There but for fortune, go I

Many people believe that if they lived in Germany in the 1940s, they wouldn’t have been Nazis. They would have bravely stood against Hitler, and protected Europe’s Jews. Out of 80 million Germans (Germany and Austria), a few thousand were resistance fighters. A few hundred have been recognized for saving the lives of Jews. To be one of them, you’d need to be better than more than 99.999% of your peers.

In how many other respects do you think you’re that much better?

You’d have a better chance of having been against slavery in the South in the 1800s, but your odds would still be slim. There were some Southern abolitionists, but they were few. There were thousands of soldiers from the South who joined the Union Army, but most of them served to preserve the Union, for which their ancestors had fought, and not an endorsement of abolition.

This thought arose when I read this excellent post, The Four Quadrants of Conformism by Paul Graham, and this article found by my sometime research partner, Daniel.

Average is average

The average person is average. Of course, we vary from the people around us. We’re not clones. But only exceptional people differ in extraordinary ways.

I’m above average by some measures, below average by others. But on average, I’m average.

I believe that my IQ and the span of my knowledge—in certain domains—are well above average. In a typical field, I’m average.

To the degree that I’m exceptional, I’m exceptional, just like everyone else. For example, everything that is real for me appears in my consciousness. Only mine. Extraordinary. Just like for you.

Your community might be different

If you accept the premise that we’re mostly average and that you’re more likely (in general) to go along with your community, then consider this:

If you had born into a conservative community, rather than the liberal community that you’d been born into, you’d be the same human being that you are today but with roughly opposite opinions.

If you had born into a liberal community, rather than the conservative community that you’d been born into, you’d be the same human being that you are today, but with roughly opposite opinions.

You’d see the arguments of the people in the community you’d been born into as mostly correct. You’d have differences of opinion, of course, but on the whole, you’d agree. When you saw some of their arguments as wrong, you’d likely see them as understandably wrong.

You’d see the arguments of the people in the community that you had not been born into as mostly incorrect. You might agree with them from time to time, of course, but on the whole, you’d disagree. When you saw some of their arguments as wrong, you’d see them as indefensibly wrong.

You might get angry at the people in the group you were not born into for the harm that you saw them doing. But if you had been born among those people, you’d see what they were doing as good, and you’d see your current group as the one doing harm.

Born biased

We’re all born biased, and we’re all born with brains that work hard to confirm our biases. Our brains do that even after we’ve learned about confirmation bias.

With careful attention, some of us manage to reconsider some of our opinions and change our minds. Then we congratulate ourselves on a job well done.

But our congratulations are probably premature.

My history

I was born into a liberal family in a liberal community. I grew up with liberals. I could not understand how conservatives could hold the opinions that they held and still be rational and decent people. I met people who seemed rational and trustworthy, who loved their kids, did their jobs, and didn’t torture dumb animals. Then I’d hear some of the ideas that they espoused, and I’d have second thoughts about their rationality and decency.

How could anyone believe that?

It took a while for me to learn to appreciate—not simply reject—ideas that were different from mine. I learned to appreciate ideas—not just from political conservatives—but others whose coordinate systems were dramatically different than my own.

It took longer to realize that if I had been born among those people, those alien ideas would have been mine.

Now I see things this way:

Any idea that that’s consistent with my upbringing is suspect. If it’s survived scrutiny, so far, I still think it’s got validity. But I know it might be wrong.

How can I tell if the reason that I find that an idea that’s compatible with my upbringing is likely to be correct? It could be that I was taught that wrong idea, and have not yet seen the error. Or it could be that the idea is correct.

I don’t know, and I can’t know.

That thought is humbling.

Any idea that I have that I’ve adopted, even though it’s inconsistent with my upbringing, is also suspect, but less so. To embrace such an idea, I have already paid the price: I broke my conditioning and went against the group that taught me what was right. Still, it could be wrong.

Shapiro and me

I disagree with Ben Shapiro on many things, but I learned this from him: he said that he determines the facts of a matter by reading conservative viewpoints and liberal viewpoints on the subject. What they agree on is fact. What they disagree on is opinion.

That’s a pretty good rule, and I credit Shapiro for passing it on to me. I’m not convinced that Shapiro is careful to follow that rule. He seems to assert many “facts” with which I, as a liberal, disagree. Or perhaps he is not stating them as facts, just not labeling them as opinions.

Fundamental error

I think that it’s a fundamental error to blame other people for having wrong beliefs. There might be exceptions, but the rule seems a good one.

I think it’s an error to blame yourself for not seeing earlier that a belief that you had been taught was incorrect. There might be exceptions here, but I find them hard to imagine.

People do the best that they can to have correct beliefs because that’s what their communities teach them. What communities teach people to hold onto incorrect beliefs?

Some communities do teach people not to question the beliefs held by the people in those communities. But that’s because those communities hold that it’s correct not to question their beliefs. Why would they teach something that they did not believe was true?

There but for fortune

When I see people behaving in ways that seem to me to be outright wrong, I used to condemn them for their obvious error.

Now I’m more likely to respond with compassion.

There, but for fortune, go I.

There, but for the grace of God, if there is a God, go I.

There, but for an accident of birth, go I.

Click here to subscribe to 70 Years Old. WTF! by Email 

​

Defending our minds

Your mind is a delicate device, evolved over nearly 14 billion years.

Spend time reading, listening to, and interacting with that which will make your mind—and you—better.

Avoid reading, listening to, and interacting with that which will make you—and your mind—worse.

Share only things that will make others better.

Avoid mental contamination.

Everything changes your mind

Whenever someone reads something or listens to something or has a conversation with someone, it changes the contents and structure of their mind.

Of course.

Some interactions are neutral. Most interactions change minds for better or worse.

If our minds are made worse, we are made worse.

If our minds are made worse, we need to repair the damage, or our minds will remain worse.

We can keep ourselves from things that make us worse.

We can avoid connecting others with things that make them worse.

What makes us worse

An interaction that delivers false information makes us worse.

An interaction that delivers misleading information makes us worse.

An interaction that adds useless information makes us worse.

An interaction that misplaces importances makes us worse.

An interaction that produces unhelpful emotion makes us worse.

An interaction that distracts us from productive activity makes us worse.

An interaction that creates confusion makes us worse.

What makes us better

An interaction that corrects an error makes us better.

An interaction that helps us represent knowledge more simply makes us better.

An interaction that adds useful knowledge makes us better.

An interaction that helps us organize knowledge makes us better.

An interaction that helps us think more clearly makes us better.

An interaction that helps us focus on what we deem important makes us better.

An interaction that produces helpful emotion makes us better.

An interaction that creates the optimal balance between order and disorder makes us better.

An interaction that builds our cognitive skills—attention, perception, reasoning—makes us better.

What does not make us better makes us worse

Any interaction costs us the time that we spent in that interaction.

If it does not make us enough better to offset that cost, then we are worse.

The harm done by an interaction that will persist until we spend additional time undoing the harm.

If we do not have the necessary skills, we may not be able to undo the harm.

Avoiding harm is better than repairing it

When we carry out an interaction that causes us mental harm, we’ve wasted the time spent in the interaction, we’ve cost ourselves the harm to ourselves, and will cost ourselves the time we will need to spend undoing the harm.

When we expose others to a source of harm, we risk causing them to waste time on the interaction, the harm to themselves, and the time that they must spend undoing the harm.

​

The Mindful Photographic Moments channel

Let’s get back to first principles.

On February 26, 2016, Daniel created a hangouts channel for the two of us called “Mindful Photographic Moments.” With Daniel’s agreement, I invited Justin to join—though they had never met.

Daniel Feb 26, 2016, 4:00 PM
Mike - want to frame the purpose of the group? ☺

Mike Feb 26, 2016, 4:00 PM
It’s reminding each other to wake up and be mindful — through the medium of photography, or not. Theory is that we need to be re-minded.

Justin’s first contribution to the group was a perfectly Zen image of a nearly cloudless sky. Still one of the most memorable photos.

Daniel and Justin got to know one another:

Daniel Feb 26, 2016, 3:57 PM
You a photography guy as well Justin?

Justin Feb 26, 2016, 3:58 PM
I’m not, mostly just a hacker of things. IT guy But I’m in need of these waking moments…

Daniel Feb 26, 2016, 3:58 PM
In Maine?

Justin Feb 26, 2016, 3:58 PM
Yeah, find me a job out there would you?

Daniel Feb 26, 2016, 3:59 PM
I’m hiring. 😉

And hire he did.

Meanwhile, for nearly four years, with a few lapses, the three of us have been using the channel to wake ourselves and one another. And during that time, the three of us have come to be good and then better friends.

And we’ve become a micro-sangha.

The channel helped us stay mindful, sometimes really well, and sometimes not so much. From time to time, one of us would skip a day. More rarely, we’d all skip a day. Even more rarely, we’d skip more than one.

Like two days ago.

But generally, the channel seemed to work as intended.

Seemed.

AutoMike, my conditioned self, is tricky. He does a good imitation of a human being, and if I’m not paying attention to paying attention, I don’t pay attention. So more often than I’d like, AutoMike writes messages in the channel or responds to a message instead of me. It seems like I’m mindful. But I’m running on autopilot.

Recently that’s been happening more—both in the channel and IRL.

And today, I woke up and realized that on too many recent days, it’s been AutoMike all the way. So I decided to honor our years of success and rededicate myself to using the channel as intended.

So, I wrote this in the channel:

MQ is Mindfulness Quotient, a term I just (semi-mindfully) made up

MQ is the ratio (details to be worked out) between some measure of mindfulness per unit time and some measure of mindlessness

For example if I had no moments of mindfulness for a period of time (say a day) that would be an MQ of zero

And if I was “fully awake” for some period of time, that would be an MQ of maybe 100

That does not capture the idea that there are levels or intensities of awareness/mindfulness. So maybe not 100.

But that’s a detail. The purpose of the channel (for me) is to raise my MQ by reminding me (and you) to WAKE THE FUCK UP.

And I’m doubling down by writing this blog post. AutoMike writes some of my posts, but even my least mindfully written posts are written in a more mindful state than most of my daily activity.

So whoever is writing this (and right now it’s Mindful Mike (or Sorta Mindful Mike) is being more mindful than the recent average.

For a while, whenever I posted something in the channel or whenever someone else posted, I’d stop and take a long minute to become aware of myself and my surroundings and only then go back to whatever I had been doing before.

So I’m going to get back into that groove. And I hope my sangha will remind me to do that.

And I hope that my desire to set a good example for the rest of my sangha will also help.

And maybe I’ll take some time and read through some of the channel’s history. We’ve put some pretty funny and some pretty wise stuff in the channel and shared some nice photos, too.

Anyway, i need to finish my 750 and get this posted.

And then I need to get to sleep. It’s been a long day.

​

A theory of strategic unawareness

Why do people lose awareness?

Why run on automatic?

If someone’s decided to be mindful, to pay attention, to maintain awareness, to not run on automatic, what explains them not doing that?

I have a theory.

Awareness is not always a good thing.

Sometimes “what you do know can hurt you more than what you don’t know.”

Sometimes unawareness is not a problem but a solution.

The dark side of awareness

We think of awareness as an asset.

More awareness is better than less awareness. Often it is.

But here’s the dark side:

Right now, I’m sitting in my living room, aware of the process of writing this.

If I expand my awareness, I can be aware of the life that I live: health, ability, resources.

If I expand it more, I can be aware of more and more of what’s in my environment.

But I can also be aware of what’s missing.

To be fully aware of the present means to be fully aware of what’s not present.

Facing the loss

Once I was a twenty-year-old, in the prime of life. I had a world of possibilities spread out before me.

Now I’m seventy-seven, still healthy, but not as healthy as I was at twenty; I’m past my prime; I’ve traded a universe of possibilities for a single reality.

It’s a good reality. I’m not complaining.

But I’ve lost more in possibility than I’ve gained in reality.

Awareness leads to loss.

Sudden transition from past to present

Imagine being your twenty-year-old self. Life is spread out before you.

Suddenly, in a moment, you’re seventy.

What would that feel like?

You’re aware that you’ve lost most of the life that you once believed you’d have.

That life is gone, and there’s no way to get it back.

That’s what’s missing in the present moment.

Decisions are losses

At the moment of decision, a single door is open.

At that same moment, every other door is shut.

Each door belongs to a different Future Self.

Only one will come to be. The rest will never exist.

When one gains, all the rest lose

Psychologically we are not unitary beings. We have many interests, desires, and goals.

Physically we are unitary beings. We can only do one thing at a time.

That means: when we decide to pursue one interest, satisfy one desire, move toward one goal, we exclude every other desire, interest, and goal.

One interest gains, the rest lose. One desire gains, the rest lose. One goal is chosen; the rest lose.

For every one opportunity we choose, we lose all the rest.

The IFS model

In the Internal Family System model, different Parts have different preferences.

Some are relaxed about their preferences; they are tolerant of alternatives.

Some are polarized. What they want MUST happen. What they don’t want MUST be avoided on pain of suffering.

When a decision’s made, one Part might consider it’s won, and many other Parts that are aware of the decision might feel that they’ve lost. It might be better if they were not aware.

Every Part that fears the consequences of a decision will feel the fear rising. It might be better if they were unaware.

Every part that’s angry about the decision will become angry. It might be better if they were unaware.

Before the decision, if Parts that are aware that a decision is being made might find themselves in conflict with parts with other preferences. It might be better if they were unaware.

If there’s a conflict, the Parts involved in the conflict might feel angry, or sad, or frustrated, but so might other Parts, not directly involved. It might be better if they were unaware.

More awareness of a decision means more potential for conflict and discomfort; more awareness of the conflict and discomfort means still more discomfort.

Awareness tradeoffs

In theory, awareness will lead to decisions that take more perspectives into account. Those decisions are likely to be closer to optimal than decisions that f consider some perspectives.

In theory, theory and practice are the same; in practice, they are not.

The theory of considering more perspectives doesn’t take into account the costs of conflict and the costs of discomfort.

These costs can be high.

Unawareness might worsen decisions, but it might also reduce conflict and discomfort.

The discomfort that awareness and conflict might produce could make a worse decision preferable to a better one.

Accepting the liabilities of awareness

I now understand the value of inattention, unawareness, automaticity.

I believe that mindfulness will often lead me to an awareness of joy because, for me, joy is always ready to be experienced.

But so is suffering.

I believe that mindfulness must lead me to suffering because life is forever unsatisfactory.

But that unsatisfactoriness can be accepted, and suffering might then cease.

Mindfulness will almost certainly lead me to awareness of more discomfort, more suffering, more unsatisfactoriness.

There’s plenty of it that’s present in every moment of life.

Inattention, unawareness, automaticity are ways to avoid some of life’s suffering.

But suffering cannot be avoided without avoiding life, and inattention, unawareness, and automaticity are ways of avoiding life.

Thank you, Past Me

Thank you, Past Me, for all the work you’ve done to bring me to this realization and for writing this.

Click here to subscribe to 70 Years Old. WTF! by Email

​

Training to get better or training to get worse

Today I took a trip back to 2010, the first year that I used https://750words.com/ online. I read something I wrote in April.

The post was wise and relevant. I’ve reproduced parts with small corrections and improvements.

You’re either training your brain to get better, or you are training your brain to get worse. There’s no in-between.

When you grind at something you don’t do well—like social chit-chat, or cold calling customers, or managing a todo list (all problems for me) then you (and by “you” I mean “I”) am training myself to do whatever I am trying to get myself not to do.

By putting myself in a social situation and talking, I’m training myself to stay silent, and I am perfecting my ability to find nothing to say, and improving my ability to wish it wasn’t so

And so, I realize it is with posting.

Every time I intend to write something to post and don’t press onward until I press Publish, I’m training myself to get worse at publishing and better at not.

I’ve developed good habits — several times. And then stopped using those habits. And then had to develop another good habit.

When I consulted what Past Me had written (thank you, again Past Me), I realized that every time I “failed to recover my good posting habits,” I was practicing my bad not-posting habits. There’s the habit where I get an idea and don’t write. The habit where I write and don’t finish. The habit where I edit the thing to death and never publish.

Practice, practice, practice.

Habits die hard. They persist because ineffective attempts to change a habit makes the habit stronger. A failed attempt to change a habit is a new way to persist in that habit.

That sucks, doesn’t it?

So here’s the solution.

I have a writing-and-not-posting habit developed over years.

I also have a writing-and-posting habit, perhaps less well developed, but developed well enough.

Every day I have a chance to strengthen one habit or the other. There is no middle ground.

Today, I choose to strengthen my writing and posting habit.

Thusly.

For the benefit of Future Me (and no one else, since it’s private) here’s the link to what I wrote on April 30, 2010.

Once again, thank you, Past Me.

Click here to subscribe to 70 Years Old. WTF! by Email

​

Solving for X

Photo by Taylor on Unsplash

When you are discontent with your life’s conditions, you can follow one of three strategies:

You can change your mind so that you don’t remain discontent—or the dissatisfaction becomes less severe.

You can change your behavior so that you no longer experience the conditions that cause discontent.

You can change the world around you, so those discontenting conditions no longer exist.

These are not exclusive strategies.

You can do more than one.

The question is: if X is what must to change to remove the discontent, how can we solve for X?

Changing your mind

It’s always possible and sometimes easy to change your mind And sometimes merely changing your mind can be a complete and satisfying solution.

But not always.

Sometimes it’s just the first step. Changing your mind will almost make it easier to change your behavior and change the state of the world.

You might not want to change your mind, but if changing your mind would make it easier to change things beyond your mind, then changing your mind would be an excellent place to start.

You might believe that you can’t change your mind. But if you believe that, then it’s just because your mind’s been conditioned to believe that it can’t be changed.

The belief that there’s nothing you can do is called “Learned helplessness.”

And it can be unlearned.

To change your mind, solving for X means finding what it takes for you to change your mind.

X is you.

Changing your behavior

The conditions of your life are partly the result of accidents and partly the result of the choices you’ve made. Your circumstances are the result of your past behavior.

Your behavior has a cause. It’s the product of your mind. So to change your circumstances, you must change your behavior, and to do that, you must first change your mind.

And not just any change will do. It must be a change that leads to behavior that will change your circumstances.

If you’re trying to change your behavior, solving for X means finding what it takes for you to change your mind so that your behavior changes in the way that you want it to change.

Once again, X is you.

Changing the world

The state of the world is not the product of your mind. It’s the result of the laws of nature and of the actions of other individuals.

The world will not change of its own accord. Some individual must do something to change the world.

You cannot directly control what others do, but you might influence them indirectly. But only if you do something different from what you have done in the past.

Since the way you’ve behaved in the past has not caused others to behave in ways that make the state of the world closer to the way you prefer it, you have to change your behavior and interact with others more effectively.

And to change your behavior to what it has been to what might bring about the state you desire, you once again need to change your mind.

Solving for X means discovering how you might influence others to change what they do; that means changing the way that you interact with them, and that means changing your mind.

Once again, X is you.

No way around changing your mind

The only way to change the circumstances of your life is by changing your mind and your attitude, or your mind and your behavior, or your mind and others’ behavior by changing your mind and your behavior.

You are the only one who can change your mind.
You are the only one who can change your behavior—and you do it by changing your mind.

You are the only one who can bring about a change in the world—and you do it by changing your behavior, and you do that by changing your mind.

No matter what course you take, when you solve for X, X is you.

You still have choices

X is you, but you’ve got choices.

You can choose to change your attitude or leave your attitude unchanged and change your behavior and try to change the behavior of others.

You can change your behavior by using more skill or by using force.

You can influence people by finding common interests and negotiating with them or by wielding power and bullying them.

There’s no one way to solve such a problem once you’ve realized that it’s yours to solve.

When you solve for X, X is always you.

My ideal

I’d like always to be able to change my mind in whatever way would result in the greatest good and the least harm.

I can’t always know the best way to do that, but I can generally get a good idea.

And I haven’t always been able to change my mind—even when I’ve known how I want it to change—but practice has made me increasingly able to do so.

​