Cognitive Dissonance, Normalcy Bias, and Survival, with Wonder Woman, Bigfoot, Johnny Carson, Stalin, and a Bond Girl.

“So you really think Morgan thinks I have a racial bias? This is so unfair. I would’ve marched on Selma if it was on Long Island.” – Seinfeld

wonderwoman2.jpg

I’ll have to admit, when I was doing this meme, I forgot where I was going with it.  Which was appropriate. 

This post is the result of a reader request by frequent commenter and occasional photo contributor 173dVietVet, and I’m glad to do it because it keeps me away from plumbing.  I had actually already started my notes for another topic (you’ll see it next Friday and it will be amazing, if I have enough beer before I start writing) when he suggested that I post about the interplay of Cognitive Dissonance, Normalcy Bias, and Survival.

This post sounded like way more fun than re-plumbing the drain line under my sink (this is true).  Despite the protestations of The Mrs. that we need a silly old sink in the kitchen I dug right into the topic, especially since Friday is typically health day and this topic is broad enough to cover both personal health and the broader issues related to disasters and living through crisis that have recently become a theme here.

Maybe . . .  it may have been a way for 173dVietVet to see if I’m not a computer mind sent from the future to influence the United States in 2019 to make more PEZ® workers for our PEZ© mines.  Who can say?  Regardless, 173dVietVet (and the other 10,000 people who will read this), here it is.

What is Cognitive Dissonance?

Cognitive Dissonance is the state of holding two opposing ideas in your mind, or of having beliefs that run counter to your actions.  The best example I ever ran into in real life was when I was at a convenience store and two Spandex®-clad bicyclists came in – helmets still on, complete with wrap-around sunglasses and smelly padded butt shorts.  One of the guys was loudly criticizing every item the other guy picked up.  Trust me, the guy was loud enough that everyone in the store could hear him.  I was NOT eavesdropping like I do with the neighbors on a Saturday night.

  • “No, you can’t drink that, man. Fructose will kill you, after it makes your children sterile.”
  • “Dude – the bleached flour in that is empty calories. It will screw up your metabolism and make the Martians attack.”
  • “Ah, man – that jerky has nitrates. Really bad for you.  Also, no one has ever loved me.”

Then he got up to the counter.

  • “I’ll have this, and . . . a pack of Marlboros®.” He looked at his bicycling buddy.  “Yeah, man, I know.”

That’s Cognitive Dissonance in action.  I was buying Copenhagen® and Cheddar Ruffles™ at the same time, so my ability to criticize was pretty limited.  I’ve since given up the Copenhagen©, but you can rip those Cheddar Ruffles® from my cold, dead, orange fingers.

soylentchips.jpg

If you get tired of Soylent Lays®?  You can just gnaw on a neighbor!  Spoiler:  in the movie, companies were making food from people.  But apparently it was tasty.  Mmmm, tasty people.

Another example?  An attorney that goes to church.  Normally lawyers burst into flame upon entering a Holy Place, but I heard California filed a restraining order against God, and the Ninth Circuit upheld it.  Last I heard, God is has appealed to the Supreme Court®.  Sadly, he might lose, since he doesn’t have any lawyers in Heaven to represent him.

Like anything, Cognitive Dissonance goes from mild (our bicycling smoker in the example above) to extreme (pretending Trump® isn’t president because you don’t like mean old Cheeto™ man).  In the middle is anyone who liked the latest Star Wars™ movies.  Or are they in the middle?  They might be the sickest of all of us.

In doing research about this topic, I found that studies of Cognitive Dissonance had different origins for different peoples.  It turns out that Cognitive Dissonance in European-descended people is driven by the concepts of shame and guilt.  Shame, in this case, is the feeling brought out by violating a group norm.  Mental values based in Shame are built around what other people will think of you.  Guilt is violating an absolute right and wrong.  Everyone on the planet could be dead, and you’d still feel Guilt.

In East Asians, Cognitive Dissonance was only built around Shame.  Guilt didn’t play a part in it.  If everybody on Earth died?  You’d be free at last!  I have no other data on any other ethnicities, so don’t ask.  I’m thinking the researcher did the study in Chinese restaurant in North Dakota.

Some other odd things I discovered about Cognitive Dissonance:

  • Initiations and hazing – people who are subjected to rough rites of initiation actually have increased commitment to the group hazing them. I guess the lesson here is, don’t skimp.  Rent the goat.  And get the extended insurance plan on the goat.  You know why.
  • People highlight the positives of the choice they made … after they made the choice, not before. Rationalization is a way to smooth over Cognitive Dissonance, and also explains why I justify the late night tipsy Amazon.com purchases to The Mrs.  Everyone needs a life size Bigfoot® statue, right?

bigfoot.jpg

The Mrs. took this picture after we bought Bigfoot One.  I had this statue until The Mrs.’ dog ate it.  Then I bought another one, but I keep it inside.  Sadly, this is a true story.  Bigfoot deserves to be free.

Essentially, when your brain is faced with the contradictions that spring from Cognitive Dissonance, it has (as far as I can tell) four choices:

  • Change a belief,
  • Change an action,
  • Pretend our actions don’t make us big fat hypocrites, or
  • Ignore it all and get a cookie.

Orwell even talked about it in his future history novel 1984.  A great example of Cognitive Dissonance in action was the way that supporters minimized Bill Clinton’s horrible behavior in the Lewinski mess.  (Actually it was Clinton’s mess, but this is a family-friendly blog.)  And mainstream Republicans were no better in the whole “invade Iraq” mess, for absolute fairness.  Supporters, like hazed college freshmen pledging Omega, seem to like politicians more when they lie to them.

Go figure.

wilderno.jpg

If you haven’t seen Animal House®, that makes me die a little inside.  It’s the Star Wars™ of anti-Cognitive Dissonance movies.

Okay, that’s Cognitive Dissonance.  What’s Normalcy Bias?

First, Normalcy.  Really?  Did we really need that word?  I guess I’ll allow it.  Guys, the English language has 171,476 words according to the Oxford Dictionary of the English Language, and your ‘umble ‘ost only knows about 45,000 of them.  Unless your new word involves ways that aliens have sex in clown costumes in a vacuum while in orbit over Mongolia on a Tuesday?  There’s probably already a word for it.

Second, what is Normalcy Bias?  Normalcy Bias is just a belief that things are going to return to “normal” at some unspecified point in the future, often through the actions of some unspecified savior, like Johnny Carson returning from the dead and eating the livers of all of the current late night hosts while they were still alive.  Oh, wait, that was a dream I had the other night.  Never mind.

carsoni.jpg

The answer is no, not funny at all.

Third, I think that Normalcy Bias is just a subset of Cognitive Dissonance.    Here are some examples:

  • Underestimating the probability of a flood hitting your house. This is not a personal example – I’ve checked FEMA flood maps on every house I’ve ever bought – before I bought them.  I remember talking to a friend who thought I was lying when I told him that.  Right now?  If a flood takes out my house, I’m expecting to see a little old man with an Ark.
  • Underestimating disaster impacts. FEMA is really good at this – in the middle of Hurricane Ike, FEMA was on the radio.  Thankfully, we had a crank-radio and were able to get the vital advice that lists of available FEMA services were . . . on the Internet at FEMA.gov.    Telling people with no power (and no cell service) to go to the Internet to get the latest updates.  Yay, FEMA!  Why don’t you suggest direct brain transfer?
  • The Roman citizens in Great Britain standing on the pier and waving goodbye to the last Legion in Rome as it went off to put down an uprising of those pesky Gauls. The Romans will be back soon, right?  Things will be normal again?  Right?  (Rome, Britain, and Money: Why You Can’t Find Fine China after the Apocalypse)
  • King Arthur’s legend that he’ll return to save England – it’s just one example of the hidden and secret king that will return one day to Make England Great Again. Assuming any English are left when Arthur gets back.
  • Nassim Nicholas Taleb talks about Normalcy Bias in his book The Black Swan. He describes the belief that his family had that things would “return to normal” in Lebanon, even after it was ripped apart by civil war between 1975 and 1990.  They talked about how they’d be able to return, and how things would . . . return to normal.

lebanon2.jpg

When Taleb wrote this, this was a picture that was taken in Lebanon – 2006.  I’m not thinking this is a great place for long term real estate growth.  Unless you have quite a large number of Trident® missiles – 3 out of 4 despots recommend Trident© if you chew missiles.

I think that Normalcy Bias is pretty deep seated function of the human brain – I see too many examples, both in my own thinking and in my observations of others to believe that it’s abnormal.

During a crisis, that’s a problem.  The biggest dangers in a crisis are:

  1. Not accepting that the world has changed, maybe forever. People who change their world view soonest . . . win.  An example:  I was driving and saw a car pulled over on the side of the road.  The driver had obviously just wrecked his BMW®.  He was wandering around, dazed.  “My BMW® . . . it’s wrecked!”  He was distraught.  I said to him, “Man, forget about the car – your left arm has been severed!”  He became even more upset.  “My God,” he screamed, looking down at the place his arm should have been, “Where is my Rolex©!”  Okay, that didn’t happen.  But I’m allowed to dream.
  2. Not realizing or believing that changes could happen. This happens before the crisis, and the result is that you’ve never planned.  Not having planned, you’ve got no preparations.  The best cure for this is nearly getting caught up in a disaster.  My daughter, Alia S. Wilder, recently found out that her house was in a zone that could be flooded.    Even more oops?  She had zero preparations.  Being evil, I didn’t give her answers.  I asked questions.  “Oh, so you bought a month’s worth of food.  Good.  How much water to you have?”  Her eyes were really opened to the huge vulnerabilities that she had.  I slept well that night, even though I had to shower to get the evil off of me.
  3. Thinking that other people share your values. They don’t.  I assure you that there is no neighborhood in Modern Mayberry I would be afraid to be in at any time of the day or night.  If you carry that same lack of awareness to, say, Chicago, the results might be less than optimal.  Monday’s post will be about the implications of this logical fallacy.  The sooner you internalize this, the better.
  4. Failing to practice. Just as having the neatest nickel-plated 1911 with laser sights and the chainsaw attachment won’t help you if you don’t practice, if you don’t practice your disaster response from time to time, it won’t help you, either.  You won’t be able to find your preps.  They’ll be in the wrong spot.  Or, worse yet, your child moved them and the mice got into your rice, the parakeet got into your wheat, and your dehydrated food has been mildewed.  That’s a bad day.  But it’s a much better day if none of the steers got into your beer.
  5. Thinking that someone else will save you. They won’t.  This is why I hate the term “first responders.”  It puts the responsibility for a crisis on the wrong person.  If someone is breaking into my house – I am the first responder.  If Pugsley cuts deeply into his thumb while whittling, I am, again, the first responder.  In any real crisis, the “first responders” have probably missed many of the issues I’ve listed above.  During Hurricane Ike, I heard one of the funniest things I’ve ever heard – pleas from the radio announcer to bring food, gasoline, generators, and water to . . . the “first responders.”  The “first responders” weren’t an asset.  They were a liability that couldn’t even save themselves.  I’m not bragging, but the Wilder family was at home, eating steak.    We had enough food for weeks.  Again, The Mrs. and I were the first responders.  Mmm.  Steak.
  6. Not realizing the implications of changes. In apocalypse movies, one typical means of comic relief is the former banker/stockbroker/boss who, in a fit of self-important pomposity, asks, “Do you know who I am?”  Immediately this character (who you’re not supposed to like), gets his ego shot down as either the hero or bad guy shows him that the rules have changed.  One humorous version of this is in the underrated Kevin Costner flick The Postman, when he meets Tom Petty.  The Postman says to Tom Petty, “I know you, you’re famous.”  Petty replies, “I was.    Kinda.”  At the end, Tom Petty asks Costner, “Are you The Postman?”  Costner nods.  Petty says, “I’ve heard of you.  You’re famous.”  It was a brilliant way to turn that trope on its head, and pointed out a lesson we’ll talk about in a minute in item 1 of the list below.  I guess that depends on your reading speed.
  7. Not adapting to the reality of the changes. This is a little different than number six.  A great example is the Kulaks that I wrote about recently.  When Stalin came to power they thought they could negotiate with him since they were the economic engine of the U.S.S.R.  Spoiler alert:  they couldn’t.  Score Stalin: 20,000,000, Kulaks: 0.  A less sinister version of this is when you flip a light switch during a blackout, and a second later feel like an idiot, thankfully Stalin’s ghost doesn’t send you to the Gulag for that.

antistal.jpg

It always cracks me up that AntiFa© thinks they won’t be the first people sent to the camps.  Loyalty?  The commies can work with that.  Being disloyal to the country that provides the framework for your material success?  Gulag first.  But you get to choose the top bunk.  Yay!

Every single point I’ve made above can kill you, given the right circumstances.  If I were evil, like an ancient emaciated grizzled she-demon direct from Hell, or Madonna® (I’m sorry, I repeat myself) I’d just leave you here to twist in the wind, stuck in a never ending cycle of Cognitive Dissonance and Normalcy Bias that spirals into a black hole of self-despair that ultimately leaves you as a tweeker midwife sitting in a ripped-up vinyl booth in an Ecuadoran Dairy Queen® with no Blizzard™ machine, delivering Ecuadorian children for leftover chicken tenders.  And there’s no gravy in Ecuador.  I think that’s because the toilets circle the other way.  Maybe.

But I’m not that mean.  Well, I am that mean, but I’m still begging for working for that Nobel® Peace™ Prize©, or maybe a lousy MacArthur Award™, so I’d best pretend to be a loving, caring human being.  Besides, no body?  No crime.  Right?  That’s what my lawyer keeps telling me.  I hope he’s right.

I know what you are asking, “John Wilder, how can I learn to make comedy jokes like you?”  See?  You’re dead in a disaster already!  A disaster is no joking matter, unless it happens to someone else.  But, following are some preventive (the word preventative, while in the dictionary, has that stupid extra “ta” in the middle and I refuse to engage with a single ta – two ta’s only) steps that you can take to, well, live.  And these steps apply to both a disaster and your life.  In the end, your life is a disaster.  I’m not judging, but if you treat your life like a metaphorical disaster, you’ll be healthier and more prepared.

  1. Humility: Know what you don’t know.  As Aesop (LINK) perspicaciously quoted Donald Rumsfeld the other day:  “Reports that say that something hasn’t happened are always interesting to me, because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know.”  People liked to bag on Rumsfeld, mainly because they were jealous of his mad dancing skills and that he bested John Cusack in an arm-wrestling contest once so he could win the chance to date Demi Moore.  This was before she began to resemble beef jerky, so it was worth it at the time.  Regardless, this is a great quote on humility.  Know what you don’t know.  Either learn it, or compensate for it.
  2. Prepare Generally for General Disasters: Most things you can prepare for are the same, or at least rhyme like poetry used to rhyme before cigarette smoking smelly people in black berets with low-testosterone face hair (high testosterone for the females, which looks about the same) ruined it.  Hitler’s ghost won’t re-start World War II, and Abraham Lincoln’s ghost won’t be around to start Civil War II, but human needs don’t change all that much, regardless of what disaster you face.  You have to eat.  You have to have water.  You have to have Internet.  Oh, wait – sorry.  Water is optional now, according to the WHO (The Who, The WHO, Cavemen, Child Labor, and We Won’t Get Fooled Again).  You can quote me on the following:  A multi-tool is a crappy tool.  Unless it’s your only tool.  And it weighs less than your tool kit.  Never expect that preparations will be exact replacements of what you really need.  But as long as you have Internet, it’s all good, right?
  3. Do Things That Take You Out Of Your Comfort Zone: No, this isn’t an excuse to try to convince you into a Multi-Level-Marketing© scheme to strain your friendships by selling a product that ultimately is the object of a 60 Minutes™ investigation (this happened to my ex-wife, for reals).    Take a different road to work.  How well do you know the lay of the land in the ten miles around your house?  How well do you know your neighbors, I mean, reciprocally?  The telescope views don’t count no matter how hot she is.  Imagine you had to do without electricity.  Do without it for a night.  Two nights.  Spend a night in a tent in the back yard.  Go camping.  Eat a burger . . . without fries.  Your routine is your enemy, except for the lifting and healthy bits.  Change it up.
  4. Practice with your tools: Heh, hehe, hehehe, he said tools.  Okay, Beavis, knock it off.  If it’s a pistol.  If it’s a chainsaw.  If it’s a hammer.  Heh, hehe, hehehe, he said hammer.  Practice with it.  80% of your proficiency will come for 20% of your effort, unless you’re me trying to learn guitar, because that’s just hopeless.  Become mediocre now, when there’s time, that will help with number one, up above.  At least then you’ll know what you don’t know.
  5. Play “What if?” mind games: I do this all the time.  Sometimes I end up in crazy stupid places – as in the entire world is gone and leaves just me and the cast of The Breakfast Club and the cast of Who fighting over who gets the last deodorant stick in the world and Sophie Marceau is the only one who can save me.  Okay, that’s not really productive.  But when you think about what could happen, you become mentally prepared if it does happen.

marceau2.jpg

Sophie is the one on bottom.  James Bond® is the one on top.  I guess I might need to explain that to the folks in California.  I’m just worried that the next movie might have Jeanette Bond, who has never even been to England at all.  Because what’s more British than that?

So, there it is.  I guess I have a sink to fix.  173dVietVet, how did I do?

Also, if you have a pet topic, toss it out, either in the comments or at my email at movingnorth@gmail.com.  I won’t promise that I’ll do it, but your odds are good.  100% as of this writing.  If I don’t do it, it’s not you, it’s that I think I’d suck at it.

At Our Wits’ End Review Part II: I.Q. and the Fate of Civilization (Hint, It’s Idiocracy)

“As the 21st century began, human evolution was at a turning point.  Natural selection, the process by which the strongest, the smartest, the fastest, reproduced in greater numbers than the rest, a process which had once favored the noblest traits of man, now began to favor different traits.  Most science fiction of the day predicted a future that was more civilized and more intelligent.  But as time went on, things seemed to be heading in the opposite direction.  A dumbing down.  How did this happen? Evolution does not necessarily reward intelligence.  With no natural predators to thin the herd, it began to simply reward those who reproduced the most, and left the intelligent to become an endangered species.” – Idiocracy

idiocracy2

The pictures from this post are mainly from Idiocracy©, which you should watch before it’s an actual documentary.

This is the second part of the review of the book At Our Wits’ End.  The first part can be found here at At Our Wits’ End Review Part The First:  Increasing Intelligence and Civilization.  Again, I recommend the book, and the link is below.  As of this writing I don’t get any compensation if you buy it here.  Buy it anyway.  It’s an important book.

When last we left Western Civilization, we’d reached the smartest point ever in history.  Isaac Newton was an example of the genius produced at this time in history.  Dutton and Woodley have data to suggest that 1750 was the peak of intelligence for Western Civilization.

Is there any evidence for this?

Certainly.

Life in 1770 was fairly comparable to life in 1470.  Given three hundred years, things hadn’t changed much at all.  But by 1804, life was dramatically different.  The Industrial Revolution® was a product of the accumulated intellectual capital of the preceding five hundred years and it changed everything.

Prior to the Industrial Revolution©, natural selection occurred in society through the culling of the poor via disease and poverty along with the execution/prison death for about 2% of the stupider males.  This led to the population getting smarter.  But the Industrial Revolution© created an economic abundance in the West like never seen before.  Surplus food and goods were now available in society.  Medicine improved and kept the weak children of rich people alive.

famtree.jpg

Ahh, selection in progress.

Medicine also kept more of the children of poor people and poor single mothers alive.  As established previously,

  • Poor impulse control is correlated with lower I.Q.,
  • Single motherhood is correlated with lower I.Q.,
  • Less overall wealth is correlated with lower I.Q., and
  • Having more children is correlated with lower I.Q.

Again, none of these predict the behavior in individuals.  The friend I have with the greatest number of children has a very high I.Q.  There are several very smart people I know that don’t have a lot of money.  And anyone under the influence of testosterone and being 18 has really crappy impulse control.  I will also remind everyone being rich doesn’t mean you’re virtuous.  Neither does being smart. But in group behavior, the correlations above are well documented.

Dutton and Woodley note that they’re not the first ones to see the inherent problems with the removal of natural selection in a wealthy society.  Benedict Morel, named after a mushroom, observed this problem in 1857 between surrenders in France.  Francis Galton wrote in 1865 that “Civilization preserves weakly lives that would have perished in barbarous lands.”  Ouch.

But it’s true.  As of this week, every member of our family wears glasses as Pugsley was the last to leave the “good eyes” club.  And The Mrs. developed type I diabetes when she was 12.  Prior to the 1920’s this was a near immediate death sentence.  However, since insulin was isolated and entered the market in the 1930’s, she’s alive and had kids, namely Pugsley and The Boy.  Her genes would never have reproduced without the Industrial Revolution™.

hiq.jpg

Spoiler alert:  they’re never going to be ready.

Charles Darwin wrote an entire book on the problem:  The Descent of Man.  It really wasn’t a light “summer at the beach” read as it described humanity getting progressively . . . worse.  Smarter people use contraception more (remember, the prohibition against birth control went away as religious beliefs changed).  And lower I.Q. people not only have more children, they actively desire more children.

Further factors that have developed as society absorbed the wealth of the great capitalist expansion include the development of a welfare state.  That’s a problem if you want smart people around.  Welfare states support and encourage single mothers (lower I.Q.) to have more children and ensures that those children survive.  Dutton and Woodley also note that data suggests that welfare may encourage those who are also low in “personality factors” (agreeableness and conscientiousness) to have more children.  What does that lead to?  A population that is more impulsive, paranoid, apathetic and aggressive.  By coincidence these traits are also associated with lower I.Q.

So, numbers increase on the lower end of the I.Q. scale.  What about on the upper end?  Are smart people are having lots of babies?  No.  Opening high value careers up to intelligent women causes them to have fewer babies.  Higher I.Q. people also use birth control more frequently, and actually desire to have smaller families.  So not only are lower I.Q. people having more lower I.Q. babies, smarter people are having fewer high I.Q. children.

brawn2

But at least they have what plants crave!

Having a wealthy society also increases the desire for people from less wealthy countries to immigrate to the rich countries.  As we shown in the previous post (I.Q. – uh- What is it good for? Absolutely Everything. Say it again.), less wealth generally correlates to lower societal I.Q.  Does this translate to real-world outcomes?  Yes.  Dutton and Woodley cite Danish studies that show the average Dane I.Q. to be around 100.  However, the I.Q. of non-Western immigrants is roughly 86 in Denmark.  Immigrants certainly aren’t making Denmark smarter.

futuretown

To think, you could live in a paradise like this . . . .

Since intelligence is 0.80 correlated with genetics, they and their children actually can’t make Denmark smarter.  This result would indicate that wealth, quality of life, and ability to self-govern would decrease in countries facing high immigration, while crime would increase.  As a completely unrelated note, the United States has more immigrants than any country on Earth, with 40% of the population (How the Constitution Dies) now being either first generation or born of a foreign mother.

But What About The Flynn Effect?

The Flynn Effect refers to a general rise in IQ scores between 1930 and 1980, noted by a guy named (drum roll) Flynn, James Flynn – he’ll take his data shaken, not stirred.  For whatever reason I.Q. scores seemed to be increasing.  However, Dutton and Woodley explain that the Flynn effect is most likely environmental in nature (i.e., better nutrition) and not genetic.

Apparently the I.Q. test sub-scores that show improvement tend to favor very specific areas of intelligence, namely those areas that are environmentally influenced.  There is a parallel with height, they point out:  in 1900, average height in Great Britain was 5’6”.  In 1970 it was 5’10”.  But growth has been in leg length (which is more correlated with environmental factors) versus torso length (which is more genetic).  People are taller due to nutrition.

Additionally, schools train more for abstract thought than they would have in a mostly agrarian society, which would have been the norm throughout the West in 1930.  Country schoolhouses didn’t need to teach logic puzzles, since they were focused on traditional subjects.  Now children are drilled in the kinds of questions that are used on I.Q. tests – and if you practice, you do get better even if you’re not smarter.  On some I.Q. tests administered to youth, they’re not considered to be valid if the child had the test in the past year, so practicing the kinds of questions on the test will likely improve scores.

The bad news is that evidence suggests that the Flynn effect has stopped around somewhere around the year 2000 and is now headed downward.  Reaction times (a proxy for intelligence) have dropped.  Reaction times aren’t as closely correlated with I.Q. as many of the other things we’ve talked about, but they are directly measurable.  It may be a bad ruler, but it’s a ruler that we can use to compare across time.

Also confirming the I.Q. drop is work done by Augustine Kong, a Chinese researcher at the University of Iceland studied genetic components known to increase I.Q.  They’re declining.  The average Icelander born in 1990 wasn’t as smart as one born in 1910, and the genetics aren’t there to support an increasing I.Q.  The opposite appears to be happening.

Dutton and Woodley conclude that based on the metrics they reviewed, the “average” Englishman of 1850 would be in the top 15% of intelligence today in England.  Oops.  And apparently all tests surveyed indicate declining I.Q.  That’s a problem:  if average intelligence is declining, and intelligence is a bell curve, there will be fewer geniuses and a smaller “smart fraction” that is able to put run and hold together a technologically advanced society.  Or build a SR-71 Blackbird.  Or a Saturn V rocket.

Just like a bad horror movie, it keeps getting worse.  The very temperament of genius is changing – from stereotypical genius – a very driven, self and work-preoccupied Einstein to Todd from corporate:  intelligent, socially skilled, agreeable, and conscientious.  Thankfully the genius “Todd” will provide us really detailed policy manuals and snappy PowerPoints® instead of that useless groundbreaking physics.

Creativity is correlated with I.Q. but only up to an I.Q. of 120.  As a further confirmation, creativity scores have declined, therefore . . . expect less Monty Python® on TV and more “Ow, My Balls©.”

tv2

And people say that there’s nothing good on TV.

On the bright side, the murder rate is down.  Why would that be so?  Murder, violence and impulsive behavior is correlated with lower I.Q.  Dutton and Woodley theorize that the environment that creates violence is down – given a robust welfare system it’s less likely that financial pressures or social pressures are as high.  You kid won’t be starving to death as they stuff their face full of Cheetos® while they sit on the couch playing X-Box™, and since obesity is up, killing people is such hard work, anyway.

Why do Civilizations Rise and Fall?

Like your mother-in-law, early civilizations have a low I.Q. – they’re dangerous places to be.  But over time group selection pressures intensify, the people become highly religious and ethnocentric – the hill people want to kill and eat the valley people, and vice-versa, and everybody wants to kill the group whose god makes them wear purple.  The nice thing about strong religion and ethnocentric behavior is it allows your group to compete well.

If your religion is good enough, and if you get enough selection for I.Q., you just might end up with a baby civilization on your hands.  Once I.Q. increases, conditions get better.  An elite is formed, and, since they have nothing better to do, they begin to question all of the social traditions that made civilization smart and wealthy.

The elite begins to compete on who can be more altruistic and ethnocentrism (favoring your own people) becomes badthink.  All of the values and norms that created the civilization are despised and thrown out.  Society begins to decline.  “. . . extreme views . . . eventually become the norm.”

Resources are then taken from those that are more capable and given to those that are less capable, which is called fairness since all people are equal, right?  I.Q. drops.  Innovation drops.

Then?  The elite is purged, and the civilization collapses.  The authors anticipate the following response, that:  “. . . it doesn’t work precisely with some obscure civilization or other; or demand that we respond to an infinite regress of every unlikely possible alternative explanation . . . .”  Yeah, even academics get denial.

whitehouse2

Okay, maybe it won’t take that long.

Does This Explain Past History with Other Civilizations?

Sure.

  • Ancient Greece.
  • Islamic Civilization. 64% of important Islamic scientists lived before 1250.  100% of them lived before 1750.
  • China.  It came very close to its own industrial revolution.
  • The Roman Empire.  Why didn’t Rome (as awesome as it was) have an industrial revolution?  Contraception and abortion were approved of.  Higher IQ women generally had fewer children, and this collapsed Rome prior to that great leap that would have led to Maximus™ brand Ocelot Bitez® and Roman tanks.  Man, I wish we would have had Roman tanks.

What About Western Civilization?

Western Civilization has followed the same cycle, but with this important difference:  Christianity had a taboo against contraception and abortion which kept higher I.Q. women having children.  The Spring of Western Civilization was from 1000 to 1500.  During this time, it was highly religious and highly ethnocentric, just like the model.

The Summer lasted from 1500 to the Industrial Revolution©.  This period was more rational, questioning, and the Renaissance brought culture and art to the forefront.

Autumn – Industrial Revolution™ to last Tuesday.  We find ourselves with the elite questioning society.  The ideas and thoughts that the civilization is capable of are reaching their highest level as we harvest the fruit of hundreds of years of human advancement.

We may be in Winter or close to it.  The hallmark of winter is a declining I.Q. as the less intelligent spew out children like a society-destroying genetic AR-15.  Culturally, Winter is characterized by the reproduction of good ideas from the past rather than coming up with new ones.  Multiculturalism and Marxism are “anti-rational” and “their adoption should show how far g (I.Q.) has fallen.”  Dutton and Woodley quote Charles Murray with the phrase that describes the era – “The feeling that the story has run out.”

The authors are not certain we are there, but feel that it’s worth noting that things don’t look very good.

Thanks, guys.

Are There Solutions?

I’ll leave you to read the book for those alternatives.  I’ll summarize it by noting that the solutions provided are not easy choices, and unlikely to be implemented in any democracy.  I.Q. drop is caused by our society and values, and won’t be undone by a society with our values.  The authors further suggest that maybe we should spend some time saving our knowledge so it’s easier for the next group through.

Dark.

I still recommend the book.  I also recommend Dr. Dutton’s YouTube® work.  I’ve linked to a good one down below.  Next week I should have the transcription done of my interview of him, and it’ll shine a bit more light on these conclusions.

At Our Wits’ End Review Part The First:  Increasing Intelligence and Civilization

“Give the likes of Baldrick the vote and we’ll be back to cavorting druids, death by stoning and dung for dinner.” – Blackadder

ba2

I love accurate historical dramas.

What happens when you find a set of ideas that might explain the world as we see it, that ties together dozens of topics you’ve written extensively about over the course of years?

You smile, even if it means civilization might be ending.  Heck, if civilization ends, no more mortgage!

Let me go back to the start.

I was listening to YouTube® on my way to work.  YouTube™ has some interesting algorithms that select your next video.  From time to time the videos presented have been horrific, but on this particular occasion, a gentleman was interviewing Dr. Edward Dutton about his new book At Our Wits’ End.  I enjoyed the interview so much I ordered the book that night, and have watched many of Dr. Dutton’s YouTube© videos as well since then – he’s named himself quite appropriately the “Jolly Heretic.”

I was not disappointed when At Our Wits’ End arrived and, in my first spoiler alert for the review, I heartily recommend the book without reservation.  Dr. Dutton wrote the book along with his colleague, Dr. Michael Woodley, and together they have put together an interesting and compelling scientific narrative.  I research many of my posts, and some research takes hours and has dozens of notecards of notes.  In this case, I typed my notes about the book – the notes alone are sitting right now at 1725 words.  We’ll see how many posts that ends up being:  I’m betting it will be two, and I’m certain that not all of my notes will be used.  I may end up posting the combined review when it’s complete as a separate page on the blog, along with the interview of Dr. Dutton that he was gracious enough to agree to.  I’ll be posting that interview after the review is complete – I think it will form an excellent post script.

Last week’s Monday post (I.Q. – uh- What is it good for? Absolutely Everything. Say it again.) was a warm up – it dealt with how I.Q. shapes the present.  In it, the relationship between I.Q. and national wealth is fairly obvious.  This week’s post deals with (to me) the more crucial and compelling question – what will the future of Western Civilization and humanity be?  This is the core of At Our Wits’ End.

But first, from page 108 of At Our Wits’ End:

One problem with science which many people find difficult to get their heads around, is that the aim of science is to understand the nature of the world and to present the simplest explanation, based on the evidence, for what is going on.  Science is not there to be reassuring, to make people feel good, or to help bond society together . . . . Those who call for suppression are, in effect, arguing that scientific pursuit is fine until it forces them to question the worldview that they hold for emotional reasons.  Once it does this it is ‘bad science’ or ‘a higher standard of proof should be demanded’ or ‘it is immoral’.

This is perhaps the quote that impacted me the most strongly from the book.  We live in a world filled with truths – and the most uncomfortable questions are perhaps the most important to ask.  We may not like the answers, but when dealing with reality we cannot make rational decisions without that knowledge.  In my personal life, the questions that I hate to ask myself are nearly always the most important ones.  Strangely, I also seem to know immediately the answers to those questions, at least when I have the courage to ask them.

ba3

The first question posed by the book is a simple one:

What is intelligence?

As discussed previously in this blog, intelligence is the ability to solve complicated problems, generally with some speed.  For this review, I’ll use I.Q.  and intelligence as well as ‘g’ – the general intelligence factor – interchangeably.  Although these are all very different terms for a scientist studying the subject, for the purposes of this review I’ll mangle the language and call them all the same thing and use them more or less similarly.  It’s like calling a zebra a horse, but hopefully it excludes centaurs and giraffes and makes for clear reading for the lay reader.  Also, keep in mind that these are group numbers – we all know and can cite examples of individuals who don’t follow the group correlations we’ll discuss – the genius level smart dude who has bad body odor and lives in his parent’s basement.  The sort-of dim kid who developed a business and makes $350,000 a year.  They exist.  But they’re the exceptions, not the rule.

Intelligence has a most interesting property:  it’s inheritable – with a correlation of about 0.8, which is pretty high.  1.0 is perfect correlation, -1.0 is perfect negative correlation.  Educational attainment and economic status correlate with intelligence, as does salary – at about 0.3.  Other things that are correlated with intelligence include impulse control.  People with higher IQ are also more trusting.  On an individual level to predict a person’s performance you also have to have information about their personality, but on a group level I.Q. has significant predictive power.

It’s generally the dream of every first grade teacher that all of her students are equal.  But she knows that’s a lie.  Every student isn’t equal – some are much better at some tasks than others.  Some are much better at every task, and people who do well on one task generally do well on other tasks – intelligent brains just seem to have more bandwidth in general – it’s like they have an overclocked nervous system.  Again, this doesn’t mean that they’re more virtuous, simply that they have greater capabilities.

The average IQ also determines interests to some extent – the average IQ of someone who studies anthropology is lower than someone who studies physics.

ba4

What are the properties of IQ?

  • IQ test scores fall out on a bell curve.
  • ~70% of the population has an IQ between 85 and 115.
  • 95% between of the population is between 70 and 130.
  • Intelligence is “polygenic” – lots of genes are involved in making a smart kid.

But certainly, John Wilder, intelligence means different things to different cultures?  In the very succinct commentary of Dutton and Woodley, “No it doesn’t.”  I realize that’s not an argument, it’s a refutation – I’ll let you read the book for details.  Scientifically it appears that IQ is a valid concept across cultures.  It’s valid if the culture is literate.  It’s valid if the culture is non-Western.  IQ (or intelligence, or “g”) is potentially one of the most predictive and studied properties in social sciences, which tend to be a bit squishier and less science-y than, say, physics or chemistry, so give the social science folks a break that they found this gem.

ba1

So can a civilization get smarter?

Yes.  If a trait can be passed on via sexual selection (like my butt), then it will be selected for.  But in, say, the year 1400 a great butt wasn’t as important as regular food.  If you look at the data as generated in the study Survival of the Richest (Gregory Clark) – as quoted by Dutton and Woodley, between 1400 A.D. and the mid-19th century, the top 50% had more surviving children than the poor 50% – nearly twice as many.  Since economic status is strongly correlated with I.Q., society became smarter each generation.

Brutal?  Yes.

Concerned with sexy butts?  Not at all.

Why would smarter people have more surviving children?  Less intelligent means less money.  That means less food, less heat.  That means the poor children are all weaker when the ice weasels (extinct since 1745) came.  There’s plenty of evidence for this, as Dutton and Woodley note:  the average height on the ship Mary Rose was 5’7” around the time Henry VIII lived.  Henry VIII was 6’3”.  Henry got better food.  He got better genes.

tudor

No, it was the genes, silly.

Henry wasn’t especially good at having children, but most of the nobles around that time were good at it – with or without their wives.  There is evidence that as many illegitimate children of nobles survived as legitimate children.  Most people have to work their whole lives to become a bastard, but like me, those lucky kids were born that way.  And some of them did okay – William the Conqueror was illegitimate and managed to invent the paperclip (I made that up) and invade England at the head of the Norman Conquest (I didn’t make that up).

According to the genealogical records I’ve seen, I’m related to William the Conqueror.  This would be an amazing story.  Except . . . I won’t polish my claim to the crown just yet and become known as John Wilder the Usurper©, Eater of PEZ® and Defender of the Remote Control™ anytime soon:  European society became one of constant trickle down – sons of nobility would have sons that were merchants who would have sons that were farmers who would have sons that worked on farms.  The poor fraction was replaced by the rich fraction over time.  The children of the wealthy replaced the poor in a silent way.

I don’t know the percentage, but I’ll bet a sizable chunk of England is, like me, related to William.

Genes for being wealthy, which is correlated with intelligence, spread throughout society.  This still doesn’t explain my sexy, sexy butt.  But there were further selection pressures in place:  2% of males were either executed or died in prison.  Presumably these were the worst 2%, so society was pruning itself.  But mobility worked both ways – people could move up the social strata as well based on their (generally I.Q. related) merits.

Also pruned were the children of unmarried women who didn’t have the position of mistress to someone higher up the social strata.  Unmarried mothers have an average I.Q. of 92 in the United States.  Childless or married women have an average I.Q. of 105.  Today children live via welfare, but back in 1741 (when one study in particular was done) moms would have abandoned them.   71% of these abandoned children in 1741 were dead by the age of 15 versus 40% in the population as a whole.  Presumably there would be even less child mortality in the upper incomes.

These selection pressures led to the gradual increase in intellect, culminating in what Dr. Dutton mentioned in one of his YouTube® videos as his estimated date for the smartest generation in recorded history – those born in and around 1750.

So, all is well, and humanity keeps going on an ever-smarter upward march of intelligence?

Spoiler alert!

No.  And Soylent Green® is people.

We’ll discuss that (the intelligence piece) in Part II of this here:  At Our Wits’ End Review Part II: I.Q. and the Fate of Civilization (Hint, It’s Idiocracy).

Meanwhile, go out and buy the book.  It’s good.

Four Questions That Describe The Meaning of Life

“Well, that’s the end of the film. Now, here’s the meaning of life.” – Monty Python, Meaning of Life

pizza

I heard that someone told the Dalai Lama this joke and he didn’t get it.  Which is makes it even funnier.

I was busy trying to adjust my phone to listen to a podcast while driving and pouring coffee the other day, and it hit me like a ticket for inattentive driving:  There are only four questions that are worth asking.  I found that to be amazing, since I have hundreds of note cards with ideas for posts on them in boxes waiting for the right day for me to write them up.  So how do I condense most of those ideas as answers to four questions?

I was worried that this was too simple.  I bounced back and forth between three questions and four questions, but finally settled on four questions.  They were simple questions, and the first one that occurred to me is the first one on this list.

  1. What brought us here?
  2. Who are we?
  3. What is this place?
  4. Where are we going?

Originally I had a fifth question, but then I found my keys.  Under my hat.  Again.  Also, when I use the word “us” in this post, it’s certainly meant to include everyone.  Everyone except Johnny Depp.  He knows why.

But these are big questions.  As I thought a bit about it, these are the questions that drive me to write this blog, with the exception of the odd post here and there.

What brought us here?

This was the first question, and it hit me as I was working out the ideas for a future post in my head.  It hit me like an angry wet salmon wearing a bear suit.  At its core, this questions the all of the conditions that led to our present state.  All of them.  It questions the way that we are – as individuals, as groups, as a species.

War

I would have sworn that Washington had a blue lightsaber.

This is only a four word question, but it’s a really big four word question.  Thankfully, it’s simple to answer.  All you need to understand it is the answers to any questions you can think of in these subjects:

  • All of human history.
  • All of physics.
  • How PEZ® was invented.
  • All of the history of the universe.

So, the question is very short, and the answer is very long.

We still don’t know many answers to questions that are fundamental about each of these subjects.  One time I was talking to The Mrs. back around 2000.  My exact quote to her was, “The Mrs., I’m willing to bet that one day they find that we have Neanderthal ancestors.  I think that the reason why I came to that conclusion was based on me.  I’m pale.  I can sunburn under the glare from an LED computer monitor.

That sort of pale didn’t happen overnight.  Along with other physical observations I’d made, it just seemed the most logical conclusion that Neanderthal wasn’t extinct.  Neanderthal was us.

So when the DNA evidence came back and, eventually, showed that most European-descended people had Neanderthal DNA I wasn’t surprised.  And I’m not surprised now when I hear that our most basic assumptions about the way that things like physics work are subject to change – massive change.

An example:

At CERN (where they smash atoms together like a tipsy celebutant celebrating that her parents purchased her way into USC™ smashes daddy’s Mercedes© into a mom’s parked Ferrari®) they recently celebrated, with campaign(!), that they had discovered a particle symmetry violation between anti-matter and regular matter.

physics

If Vinnie drops a car on Frank’s car, neglecting air resistance and assuming g=9.81m/s . . .

That’s a lot of words for a very basic thing – let me break it down a bit.  The Universe that we see is comprised almost entirely of normal matter, not anti-matter.  But the Big Bang® should have produced equal quantities of both, so where did the anti-matter go?  This is a pretty significant question, since anti-matter explodes with the force of a billion bipolar ex-wives (GigaX) when it comes into contact with normal matter.  It’s really good for us that we don’t have this anti-matter going around and wanting alimony payments, but there’s no real reason that the Big Bang™ didn’t produce equal quantities of both.

This discovery from CERN might explain why my ex-wife anti-matter is thankfully rare in our environment.  It appears that anti-matter doesn’t follow the same physical laws that matter does.  This is the first time we’ve figured that out, but we don’t know how it’s different.  But think just for a second – what if you could have a substance that wanted to fall up instead of down?  That was anti-magnetic?  That could coat, soothe, and protect a sore throat?

Yes.  This discovery could provide technologies that we haven’t even dreamed about, but most people have never heard about it.  Thankfully we’re all up to date on Kardashians, though.

Thankfully there’s tons of things left to discover, both about ourselves and about the Universe that we can safely ignore while we are Keepin’ up with the Kardashians.

Who are we?

I got this question down to three words.  See what a ruthless self-editor I am?  This question opens up a lot of today’s biggest mysteries:

  • How the human body works.
  • How the brain works.
  • What consciousness is.
  • If people have souls.
  • Why 80% of the world is silly and watches soccer.
  • What health is.
  • Immortality – anything besides a great three-letter-score in Scrabble®?
  • What motivates us.
  • Why we do the things we do.

I’ll admit, some of these questions do have overlap – the question of “What brought us here?” overlaps some with “Who are we?”  Ancestors are crucial to both, for instance.  Protip:  since you inherit somewhere between 60% and 80% of our intelligence, the first thing you should strive to do is to convince your mom to pick a smart dad for you.

But even given thousands of researchers spending billions of dollars annually, the primary positive impacts to health in the last 150 years have been clean water, better nutrition, antiseptic surgical conditions, and antibiotics.  Newspaper stories keep showing up about the immortality around the corner, but I haven’t even seen one fifty year old mouse, and we can cure any kind of mice-cancer at this point.

vision

No, thanks, eyes are fine.  And I’ll skip the colonoscopy, thank you.

Thankfully, medical science can all of the questions about why humans are like they are.

Except for the interesting ones.

What is this place?

Our surroundings are curious.  There is the world and cosmos we live in, but there are also the civilizations we’ve made.  How does all of it work?

  • What virtue is.
  • Where virtue comes from.
  • What societies work well for humanity.

This is the question I could (sort of) cram back into the other three, but I felt it was important enough because of the great deal of discord in society today, and the uncertainty about the future of what we’ve made.  Understanding the ability for humans to govern themselves and live together is crucial, and we still haven’t gotten the knack yet.

Where are we going?

This is the final question, the future.  The mysteries of the future are different.  The past and present are set, the future is undecided, wrapped in probability.  What are the big questions, the big unknowns of the future?  This question is easy to answer if we just know:

  • The fate of ourselves.
  • The fate of our civilizations.
  • The fate of humanity.
  • The fate of life itself.
  • Physics (all of it), again.

I’ve mentioned religion twice.  Though it’s not a constant part of posting, it’s a very important component in understanding these questions, especially the ones where I’ve listed it.  And religion is important as a philosophical construct – it has been the largest single influence on humanity in all of recorded history, and probably before that.  Beyond religion as pure philosophy, there is that possibility that deity as contemplated by religion exists, and maybe even close to what is on the label.  Science certainly hasn’t ruled that possibility out.

bear

Does a bear answer trivia questions in the woods?

But in 2000, they had ruled out the possibility that we were part Neanderthal, or at least that was the general consensus.

So you never know what we’ll learn in the future.  And it looks like I’ve got plenty to write about, and with the amount of Neanderthal blood I have, probably some mammoth to catch and some caves to paint.

Books, Stoics, Immortality (Now Available on Stick)

“I am Connor MacLeod of the Clan MacLeod.  I was born in 1518 in the village of Glenfinnan on the shores of Loch Shiel.  And I am immortal.” – Highlander

coffee

Or maybe it was the scotch that made him immortal?  When I drink scotch I’m bulletproof.

I once had a Grandboss (my boss’s boss) that once said, “Reading is the only way that you can know great minds across centuries.”  He was deeply philosophical and attempted to use that philosophy to improve business results, and also to use history as analogy for business conditions.  Prior to the movie 300 coming out, he was discussing the battle of Thermopylae and the courage of the Spartans to fight to the last man as a business analogy.  Needless to say, when you’re using a battle where every single solder dies as an analogy, business isn’t going all that well.

Grandboss also assigned On War (a treatise on war and strategy during the Napoleonic era) by Von Clausewitz for us to read.  I’m probably the only guy who actually did read it, and still have my copy.  Needless to say, I loved my Grandboss, and still send him cards on Grandboss day.  When I quit that job to take a new one, I told him first, and as a goodbye present?  I gave him a book.

My Grandboss was right, though – reading allows us to know great minds across centuries.  The nice thing is we can read the thoughts of dead Greeks like Epictetus.  Epictetus spent his entire life studying and living stoic philosophy, which was a pretty hard thing to do when you were a slave with a gimpy leg.  Epictetus eventually became free – we don’t know how, but I imagine he won the annual caddy’s golf tournament and got a scholarship from Judge Smails.

nothing

I bet Epictetus just wishes he wrote, “You’ll get nothing and like it.”

One thing we do know is that Epictetus did was spend a lot of time thinking about virtue and vice.  We’ll spend more time on virtue on Monday’s post, but Epictetus came to the conclusion that the following things were neither vice nor virtue:

  • Wealth
  • Health
  • Life
  • Death
  • Pleasure
  • Pain

As wealth and health are at least two nominal themes of this blog (this is Friday, so I’m stretching it and saying this is a health post) it might seem a bit hypocritical that I spend time talking about health and wealth and then quote a dead lame Greek that says that neither of those are virtuous.  But I would argue that my message on wealth is that true wealth is in having few needs (Seneca, Stoics, Money and You), and although I prefer pleasure to pain, I recognize that a pleasure repeated too often is a punishment (Pleasure, Stoicism, Blade Runner, VALIS and Philip K. Dick).  And we also know that health is more controllable by our choices today than Epictetus did.

qwho

Immortal and omnipotent.  And good on the mariachi trumpet.

Heck, I even got challenged by an Orthodox priest friend on whether or not learning for learning’s sake was, in a religious context, a vice.  If so, there goes most of my Monday posts.  The priest and I (as I recall, over a BBQ lunch) came to the conclusion that learning for learning’s sake was maybe a vice.  Since he was also a fan of learning for learning’s sake, if it was a vice we were both guilty.

Going back to Epictetus’ list, Life and Death are on it as being neither virtues nor vices.  I’m not sure about you, but I really prefer Wealth to Poverty, Health to Illness, and Life to Death.  Epictetus felt the same way – it was okay to have preferences with the understanding that neither condition is, in itself, virtuous.  I finally came to understand that while not virtuous, death is required for life.  Oddly, I thank Bill Clinton for this realization.

It was during the Clinton presidency that I first looked around at the national leaders for both parties and thought, “Jeez, what a bunch of bozos.”  Both sides were stupid or corrupt.  Some were stupid and corrupt at the same time (looking at you, ghost of Ted Kennedy, I’ve imagined you’ve been plenty warm this winter).  Back then I was a capital-L libertarian, and could see that both sides had as primary goals the restriction of freedom on their agenda in addition to being incompetent.

Beyond that, they were . . . awful.  Spineless.  They were tools of groups with different names but the same objectives – objectives that mostly didn’t favor you or me.  Throw into this mix that one day at lunch I was thinking about immortality and the implications of living forever, which was spurred on by eating a tuna fish sandwich which might have been as old as Epictetus, who died in 135 A.D.

bubbaho

Elvis will never die.  Mobility?  That might be an issue.

If people were generally immortal?  Our birthrate would plummet – 200 year old women have very few kids.  As for me, I’d have plenty of time so rather than putting things off until next week, I’d put stuff off until next century.  But the worst consequence?

Bill Clinton would forever be an elder statesman, always trying to increase his (and Hillary’s) power for all of eternity.  Our current batch of elected officials would be about the best we’d get, or maybe the only ones we’d get.  Senators and congresscritters already stay in office until the only way to keep them alive is though that experimental technique that turns them into zombie-like creatures that feast on living human flesh like Nancy Pelosi, or immortal robots like the Ruth Bader-Ginsbot™ 3000.

Thankfully, we live in a world where things die and the world moves on – just like a cell in a human body ceases to exist so new cells can take over.  We have a name for immortal cells – cancer.  Just like cells pass away, so do we to leave this world to the youth.  I didn’t say death is “good” – just that it serves a purpose.

laz

Okay, this is one boy who loved his mother.

Part of that purpose is focusing us on the here and now:  in this way we don’t lose sight that life is precious and fleeting, like sedation dentistry.  Perhaps the most precious thing we have is the shared time with those who have meaning to us (like your friendly blogger).  But for those who have left us, honor them with the virtue that they helped you obtain.  Be glad you had a part of their life, and had a chance to witness their virtue and learn from their vices.  Look at how they have changed you, made you better so that they live on through their influence on you.

Lastly, for heaven’s sake, write something down.  It’s the only way that someone can know your mind when you’re gone, unless they check your browser history.

Beer, Nuclear Bikinis, and Agriculture: What Made Us Who We Are

“A living nuclear weapon destined to walk the Earth forever. Indestructible. A victim of the modern nuclear age.” – Godzilla 1985

bikinione

Ahh, sexy nuclear power.

I was at a job I had (while we lived in Houston) and I was getting coffee.  One safety tip:  the most dangerous place in the world is being between Ocasio-Cortez and a camera.  The second most dangerous place in the world is being between me and the office coffee pot.  On this particular day a gentleman who worked for a parallel department to mine was also at the coffee bar.  We exchanged the ritual office grunting.  “Ugh, John hate Mondays.”  “Ugh, me hate Mondays too.”  As I waited for my coffee to brew, he asked me this question:

“John Wilder, what do you think the most important invention in human history was?”

I thought about it.  I didn’t have a ready answer, but this popped into my head.  “Besides the bikini, I’d have to go with agriculture.”  Who doesn’t love swimwear named after nuclear bomb testing?

czechkini

See, told you nuclear power was sexy.

He was a little surprised.  I think he expected me to say “stapler” or “strapless gown” or some other word starting with “s”, but, no, agriculture was my answer.  And upon several years’ worth of reflection, do I stand by that answer?  Yes.

Why?

Agriculture has remade our culture.  Prior to agriculture, there was no real reason to stay in one location.  In fact, if you hunted out an area, it would make sense to move to an area that hadn’t been hunted out – that would have been pressure for them to be nomadic and move periodically.  A nomadic people has a limit to the amount of stuff they can have – they have to be able to carry it (or, if they’re a girl, convince the guys to carry it – fur bikinis were useful for that) to the next place they’ll make camp.

cavkini

Okay, I’d carry her stuff.

Obviously, this lack of stuff limits the ability to create a technological society, and the nomadic lifestyle also makes it difficult for Amazon to deliver the hand-crank margarita maker you ordered since you don’t have an address.  Why build a house, or a village?  You’re just going to be leaving it to follow the critters you’re hunting.  Certainly there were artifacts that were made before agriculture – Göbekli Tepe in modern-day Turkey was built before agriculture, starting at around 10,000 B.C., or about the same time your mom was learning to drive.

But nomadic tribes stayed small – limited by Dunbar’s number – this post is from when I wrote about it last year (Mental Illness, Dunbar’s Number, and the Divine Right of Kings):

Dunbar looked at primate group brain sizes, and compared to the size of the neocortex to the size of the primate “group” or tribe.  After running the math, he predicted that humans should have a group size of around 150 – it’s related to the size of working memory that you have about other people.  The commonly accepted maximum stable group size (average) is 100-250, which explains why I need to have my children program the streaming box hooked up to my television – my working memory is full of details like the shoe preferences of the administrative assistant at work from six jobs ago.

tepe2

Göbekli Tepe – these people knew how to rock.

Now that doesn’t mean that Göbekli Tepe is proof that villages didn’t occur – Neanderthal habitations have been found even farther back in time, but those were probably seasonal as they followed the game.  Göbekli Tepe was probably a ceremonial location where those people who collect ceramic figurines of frogs met for the annual ceramic frog convention, though this is just my speculation.  But what isn’t speculation is that villages and settlements didn’t really exist until agriculture started, also around 10,000 B.C.

ceragod

Perhaps the high point of Western Civilization?

And at that point everything changes.  Archeological evidence indicates that hunter-gatherers worked just a fraction of the time (less than 20 hours per week) that the farmers worked after agriculture was invented.  The hunter-gatherers spent time doing things that we think of as “fun” today – men take time off from work to hunt or fish.  Women take time off to go and shop – modern-day gathering.

So why on earth did we stop doing things we’d been bred to find fun?  We stopped hunting and gathering to trade for long hours of backbreaking farm labor in crowded villages that could allow violence, disease, and theft.  My best guess that those hellish villages provided enough technological sophistication to provide constant streams of beer for the guys and red high-heeled shoes and makeup for the women.  Oh, and the villages allowed for another unique feature:  slavery.  If you had an army (which you could now) you could go and take men, women, and crops from other villages.  You could eat their food, and then make them plant more for you.  And then you could make more beer.

But the transition from hunter-gatherer to farmer is possibly enshrined in the Bible book of Genesis, in the story of Cain and Abel, where Cain the farmer, killed Abel the shepherd.  The farmer killed the hunter-gatherer, which is what eventually happened within all of society.

vegans

Hey, bro, want to be a metaphor?

This change also impacted the genetics of humanity.  As divisions of labor were made possible by the villages, genes for hunters were less in demand (except for soldiers) and genes for farmers were in demand.  Artisans making pottery and accountants and tax collectors were now needed.  The breeding for people changed:  for the first time ever, people need to read, to do math.  From my observation, it seems like math and reading are innate in many of the children I’ve worked with.  The concepts are already within them.

That would indicate a pretty successful breeding program.  Too dumb to read?  No kids for you.  Can’t add two plus two?  Enjoy being the last of your family line.

In this way, man made civilization, and civilization changed man.  If 10,000 B.C. man took a stroll in Central Park, Manhattan in modern clothes, he’d be indistinguishable physically from a modern man, if you could ignore the raw goose he was gnawing on.  But mentally?  He’d be incapable of living in a modern city.  It’s probably he could never learn to do math, even rudimentary math.  Reading would likely be possible only at the lowest levels, things like true crime books.

But he’d be a sucker for beer.  And nuclear fur bikinis.

Göbekli Tepe photo by Zhengan [CC BY-SA 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0)]

“That which you desire, controls you.”

“Egon, somehow this reminds me of the time you tried to drill a hole in your head. Do you remember that?” – Ghostbusters

precious

See, a bottle of wine costs $15.  Plus the crap I buy on Amazon.

That which you desire, controls you.

Let’s look at common examples:

  • Money
  • Power
  • Respect
  • Sex
  • Great Parking Spaces at Denny’s
  • Friendship
  • Water in the Sahara Desert
  • “Buy One Get One Free” Coupons for Chocolate Dipped Ice Cream Cones at Dairy Queen®
  • Booze
  • Glittery Sunglasses in the Shape of Stars

glitterglass

Can’t you feel their magnetic pull?

When we see these desires, we see those who are driven by them and are instinctively repulsed.  An example:  when The Mrs. and I were newly married, we had an idea for a book – a humorous parody of the Clinton administration.  Its title?  An Intern’s Guide to the White House.  I thought it was funny, and maybe we even still have a copy sitting around somewhere.  If so, I’ll post it sometime – we got hooked up with a bad literary agent (we were young and stupid) and it never got published.  But like George Washington jokes, that material is just a little out of date.

pres

This is like a photo from the world’s most awkward prom.

But back when we were still optimistic the Intern’s Guide, The Mrs. and I were excited when the Starr Report (a report by the independent counsel looking into the Clintons) came out.  We felt that it would make a perfect sequel to our Intern’s Guide.  Heck, the working title for the sequel was The Starch Report.

Then I read the Starr Report.  Ugh.  What President Clinton did was . . . sad.  You can forgive lots of things, but getting past disgust over behavior that was, by any standards, weak and pathetic is a pretty high bar.   And it wasn’t the perjury that was the worst part – it was the complete lack of self-control.  Just because a complete lack of self-control is legal doesn’t make it moral or desirable.

As you can see from President Clinton’s example, this lust wasn’t just a weakness, it was personally destructive to him.  And some of our greatest fiction, Shakespeare’s Macbeth, for example, explores this same theme.  I still recall when Macbeth, in the movie version, gets kicked off campus.  Then he and his wacky friends form a paranormal investigating service, and save New York from Macduff, who is portrayed as the Stay-Puft® Marshmallow Man.

stay2

Ahh, Shakespeare at his best.

But history has shown time and time again how lust for sex or lust for power has led to the downfall of the powerful – like the time Weinstein put the moves on Napoleon and Napoleon outed him on Twitter® with the #NapoleonToo campaign.  But in all seriousness – if Napoleon had been content with France?  If Weinstein could be  . . . not Weinstein?  Napoleon could have gone down in history as an amazing leader and statesman.  And Weinstein could have maintained his revered status in Hollywood.

In the end, greed makes you poor.  Need makes you needy.  And desire makes you a slave.

But you’re saying, “John Wilder, all of that seems kind of negative.  What’s the solution, I mean besides joining your cult of the Nudist Beatnik Threesome?”

chelsea

Outcome independence.  The idea of outcome independence is that who you are doesn’t change based on the results, and, win or lose you realize that’s an okay outcome.  Like Kipling wrote in his poem, If (LINK):

If you can meet with Triumph and Disaster, and treat those two impostors just the same . . .

You are independent of the outcomes around you – your job, the last raise you got, all of it.  That’s not outcome indifference.  Not at all.  Throw yourself into getting to an outcome that you’re passionate about.  Outcome independence isn’t being without passion, because nothing worthwhile ever gets done without passion.  Let me explain with an example:

I was nearly a freshman in high school, and was mildly infatuated with a girl in class.  Back then, people had phone books, and had their names in the book.

I called her house.  Her dad (a doctor) answered.

“Is Michelle in?”

“Michelle, it’s for you.”

Michelle:  “Hello?”

John Wilder:  “Hi Michelle, it’s John Wilder.  Interested in going to go see a movie?”

Michelle:  “I’m sorry – I’m busy that night.”

Seriously, I didn’t leave anything out of the conversation.  I asked her to a movie, and she said she was busy.  But I had never said when I wanted to take her to a movie or even what movie.  Even freshman me understood that meant that there was no night, ever, when she’d say yes.

kbusy

Even then I was amused.  I really wanted to go out with her – I was not indifferent – she was pretty cute.  But when the outcome was negative, I didn’t have the slightest bit of loss of self-worth.  There were lots of girls out there.

But failure is a result, too.  I prefer to win.  Strongly.  But winning doesn’t make me a better person, and it doesn’t make me more moral – look at all of the really horrible people that have been successful.  I could name them, but they have lawyers.  I learned my lesson with Gandhi.

Losses can be better than a win . . . sometimes:

  • What did you learn?
  • Are you stronger?
  • Would success have been bad for you?
  • Is this just a temporary loss that brings about a greater victory?
  • Can you lose gracefully?
  • Is the loss pointing you to a mistake you’re making that you need to correct?

The best victories are internal.  I know when I hit “publish” on a post whether or not I liked the post, whether or not I hit a home run.  I really want you to like it, too, but internally, I know when I enjoyed writing it, and am pleased with the results.  I’m passionate about it, and when I know I’ve done a good job, it makes it hard to go to sleep.  I’m excited.

And I get enjoyment out of failing, too.  If you never failed, victory wouldn’t feel so good.  But I’d still like some glittery star glasses.

14 Magic Questions and Elon Musk’s New Quest for Genetically Engineered Cat Girls

We’ve been negotiating with men from outer space for seven years. – Real Men

Eloncataz

I don’t think he’ll remember that in the morning.

The other night I was talking about an upcoming decision/issue that was bothering me with The Mrs.  Don’t worry, that decision will be blog fodder when it’s all done, in some form or fashion, likely before Elon Musk invents and markets Electric Marijuana Boogie Panties©.  But as we discussed my problem, The Mrs. caught me with a question that I’d asked her months earlier about a different issue she was having:

Why does it bother you?

That was a particularly powerful question to me.  It was at that moment that I realized exactly how amazingly smart I was.  I had asked a really good question.  Why did it bother me?  I thought a long time, and realized that what bothered me about my current situation had very little to do with anything that would hurt me today.  Or this year.  Or next year.  Or the year after that.  So, nothing to worry about today.

So why was I letting it bother me?  In this case maybe it was pride, and in this case the worst kind of pride – wanting to win a game I wasn’t even interested in playing.  But the short answer is this single powerful question made me feel better.  Many problems die when exposed to this question.  If they don’t die, use bleach or go see a doctor and get a topical cream.

But the real next question for me should have been:  Who cares?  I hate to tell you this, but, probably very few people.  The bad news is I’m not the center of the universe that I thought I was.  The good news is that few people remember the past events that bother and embarrass you the most.  That one time I walked straight into the glass door at that party while carrying a McChicken® sandwich?  Yeah.  Nobody remembers that.  It was embarrassing at the time, but even if someone did remember?  They don’t care.  Who cares?  Family.  Good friends.  Santa.  Nancy Pelosi.

catrock2

Told you so.

What do you want?  For a lot of people, that answer is money.  For others it’s success.  Fame.  A new car.  I’d add in the obvious follow up:  Why do you want it?  Money is useful only if you have a purpose for it, but it can become a trap, something you want just because you want it.  And success, fame?  Kipling said it best in his poem, If – “If you can meet with Triumph and Disaster, And treat those two impostors just the same . . .” (The Chinese Farmer, Kipling, Marcus Aurelius, and You)  Understanding what you want and why you want it is one secret to happiness.  The other secret to happiness is television, according to this show I watched on television.

There are things we want that we shouldn’t, like sixteen bacon cheeseburgers, which is what I’d really like to eat tonight (Resolutions, Fasting, and Wilder’s Cult of the Blue Bikini).  What attracts you to ______?  Right now, my fill-in-the-blank is cheeseburgers.  But I’ve seen people who are like sorority girls on a Tuesday night tub of frosting over something that’s obviously bad for them.   Why?  It’s because we think that _______ fills us up in some way where we’re empty.  If you’re lucky, that fill-in-the-blank is something innocuous like fly fishing.  If you’re not lucky, it’s something dangerous and life threatening, like ballroom dancing.

What if it’s you?  I think these are the last words anyone wants to hear.  The human brain is set up to produce a protective reality distortion field (it’s called the Romney Effect) that automatically changes the past to make itself blameless.  Only real, unbiased thinking about the situation will allow working on the root cause, instead of the symptom.  Sometimes you need a friend or a spouse to slap you right across the face with the fresh fish of reality.

What would you do if you had one month to live?  Less mindless crap*, I’d bet.

What would you do if you lived forever?  Would you sell insurance?  Really?  If you had infinite days you’d sell insurance?  Okay.

Weirdo.

muskcat

So, we know what Elon would do if he lived forever.

Why does the outcome matter?  I know that sounds weird.  But the ultimate outcome of our game is the same for each of us.  We can postpone it.  We can have different twists and turns, but the end of the journey is the same destination.  And that destination is, of course, Minot, North Dakota.  But since the outcome is a foregone conclusion, why not focus on the important thing – how we play the game?  Every day there are choices between being virtuous and being, well, evil.  Making the virtuous choice doesn’t make sure you’ll be wealthy, or famous, or successful – life doesn’t work like that.  But it does make you virtuous, and I hear there are extra karma points for virtue that you can exchange in Heaven for extra minutes in the ball pit.

What if you did the opposite?  Look back at your past – how many of your decisions mattered?  How many things would have changed if you’d have picked differently.  Many of the things we sweat and worry about simply don’t matter at all.

What would make it better?  Cheese.  And bacon.  Those are universal constants – cheese and bacon make everything better.

catgirlz2

Maybe we can get the Cat Girls with bacon?

There are things we control, like the weather, and things we can’t control, like our weight.  Or did I get those backwards?  Anyway, that brings up the next question:  If it’s outside of your control, why are you sweating it?  How much of your life do you spend worrying about things that you have absolutely no control over?

What would you sell your peace of mind for?  A long life, lived in fear and regret is sad, like one of those clowns that terrorizes my dreams.

Was it worth it to spend a precious day of your life like you did today?  Every moment is one less moment of your life.  What you do with those moments is up to you.  I’d suggest that you pick the things that are important to you, and get busy.  Or, you know, there’s television.

*This blog may be crap, but it is not mindless.  Or was it that it IS mindless, but NOT crap?  I forget.  Whichever one is better is the one I meant.

Truth, and Eight Types of Lies

“Would you prefer a lie or the truth?” – V for Vendetta

thetruth

Never let Jack into your house.  When he leaves the deli drawer will be empty, you’ll have to burn your seat cushions, and your cat will be pregnant.

I believe in Truth.  Objective, verifiable Truth.

Gravity works.  100% of the time.  When I toss my keys on the table they never fall off the side and shoot up toward the ceiling, unless it’s after 3AM in Australia, and only then if Australia’s had a lot to drink.  When the Earth rotates so I can no longer see the Sun, the next morning the Earth will have rotated so I can again see the Sun, provided we killed all the groundhogs.  See, simple true things.

There really is Truth.  Are some things not certainties?  Sure.  There are things that are governed more by probability, and at the quantum level there may be events that exceed our understanding, but none of those things say that Truth doesn’t exist.

Somewhere a campaign against Truth started.  The big proponents of it during the last century were a group of (mainly) French philosophers who had day jobs as postmen that smoked a lot of cigarettes while wearing berets and scowling and thus became known as the Postmodernists.  But digging back further in time, the French got this idea from that German, Friedrich Nietzsche.  Nietzsche went hopelessly slobbering Daffy Duck® insane by the time he was 44, so, of course he was a great role model for the French philosophers. “Truth doesn’t exist?  Can you tell us more?  What does purple taste like?”

download

Rumors were that the mustache remained sane.

The concept that “there is no Truth” is infectious and has become the herpes of philosophy.  Mankind only dabbled with it once, but we just can’t get rid of it.  Anti-Truth has successfully taken over a pretty big chunk of our education system.  An example:

I saw a tweet on Twitter® on Saturday night from a college professor.  She noted that she couldn’t get a classroom to admit that rape was wrong.  From the students:  “Other cultures may have different views.  You can’t always say that what we [the enlightened students] consider rape is really rape in another culture.”  Rape wasn’t a Truth.

When the professor made the statement that the United States didn’t have a “Rape Culture”, however, the class exploded.  How could the teacher make such a statement?  Thoughts so muddled can only come from those that reject Truth.  Thankfully, all of those kids majoring in Pre-Barista (Miles, see, I told you I would steal it) can argue Truth while they make Pumpkin-Spice non-fat decaf lattes for doctors’ wives.

barista

But that brings us to Lies.  I think I’ve established that Truth exists, so that must mean that there are Lies.

What kinds of Lies are there?

I came up with eight kinds of Lies.  I’ll be the first to admit that there is subjectivity in my categories, and that I might have missed some, but I’ll assert that 99% of the lies you will ever encounter will fall into one of these categories:

  • Direct Lies – these are the Lies of a five year old, or a Congressman. But I repeat myself.  These are simple:  “I didn’t steal the cookie.”  “I didn’t touch the intern.”
  • Lies You Tell Yourself – The mirror is an amazing device that allows me to completely miss how I really look. I saw a picture of myself the other day, taken from fifty feet away.  “Oh, crap, that’s me!  Where did my hair go?  Oh, yeah, my ears.  At least I can braid those luscious locks.”  My mirror doesn’t lie, it just reflects photons.  TLEBME – The Lie Exists Behind My Eyes.  This lie makes me think of Bobby Burns and the end of his poem, To a Louse:  “O, wad some Pow’r the giftie gie us, to see oursels as ithers see us.”  Burns could not spell, and was Scottish.  But I again repeat myself.  But Burns was awesome in understanding that, when viewed from outside, we’re neither as noble as we think we are or as interesting.  Except for me.

burns

  • Lies of Omission – Leaving out a word or two makes all the difference. Heck, sometimes just inflecting the wrong word is a lie.  “No, dear, those pants don’t make your butt look big.”  Another way to inflect that sentence is, “If you grow into your butt you will be eight feet tall.”  See how a small change just in word inflection changes the whole meaning of the sentence?  Regardless, omitting important details can turn a statement into a lie.
  • Lies of Word Choice – Love or hate Trump, you have to admit he is the single most entertaining politician of the last 100 years. But whenever Trump says anything, the Press™ (looking at you, New York Times® and Washington Post™) has to editorialize even the most mundane news story:  “President Trump today made the unfounded claim that water is wet.”  Want proof?  A Google® search of “Trump unfounded” led to 2.3 million hits.  Google© search of “Obama unfounded” led to 1.1 million hits.  But, if you look at the first page, it’s all “Trump’s unfounded statements about Obama” type stories.  Exclude Trump from the search results?  400,000 hits, and EVERY SINGLE result on the front page is a defense of “unfounded” attacks against Obama.  Any time you see the word “Unfounded” know that you are being lied to.  It’s the “I love you” of political journalism.

unfounded

  • Lies of Vagueness – this is putting together a statement that can be filtered by the user to mean whatever they think it means. “I believe children are good,” might be a statement that reflects a belief that children are wonderful and full of hope and possibility.  It also might mean that they’re tasty when cooked to medium with ketchup.  I am coming to believe that Jordan Peterson is perhaps pretty good at this method of mendacity, even though I have reviewed him positively in the past.  I’m now of the belief that I reviewed what I thought he said, rather than what he really meant, which nobody may really know.  These are tougher to sift through – and require study.  Beware of the vague.
  • Lies of Exaggeration – it’s been a decade since Al Gore predicted an ice-free (summer months) Arctic in 5-7 years. Yeah, about that, the Danish Meteorological Institute says no ice trend at all in the last 12.  You tried, Al.

gore

  • Lies of Timing – ever wonder why you’re hearing a story at a particular time and place? Perhaps manipulation is to blame?
  • Lies of Confusion – Marxists are the worst/best at this. They toss together salads of multi-syllable words that they’ve self-defined to the point of nonsense.  An example from the Web:  “Here is where the Marxist claim for the explanatory superiority of a class analysis comes into the mix, and the distinction between oppression and exploitation becomes crucially important.”    Words.  Meaning?  They’re trying to cloud it – they use unusual words defined in mysterious ways to divorce you from Truth.  Listen long enough?  Pretty soon you become convinced that Venezuela is the true Socialist Worker’s Paradise and you’re being oppressed by your boss because he won’t let you FaceBook® all day on your phone because you have to make nonfat decaf pumpkin-spice lattes for doctors’ wives.  That wouldn’t happen in Venezuela!

But I’ll toss one other thought out there:  If you believe that a lie exists, which no rational person would argue against, then you must agree that truth exists.

And if there’s truth?  There’s Truth.

Oh, and there go my keys floating by . . . Australia must be drinking again.

Why Are You Mad At Your Computer? It Doesn’t Care. Plus: A Deeply Meaningful Poem

“They would’ve learned to wear skins, adopted stoic mannerisms, learned the bow and the lance.” – Star Trek

hardwood

Okay, it was really only one color.  But it was a LOT of ink.  Staining and painting.  Stainting?

I rarely saw Pop Wilder mad at any living human being, at least I rarely saw him mad after I reached the age of ten.  And I assure you that I deserved it every single time he was mad at me – drawing on the hardwood floor in ink under my bed wasn’t a particularly popular move – especially since Ma and Pop only discovered it the night before we were supposed to be out of the house so that the new owners could move in.

Oops.

Perhaps his even temper with people was learned.  After being in banking for decades (and having me around for years), I imagine he’d seen everything, including frogs swimming in the World War I helmet his father wore.  It might be that he believed the worst of people, and that way when they weren’t horrible, they pleasantly surprised him, and when he found ink on his hardwood floor and the family photo album soaking in the bathroom sink (I promise I had a good reason)?  Or spray painted the fender of his brand-new car?  Well, that was to be expected.

So, Pop Wilder was a mild and even tempered man and perhaps even a saint for not killing me.  The one exception to him getting angry was that he would get mad at . . . things.  Chainsaws.  Cars.  Snow machines.  The blinking light on his VCR.  In fact, the only time I ever heard him drop the f-bomb was when he was referring to his computer.  He said it not long after I’d introduced him to the future The Mrs., and in her presence.  “It’s . . . it’s all f****d up.”  Honoring Pop Wilder’s tone and frustration make it a form of punctuation in our house when things have just gone completely wrong but in a comical and hopeless manner.

But what I do know is this:  the computer didn’t care.

fbomb

Ahh, the United States Swear Force in action.

Dead Roman Marcus Aurelius nailed it when he wrote, “Pray to change yourself, not your circumstances.”  Marcus wasn’t referring to what was in his control.  Being an Emperor of Rome, Marcus could control a lot of things, but that’s not what frustrated him.  No, Marcus was referring to those things he couldn’t control.  Marcus was going to grow old and die, and he couldn’t change that.  Marcus would be resurrected as shoe salesman in Savannah, and he couldn’t change that, either.  Marcus wanted to change himself so he took those things that he couldn’t control and not react to them.  Why complain about gravity?

stonehead

Marcus Aurelius, with a hipster beard before it was cool.

The computer doesn’t care that you’re mad at it.  The computer won’t change if you speak harshly to it, though I hear Bezos is working on a computer that will buy random things from Amazon® that it knows you won’t like, just to spite you if you’re mean to it.  Honestly, most people don’t care if you’re mad at them, either.  The real secret is, however, that most things simply do not matter on any sort of cosmic scale.  I even wrote you, dear Internet, a poem about that:

The Unblinking Stars

The stars looked down.
When Julius Caesar was born, they looked down.
When Caesar defeated the Gaul, they looked down.
When Caesar died, they looked down.

For every man, for every empire.
The stars looked down.
Unblinking.

When continents split, and then recombined.
The stars looked down.
Nearly eternal.

At every time, at ever place,
Every ambition, every love.
Every betrayal.  Every loyalty.
The stars looked down.

Looking up at them, seeing into eternity.
I gasp.  I wonder.  I check the router.
Oh, good.  The Internet’s back up.
I wonder what just happened on Twitter?

spacekeys

I think that what sets us up to become angry about a situation is contained entirely within ourselves – there’s a way that we think the world should be, and when the world refuses to be that way, we get angry.  And the world doesn’t completely conform to anyone’s hopes and dreams.  From time to time, even I end up comparing my life to someone else’s life.  But I do this particularly awful thing:  I compare what they’re best at, to my accomplishments in the same arena.  Let’s take the business guy I knew.  He had tens of millions of dollars, a house in the mountains, and even a vintage fighter airplane.  I don’t have tens of millions of dollars, a house in the mountains, or any airplane that’s not a model kit that I made when I was a kid.

There’s a lot to envy, isn’t there?  I even think he had a pretty good marriage and smart kids.

Oh, and he’s dead.  And he died in a really dramatic fashion that probably left his widow with nearly no money after the lawsuit and attorney’s fees.  So if I’m going to be envious, I have to be envious of the whole person, not some small aspect of their lives.  It’s a big world and someone, somewhere has it all better than you.  They’re smarter than you, slimmer than you, with a really close, cool family.

And I’m okay with that, too.

One thing that helped me through my own personal envy was . . . cars.  When I lived in Houston, there were really nice cars everywhere.  And by nice, I mean cars that are worth more than my house.  I felt envy.  Then I thought about the car payment that they had to make (I read somewhere that most Mercedes® on the road are not paid for – they’re for show).  That made my four-year-old dad-four door car that I’d bought used seem a LOT better than the Mercedes® driven by the 27 year-old at the stop light next to me.

bitcoin

If you’re a billionaire crime-fighting superhero that found an amulet that gives you super powers but also covers your body in reptilian scales while flying screaming skulls follow you around?  I suppose it’s okay if you buy yourself something nice every once in a while.

To recap:

  • The situation doesn’t care. Don’t get mad at it, especially if it’s beyond your control.
  • Most things really don’t matter – don’t get hung up on the trivia of now.
  • If you won’t remember it next year? It’s probably meaningless.  Don’t sweat it.
  • Don’t compare yourself to others, unless they’re clearly awful in everything compared to you. Then gloat.
  • Expect that your children will destroy thousands and thousands of dollars of your property and at least a dozen priceless, irreplaceable heirlooms. And burn the counter with hot macaroni.  And write on the bathroom walls.  And . . . oh, wait, those were my kids . . .

Wait, what?  I’m Pop Wilder now.  When did that happen?