End Of Moosetracks

In 2016, I quit cross posting the blog to Facebook when I started a new job -- here is that entry, and the key paragraph.

Yes, the reason for stopping the cross-posting is the potential that "someone would be offended" relative to the new job. We live in a time where Christian, conservative, Constitutional, etc views are offensive to many. While I believe in people in the United States being able to have any view they want short of "pledging allegiance to ISIS" as in the case of the shooter this week, our current nation seems OK with ISIS supporters, but often offended with those who support Christ or the Constitution.

I realize that when I started the blog in 2005, I never posted my reason for blogging, so I will now.

My father was and is a very capable debater. So were his brothers, and I gather his dad, my grandfather who died when I was like 3. One story of my grandpa that I heard from dad more than once was of him taking dad to a county or town board meeting as a kid maybe 12 years of age, Dad was disturbed by everyone arguing so loud and seemingly angrily that he thought they could not be friends.

When the meeting was over, everyone went out for pie and coffee with no problems -- his dad was on the board, and instilled in my dad that being able to discuss / argue / debate with passion and still shake hands afterward was an important part of living in a democracy.

So I learned that lesson well -- early on with some tears or stomping anger, however my dad assured me that "I would grow up", and so I did -- perhaps just a little too well, as is common with such lessons.

Cowgirls may well not cry, but this moose certainly does -- pretty much every time I listen to that song as one small case, as well as sometimes when I witness the wreckage of our nation in broken families, addiction, suicide, and meaninglessness.

The lesson of making my case with dispassionate debate would serve me well through my schooling in those days. In the 1970's America was still a place where diversity of thought was honored, and there were no such things as "safe spaces" where freedom of speech was not allowed, certainly not in universities. The ACLU in those times even defended Illinois Nazi's right to march through a Jewish neighborhood -- freedom of speech meant freedom of even (especially) very unpopular speech. The IBM of the late '70s and most of my career was also a place where it was critical to "get your ducks in a row" and put together the right "pitch" to get your ideas implemented in systems.

By 2005 however, the US was sliding rapidly away from honoring diversity of thought. W was a pariah to the elite and "progressives", and it was important to not speak up in most cases when people would make some statement about how stupid he was, how he ought to be impeached, how Iraq was lost, how he was a "war criminal", etc.

While I was always more than able to hold my own in a discussion, the net result was likely be anger from the anti-W speaker that anyone would dare stand up for W, and even more anger when the person who intiated the attack felt that they were not actually able to defend a position they thought was "obviously correct". One of the "values" of the left became that people that did not agree with them were uneducated, only listened to "Fox News and talk radio", not very intelligent, etc -- feeling that they "lost" a debate with such a low life was just plain embarrassing. It usually meant that in an odd return to a practice of religions like the Amish, they would "shun" the person who stood up for such a terrible person as W.

The blog allowed me to continue to listen to NPR, read the NY Times, WaPo, and even see clippings from Huffpo, Slate, New Yorker, and a broad range of media on both (or many) sides of issues and "talk about it in the blog" without having  other people be hurt, angry, or embarrassed. The assumption was that people that did not like what they read would just "change the channel" -- as Christians were to do with the NEA funded "Piss Christ" and many other things.

In the back of my mind, there was always the dream of "discovery" -- some folks would probably just be kind to me and say "you ought to have a column" or "you ought to be on the radio". Over the years, my readership went from none to a few thousand a month ...

It's always been a labor of love -- I enjoy writing, it comes easy to me, and the blog was a way for me to keep track of thoughts, articles, book reviews ( 185 was the final count), travel, etc with some good discussions from some people over the years as a bonus.

As I look back on Holy Week 2018, Good Friday 2005.  stands out as a post from the early days that I'm glad that I was able to share -- and go back and read.

The post from when I quit cross-posting to FB gives some hints on how the blog is organized if you want to poke around. As those of you that know me are well aware, the blog both is and is definitely NOT "me". It' was an "outlet" for instant reactions to events and media reactions to those events -- so those reactions were less likely to be discussed at work, family events, church, social events, etc. I read broadly and more the kind of person who knows "nothing about everything" as opposed to "everything about nothing" -- the sad choice required of we very finite humans and our limited minds.

The blog is less me since 2016. In 2016 I started my new career as a Certified Peer Support Specialist ... I learned about DBT, Motivational Interviewing, and that validation is not agreement. I learned both the Mindfulness skills to stay "in the moment" during discussions as well as a number of other skills that are critically important during "difficult conversations". Some of these skills are well sumarized in this post on an excellent book; "The High Conflict Couple".

If you liked the blog and miss it, send me an email (bilber99@gmail.com) with ideally your google mail -- my new blog is going to be limited to my approving your access, and since I'm using blogger to start,  I'm not sure the google id will work. Depending on interest, I may look for other solutions.

Thank you for those that have read over the years, and especially to those who have engaged in discussion with me on posts. I still firmly believe that freedom of thought and speech, as well as the willingness to engage with those who think differently from us, was at the very core of what once made America an exceptional country. It was a nation under God with a written Constitution that was honored, and a free nation where independence, especially of thought, was a primary value.

As I wrote when I largely left FB and quit watching the NFL, we now live in a nation where there is no value that is agreed on by supermajority of people within our geographic borders. Since America was a nation founded on ideas, NOT ethnicity, religion, or territory, I assert we really no longer have a nation.

It will certainly not be me that fixes that (if it is to be fixed), and the costs of having a semi-public opinion that is easily ignored have now gotten too high as the costs of speaking up in public did in 2005. There is no way to know who is reading, not interacting, and just becoming more and more angry as they do. There is no way to discern a reader in "Emotion Mind" so I can use validation skills rather than simply "making a case".  I'm not going to fix what has happened to America -- it is not worth the price to keep publicly speaking to all. The "desire to read" may be a desire primarily to be angered and justify attacks on myself or my family. Thinking differently is now something that needs to be done "in the closet" ... hopefully this move to a closet of only approved readers will work.

For ALL those who have or will read my blog or other writings, especially those who most strongly disagree with me, I believe that love and free will are the two sides of an ultimate eternal value. To love is to allow free will, and only in freedom can we return love. God is love and light -- only he can truly love even those that reject him with all their hearts, however I promise to do the best that I am able to follow his example.

 I pray that you let God's love work it's miracle in your life and we have eternity to work out the nuances of our differences.

May the Lord bless you,
and keep you;

the Lord make his face shine on you,
and be gracious to you;

the Lord turn his face toward you,
and give you peace

The Power Of Now, Eckhart Tolle

https://www.amazon.com/Power-Now-Guide-Spiritual-Enlightenment/dp/1577314808

I'm guessing that I read this book for the first time in like 02-03. I remembered it, found it interesting, but very very off the wall and impractical at that time.My copy exists somewhere in the manifested universe (as opposed to the unmanifested (spiritual)), but I could not find it, so I manifested a new paperback version from Amazon to lend to someone that I believe it might resonate with.

When I first read it in I found Tolle to be "From a Galaxy Far Far Away". Fast forward past a number of personal and family crisis, meditation, lots of more mystical (and ancient) Christian teachings and DBT (especially Mindfulness), and it seems a good deal less "out there" ... perhaps "Pluto". Who knows, another couple decades and ....

The statement in the book that resonates most with me is on page 190, "I have lived with several Zen masters, all of them cats." While sometimes I find Tolle taking himself a bit too seriously, that line redeems a lot of mileage for me! One of those masters graces our home today (Ferocious Cabadocious)  -- past masters include Tiger and the ineffible Dobson, sometimes fearsome sage of terrible wisdom.

His best philosophic statement is on 15; "The philosopher Descartes believed he had found the most fundamental truth when he made his famous statement: "I think, therefore I am". he had in fact given expression to the most fundamental error: to equate thinking with Being, and identity the real YOU with your mere thoughts that have far less substance than passing clouds.

If you can learn to sit quietly, observing your breath, and as your mind chatters incessantly, and and you merely OBSERVE IT -- do not judge it (and don't judge the judging which will certainly happen to some degree, at least for a time)!

Treat your chattering mind gently, like a puppy or a toddler -- ACKNOWLEDGE what thoughts are flowing by, and calmly return to focusing on your breath.You will experience Descartes error.

 If you are a "natural", after a "few times", the chatter will slow and you will EXPERIENCE that you are NOT YOUR MIND!!! You HAVE a mind, and a body, and emotions -- but they are not YOU. YOU are spirit ... or consciousness if you prefer.

It is a great way to debunk one of the greatest minds in history in a slightly more metaphysical version of Dr Johnson's "Appeal to the stone".

If you are an UNnatural like me, that experience may take like "100" tries -- the early ones being Panic Attacks, or near so, with LOTS of mind shouting, THIS IS ***NOT*** working! This is stupid!  Satanic!  insane! dangerous! a waste of time!  etc, etc

We Westerners tend to live in and identify with our minds -- it is where our ego resides. My mind was nearly my only residence for my whole IBM career and a few years after. I agree that the EXPERIENCE of being a little "i am' watching your breath, your mind and your emotions is significant, and to a degree "transcendent", possibly even "enlightening" with a very little "e", but I find that Tolle oversells anyway -- much in the same manner as a lot of other marketing.

I'm NOT saying that he is "lying" ... he may well completely believe in all he says. He IS after all Oprah Approved!,  so marketing or truth, it has certainly worked. My advice would be to try DBT first -- it has a lot more research and science behind it, however if Tolle speaks to you, go for it. Scotch, Bourbon, Irish, Canadian ... it's all Whiskey (or Whisky, hard to agree on anything!)

Oh, and getting out of your mind isn't quite enough -- the "real you", the spiritual you, must learn to live in full acceptance of NOW ... this moment and ONLY this moment which is where we ALWAYS exist, AS IT IS! Not as you wish it, believe it "should be", etc, etc. It is here you stand to have the leverage to change the future -- or decide NOT to change the future. The past? Well, the past you are not going to change no matter how much you invest in it. In DBT, we call that Radical Acceptance.

p154, "If you stop investing it with "selfness", the mind loses it's compulsive quality, which is basically the compulsion to judge, and so resist what IS, which creates conflict, drama and new pain." ... a little farther on, "... the greatest catalyst for change in a relationship is complete acceptance of your partner [or anyone you deal with] as he or she is, without needing to judge or change them in any way."

The best reason for doing that is because the nearly 100% probability is that you CAN'T change that other person! You might bludgeon them physically or emotionally into "compliance", however unless THEY wanted to change (or they are already less "living in their minds" than you), you will only create pain and damage.

Just as in DBT, many people take this all as "giving up", or "not caring'. Not so -- in fact, you nearly MUST be outside of your mind to actually care, because otherwise, pretty much all you are doing is feeding your own ego. Your mind will continue to have lots of thoughts on lots of things -- you can share them, talk about them, carry signs for them, etc, you will just realize that they are not YOU. You are MUCH more than those things!

YOU are "not of this world" ... you have no reason to invest your ego in this world. In fact, as much as possible, your ego is to be DEAD ... either crucified with Christ, or vanished into Tolle's "unmanifested'. Your ego is your mind talking -- it's your "old address' ... like "666 Gray Matter Parkway", vs "The Now, The Kingdom of Christ -- Infinity Drive'.

While Tolle either believes, or simply wants to maximize his audience, he tries to make this book accessible to any or no religion  -- although on this read, I was surprised by how much semi-New Testament he actually does include.

It's a book worthy enough at least to have someone else buy it and lend it to you!

Boundaries, By Dr Henry Cloud and Dr John Townsend

https://www.amazon.com/boundaries-book/s?ie=UTF8&page=1&rh=i%3Aaps%2Ck%3Aboundaries%20book

This book is one of the highest rated books on the topic of boundaries, and it is very Bible based. I DO recommend the book On page 61 they do the definition:

"Functional Boundaries refer to a person's ability to complete a task, project or job."
"Relational Boundaries refer to the ability to speak truth to others with whom we are in relationship"

Simple, huh?

Due to my contrarian nature, ll start with a critical thought: 

I find the term "boundaries" to be misleading. I understand the reason for the term, and the book does a great job of telling the people that REALLY need to develop some boundaries about how important they are, and how they "should" go about establishing them -- usually putting their foot down, standing 100% firm, and often taking the consequences -- loss of relationship, maybe violence or attempted violence, huge angry outburst, etc.

Obviously, if you are worried about a violent response, the person you are setting this boundary with walking out and never speaking with you again, giant anger, etc, then certainly, you REALLY need "boundaries" -- really best called "walls" in the context the book often talks about. To my mind, a WALL is something put up by one party (like the Berlin wall), and enforced with force -- maybe even "deadly force" as in "comply or this relationship is permanently over".

If I do my version, it will be called "loving contracts", or "good fences make good neighbors", or something of the like. My point is that there is a BIG difference between a neighbor going over to his neighbor and saying "I'd like to put up a fence -- dog issues, kid issues, your 16 year old daughter sunbathing naked is distracting my 13 year old boy, etc ... can we talk together about height, styles, etc over a beer" and you suddenly putting up a 20' lime green monstrosity and telling him "it's on the property line, get over it".

I think they wanted to cover this with page 66, "Don't even try to start setting limits until you have entered into deep abiding attachments with people who will love you no matter what".

Page 156 was important to me. "People don't make other people angry. Your anger has to come from something inside of you". Later; "Problems arise when we make someone else responsible for our needs and wants, and when we blame that person for our disappointments".

Bottom line, we all have to own our feelings -- we are ALL selfish, and we ALL seek to get our needs met by others (and for some needs, have to). In close relationships, that means that we deal with conflicting wants, and we need to NEGOTIATE ... which is much better than slapping up a 20' wall without consulting our "partner'.

Chapter 10, "Boundaries and your Children" needs to be made required reading for those seeking a license for having children. Oh, there isn't such a license? Damn.

"Discipline is an external boundary, designed to develop internal boundaries in our children. It provides a structure of safety until children have enough structure in their character to not need it". Later; "Discipline is not payment for a wrong. It is the natural law of God: our actions reap consequences. Discipline is different from punishment because God is finished punishing us. Punishment ended on the Cross for all those who accept Christ as Savior". 

I grew up on a farm. Hard work was as much a part of life as breathing, and I was a VERY lazy kid -- I still drew breath and worked. I also attended church, often with LOTS of bellyaching -- it was just the way it was. Fast forward to today -- unless parents have the intestinal fortitude to work HARD to insure their children learn responsibility and the fear of God, all bets are off. The Ten Commandments have been removed from most public buildings and certainly from the schools. "Honor your father and mother" is pretty much  considered a matter of discredited "mythology" rather than the only commandment with a promise. "Work" can be nigh on inaccessible at home given "convienience", while the Internet, video games, marketing, social media, etc are INTRUSIVE!

In the middle of 174, "The freedom of the Cross allows us to practice without having to pay a terrible price. The only danger is consequences, not isolation and judgment." .. THANKS BE TO GOD! Paul said in Timothy 1:15 "Here is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance: Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners—of whom I am the worst." ... he is right about Christ, he is wrong that he is the worst -- I've won that race in personal failure after personal failure for which I am most grievously at fault,

As I've been able to study more an more theology after retirement, the following becomes more and more clear, and more and more scary -- page 260:

"God gives a choice and allows the people involved to make up their minds. When people say no, he allows it and keeps on loving them. He is a giver. And one of the things he always gives is a choice, and like a real giver, he also gives the consequences of those choices. He respects boundaries." 

We live in a world where many people believe that "someone" or "some thing" can allow radically free choices, yet remove the consequences.  They often believe that their choices OUGHT to be free of consequences. People really "ought" to be able to do whatever they want and never suffer the consequences.

On page 121, the authors provide a ray of hope to those injured by "boundaries" that were really walls or 20' ugly fences with no consultation.

"If you set limits with someone and she responds maturely and lovingly, you can renegotiate the boundary. In addition, you can change the boundary if you are in a safer place". 

It is a worthy book, again, I highly recommend it. Just don't go out and put up a 20' chartreuse fence with your neighbor and expect them to bake you a cake ... and if they do, don't eat it!

Hating Hypocrisy

The Real Problem With Hypocrisy - The New York Times:

Modern psychology continues to attempt to catch up with Jesus. He knew that people hate to be called hypocrites, thus he says in Matt 23

27 “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of the bones of the dead and everything unclean. 28 In the same way, on the outside you appear to people as righteous but on the inside you are full of hypocrisy and wickedness.

That is just one of my favorites, it is a litany of "you hypocrites", with the "whitewashed tombs" being a metaphor that stings me hard enough to be more memorable -- I'm a tomb lacking even decent whitewash. 

Strangely though, while the amoral poltical left, who proudly proclaim that they are not hypocrites since they have no values, love to talk of "Christian hypocrisy", no true practicing Christain can be a hypocrite. Why? 

Because if we really believe what we say before at least some of our communion rituals, we don't ever claim any form of sinlessness -- we proclaim our SINFULNESS and beg for redemption. 

I confess to God Almighty, before the whole company of heaven and to you, my brothers and sisters, that I have sinned in thought, word, and deed by my fault, by my own fault, by my own most grievous fault; wherefore I pray God Almighty to have mercy on me, forgive me all my sins, and bring me to everlasting life. Amen.

 The article talks a lot about why hypocrites are hated, (it's all about falsely signallying morality), then goes on to recommend that we say things like "I think it is morally wrong to waste energy, but sometimes I do it anyway". This would seem to be tautalogically true, since if wasting energy is morally wrong, all the energy wasted by the computers involved in typing the artitcle in and spraying it over the internet would clearly be "immoral".

"Morality" used to be something special -- murder, lying, infidelity, etc. Improper use of a resourse was once about efficency,  engineering trade-offs and such rather than "morality".

So given this latest NYT view, is hypocrisy possible without talking? When Al Gore flys to a warm climate on a private jet to discuss global warming, is is action "moral hypocrisy", since he clearly did not use the most energy efficient conveyance possible?

And some thought that medieval theologians were wasting time as they discussed how many angels could fit on the head of a pin! 

'via Blog this'

Emotions Decide

Decisions Are Emotional, Not Logical: The Neuroscience behind Decision Making | Big Think:

I've written about the phenomenon that our emotions are required for decision making more than once in the blog -- I've certainly read about it more than once. Here is a version of it from this linked article.

A few years ago, neuroscientist Antonio Damasio made a groundbreaking discovery. He studied people with damage in the part of the brain where emotions are generated. He found that they seemed normal, except that they were not able to feel emotions. But they all had something peculiar in common: they couldn’t make decisions. They could describe what they should be doing in logical terms, yet they found it very difficult to make even simple decisions, such as what to eat. Many decisions have pros and cons on both sides—shall I have the chicken or the turkey? With no rational way to decide, these test subjects were unable to arrive at a decision.

At some point, I hope to do a thorough review and tie this factoid together. I actually think all of us are pretty intuitive about this. Our "guts" or "right brains" give us the answer, and then our left brains, the logical part make up a story was to why it was "rational". Thus my oft used quote "we are rationalIZING not rational!".


'via Blog this'

Dilbert, Hypnosis, Trump

How to Un-Hypnotize a Rabid Anti-Trumper | Scott Adams Blog:

If you want to go through the linked column, I think it is worthy relative to understanding persuasion. I very much enjoy that Adams indicates that if a "rabid anti-Trumper" is concerned about "his potential SCOTUS nominees", they have likely given the matter some thought and it is reasonable to just "agree to disagree". It shows he believes that rational people can come to different conclusions that ARE "thought out".

Adams is observing Trump from the POV of a "technical nerd persuasion scientist", here is his disclaimer at the end:

Note: I endorsed Hillary Clinton for my personal safety, because I live in California. But my political views do not align with any of the candidates for president. 

Personally, I would do better under a Clinton presidency. If Clinton gets elected, no one will blame me for anything she does in office. But if Trump wins, my blogging about his persuasion skills will make it look like my fault every time he does something you don’t like. I don’t need that trouble. 

Also, as a top one-percenter, I’m winning under the current system. Trump is the only candidate who has the persuasion skills to increase tax rates on the rich, so #imwithher, for selfish reasons.

He is a top 1%er -- so he can get around the massive taxes that those of us in the 98-80th% percentiles have to pay. I applaud his honesty!

He  uses four specific objections that are "media brainwashing" ( being hypnotized in his lexicon. "heavy persuasion" )

1. Trump is a loose cannon that will offend other countries and may start nuclear war. 
2. Trump is terrible at business because he has had several bankruptcies 
3. Trump is a racist 
4. Trump is anti-woman  and anti-GBLT 

He goes through what is essentially the "reverse hypnotism" that the media has worked on people to persuade them of these 4 ... factual objections, asking questions, obvious fallacies (Mexico is a country, not a race), obvious truths ( "all humans are biased" ), you WANT a president that discriminates against non-citizens. The job is President of the US, not "World Citizen" like the current putz!

It's worth the read, but not critical -- just be aware (as everyone that reads this blog ought to be) that most of what the media drives into our heads day after day after ... is pure propaganda, sloppy thinking, or downright lies intended to persuade us to support what is best for the 1% -- who of course run the media on BOTH "sides". 

'via Blog this'

Too Simple Amygdala

The Psychopath, the Altruist and the Rest of Us - WSJ:

An interesting article, but very misleadingly simple.

There is an interesting book that I've read and will maybe blog on at some point called "The Psychopath Inside" about a neuroscientist that discovers he is a psychopath. It gives a much better perspective to the psychopath side.

YES, there are brain structures that play a distinctive part, but how you are brought up, your intelligence, your life choices, your relationships and a myriad of other things have HUGE influence as well.

We are a LONG way from looking at one part of the brain and stating "you are a psychopath" or "you are a hyper-altruist"!

'via Blog this'

Suicide And Bloodletting

There's Been A Startling Rise In Suicide Rates In The U.S.:

Around the time of the American Revolution, "Bloodletting" was considered pretty much a universal cure -- it is fairly commonly accepted that it killed President Washington. The theory was that your "humors" got out of balance, so everyone needed to let out a few pints from time to time. When you got sick, it needed to be done early. If you got sicker, you needed to let more blood. More was better and starting the process early was critical. If the patient died, clearly you didn't start early enough or let enough. More aggressive action was called for on the next case!

If you need any more proof that mental health disorders are a public health issue, look no further than rising suicide rates over the last decade and a half. 

Deaths from suicide have increased 24 percent from 1999 to 2014, according to an analysis of Americans aged 5 and up conducted by researchers at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Any of the rest of you notice a huge decline in government intervention in all aspects of health and mental care from 1999 to 2014? No? Anybody see the OPPOSITE? Anyone hear that drugs for depression and other mental illness are being prescribed at record levels?

As the article points out, suicide rates among high school educated whites are rising rapidly, but interestingly ...

Black men were the only racial and gender group to lower their rate of suicide; it declined 8 percent between 1999 and 2014.

Anyone want to bet that when you have something between 4-6K young black men murdering each other every year it cuts down on the suicide rate for the survivors? THERE might be the poster for "More Government" -- see, the largest government intervention in family lives in the nation is in the black inner city, and their suicide rate is lower!". Wonderful -- born to be shot you will never be hung. Dying by murder is a guarantee you won't commit suicide!

We have more and more government, but LESS people gainfully employed, LESS intact families, and LESS community coherence. For the common person, American life is meaningless and empty -- and suicide rates are rising rapidly.

Government is the modern equivalent of bloodletting -- no matter the condition, the assumed answer is to get it more involved quicker. If things don't seem to be improving, apply even MORE government to the problem!

Bloodletting still kills!

'via Blog this'

Furiously Happy Suicide

http://thefederalist.com/2016/04/08/why-some-people-commit-suicide-without-warning/

I'm doing a "combination", yes, I know the title is odd ... so was the book!

I read the book "Furiously Happy" by Jenny Lawson a while back and was torn about how to review it. I know WAY more about suicide than I would like to from experiences that are WAY too personal as well as reading a good deal about it as a result of those experiences.

Here are some things from Furiously Happy that spoke to me:

I feel successful 3-4 days a month. The other days I feel like I'm barely accomplishing the minimum or that I'm a loser. I have imposter syndrome so that even when I get compliments they are difficult to take and I feel like I'm a bigger fraud than before" ....  

.... "I'm hoping that by writing this and posting this it will make me face this head-on and make some changes in forcing myself to change the way I see success, or in forcing myself to get shit done and stop feeling such dread anxiety every day." ... 

Life passes. Then comes the depression. That feeling that you'll never be right again. That fear that these outbreaks will become more familiar, or worse, never go away. You're so tired from fighting that your start to listen to all the little lies your brain tells you. The ones that say that you're a drain to your family. The ones that say that it's all in your head. The ones that say that if you were stronger or better this wouldn't be happening to you. The ones that say that there is a reason your body is trying to kill you, and that you should just stop all the injections and steroids and drugs and therapies.  

Last month, as Victor drove me home so I could rest, I told him that sometimes I feel like his life would be easier without me. He paused a moment in thought and then said, "It might be easier. But it wouldn't be better"  

I remind myself of that sentence on days when the darkness seems like it will never end. But I know it will pass. I know that tomorrow things will seem a little brighter. I know that next week I'll look back on this sentence and think, "I should stop listening to my brain when it's trying to kill me".  

Mostly the book was not my cup of tea -- too madcap and Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD), lots of disjointed but semi-related thoughts and activities that seemed just "too much" for me. My guess is that much of it might appeal to women more than men (PROOF that I'm a sexist!)

Oh, I DID like her names for her cats "Hunter S Thomcat" (Hunter S Thompson), and "Ferris Mewler". I also liked her discussion of "how many spoons" relative to energy. If each thing you do takes a "spoon", how many are you going to have for that day? One of the major questions for people that have depression issues for sure is "how many spoons today"? Complicated with "what is depression and what is just laziness". As I get older, there is also the question of "What is just being older"?

My Dad always had a TON more spoons than nearly anyone, while my Mom had "less than average". My wife generally has like "more than my Dad in his younger years" and I'd like to think that when things are going OK for me I'm maybe "average" to just possibly a tiny tweak above for a 59 year old guy.  The issue is often HOW DO WE FEEL about our "spoon allotment"? As in the quotes above ... and in the quotes below from the article, are we able to "come to peace" with the "spoon allotment", or do we just continually beat ourselves with "gotta do more, get better, I'm lazy,  etc"?

I especially like her "my brain is trying to kill me". Most people with anxiety and depression have brains that "don't shut off well" -- they have a very hard time "compartmentalizing" ("Just quit thinking about it!"). My personal brain model is SUPERB at running many, many, many scenarios on LOTS of things, most of which run toward the negative, but not all. This can be superb in doing design or writing, although it can also very easily cause personal "analysis paralysis" where a "combinatorial explosion" of thought stops all progress. Or writing / blogging for "a few minutes" becomes HOURS.

From the Federalist article, which purports to be about people with "absolutely no mental illness" here is the core meat ...

Adaptability seems to be the outstanding difference in the link between perfectionism and suicide. As was mentioned earlier, four defining characteristics emerged from Kiamanesh’s research: 1) success-driven personality, 2) fear of failure, 3) keeping up false appearances, and 4) rigidity.

The author does a summary of sorts in this paragraph.

While knowing the four features of maladaptive perfectionism is not a guarantee you’ll stop someone in time, it is a start. Hopefully it will at the very least increase your awareness. We all have perfectionists in our lives, and though I’m not advocating we interrogate them with our newfound knowledge, I am saying we should start paying attention for signs of unhealthy expectations, rigidness, fear of failure, etc.

At this point I feel duty bound to point out that she is all wrong about the Hemingway suicide ... if you care, you can see that here.  I think the four characteristics are useful, but I'm not sure I buy the "no mental illness" -- it is kind of like physically "perfectly healthy", or possibly even MORE rare than that! The human brain is the most complex thing in the universe that we know of -- by definition it would seem to be at "the limits of possible". A top fuel dragster is ALWAYS running on the razor edge of complete destruction. The fact they do runs WITHOUT blowing up is miraculous.

Our brains were not built for the modern world -- by design or by chance. The fact that there is WAY too much mental illness, suicide, unhappiness, loneliness, etc is actually EASY to understand -- the miracle is that there isn't MORE. (and sadly, with the decline of religion, loss of close families and communities, lack of even any interest in meaning or philosophy of life, etc, all those bad brain problems ARE getting worse!).

To the extent that any of this can be simplified, my current advice would be to read "Happiness Is a Serious Problem" -- it covers these issues extremely well.  If you are VERY low on time, read "Man's Search For Meaning" -- it gives the underlying philosophy very well, and next to the life described in a Concentration Camp, maybe we don't really have it as bad as we think.

My short and stolen wisdom in the interim:

• Acknowledge and seek a "higher power". IMHO, Christ is the only one that REALLY matters ... but if you feel he is a step too far, just accept that there is a power beyond yourself! 
• Be grateful for any "spoons" you have -- just the energy to draw breath if need be. 
• As hard as it is when times are bad, ANYTHING is better to ruminate on than yourself! 
• REACH OUT ... or at least "get out". Go sit in a coffee shop or a bar rather than your place alone if things are really bad. Even being AROUND people is worth something. 
• MOVE!!! For me, exercise is critical ... I'm still big and fat, but moving around makes me FEEL a lot better. 
• Get a cat -- or a dog I suppose, if that is the kind of person you REALLY are ;-) 

Loss and "Closure"

Link to WSJ Article

Ran into what I found to be a fairly short description of dealing with death and loss on WSJ that seems very worth of consideration for those of us forced to deal with this topic -- which is ALL of us until we exit this mortal coil.

Every person and every loss is unique. Some may want to have some sort of "closure" (no matter what the article says) ... possibly for "always", or they may change their mind on the topic in the same night ... both directions. Emotion, grief, loss, death -- these are not topics that lend themselves to pat answers or "one size fits all" templates for how they "should" proceed.

Be there for those that have lost that are grieving and try to support them in what they are going through as best you can understand what they need  -- and pray that there will be someone that does the same when it happens to you!

NEVER make statements like "You OUGHT to ..." Ought, should, so and so did, etc relative to someone dealing with loss are minefields. Just avoid walking into them.

OTOH, when it is you that is in grief, TRY to forgive those that are trying to help even if they are doing it horribly.  Even perfect support can at times fail miserably because ... well, because things like logic, rules, guidelines, reason, common sense, etc really don't count for much when facing the permanent (for this life) loss of part of one's very soul.

I liked the following paragraph even though I think it as well can be wrong in some cases. The article is worth the short read.

The reality is that closure is a myth. My personal and professional experience with those who have lost friends and family, including children, has taught me that going on with life is not the same as gaining closure. The wound of loss is a part of each person’s life forever. We continue to think about those dear to us, though perhaps not every day or with the same intensity. Recollection is sometimes provoked by a date on the calendar or, less predictably, by a sight, sound, aroma, melody or place that evokes the missing person.

Dunning-Kruger Effect Revisited

Revisiting why incompetents think they’re awesome | Ars Technica:

I ran into this and remembered that I had covered this in the past at this link. Since nobody read that one, I did some editing and am going to include what I wrote in this post. The basic idea is that in many areas people are "unconsciously incompetent", or basically "too stupid to know how stupid they are, so they assume they are intelligent".

As Darwin put it, "ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge". The Dunning-Kruger (DK) study seems to prove it and shows the following:

1. Incompetent individuals tend to overestimate their own level of skill.
2. Incompetent individuals fail to recognize genuine skill in others.
3. Incompetent individuals fail to recognize the extremity of their inadequacy.
4. If they can be trained to substantially improve their own skill level, these individuals can recognize and acknowledge their own previous lack of skill.

It seems obvious in looking at those that narcissists would be an extreme case -- and also not very likely to be trainable. Obama is pretty much the poster child. A quote from the linked article:

Dunning believes there are two key issues: first, critical thinking skills, applied to your own knowledge, as well as everything else, are vital. But, importantly, if you don't exercise critical thinking skills, they will fade, leaving you with a false impression of your own abilities.

Naturally, the Moose is immune to DK effects because the Moose is AVERAGE, and the problem with DK begins because people (as opposed to mooses) believe they are above average!

I maintain that the BIG problem with DK is "The Party (TP-D) Standard Knowledge". No need to think if you agree with "the 97%" as one recent supposed "expert" did before congress.  The left often likes to assert that such loss of critical thinking happens to "conservatives" with the "FAUX News Effect", but considering that most every other outlet plus the universities tend to lean left, they for some reason are never worried that their own "critical thinking" might have a small chance to atrophy.

We see a bit of that atrophy in the author of the column where he says:

That said, spotting an expert outside of one’s field is a task one can become better at. And that’s important, given just how much information, good and bad, is not available to people. For example, is the expert associated with a university (a good sign) or some 'think tank' (a bad sign)?" Again, though, this takes experience and expertise. Groups like think tanks try to give themselves the trappings of expertise in a move specifically designed to fool us into trusting their statements.

So why pray tell does grant money from a government or some very possibly biased other source going to a researcher at a university have less effect on what kind of research they do or the conclusions that they might come to than funding at a "think tank"? As I pointed out in the FAUX link above about "Media Matters", their whole schtick is looking for "conservative" bias. It would be a rare university indeed where you find any of THAT!

In any case, the following is copied from the 09 post that nobody read -- so I cheated!

We **ALL** fall prey to DK, since we are all OFTEN incompetent!  In fact, for ALL of us, our areas of incompetence VASTLY exceed those areas where we are competent, and the worst problem tends to be those areas where we are "unconsciously incompetent". We are too stupid to know that we don't know!

If you are more intelligent than the average person, you can commonly "make something up" that will sound plausible to all but the more intelligent or the better trained in some area that you happen to drift into. Even worse, if you couple high intelligence with argumentative ability, you are likely to intimidate even those who really DO know from pointing it out since you will STILL be hard to argue with / convince. (If you are REALLY bad, you will just call them "racist" if they point out where you are wrong!)

A near certain sign of a vast level of ignorance and high level of the DK  effect is the belief  that "Someone that was "smart" could explain this to me SIMPLY (meaning "simple" to the person that wants the explanation)". Often this comes with the corollary that "If it can't be explained (to the person) "simply", NOBODY  understands it very well and all views (certainly MINE!) are pretty much "equal"".  The simple answer to this is Quantum Physics -- geniuses like Feynman knew that if you weren't confused, you REALLY didn't understand it!

The core of this idea is viewing ones self as the center of the universe to an extraordinary degree -- why is it that all phenomena ought to be easily explainable to YOU (if indeed to ANYONE)? It is a piece of unfounded faith that shows extreme ignorance coupled with hubris, but remember, it is very possible to couple extreme ignorance with high intelligence. Narcissists are often exactly this case -- convinced they are the only one that really matters, and their special knowledge, opinion and perspective is really the only one that counts! Obama may be the greatest example of this in history!

High Dunning-Kruger and great communication skills is especially dangerous. "See Obama". Note, Reagan had great communications skills, but very low DK -- he clearly knew what he didn't know and acted accordingly. Bush had poor communications skills, and I'd argue a low DK problem as well -- he also was willing to bring in expertise that he knew exceeded his and support them. BO has no clue about economics, mideast history, running car companies, what it takes to win against terrorists, or apparently even Constitutional Law, which was SUPPOSED to be his specialty!  -- but no matter. He is absolutely convinced he can do all of them because he has a law degree from Harvard and worked as a Community Organizer for awhile!

Very much thought about this and the term "chilling" doesn't really do it justice!

'via Blog this'

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.

Incompetence, Against Our Nature

http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20131125-why-the-stupid-say-theyre-smart

Donald Rumsfeld  once made an astute observation once that included the phrases "known unknowns, and unknown unknowns" ... the whole quote bears repeating.

There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know we don't know.

Naturally, the press found the whole discussion to be another "proof" of Rumsfeld's stupidity and ignorance. This article gives a good insight into the  basic science behind why they would react that way. (note, it isn't because they were correct in any way)

What the article covers is that when we are incompetent, we generally are not aware of it, and the more incompetent we are, the more our general tendency is to radically over-estimate our competence even when faced with evidence of our incompetence. To know and accept "unknown unknowns" is on the path to wisdom ... a path we are not wired to walk.

With a moments thought, the fact of our general incompetence is completely obvious. Let's name a few fields -- engineering, medicine, economics, plumbing, electrician, pilot, florist, motorcycle racer, farming and  bar tender.

We could go on for pages -- listing specialties, etc, but the above list ought to be enough to convince the non-politicians among us that we are grossly incompetent in more than at best a few listed, BUT, the article tells us we almost certainly VASTLY overrate our expertise in the ones we are least competent in! It's called "human nature" -- what we DON'T know VASTLY exceeds what we do know.

Rather than running around fully conscious of this massive inadequacy, we simply kid ourselves. Why feel like a total dunce just because you ARE a total dunce. Right? We LIKE to feel good -- so we lie to ourselves! It is something that humans EXCEL at. We are basically all certain that we are above average drivers -- which rationally makes no sense at all, but we ARE NOT rational! We are RATIONALIZING!

I poked fun at politicians above, but it applies equally well to media people, in general to managers and any sort of "leader".  NOTE, I'm NOT saying that we don't need leader types, nor that many of us don't need to assume those positions at times, only that like anything else that humans do, leadership / authority is strongly adversely affected by our basic natures.

BO more than once commented that he was better at any job that those that work for him.

“I think that I’m a better speechwriter than my speechwriters,” Mr. Obama told Patrick Gaspard, his political director, at the start of the 2008 campaign, according to The New Yorker. “I know more about policies on any particular issue than my policy directors. And I’ll tell you right now that I’m going to think I’m a better political director than my political director.”

BO is an especially egregious case, but we ALL have this basic problem, and it gets WORSE as people rise in power / leadership. Almost certainly you have hired contractors that you felt you "could have done as good or better a job as". My advice is to sheet rock, tape and paint a room yourself -- take your time, do the best job you can! To do it right, you need to live with that room a few years -- get to know the flaws. Remember how hard you worked to get it right.

Then, ideally, hire a set of Spanish speaking illegals to show up and sheet rock, tape/mud a much more complicated room. WATCH THEM ... and keep track of the time, then look at the finished job. After you get done crying, you ought to be significantly smarter about your incompetence! But it STILL will not be your nature -- that is wired in. It can't be fully fixed by mere experience.

The big civilization killing problem is that we end up with leaders like BO that have NO CLUE about their incompetence, and they are reported on by reporters who are just as blind!!!

Our founders understood this. They assumed a people that recognized God and thus had at least the base for wisdom. They provided a Constitution and separation to limit the damage that guaranteed incompetent leadership (there is no other kind, we use humans!) could cause. They tried very hard to protect us!

The senselessness of "progressive" thought -- the idea that the latest thought is always the best, as well as the extreme danger of government size and power growing can be easily understood by observing this one easy to understand and easily verifiable fact of our shared nature.

If we were rational beings, we could all agree on this -- but it is against our nature. We got to where we were when we landed on the Moon because well over half of us understood that "The fear of God is the beginning of wisdom".

The scale has tipped the other way -- so now we foolishly decline.

Man's Search For Meaning, Viktor Frankl

link to book

Personal events of the past week have yet again brought this book off my shelf and I realized that I have never directly reviewed it in the blog.

Dr Victor Frankl, trained as a psychiatrist before suffering years of life in the brutal concentration camps of Nazi Germany where he lost his young wife, parents and of course millions of others (including many more of his friends and associates), has a level of authority that is hard to ignore.

Beyond his experience in the horror of the camps, he founded a school of psychotherapy called "Logotherapy", derived from the Greek "logos" or "meaning". It is considered the 3rd school of Viennese psychotherapy, contrasted with Freud's "will to pleasure", and the Adler/Nietzsche "will to power", it talks of a "will to meaning" in the existential manner similar to Kierkegaard.

Logotherapy speaks of "existential frustration", where the term "existential" has 3 related meanings:

1. Existence itself in the way that humans experience it.
2. The MEANING of existence
3. The PERSONAL SEARCH for that meaning

Where Freud, and largely the American Founders thought that "happiness" or "pleasure" is what is to be pursued, Frankl believes that life provides each of us a task that is specific and unique for each person. Every human has value because each has a unique task that will likely fall under one or more of three headings:

1). The completing of a "work" -- art, innovation, a family, ideas, business, etc ...

2). Experiencing or encountering someone or some thing -- the love of your life, care for the poor, the elderly, the sick ... or maybe just "baseball", or "riding motorcycle"

3). Suffering -- facing inevitable suffering and turning it to triumph. Very much looked down on today where we tend to make people "ashamed for being unhappy". Note if the suffering CAN be removed, then that is what should be done, but if it is a terminal painful condition, or someone close to you is lost -- or if you are in a concentration camp, then human suffering CAN have dignity.

A well known quote from Nietzsche comes up a couple times in the book "He who has a why can bear with almost any how." The message of the book is that it is meaning that is primary (the why). Happiness is a RESULT not the immediate objective, and in fact, the pursuit of happiness as a primary goal is often destructive as it fails to realize that RESPONSIBILITY ... inescapable responsibility to answer the question that life asks us, is the natural human state and it REQUIRES tension ... effort, risk, loss, pain.

The idea that happiness is a worthy "pursuit" and some would even say "a right" is a sham, because of what Frankl calls "the tragic triad" that is part of each of our lives:

Pain, Guilt, and Death. 

Part of each of our "question" is how do we say yes to life in the face of Pain, Guilt, and Death. His basic answer is "A human being is not one in pursuit of happiness, but rather in search of a reason to become happy".

I'm going to include his "imperative", even though it is one that does not speak to me as well as much of the book does:

 "Live life as if you were living for the second time and had acted as wrongly the first time as you are about to act now". 

To try to give readers a chance to follow this better than possibly I do, I will quote a bit more:

" In fact, the opportunities to act properly, the potentialities to fulfill a meaning, are affected by the irreversibility of our lives. But also the potentialities alone are so affected. For as soon as we have used an opportunity and have actualized a potential meaning, we have done so once and for all. We have rescued it into the past wherein it as been safely delivered and deposited. In the past, nothing is irretrievably lost, but rather, on the contrary, everything is irrevocably stored and treasured. To be sure, people tend to see only the stubble fields of transitoriness, but overlook and forget the full granaries of the past which they have brought into the harvest of their lives: the deeds done, the loves loved, and last but not least, the sufferings they have gone through with courage and dignity." 

My belief is that the reason this does not speak to me to the same extent is that I did not suffer in a concentration camp, nor lose a young wife that I loved, all my family and most of my friends to the Holocaust. To Frankl, his life prior to, and even the experience of the horror of the camps is so much a part of his soul that he has had to integrate that as "treasure", somewhat in order to live, but possibly more so in order to honor and keep alive the memories of those he knew and loved that were lost so early in his life.

The book is not directly a "religious book", although to believe that "life" asks each a meaningful question, there is only a short step from "life" to "God". If one has Christian Faith, much in the book is quite easily to translate to that context.

Needless to say, I highly recommend the book, ESPECIALLY for those suffering ... and in human life, eventually, that includes all of us.

The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Religion and Politics

The latest from Jonathan Haidt, and it is a great one. Extreme recommendation.

For people with a conservative bent, a lot of this book will be "didn't everyone know this already"? But for folks of the liberal bent -- like Haidt, although his research for this book migrated him to what he sees as "moderate", it will be something of a struggle.

Sadly, I'm sure that Haidt is due to discover that his observations about human nature may be hyper proven as the liberal establishment punishes him for his heresy of using actual science to point out some fairly obvious things about human nature that would seem to indicate that conservatives are not exclusively just "stupid and evil".

First, we are not rational beings, we are RATIONALIZING beings. The book carries on  the excellent rider/elephant analogy from "The Happiness Hypothesis" and builds off it. The Rider is best seen as the Press Secretary for the elephant -- the elephant does something or "leans" in some direction and the rider dutifully develops a case for the elephant. Humans developed into "hive creatures" (like bees) that could specialize labor and cooperate without all having to be related. Morality is the "wetware" that we use to create and enforce the rules to do that -- our "rider" (consciousness) was created so that our "elephants" (subconscious) could operate this way.

The Six Moral Senses:

1. Care/Harm
2. Liberty/Oppression
3. Fairness/Cheating
4. Loyalty/Betrayal
5. Authority/Subversion
6. Sanctity/Degradation

Liberals tend to be very heavily focused on #1 ... although interestingly, conservatives seem to "care" almost as much, they just don't "care" to the exclusion of all other moral senses. On #2, liberals and libertarians are somewhat close -- although liberals see corporate power as much worse and "oppressive" than government power, which they have a hard time even equating with oppression.

On #3, liberals think of "equality" and completely forget about proportionality -- or Karma. One of the huge problems in cooperation is the "free rider problem". Haidt covers this and why it is impossible to have cooperation without "punishment" (sanctions) against free riders.

Liberals are nearly blind (or claim to be) on 4,5 and 6. It turns out that when tested, the "moral modules" for even Sanctity are there and working in the liberal brain just fine -- they just don't want to admit it because in their view it seems "less enlightened" to admit that degrading things are degrading.

I believe that this book is an EXCELLENT base to at least attempt to open some lines of communication between liberals and conservatives, but I suspect that Haidt is in for a shock -- maybe somewhat equivalent to the shock that Edward O Wilson wrote "Sociobiology" back in the '70s.

The "divine faith" of liberals is that there is no God and man is an infinitely malleable blank slate. While proving that there is no god (or that there is) is not going to happen, it is scientifically known that man is NOT a blank slate, and at least in the "next few millennia" not likely to be improved upon much. Wilson was trashed for stating the basic outline of what a "human nature" was likely to be, now here comes Haidt with some fairly solid research showing what it actually is.

As Wilson outlined in "Consilience", the more science moves forward, the more we begin to see the fact of an intricate and complex human that is no less difficult to mold to our desires than ecologists are realizing the ecology of the planet is. We are each little ecosystems honed by selection (or created by God) to interact within the the planetary and social constructs that we are born with and into.

Reality has never been very much of interest to the Progressive Project -- now about 100 years in, with all of the progressive nations facing economic demise, even the social sciences start to point out that reality is not in line with the progressive vision. My guess is that the response is not likely to be very reasoned, but rather very emotional.

What We Miss

Just imagine what we miss when we try to be scientific and reduce the number of variables we have to deal with. How about when we only look at one side of an issue, or only look where the MSM or some candidate, party, friend, etc is telling us to look?

To be human is to have some very significant limitations. Even worse, other humans will often exploit those limitations. We don't know what we don't know, we are ALL suffering from only being able to see a tiny portion of reality. Humility is truly the foundation of wisdom.

Stumbling on Happiness

One of the foolish pop psychological books that I tend to enjoy for no particularly rational reason. Human nature is a slippery item, yet for some reason Mooses seem to be fascinated with it!

"Human beings come into the world with a passion for control, they go out of the world the same way, and research suggests that if they lose their ability to control things between their entrance and their exit, they become unhappy, helpless, hopeless, and depressed." Note though that "control" isn't as simple as one might expect-how one achieves "control" may be by having a high position, making a lot of money or even being an invalid. Of course none of us ACTUALLY have control but, but humans are generally pretty good at being able to stay in an illusion that they like.

Unfortunately, it turns out that this idea that we ought to "steer our own boat" isn't correct for a lot of different reasons. One of the reasons is that we tend to recall and rely on unusual instances. "Because we tend to remember the best of times and the worst of times instead of the most likely of times, the wealth of experience that young people admire (or might admire) doesn't always pay clear dividends".

Another reason is that we have a huge tendency to misconstrue how we will feel about regret of action vs regret of inaction. "Studies show that about 9 out of 10 people expect to feel more regret when they foolishly switch stocks than when they foolishly fail to switch stocks, because most people think they will regret foolish actions more than foolish inactions. But studies also show that 9 out of 10 people are wrong. Indeed, in the long run, people of every age and in every walk of life seem to regret not having done things much more than they regret the things they did."

"Because we do not realize that our psychological immune systems can rationalize an excess of courage more easily than an excess of cowardice, we hedge oru best when we should blunder forward." A piece of wisdom that has been apt for thousands of years, but one which is hard to truely learn.

One of the more memorable parts of the book was a discussion of Siamese twins. Society and the rest of us are of course "absolutely certain" that Siamese twins CAN'T be happy, so it is worth even huge risks to separate them. However (and rather disconcertingly), Siamese Twins that reached maturity universally think the their condition is BETTER and they don't want to be separated! To which we respond "they don't really understand what it means to be happy".

The book has a sort of chilling little paragraph: "If they haven't had our experiences, then we haven't had theirs either, and it is entirely possible that WE are the ones with the "squished language"-that when we say we are overjoyed, we have no idea what they are talking about since we have never experienced the companionate love, the blissful union, the unadulterated agape that Lori and Reba (the example twins) have." The "squished language" is a reference to "happiness being relative"-the idea that if you experience more happiness, you get a new "happiness set point".

Ah yes, a perspective that doesn't fit into what our "collective consciousness" thinks. IS there any human "collective understanding"? There is a "bee collective", but as a Moose I'd like to point out that humans are not a herd (or hive) creature. Maybe "individual" (or possibly Siamese Twin, or agape heterosexual pair) is "as good as it gets" as defined by either God, or 100's of millions of years of evolution. Who would know? Certainly not a scientist since "happiness" is an irreducible experience of INDIVIDUAL consciousness-so not even a lefty collectivist can decree what happiness is! It may be politically incorrect, or possibly even RELIGIOUS!

I enjoyed the book. I'm not sure that we really have the capacity to operate on meta-knowledge about our human makeup, but it is fun to acquire anyway.

Out of the Box, Cubicles

My six year cubicle nightmare is at end. Yesterday the boxes moved to my new 12x12 window office, and today I made major progress on “settling in”. Having been raised in a small farmhouse, living a lot of time outside in Northern WI hunting, fishing, and generally knocking around, I’ve always prided myself on being “able to deal with anything”. I guess I DID “deal with it”, but it was anything but easy. Today felt like a great weight had been lifted from my shoulders and my steps were much lighter.

Being a solid member of the “Religious Right”, I’m one that believes that there are “absolutes”, but believing that SOME things are absolute, doesn’t mean that ALL are. A lot of human existence is very relative. How bad is it to work in a cube? In the overall scheme of things, not bad, BUT relative to my own office for ME, very bad. Much worse than I would have ever thought possible, and a bit of an exercise in “space based socialism”.

As I’ll cover too many times, one of the cornerstones of the left agenda is “equality of outcome”. Most often they mean “economics” when they think that, but space in a workplace is a pretty good metaphor. When I joined the company I very soon figured out that I would enjoy having my own office … at the time I really didn’t know why. I might have thought “status”, and there is certainly some status involved, but sometimes we “know” more than we think we know. Getting to a position where I would have my own office was a great motivator.

After 15 years in my own office, six years in the cubes has aught me that I’m WAY more susceptible to noises from the environment than I ever dreamed. I knew I had a preference for working on computer terminals in low light (out of the question in a cube). Today I realized that the worst of it for me was the “white noise”, the constant wind-tunnel effect that is supposed to make the din of cubeland bearable. I felt like I was on some good combination tranquilizer / brain focus drug today, feeling both more alert and more relaxed. I walked back over to the wasteland of people stalls, and the feeling of dread returned with the wall-o-noise. Once you have lived in hell, even a whiff of sulfur brings back bad memories.

Is any of this reasonable or rational? Probably not, but it is to ME! For all the liberals claims of “diversity”, “caring for people”, “paying attention to the human side of things”, etc, equality of outcome is the EXACT OPPOSITE OF THAT! I hate cubes, and had I not have spent 20 years with the company with kids in school, etc, I know they would have motivated me out of the company. They DID motivate me to work from home far more than I ever used to. If there was a ghost of a chance to be promoted out of them in the technical ranks at our company, then they would have encouraged me on that path. People are often driven by motivations that are “irrational”.

Cubes appeal to the socialist ethic. Everyone gets the “minimum”, so “nobody can complain”. No matter how hard you work, there is no way to escape … liberal nirvana. Does that really appeal to “human nature”? No, of course not, it appeals to some abstract concept of “fairness”. My left brain can spew out some rational reasons for hatred of working in a sterile box, but it is really my right brain that provides the emotional loathing. Can I “adapt” … well certainly, humans have adapted to concentration camps and still found some joy.“Man’s Search For Meaning”, byVictor Frankel is well worth a read … short, and would help you survive situations even worse than 6-years in a cube.

If the envy of your neighbor is more important than your own condition, or your potential to improve your condition, then you are a likely a socialist at heart. We all have to have a heart, and if that is yours, maybe it is just as implacable as I found my heart’s hatred of the cubes to be. Just don’t mistake such thinking as somehow “caring for people”. It is caring for some abstract view of people that will always have at least one voice in opposition as long as I draw breath.