Let’s hear it for accepting that we’re flawed – each and every one of us!

Years ago I went to a meeting. People were talking about moments of feeling bad about themselves. When recounting these episodes, there was this pained look on their faces, as if the experience of being self-critical was a type of suffering, for which they required years of therapy. I kept on thinking: Oh, pleeeease!

Feeling guilt or shame or regret can very well be a good thing. We don’t need to find ways to disown these feelings, whether by countering them with positive self-talk, declaring they are irrational, or by “observing” them as “just thoughts”. We could all use a little guilt, shame, regret, sadness, alarm, and trepidation about our bad behavior. While I do think it’s a waste of time to bemoan what goes on in our heads (confession: I have murdered many an enemy, or at least made them beg for mercy, in my neural wanderings), all these unpleasant emotions help keep us in line and society humming productively.

We are mammals. We are primates. Watch NatGeo for a better idea of what we are.

That sinking feeling about what we’ve just done or said bolsters our resolve to be better next time.

After reading The Orphan Master’s Son and The Garden of Evening Mists, both including sections on life in prison camps, I am again appreciating how much evil we humans are capable of. This makes me more grateful to the authors than despairing of humanity. If only more people were aware of their dark potential, the world would truly be a better place.

Accepting that all of us are inherently flawed would make it harder to dismiss or dehumanize anyone in particular. It would also make it harder to believe in utopian ideologies, which bring out the worst in our species. Instead, appreciating the depths of which each of us is capable would bring some humility to our collective endeavors, increasing mutual trust and effectiveness.

To acknowledge the complexity of our nature doesn’t have to lead to self-loathing. We don’t need to believe in our essential goodness to be happy. We can still strive to do good without having to be good.

References:

The Orphan Master’s Son by Adam Johnson; Random House 2012.

The Garden of Evening Mists byTan Twan Eng; Weinstein Books 2012.

Mind wandering is the brain exploring the problem space. It’s where the brain goes when we are not intentionally focusing on something (or, to be precise, when those parts of the brain are not engaged in processes that are experienced as intentionally focusing on things, with the understanding that “experiencing” is also a product of the brain). Problem spaces being what they are, the human animal is not always in a cheerful mood when its mind is wandering. Not necessarily unhappy – but maybe a notch or two down on the happy-ometer.

But there are also times when exploring the problem space is exhilarating, a real joy: following leads that may or may not bear fruit, discovering unknowns that had been unknown, making progress here and there (of the two-steps forward, one back sort – or vice versa). And coming to a better understanding of all the hurdles along the way. Finding patches of light that promise of further clearings within the thicket of one’s mind.

Of course the brain journey will include plenty of dead ends and a tendency to keep trying  tried-and-false pathways because the process has got stuck on repeat and we can’t yet see another way out of the rut. Then it’s good to take a break from all this exploring and reconnect with the perceptual world. The brain will keep working on the problems behind the scenes even when we are smelling the roses.

Strong opinion: a 6 on the scale of 0-10 does not constitute “unhappiness”, pace that highly over-rated paper, “A Wandering Mind Is an Unhappy Mind” (a title that misrepresents the actual findings). For me, 6’s are fine. Nor do I care that people are slightly happier when perceptually engaged with their environment as opposed to when their attention is following the rabbits in their mind. Yes, engaging with the world, especially in ways that give pleasure, can get us out of a funk. And “being present” has its own rewards

Happiness is a good thing. By that I mean that it’s reasonable to want to occupy the 6-10 range on the happy-ometer more often than not.

It’s just that there is so much else that matters.

Tropes of Derision are mocking words and phrases used by The Unsympathetic Observer to frame its object as unworthy of respect or compassion. This is the first of an occasional series.

Whine: selfish and self-pitying.

Be inconvenienced: implies opposition is based on convenience and people’s unwillingness to give up their comfort and selfish ways (see: An Inconvenient Truth). Those who resist our message are not principled – they’re just spoiled and lazy.

Rant:  all sound and fury, signifying nothing. Can be used to dismiss anything said with a degree of passion.

Hysterical:  characterized by emotion uninformed by reason or reality. Can be used to dismiss anything said with a degree of passion.

Rambling: nothing being said here, just a bunch of words strung together. No need to pay attention.

So-called: obviously not corrected called

Hype: don’t believe it

Nefarious: always used sarcastically, to highlight the absurdity of an over-reaction by the Idiots

Greed: wanting more than one needs, applied selectively

Orthodox or Conventional: hidebound, unimaginative, conformist (as opposed to the Consensus, which is something we should respect).

Mind wandering is the brain exploring the problem space. It’s where the brain goes when we are not intentionally focusing on something (or, to be precise, when those parts of the brain are not engaged in processes that are experienced as intentionally focusing on things, with the understanding that “experiencing” is also a product of the brain). Problem spaces being what they are, the human animal is not always in a cheerful mood when its mind is wandering. Not necessarily unhappy – but maybe a notch or two down on the happy-ometer.

Except, perhaps, for those who love wandering in the problem space, following leads that may or may not bear fruit, discovering unknowns that had been unknown, making progress here and there (of the two-steps forward, one back sort – or vice versa). And coming to a better understanding of all the hurdles along the way. Finding patches of light that promise of greater clearings within the thicket of one’s mind.

Of course, there will be plenty of dead ends and a tendency to keep trying the tried-and-false because the process has got stuck on repeat and we can’t yet see another way out of the rut. Then it’s good to take a break from all this exploring and reconnect with the perceptual world. The brain will keep working on the problems behind the scenes even when we are smelling the roses.

Strong opinion: a 6 on the scale of 0-10 does not constitute “unhappiness”, pace that highly over-rated paper, “A Wandering Mind Is an Unhappy Mind”. For me, 6’s are fine. Nor do I care that people are slightly happier when perceptually engaged with their environment as opposed to when their attention is following the rabbits in their mind. Yes, engaging with the world, especially in ways that give pleasure, can get us out of a funk. And “being present” has its own rewards

But the title of this paper is overly categorical and misrepresents the actual findings. It seems that the authors wanted a catchy title, accuracy be damned.

Sure, happiness is a good thing. By that I mean that it seems worthwhile to want to occupy the 6-10 range on the happy-ometer more often than not.

It’s just that there is so much else that matters.

The Process, according to a policy wonk: identify policy goal; identify obstacles to goal (the problem); explore and become knowledgeable about the nature of the problem (causal factors, moderators, mediators, interactions); explore possible solutions to problem (pros/cons, trade-offs, incentives/disincentives, consequences, impact on other policy goals, etc.); identify the type of data needed to assess effectiveness and desirability of each solution; set up data collection and analysis system; experiment with possible hypotheses/solutions; analyze findings; refine hypotheses; tweak or reject solutions and experiment again with remaining options, ideally in different conditions (as effectiveness may depend on local contexts).

A few general principles: every step of the way acknowledge possibility of being wrong about the nature of the problem and what works; encourage diverse input on goals, problems, and solutions; when possible, engage in small-scale experimentation with solutions (the better to compare relative effectiveness of different proposed solutions and to minimize collateral damage of implemented bad solutions).

While values and emotions necessarily inform policy goals, the Process is pretty cold-blooded. I’m thinking, as a rule, broad moral imperatives, like justice” or “fairness”, make pretty iffy policy goals – partly due to vagueness and partly because moral indignation tends to distort priorities, discourage open discussion, interfere with assessment of trade-offs and increase confirmation bias.

Perceived scarcity happens when we want a limited resource that other people want too. Scarcity fuels desire; scarcity leads to suffering. By definition, most people cannot enjoy scarce goods.

To me, scarcity is like the first law of existence. Whatever you want, if it’s out there and others want it too, then the law of scarcity applies. Bottom line: if what you want is a resource available to others and it is generally desirable, it becomes scarce, with all that implies. Scarcity implies that suffering is inevitable, that competition is inevitable, that there will always be losers. Time is a scarce resource; affection is a scarce resource; love is a scarce resource; status (being admired, looked up to) is a scarce resource; power is a scarce resource. Receiving attention is a zero-sum game: if it goes to you, that means it does not go somewhere else; the regard of others is a scarce resource.

Without scarcity, what motivates us? I often fantasize about living forever because I’m just so curious about what’s going to happen with the world, but when I think about it, eternal consciousness without connection and touching seems unbearable. And for connection and touching to be meaningful, it has to be voluntary and to be voluntary, there needs to be a choice. And for there to be a choice, there needs to be alternative objects of affection. And here we come around to scarcity as a limited resource that has alternative uses.

Scarcity gives life meaning.

Minimalist synopsis of the Milgram and Stanford Prison Experiments: subjects were willing to hurt others if they thought this was what authority figures wanted from them. Both studies serve as cautionary tales of how easily humans can be manipulated by authority figures into committing atrocious acts against their fellows.

For me, the main lesson of these studies is a bit different – it is the danger of living in totalitarian environments. By “totalitarian”, I mean a social environment where there are no dissenting views expressed. Humans typically seek social validation of their views – without which, niggling reservations rarely rise to the level of conviction. And without the courage of conviction, it’s awfully hard to resist the powers that be. We’ll just follow orders, however uncomfortable we feel about them.

Sometimes all you need is one discordant voice making waves to bring out your own doubts and give you the courage to take a stand: no, I won’t. For instance, in Milgram’s study, only 4 of 40 subjects agreed to continue in the experiment if they observed others refusing to comply.

What this tells me is that when everyone in one’s reference group appears to agree on something, it’s hard not to go along.  And it’s hard to think otherwise, because we don’t have sounding boards for working out our thoughts. We don’t have models to give us the courage to say something. To cultivate critical thinking and the ability to disagree, we need to resist the tendency to surround ourselves with the like-minded and be willing to engage those who see things differently.

I’ve been thinking about the idea of “appraisal” lately, especially in relation to the appraisal theory of emotion, which says the specific emotional experience depends on how something is “appraised”.

In two separate studies, subjects responded emotionally to the computerized agents they were interacting with, even though they were well aware these entities weren’t “real”. In one study, subjects were playing a game with their computerized opponent, who ends the game saying (in effect) “I no longer want to play with you”. Most subjects reported their feelings were hurt even though they knew that was ridiculous.

In the other study, subjects have a conversation with a digitized person. When the face of this “person” frowns, scowls and otherwise looks unfriendly, the subjects report not really liking him. When the face is friendly, laughs a lot, and mirrors the subjects’ facial expressions and head movements, the subjects report liking him.

So where is the appraisal in these emotional reactions?

Then recently I read a New Yorker article about an amnesiac whose hippocampus was completely destroyed. With her short-term memory gone, her temperament became easier to discern: cheerful, even joyful. So she has all these positive emotions – and they are often accompanied by some sort of appraisal (insofar as the emotion is expressed verbally and semantic content inevitably involves an evaluation and interpretation of the objects of her mirth). But how does appraisal work without a narrative context – without a remembered link to similar experiences? It would seem that appraisal without memory is a weakened version of appraisal. And how much of this “appraisal” is just  post hoc making sense of the feeling?

Does the concept of appraisal even add anything to the understanding of emotion? It seems to me that emotions are implicitly evaluative and interpretive, which is different from saying that appraisals lead to an emotion (even though re-appraising may defuse an emotion). For example, fear equals sense of threat, but it may be inaccurate to say a sense of threat leads to or causes fear. As for re-appraisal, if one can be convinced that something is not a threat, then one’s fear will subside. Then again, re-appraisal that is purely cognitive is much less likely to transform as emotion than a re-appraisal that taps into another emotion. Then it’s more like one emotion moderating another emotion. Maybe appraisals are just supporting players in our personal dramas.

Recently I read about a woman railing against tech workers saying she reminds herself not to call tech employers “companies” but “corporations”, the better to maintain her indignation.

Finding the words that vilify…. But why are “corporations” tainted and not “companies”? Is it just the assumption that most corporations are large companies and big is bad because big is powerful? Actually, most corporations are small to medium-sized, although it’s also true that most large companies are corporations. But large companies do us a lot of good. Per Corporations in the United States:

Large businesses are important to the overall economy because they tend to have more financial resources than small firms to conduct research and develop new goods. And they generally offer more varied job opportunities and greater job stability, higher wages, and better health and retirement benefits.

I think a better exercise would be to call corporations “companies”, the better to facilitate critical thinking and not lazy name-calling. The word “company” does not in itself conjure up much of anything, so it doesn’t function as a substitute for thinking. That’s what labels do.

Labels are a type of shorthand, mostly used to reduce and reject. Labels are rarely used to enhance value. Enhancing value often involves articulating in detail the rich variety and complexity of the thing thought about, i.e., the opposite of labeling.