How to Be a Human Animal, Chapter 16: Why it Truly Matters that you are a Human Animal

Chapter 16: Why it matters that you are a human animal

Greeting, hypothetical newborn baby!  I have returned with yet another lesson on a most ambitious topic: the meaning of life . . . Just kidding. That would be so very pretentious because I don't even claim to understand that question.  Instead, I'm here once again to teach you some of the many Life Lessons I was forced to learn at the School of Hard Knocks. These are ideas that I constantly lean on in order to navigate my way through life so far, and I'm in my 65th year, which ought to be worth something. This is my sixteenth lesson and you can find all my lesson here. 

Back in Chapter 4, I broke it to you that you are an animal. Back in Chapter 11, I further broke to you that you are not some sort of half-ethereal magical hybrid. You are not a god who burps and farts. You are a humble yet honorable ape about to strut your way across a cosmic stage that is about 80 years long.

Here are three very important things about you, all of them related to your animality:

We’ve discussed all of these things a bit but we are nowhere close to being done with these hot topics.  In fact, they are so incredibly hot that many people complain that reading them makes it feel like their heads are about to explode. Most of these complainers aren’t comfortable that they are made of biomass. They know in a very personal way that they are animals, because they eat and poop and procreate in ways similar to many of the animals they see on David Attenborough's nature documentaries  They know all of this, but they don’t like it one bit, which will be explore in a later chapter on Terror Management Theory. Large numbers of people want to pretend that their thought process somehow floats over their bodies, boundless and free to think thoughts entirely unrelated to the exquisitely complex operation of their three-pound brains. They prefer to think of themselves as gods with pimples and anuses and smartphones. [More . . . ]

Continue ReadingHow to Be a Human Animal, Chapter 16: Why it Truly Matters that you are a Human Animal

How to Be a Human Animal, Chapter 15: The Danger of Empathy: Exhibit A: The Coddling of Children

Chapter 15: The Danger of Empathy: Exhibit A: The Coddling of Children.

I’m back again to preach to you ad nauseum today, hypothetical newborn baby! I'm here once again to teach you some of the many Life Lessons I was forced to learn at the School of Hard Knocks. My intentions are honorable. I’m here to spare you some suffering, but based on today’s topic I am concerned that you might be better off leaning these lessons on your own, much as I did. BTW, you can find all fifteen lessons in one easy link.

You were born into a complex adaptive system. Yes, you do have exquisite powers of perception and memory but they are often no match for the complexity of your environment. Hence, the law of unintended consequences: You will often find that your well-intended actions will result in outcomes that are not the ones you intended or foresaw. The result will often be disappointing. We have a saying, “No good deed goes unpunished.” Sometimes, though, you do something and it turns out wildly better than you could ever have hoped. When that happens, you might be tempted to claim that you knew it all along, but that would often be an illustration of the “hindsight bias.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindsight_bias

To illustrate how things can go unexpectedly awry, I will start by referring to the work of Paul Bloom, who wrote a 2016 book titled: Against Empathy: The Case for Rational Compassion. He defines “empathy” as follows: “Empathy is the act of coming to experience the world as you think someone else does." He further describes empathy as "a spotlight directing attention and aid to where it's needed."  According to Bloom, empathy is an emotion, not a good tool for moral decision-making. “Compassion,” on the other hand, is feeling concern or compassion for someone. Bloom contrasts empathy with "rational compassion," which can productively be used to “make decisions based on considerations of cost and benefits." Empathy, by contrast, has no such protective limitations, meaning that empathy often leads to ill-considered policies. [More . . . ]

Continue ReadingHow to Be a Human Animal, Chapter 15: The Danger of Empathy: Exhibit A: The Coddling of Children

How to Be a Human Animal, Chapter 14: You Have Almost No Understanding of What is Going On.

Chapter 14: You Have Almost No Understanding of What is Going On.

Hello again, hypothetical newborn baby!  I'm here to teach you some of the many Life Lessons I was forced to learn the hard way.  Here are all fourteen lessons in one easy link. 

Let's start off by noting that at this point in your life your parents, your crib, your blanket . . . and me, of course are your entire universe. That's all you've got in front of you, yet you are feeling like there is nothing else that could be worthwhile and there is nothing at all outside of your bedroom door.

Let me tell you about my situation. My toe is hurting.  Nothing major, but it's red and throbbing. When I think about my hurting toe, that thought gets quite big in my consciousness. It almost seems like my throbbing toe is the only thing in the universe.

Here's another example: When I'm thinking about a lawsuit while walking to court through the downtown area, I'm barely aware of anything other than what I'm going to tell the judge when I arrive. I'm not noticing any other people or any cars or that new restaurant going up even though those thing are right in front of me as I walk. Isn’t it weird how our ability to attend to things is so incredibly limited?

Using a technique called conversation shadowing, psychologists Broadbent and Treisman demonstrated that one’s ability to absorb multiple simultaneous conversations is severely limited. Attention is bottlenecked at the site of working memory  during perception. In 1956, George Miller pointed, “[T]he span of absolute judgment and the span of immediate memory impose severe limitations on the amount of information that we are able to receive, process and remember.” George A. Miller, “The Magical Number Seven, Plus or Minus Two: Some Limits on our Capacity for Processing Information." Given that humans have such tiny attentional windows, it is surprising the extent to which we take it for granted that we share the same world. The real world is laughingly beyond our capacity to fathom without rampant simplification. Just because we can say the phrase "the world" doesn't mean we can comprehend more than a trillionth of it at any particular moment.

This is one of the downsides to having a human body. We are incredibly limited in what we can attend to at each moment. That's Part One of a two-part whammy that affects us human animals every hour of every day. This attentional limitation in attention interacts with an equally important phenomenon that I have long thought of as the “illusion of fullness." I'm referring to this: it seems like whatever we are currently seeing or pondering, it's somehow enough for us to feel well-informed when the stream of information we are getting is almost nothing at all.

Morgan House wrote the following in “Ideas that Changed my Life”:

Your personal experiences make up maybe 0.00000001% of what’s happened in the world but maybe 80% of how you think the world works. People believe what they’ve seen happen exponentially more than what they read about has happened to other people, if they read about other people at all. We’re all biased to our own personal history. Everyone. If you’ve lived through hyperinflation, or a 50% bear market, or were born to rich parents, or have been discriminated against, you both understand something that people who haven’t experienced those things never will, but you’ll also likely overestimate the prevalence of those things happening again, or happening to other people.
It's like we see the world through fish-eye lenses. The things that are in front of us look very big, indeed. Yet the things that are not directly in front of us are barely visible or not visible at all. Our perceptual machinery make us (and I’m writing this in a non-judgmental way) extremely self-centered. We are condemned to make severely overconfident and skewed generalizations and to engage in a lifelong adventure of sense-making based on not-nearly-enough awareness about the billion ring circus into which we have been plopped. Each of us is only one out of 8 billion people. You are almost nothing at all in the scheme of things and you are experiencing only the tiniest speck of what is going on, yet it feels like you are sitting in the front row VIP seat to the most important event in the universe.

It takes conscious effort to know what is happening outside of ourselves. This makes it easy to cast ourselves as the heroes of our own story, justifying our routine of putting half of our conscious horsepower to work doing PR, in-person or on Facebook, tooting to everyone who will listen that we are saving the planet by switching to LED bulbs or whatever.

Skip this paragraph if want to continue being the hero of your own story. Human cognitive machinery massively distorts our sense of morality. With very little effort, we can cause any troublesome moral issue to vanish simply by not paying attention to it. In many cases we develop (sometimes consciously at first) deeply ingrained habits of not paying attention to certain aspects of the world, making our immorality conveniently unconscious. Here's a common habit among people who are financially comfortable: Not-thinking that on here on our planet, a child starves to death every 5 seconds. If you have habituated yourself to not-think about this horrible and undeniable fact, it is quite easy to blow a large sums of money in clear conscience on things like haircuts for your poodle, vacations in far-flung places and steady streams of meals at high-priced restaurants. If this troublesome thought ever bubbles up into consciousness, we scrub away all traces of inchoate guilt by reminding ourselves that everyone else we know is behaves much like us and then we run off to purchase some new porch furniture for our vacation home, thus pushing thoughts of child starvation off the tiny stage of attention. If by some chance we experience the prickly thought we are hypocritical, immoral and selfish because we purposely don't think about starving children, we can take care of that troublesome thought too by thinking about something else. We can fix most of our most disturbing thoughts merely by thinking about something else.

[More . . . ]

Continue ReadingHow to Be a Human Animal, Chapter 14: You Have Almost No Understanding of What is Going On.

How to be a Human Animal, Chapter 13: My New Quest as an Author

Chapter 13: My New Quest as an Author

One of the main reasons I am engaging in this 100-Day Creative Project is to find a new voice as a writer of essays.Since 2006, I have written more than 7,000 articles here at Dangerous Intersection. Since becoming an attorney in 2006, I have drafted thousands of court filings, including hundreds of lengthy appellate briefs. Doing so much of this work doesn’t mean that I’m good at it, but I do think I’ve learned a lot of things along the way and I do seem to be competent at that writing style.

But I want to learn how to be a better writer by exploring new styles. Most of my writing to this point has been technical and precision advocacy of a point of view. I am using this Project to explore a new style of writing. Still persuasive, but also more fluid, more free, more creative and with a dash of humor here and there. The only way I'll know to get better at a new style is to have a lot of reps. Over and over for 100 days would be a good start. I’ve addressed (in my former writings) many of the ideas I am discussing in my lessons for “the newborn baby,” but I’m now working to present them in newer ways that might be more effective for a different audience. I hope t break down some old writing habits so that I can draw from heretofore rather quiescent parts of my brain. I hope those parts have been merely sleeping and that they haven’t completely died off.

I was inspired to create new styles of articles as my 100 Day Project after enjoying about a dozen essays by Freddie DeBoer, who describes himself as a “Marxist of an old-school variety.” https://dangerousintersection.org/2022/02/15/the-type-of-real-life-government-freddie-deboer-can-believe-in/ With his writing, Freddie successfully does a lot of the things that I want to do better. This Project will thus be a 100-step experiment and it’s clearly off to an uneven start, although I am clearly writing in a more unvarnished and less edited style (as you can see from the typos). I am forcing myself to write a lot and to do it more spontaneously. I am keeping in mind Mario Andretti's admonition: "If everything seems under control, you're not going fast enough." I'm not striving for any length of these essays, but I am noticing that by the time I've emptied out my quiver, I've spilled out more than 1,000 words, which is a fairly grueling pace for me in the context of the other demands (including self-demands) I face in my life.

I am consciously trying to modify many deeply ingrained and ossified writing habits. I hope that by the end of this project I will have noticeably moved the needle regarding my style. It would be fun to see a difference by the hundredth essay, but more importantly, that the difference is for the better, which is not a given when one screws with some that has worked reasonably well. For more insight into a few of the things I'm aiming to accomplish, here's an excerpt from my new writing guru Freddie DeBoer’s recent article: “If you Absolutely Must: a brief guide to writing and selling short-form argumentative nonfiction from a somewhat reluctant professional writer.”

Your politics are your affair. But fear all political fads, resist all political peer pressure, and be ruthless in asking yourself whether you actually hold a position or if you are just afraid of the consequences of appearing to not hold it. Then express yourself. Whatever you do, be weird. As a consumer of writing, please, for me, be weird. Whatever this profession needs, it does not need more hall monitors or commissars and it does not need more writers who seem to have nothing to offer beyond looking down their glasses at the world in shrill derision. That territory is covered. That corner has been taken. The whole point of writing, the only reason to have an alphabet, is to say what no one else is saying. To be singular. What is the value of replicating words that have already appeared in the same order? You can’t choose to be good and you can’t choose to be successful. But you can choose to be your own.

Be brave and tell the truth. Absolutely everyone and everything in the life you are choosing will try to force you to conform. They will hate you if you break ranks, but they’ll hate you if you say something inoffensive but easily misrepresented too. All they want is to root out heretics; it’s the only thing that makes them feel alive. So you may as well not live in fear. If you let them in there will be little of you left when they’re done, so don’t let them in. If you can hold on to some piece of yourself that does not care what they say, you can have the one pure thing left in an industry now made up only of snitches and nuns, that last virtue for a writer, the courage to be human.

. . .

But do write a lot. Writing is like playing an instrument: it’s all about reps. I know that this is as banal as advice gets. But I think we live in an age of distraction where there are so many other things fighting for your time; I think it’s easy to tell yourself that composing social media posts improves your longform writing when it does not; and I think there remains some unfortunate impression, perhaps left over from the Beats, that great writers produce writing the way a bird produces song.

Continue ReadingHow to be a Human Animal, Chapter 13: My New Quest as an Author

Chapter 12: How to Disagree with Others

Chapter 12: How to Disagree with Others

Here’s another lesson for you, my hypothetical newborn baby. As you keep eating and pooping, I’m going to keep giving you pointers on how to make sense of this crazy world. These are the sorts of things I wish I had known when I was a lot younger . . .

We’ve already discussed (in Chapter 10) that the brain is overrated as a truth-finding device. It functions well to find truth only in certain specially-tuned environments such as laboratories, where scientists who are well-trained to disagree civilly (using the scientific method) want to know if and when they are wrong so that they can advance the kind of research that allows airplanes to actually fly. Most of the time, human animals are not in that kind of specialized environment. Much of the time, we wander around using our brains to concoct arguments that we are correct, even when we have little or no evidence that we are correct. For instance, we constantly employ these three-pound miracles as tools for making arguments to convince others to give us resources such as food, sex and big screen TVs, but not necessarily in that order.

In a later chapter, we will discuss the topic of social intuitionism, the human animal tendency to make shit up in our head to justify what our bodies want. That tendency probably describes 50% of the utterances that come out of human mouths. But wait? It just now occurred to me that we also call our mouths “pie holes,” which is fascinating. The same orifice we use for making noises at conferences is also used for transporting biomass to our stomachs. Natural Selection is such an innovative tinkerer!  And we are such a strange type of animal! Sometimes I pretend I am an alien anthropologist. At those fanciful moments, I see the human animal as a mobile intestinal tract adjoined to a sophisticated and acutely tribal PR apparatus seeking out ways to make copies of itself. But that is my cynicism showing. Let’s move on, because there is an important topic at hand: We struggle to talk to one another.

We are always tribal, but especially when death or uncertainty is in the air. That is the basic holding of Terror Management Theory. Mortality salience reactivates the high school part of the brain and we flap around seeking acceptance from tribes of humans who seemingly are be best position to provide ample orgasms and iPhones. We glom on to those groups like flies onto shit. It’s really something to behold because the process of ingratiating ourselves to groups rewires the brains of human animals. If the tribe dresses in suits and ties, we dress in suits and ties. If the tribe sings songs that claim that there are more than two biological sexes or that a virgin can have a baby, we join in and sing those songs. If the tribe defines up as down, no problem. If the tribe vociferously asserts that non-stop warmongering is a good thing, we sign up for the military. Again, it’s a surreal spectacle. For reasons unclear, some of us are not wired to be groupish, so we are spared from social contagion and from having these illusions. Independent thinking is an enormous benefit. I hope you are one of the lucky ungroupish humans so that your brain doesn’t become distorted these sorts of bizarre claims that serve as identifying markers to help hold the group together. Here’s the downside. If you aren’t groupish, you’ll feel somewhat nervous when you witness a big tribe engaged in energized chanting in unison. If you aren’t wired to be groupish, you’ll need to form your own social network, person by person, which can sometimes be a lot of work, causing you to feel awkward and isolated. If you are an independent thinker, you will be able to plainly see it with your own eyes that groupish people bask in the glow of the group. It's like a powerful drug and they are willing to through skeptical truth-seeking out the window for a lifetime of basking.

But here’s a problem. When groupish people talk to us, it can be almost impossible to understand each other because we see the world so differently. Even non-groupish people often have trouble understanding each other because each of us is such a complex animal who enter conversations having been tuned for decades with lifetimes of idiosyncratic experiences. What can we do about this struggle?

I am part of an organization called Heterodox Academy, which encourages its members (teachers and professors) to reach out to engage intellectually (and otherwise) with people who don’t think the same way. Why?  Because schools are supposedly places to learn and we won’t learn much of anything if we limit ourselves to hanging out people who think the same. Heterodox Academy’s mission statement is straightforward: “To improve the quality of research and education in universities by increasing open inquiry, viewpoint diversity, and constructive disagreement.”

The cornerstone of HxA is known as the five-point HxA Way, a set of easily understandable guideposts for talking with people with whom you disagree. In my experience, it works well as a general rule. It works much less well with groupish people, but it's the best tool we've got. Here are the five points:

1. Make your case with evidence. Link to that evidence whenever possible (for online publications, on social media), or describe it when you can’t (such as in talks or conversations). Any specific statistics, quotes, or novel facts should have ready citations from credible sources.

2. Be intellectually charitable Viewpoint diversity is not incompatible with moral or intellectual rigor — in fact it actually enhances moral and intellectual agility. However, one should always try to engage with the strongest form of a position one disagrees with (that is, “steel-man” opponents rather than “straw-manning” them). One should be able to describe their interlocutor’s position in a manner they would, themselves, agree with (see: “Ideological Turing Test”). Try to acknowledge, when possible, the ways in which the actor or idea you are criticizing may be right — be it in part or in full. Look for reasons why the beliefs others hold may be compelling, under the assumption that others are roughly as reasonable, informed, and intelligent as oneself.

3. Be intellectually humble. Take seriously the prospect that you may be wrong. Be genuinely open to changing your mind about an issue if this is what is expected of interlocutors (although the purpose of exchanges across difference need not always be to “convert” someone, as explained here). Acknowledge the limitations to one’s own arguments and data as relevant.

4. Be constructive. The objective of most intellectual exchanges should not be to “win,” but rather to have all parties come away from an encounter with a deeper understanding of our social, aesthetic, and natural worlds. Try to imagine ways of integrating strong parts of an interlocutor’s positions into one’s own. Don’t just criticize, consider viable positive alternatives. Try to work out new possibilities, or practical steps that could be taken to address the problems under consideration. The corollary to this guidance is to avoid sarcasm, contempt, hostility, and snark. Generally target ideas rather than people. Do not attribute negative motives to people you disagree with as an attempt at dismissing or discrediting their views. Avoid hyperbole when describing perceived problems or (especially) one’s adversaries — for instance, do not analogize people to Stalin, Hitler/ the Nazis, Mao, the antagonists of 1984, etc.

5. Be yourself. At Heterodox Academy, we believe that successfully changing unfortunate dynamics in any complex system or institution will require people to stand up — to leverage, and indeed stake, their social capital on holding the line, pushing back against adverse trends and leading by example. This not only has an immediate and local impact, it also helps spread awareness, provides models for others to follow and creates permission for others to stand up as well. This is why Heterodox Academy does not allow for anonymous membership; membership is a meaningful commitment precisely because it is public.

I know you won’t need the HxA Way for awhile. Your main conflicts will first arise when you don’t want to go to sleep. Then your main conflict will be that you won’t want to share your toys and you start to constantly fight with your caretakers for endless streams of candy (I know this is difficult to believe, but your quest for candy will fade as you become an adult). Eventually, you will have more sophisticated conversations with people who will disagree with you. I hope you will have lots of these conversations, because that's the only way for you to intellectually grow. And when you are ready for these conversations, pull out this copy of the HxA way to make disagreeing agreeable.

Continue ReadingChapter 12: How to Disagree with Others