MasterSelf Year One Page 13
The strength of your frame is based on your willpower, combined with one of two major things- insulation or foundation. A weak-willed person will have a weak frame, regardless of the external circumstances. A stiff breeze will blow right through them, and they don’t have a strong enough foundation to keep them anchored. However, a strong willed person can withstand the wind of external opinions, even if they aren’t build on a good foundation, but a flood can cause them to get carried away. No storm, however, can topple a strong willed person with a good foundation.
In the metaphor, the wind represents the influence of the outside world- the opinions of others. Our own willpower is constantly in conflict with the wills of others- a weak willed employee will cave in front of their strong willed boss, even if they’re right. A strong willed superior will dominate their subordinates, even if they’re wrong. Insulation is the degree to which we are capable of ignoring external forces- a well-insulated house stays warm in the coldest of weathers.
The foundation represents the degree to which we are in agreement with reality. If your frame is deeply rooted in being honest with yourself, you’re able to change when presented with conflicting evidence and withstand that which is not true- “the wind does not break a tree that bends.”
Because a truly strong person is comfortable with themselves, they are flexible- they can both keep out the negative winds and let in the beneficial ones. Someone who is stubborn, however, refuses to hear differing thoughts, and thus makes himself a fool when their foundation is separated from reality.
Before you would build a house, first find a suitable foundation- figure out how the world works and align yourself with it. Then, you can make plans- so long as your plans line up with the foundation you’ve chosen. After that, start building your frame- it will support everything you do afterwards. Only the fool builds a house on sand- only the fool tries to make reality agree with his opinions, rather than the other way around. With your foundation in reality, your will is rooted in strength and supported by the facts. You won’t have to walk into the storm because you will have the winds of Truth at your back.
First seek what is True, then build your frame on what you find.
Heraclitus and Pareto: The 80/20 Law of Success
“Out of every one hundred men, ten shouldn’t even be there, eighty are just targets, nine are the real fighters, and we are lucky to have them, for they make the battle. Ah, but the one, one is a warrior, and he will bring the others back.”
― Heraclitus
Interestingly enough, Heraclitus may have been on to something with his distribution of people- in statistics, there is something called the Pareto Principle (also called “the 80/20 rule” or “the law of the vital few”) that mirrors this almost perfectly. The principle is named an Italian economist named Vilfredo Pareto, who noted (in 1896) that 80 percent of the land in Italy was owned by 20 percent of the population. This principle can be plotted with a curve called a Power Law (or Pareto) distribution, which looks like a standard exponential curve.
Essentially, in any group or organization, 80% of the work is done by 20% of the people. Heraclitus may have been a bit off, but he’s not far from an accurate picture. What’s interesting is that this principle applies in nearly every area of our lives. The same few bands or artists make the majority of the hits or win the most awards every year. (I’m looking at you, Kanye West [21 Grammys, tied with Jay Z], Taylor Swift, and Maroon 5.) The same directors and movie franchises make the most money, year after year (James Cameron, Marvel, Fast and Furious.) Sports aren’t exempt, either- as much as I hate to say it, the Patriots consistently do well every year while the Browns are consistently awful.
You may be thinking- “What does this mean for me? Are we just doomed to mediocrity while the 20% make all the rest of us look like scrubs?” Well, yes and no. Try as we might, we just can’t seem to escape this law- it’s the case in essentially every area of human life. Accept it and move on. However, what you can do with this information is figure out what arena you are (or are capable of being) better than 80% of people at, and focus your energy there. There is no point in fighting to be the best engineer in the world if you’re terrible at math (like myself). On the other hand, if you have the passion and aptitude for something that you can beat most people at, then that’s the direction you should go.
No one is good at everything, but everyone can be good (or the best) at something. The key is to be able to acknowledge the areas where we probably aren’t going to be great at and to have the confidence to pursue excellence where we’re capable of it. That means you have to be honest with yourself, and sometimes, that’s the hardest thing of all. However, if you can’t do that, you’re almost guaranteed to fail.
Canadian psychologist Dr. Jordan Peterson made the comparison between the Pareto Principle and the biblical Parable of the Talents (Matthew 25:14-30), which goes as follows:
“For it is just like a man going on a journey, who called his servants and entrusted them with his possessions. To one he gave five talents, to another two talents, and to another one talent—each according to his own ability. And he promptly went on his journey.
The servant who had received five talents went and put them to work, and gained five more. Likewise, the one with two talents gained two more. But the servant who had received one talent went off, dug a hole in the ground, and hid his master’s money.
After a long time, the master of those servants returned to settle accounts with them. The servant who had received five talents came and presented five more. ‘Master,’ he said, ‘you entrusted me with five talents. See, I have gained five more.’
His master replied, ‘Well done, good and faithful servant! You have been faithful with a few things; I will put you in charge of many things. Enter into the joy of your master!’
Then the servant who had received two talents also came and said, ‘Master, you entrusted me with two talents. See, I have gained two more.’
His master replied, ‘Well done, good and faithful servant! You have been faithful with a few things; I will put you in charge of many things. Enter into the joy of your master!’
Finally, the servant who had received one talent came and said, ‘Master, I knew that you are a hard man, reaping where you have not sown, and gathering where you have not scattered seed. So in my fear, I went and hid your talent in the ground. See, you have what belongs to you.’
‘You wicked, lazy servant!’ replied his master. ‘You knew that I reap where I have not sown and gather where I have not scattered seed. Then you should have deposited my money with the bankers, and on my return I would have received it back with interest.
Therefore take the talent from him and give it to the one who has ten talents. For everyone who has will be given more, and he will have an abundance. But the one who does not have, even what he has will be taken away from him. And throw that worthless servant into the outer darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’”
Aside from the fairly extreme punishment at the end, this is essentially the same idea.
“For everyone who has will be given more, and he will have an abundance. But the one who does not have, even what he has will be taken away from him.”
There is a finite number of things you can be great at, and it is your responsibility to take the risk and gamble or invest with these finite resources, rather than to bury them out of fear. The world rewards those who dare and punishes those who dare not.
In what arena will you fight for greatness?
On Anger and Self-Control: Bad Drivers, Toddlers, and Holding Coals
I recently had a conversation with a friend about a rough situation between them and their relatives. Because of certain cruel and otherwise unpleasant actions on the behalf of the relatives, the person in question was unsure about how to handle an upcoming visit where they would be face to face. This person expressed the desire to confront the guilty party and attempt to make them feel bad about what the
y had done. While there is certainly a time and place for confrontation, and frankly, we should probably be more confrontational (or at least more comfortable with confrontation) than we generally are as people, I felt that this was not the right way to handle the conflict- it was time to take control of anger.
Being angry is perfectly normal but very rarely useful. With the exception of using anger as a positive motivator, letting oneself fall into the grip of emotion is purely foolishness. As the Buddhist scholar Buddhaghosa explained, “by doing this you are like a man who wants to hit another and picks up a burning ember or excrement in his hand and so first burns himself or makes himself stink.” However, simply knowing that impassioned, angry responses are bad is not enough to stop us from making them- if only it were that easy. Let’s break down the interaction and gain some insight into the root causes of this cycle of fury.
With the exception of the truly malicious person (which is rarer than you would think,) most people do not operate with the intent to cause unwarranted pain. However, the key word here is warranted- many people do believe themselves to be knowledgeable enough to decide what pain others deserve (which is a mark of petty narcissism). When a person cuts us off in traffic, we believe we know well enough about their driving skills and mental state to honk at them or flip them the bird. Of course our own driving is infallible… right?
When we’re behind the wheel of a car, every other car stops being a person and becomes a depersonalized entity that is theoretically a threat to our life- literally. The guy who cuts you off isn’t just a jerk- he’s someone who jeopardized your safety without any concern for your life (or the lives of your passengers). As a result, we punish them- honking, flipping them off, tailgating them- you catch my drift. Of course, we’re unaware of the fact that the other driver was running late for work and almost missed their exit because they’re stressed about their boss giving them a lecture- or whatever individual chaos they’re experiencing at the time.
Now, this article isn’t about forgiving bad drivers (personally, I think driving is one arena where people should be punished more, simply because lives are at stake). No, in this case, the driving is simply a metaphor for how we interact when people act in a way that angers us. I have likely said this before in an article and will certainly say it again- everyone thinks they are the good guy. No one wakes up thinking, “I’m going to make everyone I interact with miserable and ruin the world today,” (remember that, because the people that cause the most ruin in the world certainly think they’re saving it).
When someone angers you, one of four things is likely happening. One, they’re a malicious psychopath that is out to get you. Two, they lack sufficient emotional intelligence to know that what they said or did could impact another person negatively. Three, they think what they have said or done is something that you deserve or need to have happen. Four, they lack sufficient self-control to prevent themselves from acting impulsively based on their feelings.
Let’s go down the list.
Number one is generally how we, the petty narcissists that we are when we’re hurt, respond to negative interactions. Because we haven’t taken a breath, calmed down, and processed the situation, we come to the obvious and reasonable conclusion that everything that everyone who isn’t us has done is very clearly an intentional, calculated slight against our person. You may say, “oh, no, not me, I’d never do that,” but you would be wrong. This is the default response- and the point where most of us stop thinking and start responding emotionally. “That driver cut me off because he’s a careless asshole who deliberately drives like that to piss me off.” A ridiculous notion, but that’s the voice of anger speaking. What is required here is to acknowledge the nonsensical idea that anyone has the mental resources to spare to spend the time thinking about you and your feelings before they act. No one cares about you that much, and that’s a good thing.
Moving on to number two- they do not have the necessary emotional awareness to consider the impact of their actions. This is the default state of people, and while most of us eventually grow out of it, somewhere inside us is this angry toddler that has no concept of others. When we’re sufficiently stressed, upset, distracted, or otherwise overwhelmed, the higher functions and better angels of our nature are disabled. What’s left is a three year old that only thinks about themselves. When the kid is in charge, the primary drive is to satisfy their needs- reduce stress and conflict with their environment to return order to the world (homeostasis). I’m sure you know someone who isn’t fun to be around when they’re hungry.
This is the driver who is stressed out- they’re not thinking about you because their drive is to remove the stress of missing their exit, which will potentially remove the stress of being late, which will potentially remove the stress of being lectured by their boss, which will potentially remove financial stress by getting them a promotion, which will potentially remove marital stress caused by the dude’s wife thinking he’s not ambitious enough, which will remove the psychological stress of being insecure with his masculinity… well, you get the point. What I wanted to illustrate there is that you absolutely never think about someone else with that degree of detail in any average interaction. In the same respect, no one puts that much thought into your feelings when they act- toddler mode or not.
Number three is when someone reacts with the enlightened mind of the inner judge- “I, having been hurt, know best how to resolve this situation with punishment.” This is righteous fury. In our brilliant, deep analysis of a situation (that we’ve conducted in five seconds), we think we know enough to decide what’s best for others. “That guy who cut me off is obviously a careless bastard who can’t drive and deserves to be run off the road.” This is the direct expression of a phenomenon first noted by the Greek poet Archilochus,
“We don’t rise to the level of our expectations, we fall to the level of our training.”
If you haven’t practiced handling your anger, you will react with simply with anger, and anger is a swift and foolish judge. Always assume that others have no degree of self-control unless you have seen otherwise. More importantly, always assume that you have no self-control if you have not practiced it- because if you haven’t, you will not realize you are out of control until after the you have made a fool of yourself.
This is number four in action. If we aren’t trained to hold our tongue, any perceived slight causes the knee-jerk reflex of us spitting out the first hurtful thing that comes to mind. You can notice this lack of self-control in action when you finish a statement and watch the other person’s face flash briefly with some (presumably negative) emotion. You can notice this in yourself when you find yourself feeling directly attacked in an otherwise calm conversation- but you have to be able to watch yourself, first.
What is the big takeaway here?
Remember that no one cares about you nearly as much as you think they do. The petty narcissist in all of us likes to think that others think about us as much as we think about others thinking about us- but they don’t. Others think about us and our feelings roughly about as much as we think about others and their feelings (in a context that doesn’t involve ourselves). Knowing this, we have to remember that most things that cause us offense are actually simple carelessness. Everything else, the things that are directly cruel or wrong, are more than likely the result of the other person taking something else out on you, or lacking sufficient self-control to prevent reflexive insults because of stress.
We can’t hold others to any standard that we do not first hold ourselves to, and even then, it’s better to forgive those who are weaker than ourselves because we understand that we, too, were once weak. Set the example you would have others follow. It is far worse for a person who knows better to act in anger than for a person who does not- this is the difference between malice and ignorance. Every situation you respond to with anger will create more anger, while each one you meet with calm control will prevent the anger from spreading.
Whi
ch will you choose?
Westworld: The Maze of Consciousness
Be warned, this article contains spoilers for the fantastic HBO series Westworld. Having just finished the second season, I figured it would be the perfect time to break down some of the interesting perspectives on consciousness expressed in the show, including my personal favorite part of Westworld: The Maze. (This article is going to be more focused on using the perspectives in the show to examine real world phenomenon than being plot commentary.)
As far as perspectives on consciousness and AI go, this show definitely tends more towards the complex. Take for example the namesake of the season one episode, “The Bicameral Mind.” This is a reference to the 1976 book by psychologist Julian Jaynes, “The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind.” To very briefly summarize the thesis, Jaynes essentially postulates that for most of human history, man did not possess consciousness as we do today. Instead, he believes that the right brain counterparts to the left brain’s language centers (the Wernicke’s and Broca’s area) would issue auditory command hallucinations (like those experienced by schizophrenics) to the left brain. The individuals would then experience these hallucinations as commands given by a god or some other separate entity.