Sunday, June 14, 2020
Friday, July 3, 2009
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
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
Sunday, June 21, 2009
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.
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.
Thursday, June 11, 2009
Monday, June 8, 2009
Sunday, May 17, 2009
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.
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.
Wednesday, April 8, 2009
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.
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.
Wednesday, April 1, 2009
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?
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?
Monday, March 2, 2009
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.
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.
Sunday, February 1, 2009
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.
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.
Monday, January 26, 2009
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.
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.
Sunday, January 18, 2009
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.
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.
Sunday, January 11, 2009
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.
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.
Friday, November 14, 2008
Sneaky Advertisements
Every product on the market has either functional or emotional value. Take for example an Apple laptop computer: you may value its usefulness around $1000, but you’re willing to pay $1,500 for it; this means your emotional value for it is $500. Apple has successfully made you pay $500 more for value that only exists in your mind. Advertisers know that in order to make big profit margins they need to instill lots of emotional value into their ubiquitous product. As frugal shoppers, we can’t afford emotional value. Before we go mindlessly shopping again, we need to realize how advertisers are trying to mark up prices in exchange for some unnecessary emotional value. Below, I have a list of common products we buy and the overlooked emotional value advertisers have implanted in them.
Outdoor Clothing
The outdoorsy industry has the sneakiest marketing schemes. Presumably, these outdoor stores are your only provider of equipment you need when you drive too far from civilization. They say they are selling functionality, but what they’re really selling is an image. The average hiker doesn’t need a jacket with interior mesh pockets, polyester chin guard, and light-weight recyclable nylon shells. Only hard-core hikers benefit from all this junk, the rest of us buy it because we get to pretend we are hard-core too. And why the hell is everything pea green and cement gray?
Workout Supplements
I never thought I would be intimidated by a bottle of nutrients until I came across a bucket of Magnesium Super Charge Xtreme! I once passed by one and I swear I heard it call me a little bitch when it saw me carrying a box of cookies. Companies create these ridiculous packages because the consumer decides which supplement to buy based on whichever label conveys the baddest attitude. They have no idea what 1500mg of Tribulus Terrestris does, but the label has a guy benching a million pounds so it must be good! These nutrients are cheap to make and are present in most foods; these supplements will only sell for $30 with about $25 worth of emotional value.
XXL Condoms
Men are so obsessed with their size that they are willing to spend money pretending to have a foot-long. 90% of men measure between 5 to 7 inches; anything beyond or below that is exceptionally rare. Why do they market Magnum XXL condoms so heavily when a normal one can cover a grapefruit? Why don’t they advertise Pee-wee XXS condoms for the unfortunate bottom tenth percent of men? Condom companies don’t want you to associate their brand with tiny dicks, that’s not going to sell. They know they can mark up their prices a few bucks with a product that associates the buyer with a big one.
Alcohol
Alcohol companies have many advertising tricks up their sleeve, most of which we, smart shoppers, are aware of. There is one trick they have that I think a lot of people don’t notice. Their commercials are starting to emphasis the fact that we should drink responsibly and not drink and drive. They go as far as taking 25% of the commercial time to tell us this. By telling us this, they make us feel better for buying their brand; a socially conscious brand that cares about the lives it kills. It makes us feel better about drinking in general; it reminds us that drinking in moderation is fine and that we shouldn’t feel guilty about it.
Products with breast cancer ribbons on the box
Companies know that buyers like to help a cause as long as they don’t have to go out of their way too much to do it. In theory, putting a bunch of pink ribbons on the corner of a Cheerios box should help with sales. But why are so many food products obsessed with breast cancer all of a sudden? You may find the following saying a little disturbing in this context, but here it is anyway – sex sells. Companies donate to breast cancer research because it is marketable. You don’t want to be thinking of prostate cancer when you're scarfing down cereal. Companies have finally found a disease that isn’t disgusting enough to put on food labels, that’s it. Most companies already give to charity; breast cancer is just a cause they can gloat about. You aren’t buying from an especially virtuous company, just a clever one.
Outdoor Clothing
The outdoorsy industry has the sneakiest marketing schemes. Presumably, these outdoor stores are your only provider of equipment you need when you drive too far from civilization. They say they are selling functionality, but what they’re really selling is an image. The average hiker doesn’t need a jacket with interior mesh pockets, polyester chin guard, and light-weight recyclable nylon shells. Only hard-core hikers benefit from all this junk, the rest of us buy it because we get to pretend we are hard-core too. And why the hell is everything pea green and cement gray?
Workout Supplements
I never thought I would be intimidated by a bottle of nutrients until I came across a bucket of Magnesium Super Charge Xtreme! I once passed by one and I swear I heard it call me a little bitch when it saw me carrying a box of cookies. Companies create these ridiculous packages because the consumer decides which supplement to buy based on whichever label conveys the baddest attitude. They have no idea what 1500mg of Tribulus Terrestris does, but the label has a guy benching a million pounds so it must be good! These nutrients are cheap to make and are present in most foods; these supplements will only sell for $30 with about $25 worth of emotional value.XXL Condoms
Men are so obsessed with their size that they are willing to spend money pretending to have a foot-long. 90% of men measure between 5 to 7 inches; anything beyond or below that is exceptionally rare. Why do they market Magnum XXL condoms so heavily when a normal one can cover a grapefruit? Why don’t they advertise Pee-wee XXS condoms for the unfortunate bottom tenth percent of men? Condom companies don’t want you to associate their brand with tiny dicks, that’s not going to sell. They know they can mark up their prices a few bucks with a product that associates the buyer with a big one.Alcohol
Alcohol companies have many advertising tricks up their sleeve, most of which we, smart shoppers, are aware of. There is one trick they have that I think a lot of people don’t notice. Their commercials are starting to emphasis the fact that we should drink responsibly and not drink and drive. They go as far as taking 25% of the commercial time to tell us this. By telling us this, they make us feel better for buying their brand; a socially conscious brand that cares about the lives it kills. It makes us feel better about drinking in general; it reminds us that drinking in moderation is fine and that we shouldn’t feel guilty about it.Products with breast cancer ribbons on the box
Companies know that buyers like to help a cause as long as they don’t have to go out of their way too much to do it. In theory, putting a bunch of pink ribbons on the corner of a Cheerios box should help with sales. But why are so many food products obsessed with breast cancer all of a sudden? You may find the following saying a little disturbing in this context, but here it is anyway – sex sells. Companies donate to breast cancer research because it is marketable. You don’t want to be thinking of prostate cancer when you're scarfing down cereal. Companies have finally found a disease that isn’t disgusting enough to put on food labels, that’s it. Most companies already give to charity; breast cancer is just a cause they can gloat about. You aren’t buying from an especially virtuous company, just a clever one.
Sunday, September 7, 2008
Facebook Defines Your Identity
In today’s web 2.0 generation, it’s not official until it’s on Facebook. That’s right - nothing is really official until you’ve solidified its existence on public display via Facebook. If you just woke up with a giant hang-over because of last night’s Jager Bombing and didn’t mention it in your Facebook status, did it really ever happen? If you change your birthday date a month forward on Facebook, would that be your new birthday? If you don’t even have a Facebook, do you really exist? Just like Big Brother in the book 1984, you control your past (or at least some of it) by controlling the memories people have about your past.
An interesting thing arises from all of this; people are beginning to use Facebook as way to make things official for themselves! Take for example the relationship status feature. There is always that awkward period of time that occurs when you first go out with someone and when you decide to declare each other as “in a relationship.” People sometimes feel that their commitments are not official until they publically announce it. This is because our culture values a person who is consistent with their beliefs. A person who is inconsistent with their beliefs is perceived as indecisive, confused, two-faced, or illogical. On the other hand, consistency is associated with being logical, rational, honest, or stable. When you publically announce a belief you make yourself vulnerable to being labeled inconsistent. This explains the hesitation period; you’re unsure if you want to commit to a certain identity because after it’s on Facebook it’s hard to turn back.
I believe that people implicitly already know this, maybe it’s something subconscious. They think that what you display on Facebook are a bunch of well thought-out commitments. In other words, your Facebook buddies will judge you by what you write. This is why Facebook has the power of defining your identity.
An interesting thing arises from all of this; people are beginning to use Facebook as way to make things official for themselves! Take for example the relationship status feature. There is always that awkward period of time that occurs when you first go out with someone and when you decide to declare each other as “in a relationship.” People sometimes feel that their commitments are not official until they publically announce it. This is because our culture values a person who is consistent with their beliefs. A person who is inconsistent with their beliefs is perceived as indecisive, confused, two-faced, or illogical. On the other hand, consistency is associated with being logical, rational, honest, or stable. When you publically announce a belief you make yourself vulnerable to being labeled inconsistent. This explains the hesitation period; you’re unsure if you want to commit to a certain identity because after it’s on Facebook it’s hard to turn back.
I believe that people implicitly already know this, maybe it’s something subconscious. They think that what you display on Facebook are a bunch of well thought-out commitments. In other words, your Facebook buddies will judge you by what you write. This is why Facebook has the power of defining your identity.
Wednesday, September 3, 2008
My Theory of Morality
I have always been non-religious, believed that nothing is black or white, and that life is inherently meaningless. A religious fundamentalist would cringe at the thought of having a person with my beliefs to be a part of his society. However, if he were to examine my life’s history he would find me to be a pretty moral, law-abiding person. For as long as I can remember I have been struggling to find a logical justification for being a moral person. No matter how often I thought about the meaninglessness of being moral, I continued striving to do good and straying away from doing evil. Well, the confusion is over; I have finally come up with a rational explanation of why everyone should be moral.
The bad definition of “moral”
Partly why morality is so confusing is because of how the word is conventionally thought of. People think that a moral action (e.g. it is bad to murder) should be applied in any situation and for any thinking agent. This way of using the word makes any moral guide (think Ten Commandments) vulnerable to all sorts of moral dilemmas. For example, should someone kill a person to save 100 others? Should someone die for their country or for anything? I have broadened the definition of “moral” in a way that leads to no moral ambiguity.
My definition of “moral,” which I will refer to as “moralL”
MoralsL: the set of behaviors and actions (that affect others in any way) that one should use in a collaboration or co-existence of two or more people in order to maximize personal utility. Whenever there is a group of two or more people that can benefit from each other, there exists a set of rules-of-interaction which, if followed correctly, will maximize the individual’s utility/happiness. These rules may change depending on the people within the group and the number of people in the group. You want to be moralL because you only benefit yourself from doing so.
Evolutionary explanation for moral misconceptions
It makes sense that natural selection favors the human/human ancestors that interact with others in such a way that increases their fitness. Humans can have non-zero-sum gains that increase their fitness by interacting with other humans in a certain way. I’ll call this set of rules-of-interactions as moralsE. Those genes that made humans predisposed or programmed to interact in a way that maximizes their fitness (i.e. morallyE) would dominate the gene pool. Now we have a population of humans that get positive emotional reinforcements (but not always) from behaving morallyE. The set of moralsE may only be a sub-set of the set of moralL or be completely different! Today’s religions/societies try following a moral code that contains some combination of moralsL and moralsE. Our emotional impulses bound us to moralsE that aren’t contained in the set of moralsL.
Why we should only follow moralsL and not moralsE
First of all, understand that our reproductive fitness can be a function of our happiness and therefore a part of our moralL code. If there are two conflicting actions (that affects others), option one leads to a 10% increase in happiness and option two leads to a 5% increase in happiness with a 2% increase in reproductive success (assuming the happiness associated with a 2% increase in reproductive success is already accounted for in the 5% increase in happiness), I don’t see why we should pick option two over option one. There is no reason to increase our reproductive fitness other than for the fact that it sometimes makes us happy to do so. In a universe empty of absolute right and wrong, why bother following any other moral code that doesn’t have to do with maximizing personal happiness?
Now to answer questions that I know are on your mind
If someone maximizes their happiness by going on murderous rampages, why should that be a moral deed? You would first need to accept the unlikely idea that someone maximizes their happiness by dramatically increasing their probability of dying (capital punishment/avengers/self-defense by victims) and sitting in prison in exchange for killing some people. Some of these people do exist so this isn’t a trivial example. Sure, they are acting morallyL, but expect natural selection to weed these people out quickly. Natural selection has favored those genes that make our happiness a function of other people’s well-being. Of course, not everyone has these genes or has them turned on, but there isn’t much to worry. If natural selection doesn’t weed them out, a benevolent society (that contains a majority of people who care about its members) will weed them out.
How this moral theory explains moral dilemmas
Should someone die for their country or for anything? You should only die for something if not dying for that something leads you to a life of such negative utility that it leads you to commit suicide anyways. If I don’t die for my country, will I live a life with such embarrassment, sadness, guilt, etc. that I would want to commit suicide and die either way? This same reasoning applies to such decisions of whether you should die or kill someone in order to save n number of people. What about going to the army and merely risking your life for your country? In this case you have to ask yourself whether the positive expected utility of risking your life for your country (or any cause) is greater than the negative expected utility of doing so. For example, if you had a 10% increase in probability of dying by going to the army, you might want to consider it, but not if it is a 50% increase. If saving your family from death requires you to increase your probability of dying by 50% you might consider it. I am just demonstrating why risking dying for a cause is all relative to your expected utility. Should we stop the genocide in Darfur? Well, that answer depends on whether net expected utility is positive or not. The surprising conclusion is that it may not even be worth it to stop the genocide (maybe we are better off just deterring it or slowing it down). There is no absolute right or wrong, there just is what there is: a bunch of evolved beings with different yet similar utility functions interacting with other beings in way that they hope leads to maximizing their individual utility.
How this theory affected my moral behavior
It hasn’t. I still do and believe in the same things, my preferences haven’t changed. What has changed is my perspective on moral ambiguity. With my theory, I no longer see moral dilemmas as unanswerable problems. There is always a rational moralL answer that differs from person to person. That moralL answer is the one that leads to maximizing happiness. We shouldn’t let things stray us away from acting morallyL like a religion telling you what they think is best for you.
The bad definition of “moral”
Partly why morality is so confusing is because of how the word is conventionally thought of. People think that a moral action (e.g. it is bad to murder) should be applied in any situation and for any thinking agent. This way of using the word makes any moral guide (think Ten Commandments) vulnerable to all sorts of moral dilemmas. For example, should someone kill a person to save 100 others? Should someone die for their country or for anything? I have broadened the definition of “moral” in a way that leads to no moral ambiguity.
My definition of “moral,” which I will refer to as “moralL”
MoralsL: the set of behaviors and actions (that affect others in any way) that one should use in a collaboration or co-existence of two or more people in order to maximize personal utility. Whenever there is a group of two or more people that can benefit from each other, there exists a set of rules-of-interaction which, if followed correctly, will maximize the individual’s utility/happiness. These rules may change depending on the people within the group and the number of people in the group. You want to be moralL because you only benefit yourself from doing so.
Evolutionary explanation for moral misconceptions
It makes sense that natural selection favors the human/human ancestors that interact with others in such a way that increases their fitness. Humans can have non-zero-sum gains that increase their fitness by interacting with other humans in a certain way. I’ll call this set of rules-of-interactions as moralsE. Those genes that made humans predisposed or programmed to interact in a way that maximizes their fitness (i.e. morallyE) would dominate the gene pool. Now we have a population of humans that get positive emotional reinforcements (but not always) from behaving morallyE. The set of moralsE may only be a sub-set of the set of moralL or be completely different! Today’s religions/societies try following a moral code that contains some combination of moralsL and moralsE. Our emotional impulses bound us to moralsE that aren’t contained in the set of moralsL.
Why we should only follow moralsL and not moralsE
First of all, understand that our reproductive fitness can be a function of our happiness and therefore a part of our moralL code. If there are two conflicting actions (that affects others), option one leads to a 10% increase in happiness and option two leads to a 5% increase in happiness with a 2% increase in reproductive success (assuming the happiness associated with a 2% increase in reproductive success is already accounted for in the 5% increase in happiness), I don’t see why we should pick option two over option one. There is no reason to increase our reproductive fitness other than for the fact that it sometimes makes us happy to do so. In a universe empty of absolute right and wrong, why bother following any other moral code that doesn’t have to do with maximizing personal happiness?
Now to answer questions that I know are on your mind
If someone maximizes their happiness by going on murderous rampages, why should that be a moral deed? You would first need to accept the unlikely idea that someone maximizes their happiness by dramatically increasing their probability of dying (capital punishment/avengers/self-defense by victims) and sitting in prison in exchange for killing some people. Some of these people do exist so this isn’t a trivial example. Sure, they are acting morallyL, but expect natural selection to weed these people out quickly. Natural selection has favored those genes that make our happiness a function of other people’s well-being. Of course, not everyone has these genes or has them turned on, but there isn’t much to worry. If natural selection doesn’t weed them out, a benevolent society (that contains a majority of people who care about its members) will weed them out.
How this moral theory explains moral dilemmas
Should someone die for their country or for anything? You should only die for something if not dying for that something leads you to a life of such negative utility that it leads you to commit suicide anyways. If I don’t die for my country, will I live a life with such embarrassment, sadness, guilt, etc. that I would want to commit suicide and die either way? This same reasoning applies to such decisions of whether you should die or kill someone in order to save n number of people. What about going to the army and merely risking your life for your country? In this case you have to ask yourself whether the positive expected utility of risking your life for your country (or any cause) is greater than the negative expected utility of doing so. For example, if you had a 10% increase in probability of dying by going to the army, you might want to consider it, but not if it is a 50% increase. If saving your family from death requires you to increase your probability of dying by 50% you might consider it. I am just demonstrating why risking dying for a cause is all relative to your expected utility. Should we stop the genocide in Darfur? Well, that answer depends on whether net expected utility is positive or not. The surprising conclusion is that it may not even be worth it to stop the genocide (maybe we are better off just deterring it or slowing it down). There is no absolute right or wrong, there just is what there is: a bunch of evolved beings with different yet similar utility functions interacting with other beings in way that they hope leads to maximizing their individual utility.
How this theory affected my moral behavior
It hasn’t. I still do and believe in the same things, my preferences haven’t changed. What has changed is my perspective on moral ambiguity. With my theory, I no longer see moral dilemmas as unanswerable problems. There is always a rational moralL answer that differs from person to person. That moralL answer is the one that leads to maximizing happiness. We shouldn’t let things stray us away from acting morallyL like a religion telling you what they think is best for you.
Wednesday, August 6, 2008
Why We Like To Be Around People Without Interacting With Them
I have realized that a lot of people lack the introspective prowess to understand why they like something. Especially when asked why they prefer one thing over another that is substitutable or just very similar. Why do you want to go to Wendy’s instead of Burger King? Why did you buy Tylenol instead of Advil? When you ask people these questions it seems as if their choice was made before making a justification for their choice. Their sub-conscious makes the choice before their conscious mind understands why that choice was made.
This is understandable. Sometimes our sub-conscious identifies some sensual input that cues for a certain decision to be made. For example: John is strolling through downtown looking for a place to eat and finds one restaurant to be particularly intriguing. It may not seem apparent to John, at the time, why he made his choice. If I asked him for what reason he made his choice, he might pause and think up a justification on the spot. What he didn’t realize was that his decision had nothing to do with his elaborate justification. He really made his choice because he saw people that looked like him dining at the restaurant. His sub-conscious took this visual cue as validation for his decision.
This automatic decision-making algorithm we possess helped me make sense of the following social paradox: people say they like to go places where there are a lot of other people, however, when they get to those places they rarely interact with people other than their own group.
People say they like to go to the movies and restaurants versus renting a movie or ordering take-in, but why? Why bother going to these places if you expect to never once to interact with others? For the same reason John didn’t know why he chose his restaurant, we don’t know why we want to be surrounded by people. Our mind makes our decision for us, and we naively, and incorrectly, justify the decision after the fact.
What is really going on is social proof: a psychological phenomenon that occurs in ambiguous social situations when people are unable to determine the appropriate mode of behavior (Wikipedia). Obviously, if you are unsure of which restaurant to choose, you go to the one with more people because that might mean it is better; the social proof that occurs goes beyond this. The surplus of people you never interact with actually improve your movie/restaurant experience.
Watching people have fun, laugh, eat, chat, etc. makes you more confident in doing the same; it makes you feel like you’re doing the right thing for the moment. Watching all these positive behaviors also makes your group feel the same way. This effectively creates the right atmosphere for a good time. If, instead, you see others bonding with their families, you’ll feel it is appropriate to do the same. The list goes on; other people influence your mood no matter what they do. We often mistakenly associate our people-induced mood with the place we are in and not the people we are surrounded by. Hopefully this explains why the Olive Garden still exists.
This is understandable. Sometimes our sub-conscious identifies some sensual input that cues for a certain decision to be made. For example: John is strolling through downtown looking for a place to eat and finds one restaurant to be particularly intriguing. It may not seem apparent to John, at the time, why he made his choice. If I asked him for what reason he made his choice, he might pause and think up a justification on the spot. What he didn’t realize was that his decision had nothing to do with his elaborate justification. He really made his choice because he saw people that looked like him dining at the restaurant. His sub-conscious took this visual cue as validation for his decision.
This automatic decision-making algorithm we possess helped me make sense of the following social paradox: people say they like to go places where there are a lot of other people, however, when they get to those places they rarely interact with people other than their own group.
People say they like to go to the movies and restaurants versus renting a movie or ordering take-in, but why? Why bother going to these places if you expect to never once to interact with others? For the same reason John didn’t know why he chose his restaurant, we don’t know why we want to be surrounded by people. Our mind makes our decision for us, and we naively, and incorrectly, justify the decision after the fact.
What is really going on is social proof: a psychological phenomenon that occurs in ambiguous social situations when people are unable to determine the appropriate mode of behavior (Wikipedia). Obviously, if you are unsure of which restaurant to choose, you go to the one with more people because that might mean it is better; the social proof that occurs goes beyond this. The surplus of people you never interact with actually improve your movie/restaurant experience.
Watching people have fun, laugh, eat, chat, etc. makes you more confident in doing the same; it makes you feel like you’re doing the right thing for the moment. Watching all these positive behaviors also makes your group feel the same way. This effectively creates the right atmosphere for a good time. If, instead, you see others bonding with their families, you’ll feel it is appropriate to do the same. The list goes on; other people influence your mood no matter what they do. We often mistakenly associate our people-induced mood with the place we are in and not the people we are surrounded by. Hopefully this explains why the Olive Garden still exists.
Thursday, July 24, 2008
Should we let ourselves become our jobs?
I recently read about an experiment showing that people are more reactionary towards losing freedoms that were once possessed versus freedoms that were never had. Take for example a kid and his privilege to have a piece of candy every time he finishes dinner. Compare two kids, one has always had this privilege and one has never. You can easily predict which kid will have a more violent uprising when being denied candy after dinner.
I have been the privileged kid for most of my life. I grew up with parents who can support me through my schooling without forcing me to get a job. This time period has given me the opportunity to explore myself and my goals. I had the luxury to do what truly makes me happy; I felt like my actions were consistent with what I believe in. Like the kid privileged with candy after dinner, I am bound to revolt when my freedoms are seized.
My freedoms are under a major threat and rebelling may be my death sentence. Like an ordinary member of society, I will one day have to support myself with a job of some sort. Working for a company may be my best option (in respect to having a low risk to return ratio). Unfortunately, I have learned that working for a company means I would have to suspend my freedoms for far too long.
Working towards accomplishing others' goals gives you a sense of loss in identity. You compromise your own aspirations for someone else's in exchange for money. (Ironically, the money you earn is supposed to grant you the freedom to do what you want). Being yourself becomes dangerous in this environment. Those who become successful here have abandoned their old self and meshed it into a bigger entity, the company itself.
Should we let ourselves become our jobs? I suppose some people don’t mind, I on the other hand, can’t fathom the thought of doing so. How is earning some money going to compensate for more than 1/3 of my waking life being wasted? I am afraid that a traditional job may not be a viable option for me.
I have been the privileged kid for most of my life. I grew up with parents who can support me through my schooling without forcing me to get a job. This time period has given me the opportunity to explore myself and my goals. I had the luxury to do what truly makes me happy; I felt like my actions were consistent with what I believe in. Like the kid privileged with candy after dinner, I am bound to revolt when my freedoms are seized.
My freedoms are under a major threat and rebelling may be my death sentence. Like an ordinary member of society, I will one day have to support myself with a job of some sort. Working for a company may be my best option (in respect to having a low risk to return ratio). Unfortunately, I have learned that working for a company means I would have to suspend my freedoms for far too long.
Working towards accomplishing others' goals gives you a sense of loss in identity. You compromise your own aspirations for someone else's in exchange for money. (Ironically, the money you earn is supposed to grant you the freedom to do what you want). Being yourself becomes dangerous in this environment. Those who become successful here have abandoned their old self and meshed it into a bigger entity, the company itself.
Should we let ourselves become our jobs? I suppose some people don’t mind, I on the other hand, can’t fathom the thought of doing so. How is earning some money going to compensate for more than 1/3 of my waking life being wasted? I am afraid that a traditional job may not be a viable option for me.
Monday, July 14, 2008
A Meaningless Life Can Be A Happy One Too
The religious, deists, agnostics and atheists all have trouble coming to terms with the meaninglessness of life. No matter where you stand on the spectrum, there is a troubling stigma associated with those who admit to having a meaningless life. It is believed that only the suicidal and the wrist slitters ever consider such a thought. After all, how is it possible to be a functioning human being without the silly belief that the meaning of life is to [insert here whatever makes you happy]. Hopefully I can deconstruct this notion once and for all.
But first I must defend the premise on which this column relies on. Humans have evolved categorical memory, i.e. they have the ability to categorize objects in their memory in a hierarchal manner. Your memory of things looks something like this: Stuff I do when Hungry --> Eat Food --> Cheeseburger --> No Onions
This is obviously a very rough outline of how we think, but it illustrates how we perceive objects meaningfully. A Cheeseburger is meaningless without a human to assert meaning onto it. In my example, the meaning of the cheeseburger is a food I want to eat because I am hungry. There is no ONE meaning for an object and those meanings varies between person to person. For example, some people might categorize a cheeseburger as something they like to draw instead. If all of mankind were to vanish into thin air, the cheeseburger would be nothing more than a peculiar collection of atoms.
The key insight from this example is that meaning is a human perception of objects. The meaning of an object doesn’t exist without a human to impose that meaning onto the object. Same is true for us humans; there is no reason to believe, a priori, that we have an inherent meaning assigned to us. The question of whether life has meaning cannot even be answered; it is an illegitimate question to ask. Just like the question: “what does it feel like to be a rock?” The rock doesn’t know what it feels like to be itself, so how can we possibly answer this question! Both these questions should be explained away when we realize the questions are erroneous to begin with.
Back to my main point: admitting that life is meaningless does not imply you are or will be depressed. I believe that those who say they’re depressed because of life’s meaninglessness are more susceptible to depression in the first place. There is nothing inherently depressing about the belief that life is meaningless! There might be a correlation, but then again there is a correlation with depression and believing in God. To blindly associate either of these beliefs with depression would be a mistake.
If you are someone who claims to have a meaning for their life, whatever it may be, ask yourself this: theoretically, if it was proved (by science or by yourself, whichever one is more convincing for you) that your meaning for life was absolutely wrong, would you continue to live the way you are? Would you become more depressed, would things that made you happy before no longer make you happy? I think it is safe to assume you wouldn’t fall into chronic depression. Believing that life is inherently meaningless should not turn someone into a subject of pity.
We don’t need a religion, book, or person telling us what our meaning to life is in order to be happy. For the same reason we don’t need to be told not to kill babies in order for us to not to kill babies. We don’t need an excuse for doing what makes us happy.
But first I must defend the premise on which this column relies on. Humans have evolved categorical memory, i.e. they have the ability to categorize objects in their memory in a hierarchal manner. Your memory of things looks something like this: Stuff I do when Hungry --> Eat Food --> Cheeseburger --> No Onions
This is obviously a very rough outline of how we think, but it illustrates how we perceive objects meaningfully. A Cheeseburger is meaningless without a human to assert meaning onto it. In my example, the meaning of the cheeseburger is a food I want to eat because I am hungry. There is no ONE meaning for an object and those meanings varies between person to person. For example, some people might categorize a cheeseburger as something they like to draw instead. If all of mankind were to vanish into thin air, the cheeseburger would be nothing more than a peculiar collection of atoms.
The key insight from this example is that meaning is a human perception of objects. The meaning of an object doesn’t exist without a human to impose that meaning onto the object. Same is true for us humans; there is no reason to believe, a priori, that we have an inherent meaning assigned to us. The question of whether life has meaning cannot even be answered; it is an illegitimate question to ask. Just like the question: “what does it feel like to be a rock?” The rock doesn’t know what it feels like to be itself, so how can we possibly answer this question! Both these questions should be explained away when we realize the questions are erroneous to begin with.
Back to my main point: admitting that life is meaningless does not imply you are or will be depressed. I believe that those who say they’re depressed because of life’s meaninglessness are more susceptible to depression in the first place. There is nothing inherently depressing about the belief that life is meaningless! There might be a correlation, but then again there is a correlation with depression and believing in God. To blindly associate either of these beliefs with depression would be a mistake.
If you are someone who claims to have a meaning for their life, whatever it may be, ask yourself this: theoretically, if it was proved (by science or by yourself, whichever one is more convincing for you) that your meaning for life was absolutely wrong, would you continue to live the way you are? Would you become more depressed, would things that made you happy before no longer make you happy? I think it is safe to assume you wouldn’t fall into chronic depression. Believing that life is inherently meaningless should not turn someone into a subject of pity.
We don’t need a religion, book, or person telling us what our meaning to life is in order to be happy. For the same reason we don’t need to be told not to kill babies in order for us to not to kill babies. We don’t need an excuse for doing what makes us happy.
Wednesday, July 9, 2008
Fuck This Post
Most of you have heard the old adage: “Using swear words shows that you have a poor vocabulary.”
This is somewhat true – people with a poor vocabulary have to improvise with the small collection of words they know. When fueled by anger, their mind retrieves the most prominent insults lying dormant in their head. Taking note of their belligerent use of the language, you’ll find the same insulting phrases being parroted over and over again.
Like any word or phrase, use it in too many different contexts and you’ll render it meaningless. With a limited vocabulary your tiny pouch of words are in danger of becoming meaningless. Many people are faced with this dilemma – they don’t want to bother expanding their vocabulary, but face the cost of having their words turn meaningless. Surprisingly, this isn’t the case! If this dilemma were true, there wouldn’t be anyone comfortable with their small collection of phrases; they would be forced to expand if they wished to adequately communicate with others. So what is going on here?
The fact is: people are not monotone. A person can use the word ‘Shit’ to mean dozens or even hundreds of different things simply by changing their tone of voice in different contexts. Unlike those with a bigger vocabulary, these people depend more on their tone of voice to communicate. There is no wonder why so many people manage to express themselves with a handful of phrases. Some of the common phrases you might have heard are: “That was sick” “That’s hella tight” “I love you” “That’s hot” and the list goes on. I am sure you’ve never heard or said these phrases in the same tone.
Don’t get me wrong, I don’t believe these people are less intelligent at all. They have mastered a different aspect of communication. Where they lack in vocabulary they make up with a better understanding of body language, social behavior and human psychology.
Upon hearing, “Using swear words shows that you have a poor vocabulary” you are equally justified in saying “Not using swear words shows you have a poor understanding of human social behavior.” Two sayings that could be true, but are better off not being said.
This is somewhat true – people with a poor vocabulary have to improvise with the small collection of words they know. When fueled by anger, their mind retrieves the most prominent insults lying dormant in their head. Taking note of their belligerent use of the language, you’ll find the same insulting phrases being parroted over and over again.
Like any word or phrase, use it in too many different contexts and you’ll render it meaningless. With a limited vocabulary your tiny pouch of words are in danger of becoming meaningless. Many people are faced with this dilemma – they don’t want to bother expanding their vocabulary, but face the cost of having their words turn meaningless. Surprisingly, this isn’t the case! If this dilemma were true, there wouldn’t be anyone comfortable with their small collection of phrases; they would be forced to expand if they wished to adequately communicate with others. So what is going on here?
The fact is: people are not monotone. A person can use the word ‘Shit’ to mean dozens or even hundreds of different things simply by changing their tone of voice in different contexts. Unlike those with a bigger vocabulary, these people depend more on their tone of voice to communicate. There is no wonder why so many people manage to express themselves with a handful of phrases. Some of the common phrases you might have heard are: “That was sick” “That’s hella tight” “I love you” “That’s hot” and the list goes on. I am sure you’ve never heard or said these phrases in the same tone.
Don’t get me wrong, I don’t believe these people are less intelligent at all. They have mastered a different aspect of communication. Where they lack in vocabulary they make up with a better understanding of body language, social behavior and human psychology.
Upon hearing, “Using swear words shows that you have a poor vocabulary” you are equally justified in saying “Not using swear words shows you have a poor understanding of human social behavior.” Two sayings that could be true, but are better off not being said.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
