly a bit too much so. I also think he has fallen for the MSM / Democrat play book and thinks that "government fixes things". It does, it "fixes things" so everyone on average has MUCH less than they would otherwise, and a LOT less freedom to boot!

The article is worth the time to read. THE PROBLEM is that no matter how much we conservatives would like to get "the best possible speaker", it is a VERY big problem for the Republican Party to be unable to govern the chief piece of government  that it has in it's power! People don't elect people to fail to even be able to select their own leadership!

The situation is grim -- we have a far left incompetent president, a country that has slouched FAR to the left,  an avowed Socialist doing well on the D ticket with the most scurrilous,  dissembling, unappealing harpy imaginable tacking to get left of him!

Meanwhile, the Republican Party has a reality TV Star wealthy obnoxious gadfly leading in the polls, followed by a very likeable and upstanding BRAIN SURGEON (note, not an executive, not a politician ...).

The Republican establishment is pretty much "Socialist lite" -- give the government growing, maybe just a little slower than the D's ... and then of course we have the Tea Party, Freedom Caucus, etc whose hearts are in what I see as the right place, but whose political acumen is sadly lacking.

Given the situation, I'm starting to think not much makes a difference -- Trump or Hillary, most likely with either we are going to continue to search for the bottom! On the bright side, maybe it will all be over before 2016 and we won't have to watch the election!

Ah, starvation, I need lose some weight. Anyone have any good recipes for roast rat?

'via Blog this'

12 Time Loser Kills Black Officer

'Hardened, Violent Criminal' Who Allegedly Killed NYPD Officer With Shot to Head Should Never Have Been on Street: Mayor | NBC New York:

You probably have heard that a NY Policeman was shot and killed. The officer was black, as was the perpetrator. The perpetrator had also been in jail 12 times -- no "3 strikes" there. Even lefty Mayor De Blasio said "He should have never been on the street".

Say what? We are hell bent for election to release 6K multiple time loser convicted felons in short order and passing bills to release 10's of thousands more!

All because the black vote isn't energized enough for 2016 and there are some polls showing Trump getting 25% of the black vote. Polls at this point are all over, but you can bet that the D's are concerned about even the POTENTIAL for a 25% number -- it would be death for their candidate.

Thus, we will release violent offenders and likely lose more officers -- for TP, votes matter, lives don't!

'via Blog this'

Redford, Rather, "Truth"

Dan Rather, Still Wrong After All These Years - WSJ:

While BO's "Dreams" book in which he makes it clear that he identifies as a Luo Tribesman carrying on the "Dreams from his father" to take down the Western Colonial Powers -- primarily Britain and the US, remains nearly "top secret" to official mediadom and really all but certifiable idiots like me, W's National Guard record is STILL of interest to the left wing!

There is no need to read the attached -- the summary is that Robert Redford plays in a new movie "Truth" that paints Dan Rather and producer Mary Mapes as being heroic victims of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy. Never mind that the documents they based their "story" on were REALLY bad and proven forgeries, the story was TRUE!

It's a level of bias in thought that is still hard for my brain to conceive. Does ANYONE that talks about that story have a remote idea how hard and dangerous it is to even fly a fighter plane at all? Bill Clinton avoided service by staying in college -- and nobody cares, nor really should they. John Kerry served, but had himself filmed doing it, managed to get 3 purple hearts without spending a night in a hospital, testified against fellow servicemen calling their actions "reminiscent of Genghis Khan", then HE wanted to be seen as a "war hero" .... "reporting for duty".

The fact that the left STILL wants to tell the story that W was somehow a "bad fighter pilot", when he never made his guard service a significant part of his campaigns seems beyond crazy. The very same people who are obsessed with what he did in the TX National Guard care less about BO's past, a never ending litany of Hillary scandals, Bernie writing about woman's rape fantasies, or basically anything relative to their own candidates histories.

It is just the way it is -- consistency doesn't register at all from the left, and any old story can be called truth or fiction to suit the purposes of the left wing narrative.

'via Blog this'

Raising The Crime Rate

Heather Mac Donald Explodes Criminal Justice Myths | Power Line:

As I've posted previously, Congress is busy trying to raise the crime rate by releasing many thousands of convicted felons. The narrative on this one is:

1). We have too many in prison due to drug laws that are too strict

2). Since too many prisoners are black, the system must be racist.

The 5 min video in the attached is worth watching -- Heather McDonald is very impressive.

Violent crime is already on the rise, the police are more regularly under attack than they have been since the '70s -- seems like an odd time to release a bunch of felons.

Why is this legislation being considered?

1). Democrats need to energize their Black Voters -- "Black Lives Matter" and this legislation work well together.

2). The fact that Democrat welfare policies clearly destroyed the black family in the '60s and that the eruption of the drug and criminal culture is an outgrowth of that is an inconvenient truth that needs to be suppressed. Blaming racism in the criminal justice system is a better narrative for Democrats.

3). The water on this bill has already been carried by the MSM. It generally doesn't affect the Red States represented by Republicans that much, so there is a large temptation to give the D's what they want.

Other than the fact that it is likely to make our major cities into increasingly violent hell holes which is terrible for those that live there -- especially poor inner city minorities, my largest concern is that this bill is likely to put gun violence back on the increase which will then be used to make the claim that "more guns create more violence", a statistic that has stubbornly gone DOWN while the number of guns has gone up in the last 20 years.

'via Blog this'

Sex, Drugs and Socialism

Can the Democrats Mainstream Socialism? | Power Line:

Can the Democrats Mainstream Socialism?

Of course -- they have been doing it for about 100 years now, lately they haven't even been very incremental about it. The really unfortunate fact is that unlike at least the population effects (though not the individual) of drugs and free love, Socialism tends to leave a very permanent mark -- like a 100 million+ dead kind of mark.

I found these paragraph to be the top from the linked article:

One lesson we have learned over the years is that the Left never gives up. No defeat is permanent. Alger Hiss was convicted of perjury. He was innocent! The Rosenbergs were executed. They were framed! Mary Mapes and Dan Rather were fired. Their Texas Air National Guard story was a model of investigative journalism! Socialism has killed more than 100 million people, and impoverished countless more. Let’s give it another try!

Christians are the same on Christ as Socialists are on their preferred system of eventually totalitarian government. The difference is that Christianity generally works well in even THIS world!

Big redistributive government is the Socialist RELIGION and they are TRUE BELIEVERS! It doesn't make any difference how many times they have been wrong, they believe that they are SURE to be right THIS time! Utopia is at hand!

Hollywood just tried another Peter Pan movie ... "Pan". It failed miserably, but the idea of "never growing up and facing reality" is as old as man. New generations, and even people that should know better try to live lives based on "Sex, Drugs and Socialism" (Rock and Roll and Socialism go together pretty well too).

They end up with diseases, rehab, near death or death experiences -- Lamar Odom / Jimmy Hendricks, etc, broken lives, damaged children, etc like day follows night.

Socialism takes a bit longer, but the damage is deeper and wider. The belief in Socialism is a religious belief -- it doesn't succumb to mere fact.

But it always ends when the money runs out -- other peoples, borrowed, ALL OF IT! Then somebody picks up the pieces (and usually the bodies) of another broken utopian dream.


'via Blog this'

Obama Supporter Dislikes Republicans

Sweet Jesus, David Brooks is finally making sense: How Fox News & the GOP insanity caucus pushed him over the edge - Salon.com:

Finally? The man wrote multiple columns in support of Obama. He did EVENTUALLY have a bit of "buyers remorse", but seriously. If you are as far left as he is, it takes someone as far left as the NYTs or Salon to consider him a "conservative".

So he is worried about the "Freedom Caucus" in the house because it is "too extreme". Really. Has he ever looked at the Black Caucus? Is he aware that there is an avowed socialist running on the Democrat ticket for President and doing pretty well?

Apparently it is all "Rush Limbaugh's fault".

What David Brooks apparently liked -- if he actually as ANY "conservative" bones in his body is the old Pre William Buckley, Goldwater, Reagan, etc "Rockefeller conservatism" of green eyeshade balanced budgets and isolationism. A few "tokens" in office from time to time that couldn't get anything through congress because the Democrats held it for 50 years was the kind of "healthy opposition party" that they liked.

A toothless old lion kept sedated in it's cage that they could poke with a stick now and again.

Now this Republican party is supposed to be "revolutionary" -- they can't even put up a bill to defund the government paying half a billion a year to kill babies so BO can veto it !

Wow, "revolutionary" is a hard word to attach to that kind of spinelessness!



'via Blog this'

New New Deal

Hillary Clinton & Democratic Debate -- Calling for a New New Deal Is Nothing New| National Review Online:



Generally a good and entertaining column by Jonah, but what really hit me is this as the summary:

It’s all just so exhausting. And I guess what I resent most of all is the fact that I will spend the rest of my life arguing with people who not only think that their faith in progressivism and the State is smart and modern, but that their opponents are the ones who are stuck in the past. And in the process, they’ll keep making the country worse, with every failure providing the latest evidence that now, now, is the time for a new New Deal.

It is indeed exhausting -- and sad. As he makes clear in the column, the "New Deal" wasn't new when it happened -- it was re-cycled Wilson WWI government centralized planning, which was stolen from Germanic Bismarkian Socialism of the 1880's, which was ... oh well, you get the idea. The concept of "wouldn't a free lunch be nice" is as old as Adam and Eve.



The results are predictable too -- like gaining weight at the holidays, hangovers, spending too much money, etc, etc -- we know the result, but we have an oh so human tendency to keep thinking "it's different this time".





'via Blog this'

Dayton vs Walker

Minnesota vs. Wisconsin: Does the Progressive Paradise Win? | Power Line:



Mostly posting to keep track of the reality of the rather popular left wing meme that Minnesota is a "Progressive Paradise" and "Scott Walker Destroyed Wisconsin". Walker was elected in 2010, Dayton in 2011.



Building and destroying businesses takes a few years, and legislatures have an awful lot to do with it as well. Dayton has been "held back" if you are a D, or "prevented from destroying" if you are an R by having to deal with at least one house in Republican hands.



The bottom line is that it is hard to find any significant change in the trend lines in either state at this point.



'via Blog this'

NY Times Danish Reality

Danes Rethink a Welfare State Ample to a Fault - The New York Times:

The picture meme isn't in the article ... but it should be!

I covered the insanity of BS (Bernie Sanders) thoughts on Denmark relative to the debate here. When you get far enough out on the left that even the NYTs thinks you have slipped the surly bonds, nature is telling you that you are a few sunflower seeds short in your trail mix!

Not a bad article -- you can almost see reality from there, high praise from me for the Times! A sample:

"With little fuss or political protest — or notice abroad — Denmark has been at work overhauling entitlements, trying to prod Danes into working more or longer or both. While much of southern Europe has been racked by strikes and protests as its creditors force austerity measures, Denmark still has a coveted AAA bond rating. But Denmark’s long-term outlook is troubling. The population is aging, and in many regions of the country people without jobs now outnumber those with them. "

'via Blog this'

"Killing" Reagan, Patton, Books

Killing O’Reilly’s Reagan | Power Line:

I've read two of the Bill O'Reilly's "Killing" series -- Patton and Reagan. Both are pretty much "National Enquirer" / "People" / made for TV kind of fairly lurid, sensationalized and highly fictionalized works that are extremely light and easy reads. Apparently O'Reilly and his ghost author are highly interested in sexual dalliances -- both works were rife with them, shoestring coincidental connections, rumors, gossip, etc. -- or they merely believe that is what sells, which I guess I would be an example of ( I borrowed one, got the other as a gift).

I DID find them entertaining -- which there is nothing wrong with in its place as long as people don't start believing that what they are reading is in any way "real", just because it purports to be.

Sometimes people that read my blog assume that I watch a lot of Fox News. I don't -- I watch very little of it because in general, it is PRIMARILY concerned with ratings and making money, which I and Steven Hayward believe that Bill O'Reilly is as well. Again, I'm fine with that -- until the Bernie Sanders way completely takes over, private business needs to be concerned with finding a niche and making money. NPR would be concerned about that as well if they didn't feed at the public trough and rely on lots of left wing donors to support their coverage for the left and the far left view of the world.

A lot of the Reagan books assertions we have heard before -- primarily from Kitty Kelly, Nancy and astrology, Alzheimer's while he was in office, affairs for both of them, etc. -- and as Hayward points out, they have all been solidly debunked before from real sources rather than rumors.

If you don't read much history, you may actually learn something from the books, but like pretty much anything (and more in this case), be pretty critical of the most titillating stuff. Kind of like the fishing lure that really achieved it's purpose once you bought it (catching a fish is purely optional!), the book is entertaining and people are buying it. That is what counts in the game that O'Reilly is playing here -- think of them as a male version of a "Romance Novel" and enjoy in moderation.

'via Blog this'

Eyes On Balls

Obama Gets a Clue? | Power Line:

In the linked PL column there is the hope that BO's decision to more or less "stay the course" in Afghanistan constitutes his waking up and realizing what is happening in the world. Unlike the claim made for Carter in the column, I really don't expect BO to be reading Churchill any time soon. The PL guys do a good job of being hopeful.



How many times did we hear from say 2003 on that W had "taken his eye off the ball on Afghanistan"? Thousands at least.



BO tried to "lead from behind" (behind W) and attempt a "surge" in Afghanistan. His Afghanistan casualties exceeded 2x W's in 2014 . I covered how little of the deaths were reported here -- now we see how sadly this policy is failing in Afghanistan.



So the sacrifice we made in Afghanistan in lives and treasure is too precious to walk away from but Iraq wasn't? Am I the only one that would like to hear BO explain the logic of why THAT is??? If you look at the location of Iraq, Iran, Syria, Europe -- let alone Israel for those of us who care, WHY is it that Afghanistan is of greater strategic importance than Iraq? Obviously, it is not -- not that we ought to allow it to become a haven again, but Iraq is far more strategic.



Is it even possible for the MSM to sustain any criticism of BO? Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Egypt, Yemen, Crimea and Syria. Where is US foreign policy not a complete disaster? Nowhere -- it's a consistent disaster everywhere!



90% of the media is simply part and parcel of "The Party - Democrat" -- we may as well be the old USSR and call of "Pravda" (Russian for truth).



'via Blog this'