Killing

Some [men] kill because their faiths explicitly command them to do so, some kill though their faiths explicitly forbid them to do so, and some kill because they have no faith and hence believe all things are permitted to them. Polytheists, monotheists, and atheists kill – indeed, this last class is especially prolifically homicidal, if the evidence of the twentieth century is to be consulted. Men kill for their gods, or for their God, or because there is no God and the destiny of humanity must be shaped by gigantic exertions of human will . . .

Men will always seek gods in whose name they may perform great deeds or commit unspeakable atrocities . . . Then again, men also kill on account of money, land, love, pride, hatred, envy or ambition.

Does religious conviction provide a powerful reason for killing? Undeniably it often does. It also often provides the sole compelling reason for refusing to kill, or for being merciful, or for seeking peace; only the profoundest ignorance of history could prevent one from recognizing this. For the truth is that religion and irreligion are cultural variables, but killing is a human constant.
David Bentley Hart, Atheist Delusions, 12-13

Introversion: characteristic or condition?

On my drive today, it occurred to me that introversion might better be seen as a "condition" rather than a "characteristic." What I mean is this: We commonly say that a person "is" introverted -- as though that were a fundamental characteristic of them as a human being. But what if it is instead a condition -- the way a person behaves due to their situation?

One thing: if introversion were a characteristic, we would expect a person to always be introverted -- but in fact, many introverts become very outgoing in the right circumstances -- generally, when they find themselves in a group of like-minded people with whom they can fit in. The fact that a person can be introverted in one situation and extraverted in another implies that the situation causes the condition, rather than something inherent in the person.

So what causes introversion? My initial hypothesis is this: introversion is a combination of three factors -- feeling like one does not fit in with the people one is currently surrounded by, 2) wanting to engage in the group only if it is likely to result in acceptance and fitting in, and 3) Being either unwilling or unable to expend the mental energy necessary to fit in. Extraversion, on the other hand, is a combination of wanting to interact and either a) fitting in, b) not fitting in but either not noticing or not caring.

Thus, a person is not an introvert because there is some "introversion" characteristic in him, but because he is unable to fit into the group, and so he finds it excessively difficult to engage the group. It's possible not to fit in for two reasons -- a) you understand what is going on in a group, and find the people around you to be intolerably stupid, or b) you don't understand what's going on in the group because you are not sufficiently acquainted with the culture of the group. In other words, you can be introverted because you're in a group of people you find stupid, or because you perceive yourself to be too stupid to participate and be accepted.

Of course, place that same person in a situation in which he feels like he fits into the group and is accepted, and your "introvert" suddenly becomes an extravert.

This would also explain the common phenomenon that introverts need time to "recharge" alone, because social interactions tire them out. It's not that the social interactions themselves tire them out -- it's that, because they don't fit in, interacting takes a lot of mental energy -- like speaking a second language -- and it tires them out. But again, place that "introvert" in a group that he can connect with, and suddenly the need to "recharge" disappears.

Extraversion, of course, is either fitting in, or not fitting in and either not noticing or not caring. Thus a socially adept person would connect with a group, and become very outgoing because he felt accepted and understood. Alternatively a socially maladapted person would not realize or not care that he was not fitting in, and consequently would be very outgoing in the group, but (because he did not fit in) would ultimately drive others away.

Therefore, introversion is a combination of three things -- 1) Perceiving that a set of behaviors are acceptable or unacceptable to a group, 2) Wanting to interact only if you expect that interaction to result in acceptance, 3) finding yourself in a situation where you perceive that fitting in is either impossible or so difficult as to be exhausting.

Take away any one of those three conditions, and an introvert magically becomes an extravert.

Seems to much better describe the experience of introversion. And it explains everything in terms of "wants" and "perceptions" that can be recognized and altered by the person, rather than a native "characteristic" with which one is stuck. I like that.

Meaning

While thinking further about a conversation I had with Sadunkal about meaning, it occurred to me today that understanding what "meaning" means in the context of language can be very helpful in exploring the "meaning" of life.

The first thing is that to have meaning, you must have a mind. Without a mind to interpret facts, there can be no meaning.

The second thing is that there are two types of meaning: intended meaning and perceived meaning. This applies both to language (What I say versus what you understand) and life (What I want my life to mean versus what others perceive it as meaning).

The two types of meaning have very distinct characteristics.

Intended meaning is pretty cut and dry -- you mean what you mean. But there are some inherent dangers.

The first is, obviously, the risk of meaning something wrong. You may say -- and quite sincerely mean -- that the Earth is flat -- but the plain facts of reality confound you. So it is with life. You may intend your life to "mean" total sacrifice to others -- but that is self-defeating -- a person cannot live in total sacrifice, because they will die. And further, in order to live in total self-sacrifice, you force someone else not to. A world in which everyone lived by that principle would not function. It is a "wrong" meaning, because it contradicts the facts of human life.

The second inherent danger in intended meaning is not being clear enough in what we mean -- you might say "I love you" to someone. But what does that mean? Does that mean you'll stay with her forever? That you wanna screw her tonight? That you want to make her feel better? That that's just what people say? One phrase, vaguely defined, is really no meaning at all -- it leaves both the speaker and listener without a clear sense of what's actually being said. So it is with life. Unless you are very clear about what you intend things -- and your life as a whole -- to mean, you will act vaguely and indecisively -- and will inevitably by misunderstood.

Perceived meaning is even hairier. We can perceive meaning correctly, incorrectly, or even in the absence of meaning! If I say "Peach" and you're an English speaker, generally speaking, you'll perceive my meaning. But if you're a Turkish speaker, you'll perceive something entirely different -- a curse word, in fact. We can also perceive meaning where there is none -- for instance, seeing a particular cloud formation as a sign that we ought to marry the next girl we see, or that walking under a ladder leads to this or that.

So it is with life. I may mean my life to speak "success," but another might perceive it as "arrogance." The meaning in our lives can only be perceived as intended if the observer shares our understanding of what actions mean what things. Similarly, it's possible to find meaning where none exists -- as with the Jihadi who sacrifices himself for a paradise he will not inherit.

Another important point is to stop looking for "objective" meaning. There is no "meaning of life" carved in some objective rules of nature, any more than there is an objective definition of the word "Peach." That's not to say that nothing means anything -- only that meaning is in the eye of the beholder. That beholder might be me -- it might be my neighbor -- it might be God -- but it is always relative to the values of the beholder, and not to the universe.

But significantly, the relativity of meaning does not imply a relativity of reality. "Peach" means different things in English and Turkish. However, in both languages, it refers to a definable, real thing. So it is with life. Career success may mean "Work ethic" to one person and "materialism" to another -- but work ethic and materialism are both real things -- and a person who shares the same values will draw the same meaning from the actions involved.

So the ultimate question is not "What's the meaning of life?" It's "What do I want my life to mean, and what meaning will others (human and/or divine) perceive from what they see in my life?" Those questions, I think, are not easily answerable -- but at least they're answerable with some effort.

Banned

Amazingly, I found myself banned from a blog today. I commented on three articles. The first one was about the female California Sunday School teacher arrested on allegations of killing an 8-year old, stuffing her body in a suitcase, and dumping it in a lake. The only evidence presented in the article was the woman's statement that the girl visited her that day, and the allegation that it was her suitcase. Extremely weak case on the face of it. No motive. No MO. No witnesses. No evidence.

The blog article, of course, was entitled "Jesus made her do it," and went on and on about Christian whackos killing people. Assuming she's guilty based on a ridiculously weak case. I queried why a bunch of leftists would assume someone was guilty based solely on an arrest, given the thousands upon thousands of acquittals every year, and the extremely weak evidence as presented in the media coverage. I never got a response.

The second article involved an anonymous allegation in an Italian newspaper that the Pope had somehow blocked the US appointment of an ambassador, based on her position as pro-choice. No details were given as to how this was done. The allegation was anonymous. And as anyone who understands how politics works knows, an ambassador's views on an issue of domestic law have absolutely no relevance to the hosting state -- the ambassador cannot change Vatican law, and would be foolish to try. On the other hand, the Vatican made an official statement flatly denying having received any proposed ambassador, much less somehow rejecting her. I pointed all this out. No response from the author, although I got some interesting dialogue from readers.

The third post reported a hacker that had apparently caused a number of computers to flag gay books at Amazon as "inappropriate," so they were removed from the bestseller lists. The author said this stood in contrast to the allegation that Amazon had "gone fundy," and begun censoring gay books. Clearly Amazon had not gone fundy -- it was a hacker.

I pointed out that Amazon was already "censoring" books -- but instead of deciding what books should be "censored" themselves, they allowed the users to do it through their "inappropriate" ratings. I then wondered whether it was censorship at all, since the books could still be purchased -- the only effect was that a private company chose to remove smut from its bestseller lists. Finally, I concluded that if that counted as censorship, then it was also censorship not to have gay books in the front window @ Hastings, where kids could see them while walking by, eating their Sno-Cones.

This last post disappeared without response. And when I posted again to see if it has been removed or if there had been an error, my post didn't show up. And although I was "subscribed" to the page, I had not received e-mails from other comments, as I had in the past. Then it dawned on me: I'd been banned.

So what did I learn about this particular leftist? Well, he:
1) Takes the cops at their word about murder allegations against sunday school teachers, without any demand for substantiation in the case;
2) Takes anonymous, vague, self-contradictory allegations against the Pope as true;
3) Thinks it's censorship to take adult books off the best-seller list of a bookselling website with a wide audience;
4) Censors readers who question his presumptions without personal attacks or bigotry, express or implied.

Now don't get me wrong -- he has every right in the world to block me or whoever else from his blog. It's his blog. But he did this in an article in which he decried censorship by a private bookstore for keeping porn off their personally owned and maintained bestseller lists. More than ironic.

The whole time I was engaged in this misadventure, I was struck by the similarities between his behavior and that of fascists. Trust the cops implicitly. Trust anonymous, unfalsifiable allegations. Censor your opponents.

And then I remembered, the Nazi party was the National SOCIALIST party ...

But the biggest insight I think I gained was the sense of "tribal warfare" in his approach to these issues. His actions are not driven my principle so much as what "team" you're on. If you're on the leftist team, then a private company's decision not to promote you sufficiently is censorship. But if you're on the rightist team, then "it's my blog, my rules, and I can cut you out whenever I like."

Cops aren't to be trusted implicitly, unless the accused is a Sunday school teacher. 'Cause she's on the religious team.

And an anonymous, vague, unsubstantiated allegation beats the word of the Pope any day of the week.

While viewing this through a tribal lens is pretty scary, it does bring things into focus. Until today, I had always been confused by the seemingly erratic behavior of leftist extremists. But now I have a model to construct at least hypothetical explanations for that behavior that are consistent with some inner, driving mental principle.

In the news

Today in the news, a woman jumped into a polar bear enclosure at the Berlin zoo, and then (seemingly surprised that the bear wanted to eat her) tried desperately to escape, and a Saudi appeals court did not approve a judge's rejection of an 8-year old's effort to divorce her 47-year-old husband from an arranged marriage (on the basis that the child's mother could not represent the child as she was not the child's legal guardian at the time).

I thought to myself, what do these two stories have in common? Aside from deceptive headlines, they also leave me with the impression that the spectrum of human thought is much wider than we typically think. Why would a woman jump into a polar bear enclosure and then run away when they attacked her? Conceivably, because she wanted to die, or because she thought they would be cuddly (and was unpleasantly surprised), or because she wanted to get on the news. Maybe some other reason, but I can't come up with one. On watching the video, however, she looks genuinely perturbed. Like, "this is terrible!" Really? Was she really surprised?

And then there's the Saudi court. A girl married away at 8 to a 47-year old. And the judge won't let her get divorced because her mother can't legally represent her.

Well it would be nice if the girl could represent herself in the divorce proceeding -- but there's only one problem -- she's too young!

Humans are really able to see things through different lenses, aren't they? Wow.

A new concept of economic growth.

I think the dominant theories of economic growth all evaluate symptoms of growth(increased wealth, more jobs, less debt, more products) rather than the substance of economic growth -- which, I will argue, is productivity.

To understand the heart of economic growth, envision 5 people stranded on an island. If they want to improve their standard of living -- the availability of food, the degree of leisure, their capacity to travel, increased health care etc -- what do they need to do?

First, I'll tell you what they don't need. They don't need "jobs." I could give them all "jobs" digging in the sand and filling the holes back in -- we'd all starve. It's not about money. A ship could run aground carrying billions of dollars of gold. They'd still starve. It's not about equality. They could all divide up the resources equally. They'd still starve.

The answer is, of course, that they need to produce useful things. They must produce food, clothing, housing, healthcare, etc.

The key to economic growth (i.e. an improvement in the quality of their lives) is in increase their productivity. For instance, instead of hunting fish with a spear, you build a net, set it in the water, and let it do the work for you. Instead of spending an hour a day bringing water from the stream a mile away, you build an aqueduct. Now, instead of spearing fish and trudging with buckets all day, you can do something else -- sew clothing, hunt for boar, write a play. More is being produced with the same resources. Economic growth.

Now let's apply that viewpoint to western economies. The development of the automobile greatly increased productivity -- all the energy that had been wasted on travel time, care for horses, spoilage of products before reaching market, etc -- was reduced. People could produce more with less. Result: enormous economic boom in the 20s.

But what happens when people don't understand why the growth is occurring, and therefore expect it to continue indefinitely? What if they don't understand that things are getting better because cars are entering the marketplace, but as soon as everybody has a car, things will stop growing?

Well the same thing that would happen if the people on the island saw that food production increased with each new net, thought that food production would continue to increase indefinitely, and started acting recklessly -- let's say, building a string of fish restaurants big enough to feed 50 people a day. On an island with only 5 people. Sure, food production increases for a while. But eventually it levels out, because 5 people can only eat so much fish. And anybody you hired to man the extra fish stands ends up out of a job.

Back to the real world. People see the stock market soaring because of increased productivity, so they put their money into stocks. But eventually the profits stop increasing. Then the people that were in stocks just for the rising value get out. Stock market crash.

In the 1920s, Ford revolutionized America with the car. Everybody's lives changed. But eventually, everyone has a car. Then things reach an equilibrium. Profits stop rising. Companies across the economy have improved the efficiency of their operations as much as they can. And things flatten out. And when things flatten out, people get out of the stock market. 1929.

I'd argue the same thing drove the economic develop of the 80s, 90s, and early 2000s. In the 80s, home computers raised productivity in the home and office enormously. By 1992, pretty much everyone has a home computer. Recession. In the mid to late 90s, the internet sliced the costs of communication and information transfer. Companies sold directly on the internet. Hundreds of man-years saved every day, and freed up to do other useful things. Then everybody has the internet. Dot-com bust. Then in 2003, housing prices boom because the government is requiring banks to give loans to less than credit-worthy individuals -- everbody's home values go up. People see home values going up and don't know why, so they buy. Suddenly, the people that couldn't afford the houses stop paying. Foreclosure. Housing prices drop. 2007-2008.

The problem lies, I think, in a failure to understand what's actually causing the change in the economy. It wasn't voodoo that made housing prices go up -- it was increased demand. Figure out what's driving increased demand. Oh yeah, people buying that couldn't get loans before. Maybe that will be a problem.

Same thing with the dot-com boom. Dot coms weren't magic companies that would grow unceasingly. Eventually, the internet would be used by everyone, for just about everything it could be used for. And when that happens, the profit margins on those companies are going to plummet.

Same thing with PCs in the 80s, and every other revolutionary invention that has changed our lives. Things get better very quickly -- but for a very specific reason. And when that reason's gone, things are going to stop improving.

The lessons here are two-fold.

First, economics is not about numbers -- it's about productivity. No different than a group of five people who had spend all their time spearing fish before now able to build a hut and sew clothing, because they invented nets to catch fish for them. Increase productivity, expand your economy. That's what our economic policy needs to do -- focus on improving our productivity -- the degree to which we are able to produce socially useful things!

The second lesson is that you can probably predict market rises and falls by figuring out what -- in the REAL WORLD -- is driving an expansion. Because when that force stops improving things, you're going to have a recession. And because nobody else sees it coming, you can make a killing on the markets by getting out before they figure out what's happening.

End and process

When I was younger, I was often saddened by the realization that everything we do on Earth ultimately comes to nothing. The frustration expressed in Ecclesiastes. Build a great business, fine -- but someday that business will disappear, and then what will be left? Nothing. Same with laws, relationships, family, you name it -- it all comes to nothing in the end.

I realized later that I was looking at the problem the wrong way -- essentially asking, "what end is worth trading my life for?" Seeing that end as "what i've done in the world," weighing it against the value of my life, and concluding (reasonably, I think) that I could find nothing that was worth trading my life for. Ultimately, I was unable to come up with any end in the real world that was worth trading my life for. And that was depressing.

But then, with the death of my friend Heather in college, I changed my paradigm. Instead of concerning myself with the Ultimate End, I would concern myself with the process. It didn't matter if Heather lived forever -- what mattered was that I was able to spend time with her. It doesn't matter if everybody dies whether you help the poor or not. Helping the poor is an end in and of itself. It doesn't matter whether your business will ultimately fade or your law ultimately be changed. The value came in the action -- in DOING what was good to do.

The key premise change here was my rejection of evangelical theology in favor of a philosophy of enlightened self-interest. Instead of seeing my life as a sacrifice for something outside myself, I began to see my life was an end in and of itself. Therefore, I was not trying to find something worth trading my precious life for. I was not trading my life at all. I was seizing it, and seeking to live it to the fullest.

But ultimately this became frustrating too, because I found it to be aimless. Yes, you "do the right thing" or the "fun" thing or the "engaging" thing ... but it never leads to anything. I still had a hankering for some purpose -- some goal.

Then this winter, I learned the value of short-term goal setting -- and the extraordinary psychological benefits of determining a desired outcome and working toward it. I began to put those into practice, and it made my world much brighter.

Then yesterday, it occurred to me that the way to integrate the thruths I had learned was this: "We are trained to see processes as leading toward goals. But I see life as a series of goals, comprising a process." The goals we set -- sending the kid to college, getting the MBA, learning about AIDS, getting in shape -- those are individual goals which when strung together become the PROCESS of a life worth living.

The goals themselves are not eternal, and certainly not worth trading our life for. But the process of setting -- and achieving -- those goals is the process of living itself.

Ends to a means. Hmm.