Aristotle on Friendship

Leave a comment

Reblogged from The House at POS Corner:

(This is an adaptation of a blog post I wrote in Swedish a couple of days ago.)

On Facebook one is “friends” with all one’s contacts – even those one has never met in real life, and even those one has not heard about before one gets a “friends request”. The new competitor to Facebook, Google+, on the other hand, makes a distinction between a circle of “friends” and a circle of “acquaintances”.

Read more… 939 more words

This really ties in well with my previous post about psychological visibility: turns out Aristotle had a similar concept.

Psychological Visibility, Self-Image, and You

Leave a comment

As conscious human beings, we have a subtle anatomical problem: we cannot directly perceive our body in its entirety. We have (or at least, should have) a sense of identity based on our thoughts, feelings, and values but we cannot see ourselves completely with our limited visual perception. The closest that we can come to perceiving ourselves totally is through external reflections.

We have a basic need as human beings to view ourselves in a positive manner. On a superficial level, this is accomplished by maintaining proper hygiene and dressing well so that your physical reflection in a mirror is agreeable. But our need for a positive self-image must also be satisfied on a deeper level.

For a moment, imagine if someone in your life built a life-size bronze statue of you. You would gain an immense sense of pride and would feel profoundly appreciated, especially if the architect was someone you had a great amount of respect for. But while few of us will ever get the chance to witness such an explicit and grandiose reflection of ourselves, our self-image can get valuable reinforcement if we are appreciated by someone who shares our values. This does not just apply to extremely confident, self-actualized people either. Consider the temporary satisfaction of an insecure womanizer who has just recognized that some party girl is attracted to him. Someone has perceived him in a positive manner and he feels psychologically visible as a result, even if the appreciation rests on the shaky foundation of her lack of standards.

I would like to stress that our human desire to feel visible and appreciated must not be confused with the irrational tendency of some people to derive their entire identity through the reactions and standards of other people. A person gains a natural, selfish pleasure from the appreciation of their identity insofar as it is reflected back to them by others whom they admire – but it is crucial that our hero first possess his own identity that is indepedant of other people’s opinions.

In Ayn Rand’s novel The Fountainhead, the protagonist, Howard Roark, offers a memorable quote towards the end of the story: “To say ‘I love you’, one must first know how to say the ‘I’.”

Unfortunately, learning how to say the “I” is not an easy process. Like it or not, identity formation is a rational, conscious process; any other approach to it will result in a mess of random and arbitrary values which cannot be practiced in reality without contradiction.

Once you have devoloped an integrated, non-contradictory set of values you are halfway to full self-actualization. The other half of the journey is living your values without compromise. If you respect this process, your presence and sense of life will inspire people with similar values, and their recognition of you will allow you experience the abstract concept of your identity on the perceptual, concrete level of awareness.

(Edit: The natural corollary of positive reinforcement is negative reinforcement, and this is okay. To say that we should ignore our basic need for psychological visibility because we might not get it is like saying it’s bad to look at mirrors because sometimes you might not like what you see. Accept reality as it is and commit yourself to constant growth.)

The Hidden Price of the Unearned

Leave a comment

Victory is sweetest when you’ve known defeat.

-Malcolm S. Forbes

Like most people, I do not enjoy losing.

But that is just what I experienced some hours ago. Since I like to multitask while listening to audiobooks (I’m a voracious listener as well as a voracious reader), I played EA Sports’ NHL 12. A week ago, I had started a playoff run with the Boston Bruins (with a fantasy draft before the season, so the team was an eclectic mix of players), and now I was in the Stanley Cup Finals against the Detroit Red Wings. It was a dramatic, far-too-intense-for-a-video-game series that had reached a 7th and deciding game. My team, however, was down by a goal with 50 seconds left, but then my Bruins beared down and tied the game! My euphoria continued well after the ensuing face-off at centre ice – but it ended abruptly seconds later when Detroit came back and immediately took the lead again! This time, their lead would hold up and I lost the (virtual) Stanley Cup.

I was devastated.

This may seem like an overreaction, but I had a lot of time invested with this (virtual) team and it was a bitter feeling to come up short. I thought to myself, “If only the result could be different…”

But then I stopped myself. For at that exact moment, a particularly relevant Ayn Rand quote came to mind:

There is no conflict of the interests among men who do not desire the unearned.

Now, it is one thing to read that quote in a neutral emotional state, with no immediate conflict facing you. It is quite another to hear that quote in the midst of a torrent of melancholy and frustration. However, the quote still struck me as profoundly true.

Since, however, emotions are not tools of cognition (but rather, a sort of adviser for what your conscious mind should focus on) I decided to divert my attention away from my broken heart and consider why that particular quote struck me as true.

This led to me to the following thought experiment: what if the players in my virtual Stanley Cup Finals were real? And what if my team still lost to Detroit? If I could reverse the NHL’s verdict to award the Stanley Cup to Detroit rather than my Bruins, without changing the scores of any of the games or the fact that Detroit had technically earned it, would I?

This is actually an extremely complex thought experiment because there are many factors to consider that are not immediately obvious. I’ll summarize my thinking below:

  • If I reverse the decision, I win the Stanley Cup and feel good, but not as good as if I had earned it.
  • In addition, Detroit, the team that did earn it, would not be able to reap the rewards of their effort.
  • Through my own actions, I have given my fullest consent to a world (or social system) in which those who earn values may not get to keep those values.
  • Therefore, if I ever earn something myself it is unlikely that I will be able to reap the rewards of my success.

A mere desire for the unearned is contradictory to a desire to be able to keep that which you earn. It is not just an act of resistance against a free and just society, it is a rebellion against the Law of Causality itself. Since I do not desire an irrational world, I would therefore refuse to accept the Stanley Cup that I did not earn and congratulate the Detroit Red Wings on their hard-fought victory.

Those of you who are particularly astute may have already realized that this concept is applicable to any other situation where there is a “conflict of interest”, from job searches to love triangles.

There is a difference between someone who has lost and someone who is a loser. The purpose of this article was to further illuminate this distinction.

But it’s still going to take me a few days to get over this loss…

Nerve – Taylor Clark (1/2)

Leave a comment

Nerves make us bomb job interviews, first dates, and SATs. With a presentation looming at work, fear robs us of sleep for days. It paralyzes seasoned concert musicians and freezes rookie cops in tight situations. And yet not everyone cracks. Soldiers keep their heads in combat; firemen rush into burning buildings; unflappable trauma doctors juggle patient after patient. It’s not that these people feel no fear; often, in fact, they’re riddled with it.

In Nerve, Taylor Clark draws upon cutting-edge science and painstaking reporting to explore the very heart of panic and poise. Using a wide range of case studies, Clark overturns the popular myths about anxiety and fear to explain why some people thrive under pressure, while others falter-and how we can go forward with steadier nerves and increased confidence.

-Amazon.com description

___________________________________________________

“Our fears are faster than our thoughts.” (38)

“We might wish our higher cognitive machinery could keep up with the amygdala, but evolution, in its savage wisdom, knows that it’s better to go through a thousand false alarms than to risk failing to react to a real danger just once.”

The amygdala has a greater ability to supersede the conscious mind than vice versa – “our brains are actually designed to thwart our efforts to override the fear response.” (40)

“So in the same way that your computer’s antivirus program compares each file on your hard drive with its data bank of malicious software, your amygdala scans all incoming stimuli against a memory bank of threats. If it gets a close enough match (say, a scurrying. Lack critter), it fires up a fear reaction (‘Spider alert!’). Memory, then, is an essential ingredient in fear.” (43)

The process of learning to fear something is imprecise, but the neural connections and imprints it makes are strong and almost impossible to undo completely.

“Faced with a vague physical sensation, the hypochondriac dwells not in the probability that it’s benign, but in the possibility, however slim, that it heralds something catastrophic.” (54)

“An estimated 5 percent of all visits to primary care doctors in the United Stares stem from hypochondria, at an annual cost of $20 billion to the health care system.” (55)

“Fear is primarily physiological, yet anxiety is predominantly cognitive: fear supercharges the body to escape real danger right now, and anxiety motivates the brain to figure out how to avoid theoretical danger in the future.” (58)

“People who can’t stand uncertainty interpret ambiguous information not as vague or neutral, but as threatening.” (62)

“(A) lack of negative outcomes reinfoces the worry habit. Because feared events almost never follow worry, we start subconsciously believing that worry prevents such things from happening.” (64)

Our prefrontal cortex distinguishes us from other species; only we can plan ahead for potential threats in the future. But Joseph LeDoux explains the downside of this: “Bigger brains allow better plans, but for these you pay in the currency of anxiety.” (70)

“If fear is like a living organism in the mind, avoidance is its primary means of self-preservation. Without exposing ourselves to the things that trigger our fears, we never get a chance to learn that we can cope, or that our catastrophic worries are wrong, or that the things we fret really aren’t going to tear us limb from limb. Avoidance ensures that the fear lives on.” (71)

(Arguing against brute force struggles with fear) “Fear and anxiety are a great, rushing river upon which we float in our bobbing little kayaks. We can paddle furiously against the stream in a futile struggle to get upriver and avoid the rapids, or we can work with the current and use our energy to navigate the challenges ahead. The choice is always ours.” (72)

“To get over a fear, you have to expose yourself to it, and you have to feel afraid.” (75) -then it will naturally pass and you’ll learn that you can handle it

“More conventional therapies attempt to help patients relax, but (Boston University’s David Barlow) contends that focusing on becoming calm can send a false message that fear is dangerous. ‘There’s a place for relaxation,’ explained Craske, a Barlow collaborator, ‘but if the crux of the problem is that a person is afraid of feeling fear, then too much focus on relaxation simply feeds that fear.’” (76)

“(UCLA psychologist Matthew Lieberman) believes (that) mindful noting – the simple act of putting our feeling into words – helps the brain disambiguate our emotions and provide a level of detachment from them.” (82)

Once ironworkers tie off ther ropes and their harness is set, they like to lean back into the harness instead of clinging next to the column they’re suspended near. They understand that you have to trust the equipment. It reflects back to them that everything’s working.

(An ironworker’s description of this process) “You tie off. You lean back into it. You don’t fall. Okay.” (90)

Fooled by Randomness – Nassim Nicholas Taleb

Leave a comment

At least in terms of Expected Value it is far better to be a dentist than a rock star, because dentists earn consistently large salaries while the majority of rock stars earn very little, and even those that do become successful and make millions don’t swing the profession’s average salary to the level of dentists.

And if lack of variance is valuable to you, than being a dentist becomes even more attractive!

Statistical example of the lack of variance in the long-term relative to the short-term: “A 15% return with 10% volatility (or certainty) per annum translates into a 93% probability of success in any given year. But seen at a narrow time scale, this translates into a mere 50.02% probability of success over any given second” (65)

“(T)here are Monte Carlo generators designed to structure such texts and write entire papers. Fed with ‘postmodernist’ texts, they can randomize phrases under a method called recursive grammar, and produce grammatically sound but entirely meaningless sentences that sound like Jacques Derrida, Camille Paglia, and such a crown.” (73)

If you let an infinite amount of monkeys type on typewriters, it is 100% certain that one will type a word-for-word copy of The Iliad.

“The following inductive statement illustrates the problem of interpreting past data literally, without methodology or logic:” (120)

I have just completed a thorough statistical examination of the life of President Bush. For fifty-eight years, close to 21,000 observations, he did not die once. I can hence pronounce him as immortal, with a high degree of statistical significance.

It’s easier to remember a logically linked story than an assortment of unrelated facts. Causality is easier to commit to memory, so sometimes we create it where it doesn’t exist.

“If you meet someone randomly, there is a one in 362.25 chance of your sharing their birthday…Now let us look at a situation where there are 23 people in a room. What is the chance of there being 2 people with the same birthday? About 50%. For we are not specifying which two people need to share a birthday; any pair works.” (159 – The Birthday Paradox)

“When the statistician looks at the data to test a given relationship…odds are that the results can be taken seriously. But when one throws the computer at data, looking for just about any relationship, it is certain that a spurious connection will emerge, such as the fate of the stock market being linked to the length of women’s skirts. And just like the birthday coincidences, it will amaze people.” (160)

“Data that is perfectly patternless would be extremely suspicious and appear to be man-made. A single random run is bound to exhibit some pattern – if one looks hard enough.” (169)

“Our brain is not cut out for nonlinearities…Our emotional apparatus is designed for linear causality.” (179)

Studies have shown that people are almost incapable of making the simplest decisions without emotions (Tested by surgical ablation on a piece of the brain to suspend the ability to register emotion, isolating logic. Subjects couldn’t get out of bed in the morning and wasted entire days weighing various decisions.) This is why psychologists call emotions “lubricants of reason.”

“No matter how sophisticated our choices, how good we are at dominating the odds, randomness will have the last word. We are left only with dignity as a solution – dignity defined as the execution of a protocol of behavior that does not depend on the immediate circumstance.” (246)

“There developed a social model for a stoic person, like the gentlemen in Victorian England. Its tenets can be summarized as follows: The stoic is a person who combines the qualities of wisdom, upright dealing, and courage. The stoic will thus be immune from life’s gyrations as he will be superior to the wounds from some of life’s dirty tricks.” (248)

“(E)conomics is a narrative discipline, and explanations are easy to fit retrospectively.” (257)

“It took me an entire lifetime to find out what my (core framework) is. It is: We favor the visible, the embedded, the personal, the narrated, and the tangible; we scorn the abstract. Everything good (aesthetics, ethics) and wrong with us (Fooled by Randomness) with us seems to flow from it.” (262)