Karma's a Bitch

Scene 1
Scene begins with Matt looking around the house for his bike lock keys
Searches everywhere and starts to get stressed out.
Finally opens his housemate’s (David) door
Camera zooms on Matt’s surprised/confused/cracking up face
Audience only hears David stumble and hit his head.

Scene 2
Matt and David eat their morning cereal together
Matt: “How’s your head [snickers]”
David: “It’s fine… why don’t you fucking knock!”
Matt: “Its 7 in the morning!”
David: “Yea, so what?”
Matt: “More importantly, were you doing it to Facebook pictures! [Touches forehead in disbelief]
David: “No dude, that’s just my decoy”
Matt: “Yea, decoy, sure.”
Matt: “Whatever, I can’t find the keys to my bike lock, the cleaners probably jacked it. How am I suppose to get to school?”
David: “You can borrow my skateboard”

Scene 3
Matt is riding the skateboard to school.
Everybody stares at him as he stumbles to get the hang of it. Matt decides to hide it in the bushes and pick it up on the way back from school.
As he walks to school he sees three girls in their cruiser bikes. They are dressed in all Abercrombie and Hollister and all blonde bombshells. Matt tries to give them an awkward head nod and the girls give an awkward stare back. Matt has a look of glee on his face like he just successfully hit on them.

Scene 4
Matt is on the way back from school.
He looks at the bush where he hid the skateboard, but it isn’t there.
Matt gets back to the house to tell David the news.
Matt goes to David’s room and knocks on his door.
Matt: [while knocking] “Hey is it safe to get in?”
David: [opens the door] “Yeeees, you’re making me feel like I am running a meth lab or something… what’s up? How was the skateboard?”
Matt: “Well its about that…[tells story of what happened]…”
David: “It’s ok, just buy me a new one.”
Matt: “Uuuh, yea ok”
David: “Oh and btw, there is a fat party this Saturday, oh and those girls you like are going to be there. “
Matt: “I don’t like any girl, what are you talking about?”
David: “C’mon, you know… those Laguna beach girls.”
Matt: “Laguna beach girls?”
David: “Yea, they look like Abercombie just farted them out or something… I see you staring at the all the time, don’t deny it.”
Matt: “You gotta admit, they are pretty hot”
David: “Yea, I would hit it too.”
Matt: “Too bad for you the party isn’t at 7 in the morning, at your prime”
David: “Shut up about that already… don’t forget the skateboard, my little brother got that for his bar-mitzvah.”
Matt: “Alright, drive me over there.”

Scene 4
Matt and David are driving to the skate shop
They suddenly smell something really bad
Matt and David: “Ahhh wtf is that smell!” [Matt roles down the window]
David: “Don’t do that man, its coming from the outside. It always smells like ass over here.”
Matt: “That’s ridiculous, they should make a bridge or something.”
David: “Yea, that’s a waste of money.”
Matt: “Speaking of money, I have $40, how much is that skateboard?”
David stops the car
Matt: “Ahhh did you really have to make your dramatic stop here? I feel like I am being Dutch ovened by a dead body.”
David: “You do realize you lost a $200 skateboard”
Matt: “I’ll get him a cheap Big 5 one, your brother wont’ know the difference.”
David: “Ok fine, let me just remind you, karma’s a bitch.”
Matt: “Alright Vishnu.”
They drive back home

Scene 5
It’s Saturday night and they are getting ready for the party
They are pre-partying at their friend Jake’s house.
[Jake is very extroverted and sociable.]
Matt and David walk into Jake’s house; there are a couple of other people pre-partying as well.
Jake: [In a surfer accent] “Sup bros, we got naddy light in the fridge, Jell-o shots on the table and jager-bombs in 5 WOOOOO all-right, lets get drinkin!” [high-fives Matt and David]
David says to Matt: “You better do what the man says, your sober ass won’t hook up with those Laguna girls.”
Matt: “Right… but for some reason I get too clingy when I am drunk. I get too obsessed and end up scaring them away.”
Jake to Matt: “Bro bro bro, you got a lot to learn… alright check this out, this is what I do: just remind yourself that the girl has a piece of shit inside of her.
Matt and David: “WTF! What are you talking about?”
Jake: “Well, girls are fucking hot, but we forget they are human and have disgusting pieces of shit inside their bodies. All I am saying is that it works.”
Matt: “That’s just disgusting.”
Jake: “W/e dude, lets drink WOOOOOO!”

Scene 6
Arrive at the party.
Matt is pretty damn drunk
Matt: “Alright man! Lets get those Laguna things or whatever you call them!”
David: “Dude, relax, Laguna girls only have their inhibitions lowered at around 3/4ths of the party.”
Jake: “He’s got a point man”
Matt: “Well fuck, what am I suppose to do until then?”
Jake: “Damn dude, you really have no party etiquette. You’re suppose to play drinking games before you hook up.”
David: “We got a captain-obvious over here.” [they laugh at the stupid joke because they are drunk].
Matt: “hahahah, captain obvious, that’s hilarious!”
Jake: “Hey bros, they are about to play ‘Never Have I ever’ over there, let’s join in!”

Scene 7
They are gathering around a circle getting ready to play ‘Never Have I ever.’
The girl sitting next to Matt, Amanda, introduces herself to matt [she is also a Laguna girl]
Amanda: “Hi, my name is Amanda.” [Sticks her hand out to shake his hand]
Matt: “Hey, I am Matt.” What’s your name again?
Amanda: “Amanda, and you’re Matt right?”
Matt: “Yea yea, sooo… where are you from?’
Amanda: “I am actually from Kentucky, what about you?”
Matt: “Oh really, Frankfort?”
Amanda: “Yea!”
Matt: “By any chance do you know a guy named Steve Temin?”
Amanda: “uhh, no.”
Matt: “Oh nvm then”
Awkward pause
Amanda: “Sooo what’s your major?”
Matt: “uh, Bio Major.”
Amanda: “OMG the human body is AMAZING.”
Matt: “uh huh, what’s your major?”
Amanda: “Pre-Med”
Matt: “Oh so you’re going to med school?”
Amanda: “No, I am just getting my pre-requisites done before I apply.”
Matt: “Ok, so you’re a bio major.”
Amanda: “Uh, no, pre-med.”
Conversation interrupted by a guy explaining the rules to the game of ‘Never Have I ever.’ If you did the thing once, then you take a sip.
The first person in the game: “Never have I ever had anal sex teeheehee!”
A few people take sips and people laugh and yell out stuff like ‘omg I can’t believe you did that!”
It’s David’s turn to go
David: “Never Have I ever had my best friend’s $200 skateboard stolen because I left it in a bush like an idiot. ”
Everybody laughs and says ‘ooooo’ as Matt takes a sip
It’s Matt’s turn to go
Matt: “Never have I ever masturbated to Facebook pictures!”
David: “You’re such a fag.” [takes a sip and everyone laughs harder]
Matt: “That’s karma for you!”
Somebody throwing up interrupts the game
Amanda: “I’ll help him! I am a pre-med student.”
Matt says to David: “Wow, that girl is such an idiot, but she is fucking hot.”
David: “Go for it, hit it.”
Matt: “You know what, alright I’ll do it.”

Scene 8
Matt goes up to Amanda while she is helping the throwing up guy
Matt: “Hey there…what’s your name again?”
Amanda: “Amanda, hey…”
Matt: “Matt”
Amanda: “Right, sorry I had to leave the game, duty called!”
Matt thinks to himself ‘eh, duty…’ Remembers when Jake told him about the shit thing
Matt: “heh, wanna dance?”
Amanda: “Sure!”

Scene 9
Amanda starts dancing like a slut with her ass out and moving really quickly
Matt looks confused and struggles to figure out a way to engage contact with her.
After a few minutes of trying to engage, Matt gives up and says:
Matt: “Hey… wanna go somewhere else?”
Amanda: “Sure! I need more drinks though!”
They start drinking again
Have a stupid drunk conversation
Amanda: “I had a lot of fun dancing with you.”
Matt: “Uuuh, right”
Amanda: “You’re pretty hot hahah.”
Matt: “hahaha you’re funny!”
Amanda: “Yea, I am special like that.”
Matt: “hahaha you should change your major to pre-comedian cause you’re hilarious!”
Amanda: “Hey, I’ve got a funny idea.”
Matt: “Yea, what?”
Amanda: “Lets go to that room over there.”
Matt: “Alright sure.”

Scene 10
They get into a room with a giant bed in the middle.
Amanda throws him on the bed
She tells Matt to take off his clothes
Matt gets to his underwear
Amanda: “Wait 5 minutes, I really need to go to the bathroom.”
Matt recalls again what Jake told him about the shit thing
Matt gets completely turned off, but Amanda already came back from the bathroom
Thinking quickly matt decides to pretend to pass out.
Amanda comes back disappointed, as he is lying there asleep
After a while Matt really does pass out on the bed

Scene 11
Matt wakes up at the bed the next morning
He gets up and can’t find his clothes. He stumbles over to the kitchen and there he sees Amanda.
Matt: “Heeey, what are you doing here.”
Amanda: “Ummmmm I duno, maybe because I LIVE HERE!”
Matt: “Oh, sorry about last night.”
Amanda: “Yea w/e asshole.”
Matt: “eh, listen I can’t find my clothes.”
Amanda: “Your stupid friend stole them and told me to tell you ‘karma’s a bitch.”
Matt: “Oh fuck.”
Amanda: “Get out of my house already!”
Matt: “Uh, my stupid friend was my ride home. You think you can give me a ride, I live like 10 minutes away.”
Amanda: “Fine, hurry we need to go now.”
Matt: “Can I borrow some clothes.”
Amanda: “No way! I am already too nice to you.”
Matt: “Ok lets just go.”

Scene 12
Matt and Amanda are driving in the car
Awkward silence ensues for 30 seconds when suddenly they pass by the place on the road that smells like shit.
Amanda: [with a disgusted face on her] “Ewwwwwwww you’re disgusting! Get the fuck out of my car!”
Amanda stops the car
Matt: “WTF it’s not me, it’s from the outside! This place always smells like ass!”
Amanda: “OMG I can’t believe you’re still in the car, geeeeeet oooooout!
Matt: “Do you really have to stop the car here, it smells like shit!”
Amanda physically pushes him out the door.
Matt stands there outside in his underwear.
Close up on Matt’s face as he looks worried.
Matt: “Fuck.”
Screen freezes and music starts playing in the background as credits roll

Facebook status signals

Co-authored with my friend Liron Shapira (Logic and Reason).

If you ask your friends what they write in their Facebook status message, they might say "I just post what I'm up to." But they don't introspect on their underlying psychology.

People are constantly thinking and feeling things, but they aren't constantly publishing status updates. Cognitive algorithms select certain kinds of posts out of the larger stream of consciousness.

Facebook status messages are a great place to observe social signaling behavior, i.e. attempts to improve others' opinions about the author's personal traits. The author might not consciously scheme about improving their social status, but their brain is evolutionarily adapted to add self-flattering payloads to innocent-seeming impulse communications.

Here is a list of actual status messages from our Facebook friends, followed by an analysis of the signaling pattern the message fits into. You might notice these patterns on your own Facebook home page.

has been hungover all day. shitty.
Gives the reader an image of the author at a party surrounded by friends. Similar status updates imply that the author is a social person.

te quiero con limon y sal.
Decoding the Spanish: "I want you with lemon and salt."
Decoding the signal: "I know Spanish. I have a circle of friends with whom to go drinking."

wonders if anyone else is scared of life after graduation, DESPITE having a job of some sort.
Everyone likes showing off, but transparent bragging is socially unacceptable. This is a typical example of combining a high-value brag with a relatively harmless display of humility or self-deprecation.

is mad that campus only has two food places and they're BOTH closed -_-. i'm HUNGRYYYYYYYYYYY!
1. Implies that the author had the self control to resist their hunger (a common signal among girls, given the prevalence of dieting)
2. Implies that the author has a busy life working toward goals that are loftier than eating
3. Demonstrates an assumption that the author's whims are of concern to Facebook users

still finds this stress-freeness to be so foreign!
It's common for people to communicate that they're used to a high stress level. The reader imagines a fulfilling, interesting life full of friends and accomplishments.

i just died in your arms tonight... must have been something she said... i don't remember the rest of the lyrics
Posting lyrics to a song shows that you're someone who can have a social mind-set. In other words, this person might be fun to hang out or party with.

Even Stevens is the greatest TV show ever.
Proclaiming that the author enjoys something that isn't designed for his or her demographic signals that they're a different, non-conforming individual.

omg last minute packing blows
People write this one a lot because it directly implies they're going somewhere or, in other words, they have an interesting life.

Chart

The Riddle Graph

When ignorance is bliss

As an avid truth-seeker, it was hard for me to come to terms with my desire to keep myself ignorant to some things. I use to think that, given two equally capable individuals, the person with more true information can always do at least as good as the other person. And hence, one can only gain from having true information. I still believe this, however, there is one implicit assumption that makes this line of reason not true in all cases.

We are not perfectly rational agents; our mind isn’t stored in a vacuum, but in a highly irrational Homo sapien brain. There is some seemingly harmless information that, if known to people, would hurt them because they can’t turn off their bias impulses.

One piece of information I would never choose to know is my IQ score. I would also go as far as to say that most people don’t want to know theirs either.

At first, it seems silly to not want to know your IQ score. After all, the score will be the same whether I know it or not. Why should it change anything? Well, technically, it shouldn’t change anything, but it does.

Let’s first examine what the IQ test is and why it exists in the first place. Basically, it’s a test that involves some mental tasks and your score is supposed to be consistent throughout your life. Overtime, the test-makers tweaked the test in order to make it more and more consistent. The more consistent the test is, the more it suggests that your score is explained by your genes and not environment.

But even if a test is very consistent, it’s worthless unless you can make predictions out of it. A test that measures eye color is extremely consistent throughout one’s life, but I doubt it will make any non-trivial predictions. Turns out, however, that IQ tests actually do make interesting predictions. For example, the higher IQ one has, the more likely they will succeed in school or have higher paying jobs. Although the predictions are statistically significant, they are far from perfect.

The problem is not in the test itself, but in how we extrapolate the data. Our culture heavily attributes way more predictive power to IQ scores than it actually has—and this screws with our mind.

We assume that someone with a high IQ not only should be successful, but is successful. This makes high IQ people feel like they don’t need to try as hard to succeed and feel entitled. Conversely, average IQ people feel like they should stay away from cognitively taxing activities and may never reach their full potential.

Height and good hair also correlate with real-world success. But as a culture, we don’t overestimate the predictive power of these traits. I have never heard of someone fear they’re not going to make a lot of money because they’re short or balding. An even more obscure indicator of success is the number of books your parents own. But again, no one is ever affected by the knowledge of how many books their parents own.

I choose to not know my IQ because I will be negatively affected whether my IQ score turns out to be either higher or lower than I expect. I’ve been too brainwashed by society to not be affected by the results. I am best off not knowing my real limitations and that my success will be a function of my effort, not raw intelligence. Not only will this mindset make me live up to my potential, it keeps my sense of self-worth where it should be, not artificially inflated or deflated with knowledge of either a high or low IQ score.

IQ is not the only predictor-of-success that we over-assign predictive power to. In fact, most of them can’t be conveniently ignored like IQ scores. Some of these predictors include: GPA, scores on standardized tests, selectivity of school one is enrolled in and ethnicity, to name a few. Again, these are all good predictors-of-success, but they’re not as nearly accurate as we believe them to be.

Since our brainwashed minds aren’t capable of correctly analyzing this information about ourselves, we shouldn’t have our self-efficacy be determined by them. Instead, we should consider our level of effort as the variable that determines our success. I know I wouldn’t be where I am today if I hadn’t adopted this mindset.

Why schools are failing teaching

The education system has failed to teach students what the truth means and why it matters.

As an analogy for this failure, imagine a student entering college, Sarah, who has previously been under the watchful eyes of her over-protective parents. Throughout her life, Sarah was a victim to her parents’ strict regime; any sort of revolt would lead to a series of punishments and looks-of-disappointment. In college, newly endowed with freedom, she breaks all the rules. Drugs, theft and unprotected sex are common occurrences in this formerly innocent square—sound familiar? We’ve all heard this story before, but haven’t really analyzed why it’s so recurrent.

The problem is in the way Sarah’s parents taught her the rules; they created a disassociation between the rules and its rationale. By placing unrelated consequences to each broken rule, the parents trained Sarah to believe that the only rationale behind following the rules is to not get punished. Therefore, whenever she isn’t caught by her parents, in her eyes, nothing wrong happened. She never developed the ability to reason by herself why it’s in her best interest to follow certain rules.

Similar to Sarah’s parents, the schools threaten students to retain information with unrelated punishments. The consequence of not memorizing the atomic structure of Boron is a few less points on the exam. Of course, scientists that memorize Boron’s atomic structure do so for a completely different reason. Similar to Sarah, most students never learn how to reason on their own the rationale behind the information they are learning. As long as knowing the information leads them to higher scores, they don’t care to acknowledge why they’re learning what they’re learning.

Schools try to teach students the most accurate models of reality known to date; the most accurate models are conventionally described as “true.” The accuracy i.e. truth of a model is determined by how well it makes predictions relative to other models.

For example, consider two models that we can posit to explain why people get sick: demons and germs. Say, demons run around in your body punching your organs and that’s why people get sick. Germs, on the other hand, have no supernatural properties and explain why people get sick with a causal description. We can choose to believe either demons or germs, but why do most of us choose germs?

When we adopt the model of germs, we can not only explain why people get sick, but can also predict the sickness’s duration, future symptoms, possible cures, contagiousness, etc. The demon model, however, can’t predict any of those things; for that matter, it can’t predict anything at all. Even if demons really do cause sickness, even if all of life is one big illusion, the germ model is still the most useful for now.

In short, the most accurate models of reality do more for you than stop your curiosity or comfort your mind.

Unfortunately, most people aren’t able to grasp how profound and useful accurate models are. Because of school’s constant decoupling between a model and its accuracy, students are trained to memorize accurate models only long enough to get a passing grade. And for the models they do believe in, accuracy is not a prerequisite. Not only does this create the tendency for students to have false models, but it stops them from questioning the accuracy of models they currently believe in. Students may stop questioning the validity of what they are being taught. Worse, they may reject everything they are taught that conflicts with their prior beliefs.

Schools should give tests that force students to come up with their own models of reality. A good grade on these tests will depend on the predictive power i.e. accuracy of their models. For example, students can be told about a phenomenon like water boils faster in higher elevations. Then, without memorizing the question beforehand, they’d have to write the best possible explanation for why the phenomenon is true. They probably won’t get the right answer, but will learn why some answers are better than others.

Unreliable Status Signals

We are all constantly throwing one giant marketing campaign for the most important product ever—ourselves.

Just like most companies, we are trying to build a “cool” brand amongst competitors with a very similar product. And just like these companies, we pull all these clever marketing techniques when the spotlight is on us.

These marketing techniques we use are called: status signals. Status signals are anything we do with the purpose of signaling to others that we are high status i.e. that we are “cool.” For instance, we might tell our friend that we never eat fast-food because we believe they value health-conscious or environmentally friendly people.

We all use status signals to our advantage and there is nothing wrong with that. However, there is a breed of status signals which cause a lot of problems—the cheap, unreliable signals. These signals are unreliable indicators of actual high status, but people use them anyway because they are cheap and still work.

For example, consider the Livestrong bands. For only a dollar, you could signal to everyone you meet that you’re a charitable and caring person. The band is simply not costly enough to be a reliable indicator of those desirable traits. On the other hand, consider the “I donated blood” t-shirt or sticker. This signals for similar traits as the Livestrong band, but is much more reliable. In most cases, people wearing the “I donated blood” shirt actually donated blood. Obviously, donating blood is more costly than spending a dollar and, therefore, the shirt is a more reliable status signal than the band.

People who aren’t truly high status resort to cheap signals. For example, someone who isn’t truly environmentally conscious can’t afford to go too much out of their way to signal for it. They would rather join the “Keep The Streets Clean” Facebook group than to actually go around picking up trash.

We have to be more aware of these cheap, unreliable signals so we don’t falsely attribute higher status to someone. For this reason, I have made a list of cheap, unreliable signals that my friends and I have recently observed. Next time you catch someone saying or doing these things, you’ll calibrate your perception of them appropriately. Once it is common knowledge that a signal is cheap and unreliable, the signal reaches expiration i.e. it becomes no longer effective. Hopefully, publicizing this list will bring these signals closer to their expiration date.

- This first signal is on the verge of expiration: making people know that you only like bands that nobody knows about. This signal is suppose to indicate your individuality; your taste in music isn’t influenced by group-think. Fortunately, most people are skeptical of those who make an extra effort to show-off their unique taste in music.

- Telling people you don’t watch reality shows and, instead, only watch the Discovery Channel. This one is suppose to signal that one is intelligent or sophisticated. The Discovery Channel does not require much intelligence to enjoy and plenty of smart people like reality shows.

- Saying, “Ah, I know, I am such a nerd.” Usually girls say this after saying something atypically abstract or educational. This line is just a clever way for girls to covertly signal for intelligence.

- Blasting Backstreet Boys, Nsync, Spice Girls or Britney Spears when people are around. This sounds like a good status signal because occasionally doing something un-cool is cool. However, people who do this aren’t courageous individuals who can determine what is cool again; they just saw some other people do it and successfully solicit the desired response.

- Telling people you haven’t eaten or barely ate all day. This signal is supposed to imply that you’re such a hard-working person that you haven’t had the time to even eat. In most cases, people who don’t eat all day were just too lazy to get food.

What cheap, unreliable status signals are you sick of hearing?

Morality reexamined

Throughout my college career, I have been bombarded by activist groups begging for my support. Most of the time, it’s a perky girl holding a clipboard who runs up to me and explains how the horrors of the world need my minimal contribution.

I usually play along for a bit until I reject the plea—that’s when the guilt kicks in.

I think to myself, “Wow, children are being sold as sex slaves in Thailand? That’s pretty shitty, why didn’t I just give the perky girl five bucks?” In my optimistic opinion, we all wish to stop the child sex trade. For some reason, however, not everyone (including myself) puts effort towards fighting this injustice. This odd behavior appears to be a moral paradox: we want to make people happier yet we chose not to do anything about it.

If you look at my spending history, you would conclude I would rather give five bucks to a hungry friend than to a charity for starving orphans. I am not a bad person; I just haven’t had the emotional pull to go out of my way to donate.

The more I will be exposed to the woe of starving orphans, the more likely I am to donate. I am no exception to this rule; most activists have a strong emotional attachment to their cause. Famous people who catch some debilitating disease leverage their fame and money towards advocating for a treatment. People who lose a loved one realize they should get closer to their family. People who see Schindler’s List suddenly become more sympathetic towards Jews in the Holocaust.

I find it unsettling that our morality is so closely correlated to how emotional we feel about something. This perspective on morality makes it all sound less virtuous and even ignoble. On the other hand, it sheds light onto how we should start looking at morality.

Acting morally only when emotionally stimulated is not always in line with our moral preferences. Only caring about issues that tug at our hearts or acting in ways that make us merely feel righteous may distract us from doing the right thing.

Steven Pinker opened his article The Moral Instinct (for The New York Times) by asking: “Which of the following people would you say is the most admirable: Mother Teresa or Bill Gates?” Pinker then points out how most people would find Mother Teresa, who’s loved for her charitable work, more admirable than Gates, who’s infamous for the blue screen of death and the dancing paperclip. Gates, however, used his fortune to help a lot more people than Mother Teresa with her primitive medical care. Why does their moral reputation seem out of order?

Pinker’s observation is an example of how people rank moral behaviors by how warm and fuzzy it makes them feel. As a society, I think we’d be better off if our moral acts are chosen by how many lives they save or how much suffering they alleviate, not by how they make us feel. Our emotions are not reliable measurements for how effective a moral act is. They could have been reliable back in the hunter-gatherer days, but modern society has a completely different environment.

Back in the day, 30-50 would be a typical size for a cohesive hunter-gatherer band. Our minds haven’t evolved a mechanism that intensifies our grief for deaths greater than the typical size of a hunter-gatherer band. We simply don’t have the neurotransmitters to multiply the grief felt for ten million deaths to two million deaths. When trying to decide which policies we need to administer in order to deter global warming or end poverty, these figures are significant. Bed nets and emission taxes may not make us feel warm and fuzzy, but they may be the right thing to do.

Morality based on emotions also blinds us from things we may care about, but don’t realize yet. One hundred and fifty years ago, we had to convince people that they cared about black slaves—we couldn’t just tell them it was wrong. In fact, there are many moral issues we care about now, but ignore because we aren’t emotionally motivated. Here are some issues I think we’ve been ignoring: future people having to deal with our problems, abuse of prisoners, and the morality of eating animals.

In summary, we should all be more moral, but let’s not be emo about it.

We are obsessed with individualism

Apparently, being an intelligent species in a vast empty universe just doesn’t make people feel special anymore. On the other hand, nipple piercings and Bob Marley posters seem to do the trick. Marketers have been exploiting our desire to be “individuals” for decades. For all I know, the individualist movement, like Valentine’s Day, has been a marketing scheme for all these years. There is, however, a very good reason why everyone strives to be an individual, but many don’t realize the struggle requires more than a credit card.

An individualist is someone who derives their lifestyle choices internally, not externally. In other words, they’re not influenced by society, religion, community or any other communal entity in the way they live their life. An individualist may share common goals as these entities e.g. helping people, achieving high social status, seek power, etc. The difference is that individualists find their own creative and often unique ways of reaching these goals. A successful individualist has a strong reality i.e. strong conviction in how he sees the world and his role in it. Having high self-esteem and self-confidence enables this person to be confident in their differing beliefs about how to live their life.

There is a special breed of individualists that people admire and hope to one day become. These are the people whose reality is so strong that others become infected by it and start believing it too. These are the trend setters – people who do things differently and confidently enough that it becomes “cool”. Other people begin to copy their lifestyle choices hoping to emit the same sort of value.

Here is the interesting part – the people who copy the trend setters think they are “self-expressing” or “being an individual”. What is actually happening is, ironically, the complete opposite.

These people don’t have the mental ability to be individualists. They lack the necessary self-esteem and self-confidence to develop a strong reality. They seek out lifestyle choices that are externally validating because they don’t have enough self-confidence to internally validate them. For example, consider the hordes of people, from all ethnicities, who dress like rap artists. Here is a lifestyle choice that is pre-selected to emit value. It is easy to see why these people depend on products or things other than themselves to give them their fix of self-confidence/esteem. Their satisfaction with their lifestyle choices begins to depend on what other people think – the exact opposite of an individualist.

The lesson here is this: people say they seek to be individuals, but their actions say they still need the support of a communal entity. This obsession with individualism has caused people to undermine the value of a shared community.

For those born in 1955 the likelihood of a major depression at some point in life is, in many countries, three times or more greater than for their grandparents according to Daniel Goleman, author of Emotional Intelligence. He also states that the chances of having a major depression before age thirty-four is ten times greater for those born in 1954 than those born in 1914. Martin Seligman, psychologist at UPenn, proposed: “For the last thirty or forty years we’ve seen the ascendance of individualism and a waning of support from the community and extended family. That means a loss of resources that can buffer you against setbacks and failures.”

Mentally weak people aren’t always under the right circumstances to improve their self-esteem and confidence. Pretending to be individuals is an ineffective way of buffering oneself against setbacks and failures. Maybe we need to make community building cool again or downplay individualism.

Grinds my Gears

Throughout my time in Davis I have encountered many things that grind my gears i.e. things that annoy me (for example: naggers). And hence, I decided to make a top ten list of things that grinded my gears throughout my stay here. I hope I don’t end up sounding like a grandpa complaining about his retirement center; I just want to share my gear-grinding list with people who may be able to relate.

10. Wellman Hall

People give the Social Science building (the death star) a bad rep for being hard to navigate, but little do they realize Wellman is no different. There is no logical connection between the room numbers and their relative location to other rooms. Ninety five percent of my classes were at Wellman and I still find my classes by method of “guess and check.”

9. Students who ask what will be on the test

Students rarely ask questions in class in fear of sounding stupid, but ironically, this question still gets asked. I am not referring to questions like, “Will chapter 9 be on the final?” Or, “Is the final comprehensive?” I am talking about these: “For the final, will you give us, like, a formula and then, like, tell us what to plug in it?” Or, “What part of the study guide should we study?” College isn’t supposed to be easy – deal with it.

8. Teachers who don’t go over the green sheet

Green sheet day exists to give students an easy transition from vacationing to learning. It pisses me off when teachers don’t waste the first day of classes going over the green sheet and letting the class out early.

7. Frat party bathrooms

During a frat party, guys and girls are forced to share a bathroom together. What bothers me most about this ordeal is that group of girls who think every guy in there is a sexual predator wanting to catch a glimpse of them pissing. They take turns body guarding the stall door as they gaze at me with their evil eye. I end up feeling like a guy walking around Chuck E. Cheese with a big sign that reads, “Hi, I am a pedophile.”

6. People who bring food to class

Soda and chips are fine; I am talking about the heavy stuff. For some reason the smell of food doesn’t sit well in a classroom. People bring in their shitty meat balls from home and hot box the class with a rancid meaty aroma. If you’re going to be eating in class, you better be eating Febreeze.


5. The obsessive compulsive note takers

If I shot them with a horse tranquilizer they might just function like a normal human being. Every utterance and every chalk scratch is meticulously documented by these busy beavers. I get stressed out just by watching them.

4. Co-ho burritos

These burritos are a product of immoral behavior; their creator has broken the golden rule of burrito making: thou shall make a burrito the way thyself would want a burrito. Clearly, no one would construct a burrito this sloppy for oneself. The burrito’s innards are always segmented into their own section, as opposed to being evenly distributed amongst the other ingredients. If I threw this burrito in the air like a baton, its mid-air spin would resemble that of a half-empty water bottle – that’s unacceptable. This one bugs me the most because I always go back naively thinking, “this time it’s going to be different,” but it never is.

3. Racism

Racism just grinds my gears like no other.

2. People who call themselves pre-med

UC Davis doesn’t have a pre-med major; therefore, calling yourself pre-med is pointless. To me, it means you’re thinking of applying to med school and that you’re a pretentious ass who probably wants to be a doctor for the social capital.

1. The Dining Commons (DC)

Eating at the DC is a lose-lose situation. Instead of going to an all-you-can eat sushi buffet, for the same price, you can go to the DC! The problem is: sushi tastes much better than DC food. In order for me to feel like I am getting my money’s worth at the DC, I need to eat way more than a sane doctor would recommend. In the end, I am left with a kicking food baby and a skinnier wallet. No wonder they force freshmens to pay for this.

Rationality and Drug Taking

As most of you are college students, by now, you’ve probably all had the “drug conversation” with your friends. This stimulating discussion usually starts off when one of your friends just tried shrooms and won’t shut up about it. After he pontificates about how his whimsical journey with the drug made him a better person, the discussion digresses towards drugs-taking in general. Some conclude that they must try a hard drug at one point in their lives – others vow never to do so. Eventually, an interesting point is brought up: is it bad to receive happiness solely from a drug?

In my opinion, this question isn’t only fun to ponder – it might determine the future of humanity! I realize I am taking a several inferential steps in making this point so hear me out. First off, consider the following hypothetical: some hippie scientist invents a drug that would, indefinitely, put you into a vegetative state, but the tradeoff is an infinite supply of happiness and pleasure. If people decide they would be better off on this drug, chaos will ensue.

I might be getting carried away; surely there will be people who would refuse the drug. People aren’t selfish; they wouldn’t want to hurt their loved ones by turning into a smiling vegetable. Let’s make things more interesting then. Imagine the drug only changed your preferences around making you receive great amounts of happiness for easily attainable goals. For example, baking a cake now gives you an orgasmic feeling and taking a shower feels like winning the lottery. This drug would be changing your utility function.

For those of you who haven’t heard of this gem of a concept, it means this: a function that inputs world events and outputs “utils” or i.e. a unit of satisfaction/happiness. There are certain world events that correspond to a quantity of personal happiness; a utility function models this relationship. For example, eating an apple corresponds to some measure of utility (read: happiness). This drug would mess with your utility function in a way that would make it a lot easier for you to optimize your utility. No longer will you care about getting married and having a family, that’s too hard. Instead you’ll be baking cakes and taking showers for the rest of your life (voluntarily of course). Would you take the drug? Would a utilitarian be morally obligated to force everyone to take the drug?

We are utility maximizers; we want to attain as much happiness as we can. One subtle detail about our utility function is that we receive negative utility for knowingly deciding to change our utility function to a new one that conflicts with the old one. Our utility function can and does change overtime; however, we won’t want to choose to change it. Imagine I gave you a pill that would make you want to hate your family. An additional stipulation: hating your family will give you a lot more utility than the utility you currently get from loving your family. The intuitive utility maximizing decision would be to take the pill. On the other hand, since taking the pill would leave you with a utility function that’s incongruent with your current one, you will not take the pill. Same reason you won’t take a drug that will make you bake cakes and take showers all the time. It might distract you from your current goals and aspirations (you’d make baking cakes a higher priority than having friends). In other words, even if the new preferences will give you overall more happiness, you'll still prefer your old preferences.

You might be thinking, “Who cares? This drug doesn’t exist yet.” Well, it does; this dilemma exists for people who haven’t tried shrooms yet. According to discovery.com, “61 percent reported at least a moderate behavior change in what they considered positive ways.” Assuming you won’t get a bad trip, is it rational to take the drug? Depends on whether the drug changes your utility function and whether it conflicts with the older version. I doubt a psychedelic experience can help me optimize my current utility function better than my sober self. Therefore, I conclude that it must, in fact, change my preference ordering. I would rather keep my preferences the way they are now, of course.

The Lack of Empathy

Soldiers of war are not psychopath killers – they are victims of robbery, the robbery of a human quality called empathy. With certain external forces, we have the ability to lose this basic emotion. Analyzing the Israel and Gaza conflict, I have discovered that the loss of empathy is the underlying cause of the controversy. My objective in this column is not to prove which side is the victim or aggressor, but to share some of my thoughts on why I think there is a controversy in the first place.

I believe the Israel and Gaza debate is being approached incorrectly. Supporters on each side of the argument try throwing at each other facts, as if facts alone will make apparent which side is right. The controversy, however, is fundamentally a case of moral ambiguity. This is why I think a more philosophical approach is appropriate.

But first, I must delineate several assumptions that, in my opinion, aren’t far-fetched to make: 1) Hamas is a terrorist organization in that they intentionally target civilians. 2) Israel has a right to defend its citizens. 3) There are innocent civilians in Gaza.

Now that the assumptions are out of the way, let’s scrutinize the situation further. Hamas would not stop firing rockets towards Israel even after Israel’s threat of an attack. Since Israel has the right to defend itself, Israel is allowed to take some measure to deter the rockets. Israel chose to target Hamas and its resources with an airstrike. These targets were close to innocent civilians, partly because Hamas made that so and partly because Gaza is a densely populated area. The outcome of Israel’s airstrikes has led to upwards of 850 Palestinians dead with around 25 percent civilians. The airstrike has not deterred Palestinian fighters from shooting more rockets toward Israel, so far killing 13 soldiers and 3 civilians (these numbers may be higher after I write this).

The majority of Israeli citizens support the attacks made on Gaza. On the other hand, most of the rest of the world believes the attacks were disproportionate. Specifically, the Arab population has been most outspoken about their disagreement. This made me think about how so many different populations can be exposed to the same information yet arrive at the opposite conclusions. The reason this happens is because a mixture of nationalism, dogmatism, ideologies and propaganda disconnects each side from empathizing with one another.

The clearest example of lack of empathy is Hamas and their terrorist tactics. They put innocent Israeli lives on the line and treat their civilians like hostages in order to accomplish their objective. If they cared about people more than they do their unattainable goal, we would be one step closer to ending the conflict. Israel also commits a lack of empathy, but in my opinion, in a more subtle manner.

Unlike Hamas, Israel does not specifically target civilians with the intention of killing civilians. However, they do accept that civilian casualties are collateral damage, another cost of war, a suitable means towards defending their citizens. Collateral damage is an ambiguous moral concept, but throughout the past and present it seems like some dose of collateral damage is accepted. For example, imagine a group of a thousand gunmans shooting aimlessly inside a populated city. Say you have a button that you can press that will instantly kill all of them, but one innocent person will die. If this was the only option, I think it is safe to say that most people would press the button; that one person is a suitable cost of war.

Most Israelis believe that the airstrikes had the appropriate amount of damage or i.e. the appropriate amount of collateral damage. There does become a point, however, when the collateral damage is too high and is not justified by the outcome. Most of the rest of the world, specifically the Arab population, believes the attacks were disproportionate. To me, this means that Israelis care less about Palestinian civilians than the rest of the world does. I could say the reverse too – the rest of the world doesn’t care enough about Israelis! I believe that both cases are true. Nationalism, dogmatism, ideologies and propaganda keep removing empathy from the human relationship. We need to overcome our biases and truly understand one another, only then will the controversy fall apart.