1008 Names

What we see is based partly on the light entering our eyes, but also on what we know. We know Mountains are really big. An equally sized tree and a mountain next to each other means the mountain is in the distance and the tree is close. It is our heads adding this information, not the light. The same is true of sound. A Japanese person will hear L and R as the same sound, partly because they are the same sound. The boundaries are an artificial, learnt separation English speakers have trained their ears to hear. The Japanese place the sound boundaries elsewhere.

Tree and Mountain

Names are one of these things we learn. It is difficult to hear or remember names you aren't familiar with. Once you know a number of people with a name, you have trained your ears to hear it, and your tongue to say it... it becomes more meaningful. Like when you hear a word for the 'first time' and then suddenly start noticing it everywhere. There is so much information out there, we are master filterers. We only see, hear and act on the things that matter to us.

Which is why getting someone's name wrong feels so awful. It means that you don't care. You weren't paying attention. People often choose flying, immortality or strength as their super power. Mine would be more boring. I would love to be able to hear, pronounce and remember people's names and passions on first hearing. Like the Zulu greeting, 'Sawubona' (I see you), it means you have truly seen them. If they are a mountain, you won't see them as the same size as a tree.

When I was in Amsterdam, my name was played back to me as Treffer. Sometimes mispronunciations are aggravating. I like Treffer. In Afrikaans that means 'a hit', as in a song that does really well. That is much better than the real Welsh meaning of Trevor (Prudence), although it does make sense it terms of another meaning I have heard... Rock. Call me Treffer if you want, I am happy to play Rockstar. My partner Gem was named 'Ja Ma' by Starbucks in London. In Afrikaans, that means 'Yes Mom'. I don't think she was as pleased although as an English rose, she didn't understand the meaning. I have heard worse stories. Don't shorten Phillipa to three letters in France.

Treffer and Ja ma

In Morocco, Gem became Fatima (a name given to her) by a local. Trev was heard as Fred. Nicknames are a sign of affection. Gathering them likely means you get along well with people. In some cultures, Gods have thousands of names. Repeating them all tells their story and can be a form of worship/meditation. 1008 is apparently a good number to aim for. I am working on it for my friend Jason Jake Arnie Rocky Belgoen Gerhardus Liebenberg Mopanius Helen Yasoon Eye of the Tiger One Punch Keildson.

But people always have affection for their real name. Jonathan Haidt points out in 'The Happiness Hypothesis', that we like the sound of our names so much this has been show to influence our choice of romantic partners. There is a statistically significant chance a partner's name sounds like yours. Nick & Nicole. Jonathan & Jane. Michael and Michelle. Even if it is just the first letter.

'The Happiness Hypothesis' by Jonathan Haidt

Nick names and given names are great in cultural exchange, but I don't think you can get around the fact that caring means learning someone's real name. Learning their preferred name. It sounds unimportant but it means you aren't filtering them out.

Anger, Insults and Mockery

I have yet to see an argument or discussion conceded by someone whose adversary approaches them with anger, insults and mockery. So why is it used? And often. I am fairly new to Twitter. Despite having had an account since April 2009, I never really got it. I have recently really started enjoying it. It is a treasure trove of interesting people and ideas. It has real potential to break down barriers and expose inconsistencies. I particular enjoy a list I have that puts the Pope, the Dalai Lama, Richard Dawkins, Jonathan Haidt, Peter Singer, Justin Welby, Louis Farrakhan and a few personal additions together (it would be difficult to actually get them in a room together!). Seeing their different approaches to discussing the why and how of life in one stream is fascinating. But others... particularly when it comes to the big ticket items - Religion, Politics, Economics - get nasty. Jonathan Haidt has written a wonderful book on why good people are divided. The gist of it is that our conversations start from the wrong point. We don't pay enough attention to emotional reasons. Our rational arguments aren't the basis of our beliefs. I think reading the book is a good way to start the process of making progress... but when people defer to anger, insults and mockery - I don't think they are actually interested in solving anything. I think they are just playing to their Tribe and smirking at funny tweet insults. It is all more self-congratulatory than constructive. Fortunately there are far more constructive conversations going on... and the world is moving forward.

Taming the elephant

I am busy reading 'The Happiness Hypothesis' by Jonathan Haidt, which has long been on my list of to reads.

Haidt is a cognitive psychologist who studies happiness and positive psychology. Most people think of psychology as being for people who have mental problems, depression or exhibit anti-social behaviour.

I like the idea of a field focused on making 'healthy people' happier. I am only 90 pages into the book so far, but I am really enjoying it.

It is odd reading psychology books where they say stuff that makes you think, hmmm... I think that but have never said it to anyone because I thought it was too weird.

One idea I like is 'The Imp of the Perverse'. Those thoughts that pop into your mind like when you are standing on the edge of a cliff and the thought 'jump' pops in there, or when you are in a very conservative setting and you start thinking about what the most socially inappropriate thing would be to do. You don't actually want to do these things, but the fact that the thought is even in your head makes you think, why on earth are you thinking that, stop thinking that, and then all you do is think that even more.

The other idea is his main metaphor, which (so far) perfectly captures the way I feel about things. That people are like wild elephants that have been tamed and are being 'driven' by a rider. The elephant is our emotional black and white responses and gut reactions. The rider is our rational intellectual thought. Rationality attempts to steer the elephant and often does a good job, but ONLY when the elephant wants to do what the rider says and has been trained appropriately. Otherwise, the elephant is the boss, and the rider would be foolish to think otherwise.

Haidt expresses it more eloquently... but I look forward to reading further because it seems my inner elephant isn't all that unique.

The Elephant Whisperer

Jonathan Haidt has just released a book called 'The Righteous Mind' which discusses his research into why good people disagree in fundamental ways.

We have all been in discussions where we quite simply can't understand how someone could possibly disagree with us on a moral point that seems so obvious to us. We release our inner lawyer named Genghis Kahn to absolutely butcher their argument. We point out the logical flaws. When the still don't get it, we don't feel intellectually miffed - we get emotionally upset. Heated arguments rise that if too regular make us decide life would actually be more pleasant if we avoid that person. They are illogical and one day they will realise they are both wrong and perhaps 'immoral'. Hence the advice to avoid discussions of 'Religion and Politics' if you want to maintain polite company.

Haidt uses the metaphor of an elephant and a rider (The same one used in his awesome first book 'The Happiness Hypothesis) to describe our emotional/intuitional(elephant) mind and our rational (rider) mind. We may like to think our rider is in control... but the rider is in fact a support to the elephant. The rider can make suggestions, but in most cases the rider is in fact more like a press secretary making excuses or explaining the elephants behaviour. The elephant is not stupid - it has a memory and it makes decisions quickly.

The reason he suggests we struggle to agree is that the reasons we express for our beliefs are actually after the fact defences. Breaking those defences doesn't change our mind. We just look for new 'reasons'.

If you want to understand someone... you need to talk to their elephant. Maybe doing so will help you understand yours.

Nationalism v Globalism (Group Discussion)

Other Guest Posts by the Cast of Characters
Shivani - Connecting Deep and Wide
Stu - My Fellow Americans, The Revolution, Admiration and Reward, To Ooze
Phil - To Ooze
Nick - On debut - a friend from Smuts Hall at the University of Cape Town. Now lectures at Wits University.
Brett - NotOnOurWatch, Listening Better, Hearing the Listeners, Finding the Words, Words to Life, Breaking Bread

Trev:

I am very much someone who values cosmopolitanism. I don't much care for trying to protect my identity. I like the idea of breaking it down by adding the best bits of ideas I come across. Jon Haidt, one of my favourite authors, recently wrote an essay looking at some of the recent divisions in politics from the perspective of 'globalism v nationalism'. The idea of protecting identity vs simply being racist/anti-immigrant. It does provide a more empathetic way of looking at some of the views that seem so contrary to the world I would like to work towards.

When and Why Nationalism beats Globalism
Jonathan Haidt

Shivani:

I feel as if I carry both a globalist and a nationalist inside of me. I'm wildly appreciative of travel, I believe in being open and welcoming and love the rich diversity of being human. But I also value mythology, language, history, community. The idea of the world being one doesn't make sense to me if it means losing the variation in culture. 

Who assimilates and who is assimilated? Do these ideas even make sense if we acknowledge that culture is a living, evolving thing that cannot be controlled? It seems equally problematic to expect those migrating to your country to assimilate as it does to refuse to give up any aspect of the culture you come from. As with most things, the middle way makes more sense. A little give, a little take. 

I am a fourth generation South African, of Indian descent. Indian culture still reverberates through me. A love of the food, the music, the mythology, the clothing, yoga. But there are aspects I've chosen to leave behind: language, religious practice, norms about who I marry. I don't think I could describe myself as a global citizen. I have sunk deep roots in South Africa. Does that make me a nationalist?

Trev:

I think the Nationalists are more those who feel intense discomfort with the pace of change, and don't have a foot in both camps. The issue with open borders is it does shine a big light on just how different some of our cultural and moral responses are to certain issues. Not necessarily in big ideological ways, but ways that make us feel less at home. Language, food, music, and other comfort factors get thrown on their head. 

I remember the clashes at school as we were coming out of Apartheid on issues as simple as noise levels. Natal was quite British. Think someone shouting across the tube in London, and you can see the response to shouting across the playground. Is this potentially just a teething issue that older generations struggle with? Will younger people be more used to variety? Or do we need to start making allowance somehow for more aggressive assimilation in *some* places to allow bubbles of comfort for those who are struggling with the change.

The New Political Divide

The Economist

Stu:

This is such a big topic there are lots of possible directions to go in. In one sense, my response to tensions between nationalist v globalisation groups is the opposite of a typical left wing response, which I see as being to limit the number of immigrants but then be very supportive to those who do come. I’d like lots of immigration but more assertive about enforcing local norms/laws (until these norms change naturally or via immigrants voting and normal democratic evolution). This doesn’t properly address those who feel threatened by the change, but I think nationalists feel defensive over their own norms and laws and don’t want to apologise for them.

Source: Webbed Wary Cow

Trev:

In the UK there is a concept of 'Silent Tories'. People who don't say much and then vote Conservative in the poll booth. Quite often the Globalist approach can take the moral high ground and be very loud. To show any form of dissent in public, or to say you feel uncomfortable is seeing as against any number of righteous values. This makes working these things out and gaining comfort with change hard. I regard myself as very liberal, but I come from a socially conservative background. 

One example is homophobia. I 'didn't know' a single homosexual growing up. This is not true, but the environment was so negative that there was no way anyone could come 'out of the closet'. Despite the world moving on dramatically, and a number of people from my neighbourhood now feeling free to be themselves, gender roles are still very clearly defined. Men still don't show affection as naturally and being effeminate is still a problem. People aren't vocal about their discomfort, but still wince at public displays of affection etc. 

It is easier for people to be loud about 'progressive issues'. If there isn't space for people to be vocal about their conservative issues, I am not sure we will work our way out of them.

Phil:

To show any form of dissent in public, or to say you feel uncomfortable is seeing as against any number of righteous values.” I feel like this is quite a detour off Nationalism and Globalism, but perhaps one worth having. I call it “The Great Pscyhological Dilemma” and, at its heart is the question: “What Sort of a World do We Want to Live In?” Take Trev’s example of homophobia. We want to live in a world in which people who identify as homosexual are free to live without fear of discrimination. How do we realise this goal? Do we 

(1) police the uttering of gay-slander? or 
(2) educate and wait for people to realise that sexuality lies on a spectrum, and that homosexuality (like transgender) is completely “normal” in the sense that a bell curve has tails. 

(1) Is external policing. (2) Is internal change (both rational and emotional). 

Ideally we want (2). BUT… human beings enjoy power (superiority) over others, enjoy creating “out-groups”/enemies, like to hate, and mostly hate to think for themselves. To me, one of the greatest challenges of the coming century is how to deal with HUMAN BEINGS… such that they aren’t policed into a Brave New World (or Equilibria), but aren’t left to become Lords of the Flies. Suggestions welcome...

Animal Farm in Reverse

Library of Economics and Liberty

Trev:

Perhaps this is a case of us simply not recognising the forward steps we are making, and getting very upset about the steps away from what we want? If we take a broad historical look, we are getting better at cooperating with each other. We are chipping away at prejudice. Something we are doing must be right even if it occasionally feels like we are being punched in the stomach. 

We are treating each other better

The internal change Phil speaks of can only come from intimate friendship. Those conversations outside of the public realm where you feel confident enough to express your prejudice and work on them. People change from where they are, not from where we want them to be. I don't think Globalisation is about assimilation. It should be as simple and as limited as possible. Like agreeing on the number of keys to put on a piano, but then allowing people to play Jazz, Rock, Classical or improvise. I know Stuart is much more positive on the state of the status quo than most. In a world of free speech, we focus on the bad stuff. Animal Farm in reverse.

Why it's so tempting to build walls

ideas.ted.com

Nick

I myself do not think of myself in terms of a national or global identity, or have any desire to reflect any particular identity to anyone else (although a reflection is unavoidable). I don't get excited about which sport team (/person) wins anything anywhere - but I do like watching skilled sportspeople. I find a lot of cultural identity practices abhorrent. We are collectively very happy to give up personal liberty sometimes in the name of common identity which is regrettable. None of it makes much sense to me; I have no idea why people are attached to these identities although if I gave it some thought I am sure there are plenty of candidate explanations I would accept. 

Ignorance drives our lives and this is just one of those areas which I do not get too worked up about not knowing much. The same as notions of cultural appropriation - just not something I am driven to better understand, although some are very passionate and vocal about it at the moment. It is another issue wrapped up in identity politics and in this regard it is not something I have much interest in. 

In the end the us vs them thinking is probably unavoidably human, its suppression undo-able, its glorification universal, but if left unchecked would probably destroy our species, and if it could be expunged, that would probably be a good thing (and to be clear it is not disagreement that is a problem, it's the division of us against them which is the problem)

Brett

This animal is so beautifully complicated that we really could take it to so many deep levels and flesh it out for weeks. I definitely agree with the idea of holding tension lightly and tend to think more and more that we would be a lot more healthy if we leaned towards Both/And belief systems more than Either/Or. Echoing what I’ve heard above, I love some things that are distinctively South African but I love the possibility of eating Indian food at the Eastern Food Bazaar in Cape Town centre. It would be a shame if everyone assimilated and became all the same. So holding on to some things that feel family or culture and embracing some that feel important from the local context. Each person is different and so we would be cultivating a variety of expressions which feel like they would create a richness when experienced alongside each other. The need for community in this scenario becomes so important though, whether at a family or wider level. And the importance of accepting each other and what we bring as well as learning from each other, the things that we don’t understand yet. Umuntu Ngumuntu Ngabantu.

Shivani
Brett, I love the point about Both/And. Recognising where we come from and where we have ended up. If respect flows both towards migrants, as well as towards those who receive migrants, the issues start to dissipate. We forget that there are no pure identities....everything is mutable. Embracing the fluidity is tough. But building in rigidity cannot be the solution. As with most things, it seems to come down to a willingness to connect as human beings and not entrenching in/out groups (so often underpinned with assumptions of better than/less than).

Trev

I get very scared by the idea of laying ownership to cultural ideas. The communities who have been best at avoiding cultural appropriation are the ones who believed their ideas were better than everyone else's. Supremacists. This is normally just a case of historical amnesia. Our language, clothes, songs, food and all we held dear has been built collaboratively. Equally, I understand the desire to build close, exclusive, intimate relationships. A value to uniqueness. The anti-Globalisation forces are not just a basket of deplorables. Some argue that keeping things local and separate is a form of respect. It recognises tacit local knowledge. It prevents sameness. It prevents systemic risk since connections help good ideas and bad ideas spread.

I understand ideas about self-determination, identity building and keeping things holy. Having grown up in Apartheid South Africa, I just get sick at the bottom of my stomach when I see the damage that can be done by living purely in relative terms. Only looking around you and caring solely for those in your immediate community is toxic in its ignorance. We need to find a balance. You can still have a global world full of local flavour.

Holy Objects

To understand why people want to keep objects holy, you can't start with whether or not the holiness is 'true'. In 'The Righteous Mind' Jonathan Haidt looks at the different moral foundations or frames that cultures use,  and tries to understand the impasse between good people. Interestingly, it is often liberal minded people who get angrier and are less accepting of conservative people. This was counter intuitive for me since my understanding of a liberal environment is one of tolerance. I still find it frustrating how angry/bitter some very caring, creative people are. I know it is because they get passionately upset about injustices they see. The anger typically breaks down any chance of changing someone's mind though. Haidt is encouraging people to put the non-polite conversations back on the table. We have been great at breaking down racism, sexism, homophobia, classism etc. It doesn't help if we introduce other tribes that we define ourselves by in order to provide a home for our desire to find someone to target our hatred at.

In 'A Sense of Authenticity', I looked at our ability to tell if someone was parroting something or if it was a part of them. Paul Bloom discusses how important the truth of a story is to us. We feel like somehow a shirt worn by a celebrity is worth more than an identical, but brand new, shirt. When the bubble is burst, the value evaporates. No matter how much pleasure you have got from something, discovering it is a fake will destroy your ability to go forward. Fake when it comes to stories or faith based belief is a little pointless though. There is, by definition, no demonstrable proof for faith. It is personal.

Even those who don't believe in a supernatural power can have holy objects. Objects that remind them of something. Perhaps it is a Kindle. I  love some books. When I finish them, the old book may sit on my bookshelf and I may not read it again for years. When I look at it, I feel pleasure. With a Kindle, the same object gets more and more love each time I read another awesome book. We have other objects we love. Rings. Watches. Stubs from a concert. Momentos that remind us of significant occasions. We look after these objects. They are holy. They are the things we would grab if there was a fire. Those stories can be ruined, and the memories elicited changed. We look after the objects in order to protect them.

Respecting someone's holy objects in public isn't case of deciding whether it is true for you. It is like not starting a phone conversation in a cinema. It is like not loudly swearing like a trooper on a public bus. It is like pausing to wait for someone to take a photo before walking between them and their smiling buddy. Basically, it is just playing nice. It is not illegal to not be nice, but we do have various four letter words to describe those who aren't.

All this falls apart though when your story starts messing with other people. I still think the terrorists are losing. They have to resort to remarkable. Seth Godin talks about how to spread ideas through having stuff that people will talk about.  Terrorists seem to get his message. The thing is, ideas don't spread unless people spread them. As Jon Stewart points out when he was #JeSuisConfused about France's response to an anti-semitic comedian not even a week after millions marched for Free Speech - the best way to respond is to not buy tickets! If you take the bait and reply with angry messages, you are spreading the messages. That is what trolls are on the internet. They get people angry and cause a commotion. Don't waste money prosecuting and jailing them. Don't waste time feeding them. Trolls die when we ignore them.

 

Erinnerung

The French word for worried is inquiet. The German word for memory is erinnerung. More thesaurus than foreign if you look at the substance. Jonathan Haidt talks about the Elephant and the Rider. Daniel Kahneman talks about thinking fast and slow. What is it that we take from the conscious level and soak into our inners? Is there a quiet focus or a noisy angst? Haidt points out that the Elephant is in control, and the Rider just gives suggestions. Our conscious slow thoughts are the things we sit with. The things we dwell on. The things we chew. The training we follow. The Rider can train the Elephant by being conscious of the things we do every day. The habits. The scripts. The rhythms. The beat. The Elephant will listen to words that are whispered consistently and over a long period of time. Through a process of bringing in. Erinnerung.

Soaking

Them and us

Jonathan Haidt and Joshua Greene look from different perspectives at the challenge of getting people with fundamentally different views to live well together. As countries become more cosmopolitan and social media and multi-national companies start meaning we cease to be so defined by narrow groups, I wonder if the role of the Sovereign State is due for a shake up. There are 206 states which have evolved, dissolved, revolved and ended up with what we have today. What I am hopeful of is that we can combine Haidt's approach of people trying to understand emotional disagreement rather than arguing over rational issues, and Greene's revival of utilitarianism through deep pragmatism to create a bunch of states defined not by cultural identity but by an established core rule book or constitution. In my Utopian world, there would be freedom of movement for people to go to whichever set of rules suited them best. I doubt though that the most successful societies will have a rule book that suits people perfectly. If movement of people is truly free, then no society will be as homogeneous as the sovereign states of old. People will have to accept diversity.

I like that multi-national companies are effectively creating borderless states. Culture then becomes defined by the core values of the people you choose to spend your work days with. Perhaps once we have progressed even further to the point where our leisure time starts increasing more, we will spend a less dominant part of our time working and there will be other multi-national groups we belong to. Even more ideally, we will each belong to a few of these groups and life becomes one big choose your own adventure.

The art is maintaining the warm fuzzy feeling of feeling part of us without the angsty often violence inducing feeling of being against them.

Other than sport of course. Then anyone who doesn't support the Sharks, the Springboks, the Proteas, and Roger Federer is more mortal enemy.

Expanded Experience

Our friends and families journey's tend to rhyme with ours. To get completely different perspectives, we have to consciously pop our bubbles. One of the ways I try do this is to build lists on Twitter of groups of which I am not a part. By regularly seeing what is being shared on those lists, I can start to see the world a little differently. Even the groups I am a part of don't see things the same way as me. I see the world a little differently today depending on what I did yesterday. I never see the world the same way twice. Everything we do matters. Every action adds to our colour wheel.

Color chart, complete at last! 🎨

A photo posted by Angie Bradshaw 🌵🌈🌺🎨🌴 (@angiebradshaw) on Feb 24, 2016 at 10:24am PST

I am in Santa Monica, California. The friend I am visiting is on a very similar journey to me. We haven't seen each other in quite a while. In sharing our stories, and the books and experiences we have gone through, there were several knowing nods. There were also differences. We learn more about ourselves through learning about others.

Venice Beach, California

Meeting this friend, and getting to know his wife, has resulted in a long 'required reading' list. Names that came up were Derek Sivers and Alan Watts. We had both been influenced by Josh Waitzkin and challenged by Tim Ferriss. I was able to point out Jonathan Haidt and Virginia Postrel.  Haidt did a grand survey of our ancient cultural and religious knowledge on happiness incorporating modern scientific, philosophical and psychological research. He also looks at why 'good people disagree', i.e. those situations where we don't understand how someone can disagree with us, and still be good. Postrel's 'The Future and it's enemies' convinced me of the power of a bottom up approach to life rather than wishing we had a benevolent dictator. Understanding can't be communicated upwards. We need to empower people. Add Tim Minchin's idea of being micro-ambitious and my approach of focusing on each day and spending time kuiering with people I care about starts to fall in place.

There is an infinite library. We don't have time to get through everything, but we can learn together. We can share experiences. We can make new mistakes rather than repeating old ones by trying to go it alone. I don't think we need to understand everything. I am completely at peace with the fact that the world is uncertain, complex, ambiguous and noisy. I love it. I love the search and I love the fact that the search will never be done. I can reread books that changed my life. I can read books that changed my friends lives. We can talk about them. We can share the journey.

Is there anything better than the connections we share with other people? Incorporating others into how we define ourselves expands our ability to experience the world. 

I love this place

No Enemies

Following the advice of the two Joshua's - Foer and Waitzkin, I have been re-reading some of my favourite books. The argument being that we have sacrificed depth in our attempt to cover as much ground as possible in the 'infinite library'. An infinite library because it is only possible for us to read a small fraction of what has ever been written, and more and more content is being generated every day.

One of those books is 'The Happiness Hypothesis' by Jonathan Haidt which had a profound impact on me when I first read it. The book is an attempt by Haidt as a moral psychologist to summarise the core themes in the many streams of ancient philosophical and religious attempts to lead the way to enlightenment/happiness/contentment/salvation/[pick a word of your choice].

One point that resonates strongly with me is the idea that we as people strongly identify with narratives. In a complex world, we like to create simple plots with simple allies and enemies. We like pure evil because it gives us a moral mission to right the injustice. We thrive off righteous indignation and band together in our contempt for those who don't see the truth.

Maybe we are slowly moving away from this. It means our Bond movies are becoming more complex and our TV series (e.g. The Wire) are becoming more grey. In a cosmopolitan world, many of our friends come from other groups so it becomes harder and harder to define others as evil. With many of our heroes falling (Hansie Cronje, Lance Armstrong, Oscar Pistorius) we feel less comfortable in being able to identify pure evil. It feels good to identify pure evil because we can say we aren't evil.

Exciting (but more complex) times

The Next Step

Life can be hard. Brutal at times. At times, I have ended up convulsing with tears, a dull throb in the pit of my stomach and then momentary pauses when my body simply has no more energy left to feed my pain. An overwhelming, visceral, physical domination by life. So I stared blankly. Wondering what next. Wondering why. In 'The Happiness Hypothesis' Jonathan Haidt says there is very little evidence that catharsis works. Simply being angry at the world for anger's sake. In my experience this is true. Anger feeds anger. What does help, and what may involve anger, is communication. And time.

Whenever I feel a deep injustice has been done, I desperately want to be able to tell someone about it. Even if it is a little injustice that I know isn't worth getting upset about. I try to be all mature and breathe and all that stuff, but the thing that helps me let it go is often when I get to retell the story. A friend nodding, and saying 'what an idiot' is the best muti. What Haidt says is one of the best forms of therapy is effectively sense making. Get angry. Write it down. Speak. Then again. Again. Add time.

Image Source 

People are remarkably resilient at taking something that goes wrong and twisting it into a story that makes sense. When things go properly wrong for me, I try and do something really awesome that I wouldn't have been able to do if those things had gone right. Something going right means a constraint. Constraints force us to think in novel, creative ways. We do wonderful things, but we aren't defined by those constraints. When something awful happens, we often get to recreate the rules. Step back and choose new constraints in a world that could not possibly have existed if the other things had gone the way we wanted.

I like the metaphor of a loving parent and a brave, exploring child. The parent offers safe, unconditional love and knowing this, the child is able to go out, get hurt, learn, and prosper. They can always call on that unconditional love. My worst case scenario is full of this love, and that makes me feel incredibly confident.

If I was to wake up tomorrow in a parallel world where all the people I knew were gone, I had no money, I was naked, I was in a country that didn't speak English, and no one looked like me - I like to think I would be ok. That base is something that can't be taken away. It's mine. I would be able to find help. Perhaps after a stint in jail while they understood why I was wandering around naked. I think I would be ok because I have been lucky in that unconditional love. Over my life, I have come in contact with so many wonderful people that have provided that secure base to recreate the story if things go wrong.

What matters, the only thing that matters, is the next step.

Cultivating Moral Humility

Stuart mentioned Jonathan Haidt on his blog just a couple of days ago and lo and behold I come across him in my daily dose of TED in his talk on the real difference between liberals and conservatives or cultivating moral humility.

I strongly encourage you to watch it. The talk is one of those very appealing ones where you really don't feel like he is trying to convince you of anything... but rather that he is just giving you an insight into what he is thinking.

Most of the time in whatever we do, we are trying to convince others that we are right. I do it all the time, perfectly natural. My problem is I even start `steam-rolling' people when I get really excited about an idea. I cut in, speak louder or try and be more persuasive.

Really truely and honestly empathising and trying to understand someone Else's point of view is very very hard. Next time you are having an argument or discussion, catch yourself while the other person is speaking, and honestly answer the question of whether you are listening with the intention of understanding or waiting for an opportunity to make your next point. Yes, but...

There are tricks which normally feel very artificial where a facilitator gets one person to speak and the other to ask questions. Questions that are not Socratic leading questions where you already have an intended answer in mind and take someone down a path, but delving questions. Anyone who has participated in something like this knows how hard it is to NOT direct conversation in light of your current beliefs/opinions.

Haidt makes a good point, similar to the one made in the Wilkinson/Knobe Bloggingheads that often the people who are really interested in a particular field are naturally inclined to agree. The majority of TED members are liberal. The majority of scientists are atheists. The majority of philosophers & psychologists have a lot of common ground. So often, you fight and fight and fight your way to get agreement with people when the people who disagree with you most strongly aren't even involved in the discussion.

This doesn't make for great truth seeking.

I don't know what the answer is. And the platitudes like listen more, empathise more, examine dispassionately and more eagerly the sides of the arguments you disagree with... sound like the right answer, but I think they are so counter-intuitive and unnatural that without conscious active attempts to do it... it won't happen.

Making New Mistakes

Don't talk about Religion, Politics or Sex. Don't mix friendships and work. Barriers start to become harder to enforce as information starts to flow freely. They also become harder to enforce when the people around you don't come from the same place, look the same, have the same broad beliefs etc. We spend so much time at work that if we don't share something of ourselves, there is the chance that you lose it. You end up spending significantly more time at work than with your friends and family. The things that really define you in your eyes become the things you don't talk about with the people you spend the most time with. Professor of Business Ethics at NYU-Stern Jonathan Haidt (@JonHaidt) studies the intuitive foundations of morality. His work is trying to find the common ground that we can't find through rational thought. He is the one who came up with the Elephant-Rider metaphor I love so much. In The Righteous Mind he looks at why good people disagree. I think it should be prescribed reading for politicians, religious leaders or anyone who is attempting to steer a path towards improving peoples lives.

San Francisco seems to be at the epicentre of one of these clashes of people trying to figure out how to reconcile conflicting ideas. Getting more involved with Twitter recently (@trevorblack), I am amazed how many American's define themselves very strongly in their profiles as being Anti-GOP or Anti-Democrat. I am sure those are just the noisy ones, and there are more silent pragmatists in the middle. America has conquered a lot of the big ticket barriers to liberty and so these points of common ground are forgotten. California is very Democratic but is right at the front of some very cut-throat Capitalism.

'If he had not become a Communist at 22, I would have disowned him. If he is still a Communist at 30, I will do it then.' - Clemenceau talking of his son

The heart of Capitalism is a recognition that we don't know how to price things because we all want different things and there isn't enough to go around. Enter Adam Smith and the theory of the invisible hand that helps us out by with supply and demand. The price of something has nothing to do with the effort that was put into making it. It has to do with how much there is of it, and how much people want it. As it turns out this is a really effective way of driving resources to where in reality they are most wanted.

In doing this though there are incentives to affect both supply and demand. In 'Hide & Don't Speak' I spoke about how appealing the idea of collaborative work is. The Netflix documentary on '3D printing' looks partly at this idea and the conflict between Open Source and Proprietary Development. This is a conflict between our romantic idealism and the competitive fuel that keeps us running. The documentary is also an interesting look at some of the other areas of conflict in the capitalist approach. One interesting one is how an employee can invest themselves in a company and receive payment and at some point be thanked and asked to leave. The rationalist in us believes they have been paid and that exchange means all is fair. We don't account for the unpriced/unpriceable part of themselves that they lose. It doesn't just happen to employees (although that is most common). Steve Jobs was famously ousted at Apple. Bill Gross has left PIMCO in the last few days after around four decades.

We aren't purely rational. In the Ultimatum Game, the first of two players is given a sum of money to divide and the second player can either reject or accept the offer. If they reject it both get nothing. In a rational world, the first player would offer a tiny amount and the second player would always accept a non-zero number. This isn't how the game is played by real people.

It is tempting to see our rational sides as the masters of our destiny and believe that by calming our emotional side, we make better decisions. In a world where the other players are people, I don't think that is the case. All this directly ties into our happiness and how we choose where to work, what work to do, who to work with, whether we want to grow, how we want to grow and what to believe in.

I think the work that Haidt and others are doing is fascinating. I also think looking at the stories of the successes and failures of others is a great way to avoid having to repeat the mistakes of others. We get to make new mistakes. You don't have to, and in fact can't, go it alone.

Happy Meal

If you had to choose a chief candidate for a happiness battleground - what we put in our mouth would have to be right up there. Tastes, like music or photographs, can link almost directly to memories of happy times. Food is a part of our identity. Our favourite dishes are friends. When we are sad - there is the buddy we turn to. To celebrate, we might have a favourite restaurant that we go to as a reward for a job well done. It can also be the glue that holds relationships together. A meal your mother made you. Somewhere you and your friends love meeting. Perhaps a memory of when you fell in love with someone. Cooking may be where you find your sense of flow.  It can be central to a national cultural identity, e.g. the braai.

It is also one of the biggest disconnects between what we rationally know we should eat, and what we want to eat. Beyond the simple question of eating healthily, there are now more questions being raised about the sustainability and ethics of how we generate our food. In 2008 I had an epic series of blog post debates with Stuart Torr (@muttface) on Vegetarianism with myself arguing for the meat eaters. In theory, I was trying to understand his decision not to eat meat, but in truth I was defending myself. We didn't resolve much other than I agreed:

1. Meat makes up too large a proportion of most wealthy people's diets.

2. The practises in factory farming are very concerning and there is persistent animal cruelty.

I subsequently started getting into Yoga, in which Vegetarianism is a very central part of the philosophy. Diet has not been one of the areas that I have focused on. This is in part laziness, in part not having enough time, and in part a deep emotional connection to the food I eat.

The amount of self-control required to not eat meat in a culture where there are only a few vegetarian options on most menus is huge. ORDER ENVY. I am not just fond of some meat meals, I have had a lifelong love affair with them. My brothers would argue that Trev and Spaghetti Bolognaise are synonyms. Then there is ignorance. I don't know how to prepare tasty vegetarian meals and to ensure that I am getting all the elements I need to stay healthy. None of these things were a problem on the two month long yoga courses I went on, and I felt awesome.

A very happy Trev. A very tasty meat free meal.

For the more militant activists out there, the ones who believe that our current culture of meat eating is perpetrating a holocaust (thus breaking Godwin's law), I think addressing some of the cultural and emotional attachments may be a better approach than a direct attack using moral philosophy. Jonathan Haidt (@JonHaidt) talks of being intellectually convinced after reading Peter Singer's (@petersinger) work but that it didn't affect his behaviour. It just added a layer of guilt. A video of a slaughter house stopped him eating meat for a while because it induced disgust, but that faded and the meat eating habit returned. I have a fair amount of self discipline and yet struggle when it comes to food. Reducing how much meat we eat and so helping to reduce the demand that leads to undeniably cruel practices within factory farms is going to have to rely on some very serious Elephant Training. What we eat and logic are only acquaintances. What we eat and our emotional engines are lovers.

Bishopscourt and Bonteheuwel (by Tota Tsotsotso)

Guest Post: Tota Tsotsotso

In order to be polite company, we are told to avoid politics, religion and sex. These topics get the blood boiling and can prevent any possibility of people getting along. These topics also matter to people. Jonathan Haidt wrote a wonderful book trying to get to the bottom of why good people disagree. Part of his argument is that logic can only take you so far. We don't really believe what we believe based on logic. That comes second as an explanation (or excuse) for what we believe.

He suggests that we should talk about these thorny topics. If we don't, things that are very important parts of our happiness get shelved or cause rifts. At university we had a free speech board which occassionally touched a nerve. The rest of the time it was empty due to apathy or beer. Living together in University Residence, Tota and I met at around both the board and the beer. He is good people. He has been venturing into some of the tougher topics online and I share one of his posts from yesterday here.

[Travel troubles mean I am struggling to post a pretty pic of Tota, I will change that the first chance I get]

Bishopscourt and Bonteheuwel
by Tota Tsotsotso

Don't let them convince you otherwise, South Africa is going places.... We bemoan so much, and there really is reason to do so. This democracy is being tested, as it should be. The rainbow nation experiment is failing. I, and a lot of people having been a minority in holding that view. The truth is, we aren't drones or little kids thrown together on a play ground and told to figure it out and be friends. We belonged to a polarised society that actually had to confront each other and settle into a truthful existence. The last 20 odd years have been a shameful falsehood; enough to keep the peace, but not enough to build a nation. Until the plight of a cold homeless child in Bonteheuwel is emotionally draining to that middle class family in Bishopscourt, we aren't building a nation. We are just a bunch of little children on a play ground told to get along. Until we learn from history and learn from each other, we will remain divided. We are at a critical point in SA. All our institutions are failing. We are like an old house with a great structure. We need a massive refurbishment. And it's on the way!! I'm sitting here having a cup of tea before a conference in the heart of Sandton, and I'm surrounded by global citizens ready to do business with South Africa. 

Nature has a way of exiting what shouldn't be. There is lots of emigration talk (what's new) and migration to Cape Town. Long may that continue!! People should be free to live in the type of society that they desire. But if you step back and look at the bigger picture, South Africa's middle class strongly reflects that from 100 years ago. This nation won't settle until there is an even distribution of land and wealth and opportunities. Society evolves, so we probably won't be talking of minerals in 200 years. Whatever age we are living in in 200 years time, equality and equality of opportunities needs to be the dominant bias. This country will settle into whatever it was suppose to be. The current turmoil clearly means we weren't ready, and definitely weren't ready to be a rainbow nation. This will happen when our idea of a democratic and united South Africa are more common. 

My favourite and most rousing statement by Barack Obama is the following, and I'm hoping a derivative of this will be applicable one day to our glorious Republic;

"We are not a collection of red states and blue states, we are, and forever will be the United States of America."

*Tota jumps up scream "Go Barack"!!*

Enjoy your day.

Not Knowing

I used to have a sign on my door at university that said 'I know only two things, the first is that there is a God, the second is that I am not him.' It came from a scene in the movie The Boondock Saints. The Priest was a doubting Thomas and was telling the person speaking to him that that was okay. This resonated with me at the time. I had become increasingly uncomfortable with some of the divisive issues in religion around the world. 

The Boondock Saints

My friend Phil (one of the Oozers) used to give me grief about it, saying I was wrong about both! Many believe that the idea of God is beyond our understanding. How we choose to grasp it is imperfect. The Yogis call it Ishvara. A way of fitting God into our understanding. Something we can verbalise and imagine, which is as close as we can get. Vedantic philosophy describes God (imperfectly) as Sat-chit-ananda meaning knowledge-existence-bliss. Basically everything. So Phil's argument was that there 'is a God' implies a separateness from me that is not there. This isn't just an Eastern idea. Two formative books for me in my late teens were 'Sophie's World' and 'Life of Pi'. Sophie discovers her name derives from Philosophy. Love of knowledge. That knowledge is the female personification of God. The personification of everything. This fit perfectly into my burgeoning feminist world view. Life of Pi showed a boy constantly discovering new truths in other people's stories.

There are actually three parts to the Boondock Statement. The first is 'I know only two things'. I have refined all three to the only conviction I have is that 'you can't know'. Rich challenges this in our ongoing discussion about faith. What about Rape/ Poverty/ Paedophilia as unacceptable things? What about Love and Listening as good things? Aren't these convictions? I do think you can build a set of guidance for living more meaningful lives. I am a big believer in rule of law. I think there are things we are almost 100% sure about. I do believe that you can be wrong. Many of the reasons for things being right or wrong are deeply wired into us. Jonathan Haidt explores how this can lead to conflict in 'Righteous Minds: Why good people are divided by religion and politics'.

There is an idea that 'letting go of God' would result in a lawless world. A state where everyone does their own thing. Truths that matter transcend the ways we try get to them. Stoics in Greece and Rome and the Buddha in the East come to the same conclusions. Christian monks study Muslim philosophy. Beautiful analogies come out of the Bhagavad Gita. Scientists chip away at the workings of nature and physics which releases its own magic as full understanding lies beyond the boundaries of our human abilities. 

Not knowing is a firmer foundation than believing falsely that you do.