"I see more of what is going on around me because I am not concerned with finding a parking place."
-Risa Mickenberg, Taxi Driver Wisdom
September 22. I'm dogsitting in Seattle, and even though I have more free time than usual, I've been working on other projects and not thinking much about the blog. Today, Keith sends two more links on the small web. Wiby is another search engine for simple non-commercial sites. And the WetLeather Recipe Database has a bunch of recipes without the usual cruff of recipe sites.
I'm wondering, with the microchip shortage that shows no sign of ending, if the small web could be a big part of a slow tech crash, when more people have to revert to old computers as their new ones break and they can't afford to replace them.
September 20. Today, some psychology. This is a smart essay, but the clickbait framing gives the wrong idea: The mind does not exist. That makes it sound like the word "mind" points to nothing, but the argument is that it points to too many things, and that it's confusing to stretch a word so broadly. For starters, the author suggests splitting "mental" into psychological, psychiatric, and cognitive.
I wonder how many other words are overstretched. Probably, every time there's an abstract question where people go around and around with no clear answer, it's because of careless language. For example, "What is the meaning of life?" has two words, meaning and life, with too many definitions, and if you ask the question more precisely, it's easier to answer.
I want to focus on a small subset of "mind" that is still too big for our words: non-cognitive decision-making. I've been at this for more than 50 years, and I still have no clear sense of how to tell the difference between feelings that I should follow and feelings that I should ignore.
When people say they can listen to their heart, or follow their gut, and it's 100% right, I think that's a cognitive fallacy: When a feeling they followed turns out to be correct, they retroactively label it as heart/gut. And if it turns out to be incorrect, they retroactively label it as something like prejudice or fear or craving.
Still, those words are not useless, and some people really are good at acting without thinking. We have a long way to go in developing a vocabulary for people who are good at non-cognitive decision-making, to explain to people who are bad at it, what exactly they're doing.
I did some web searching for "how to follow your gut", and the only article I found that actually tried to answer the question was this: A therapist explains exactly what it feels like to listen to your gut. The idea is, do what feels expansive, and don't do what feels contractive.
I think that's good advice, but the article describes expansiveness as always feeling good, and contractiveness as always feeling bad. In my experience, sometimes it's the other way around, which is one of many reasons that making good decisions requires a commitment to feeling bad.
Related: The pressure to avoid negative emotions might help explain why some approaches to happiness backfire. This reminds me of how drowning people don't call for help, because they're so focused on just getting one more breath. In the same way, people who are always trying to be happy right now, are unable to invest in actions that feel bad right now but lead to feeling good in the future.
September 17. Bunch o' links: Marginalia is a new search engine "that aggressively favors text-heavy websites, and punishes those that have too many modern web design features."
Why is walking so good for the brain?
When we take a walk outside, the fractal rhythms of our heart synchronize with the fractal rhythms of our lungs and our fractal gait. Researchers have also shown that our wandering bodies make our minds wander too. On a walk, our brain waves slow down. The underlying spontaneous fluctuations bubble up more easily, creating experiences of spontaneous thoughts and associations that seem to come from nowhere. We often call them "moments of inspiration."
A proposal for a Lunar Crater Radio Telescope on the far side of the moon, which would be insulated from Earth noise, and also detect long wavelengths that are filtered by Earth's atmosphere. Of course, this could be a solution to Fermi's Paradox: the aliens are only using wavelengths that primitive civilizations like ours can't hear. Or, they could be using something we haven't even imagined. Terence McKenna said, listening for radio waves from other planets is like looking for Italian food on other planets.
A big thread on Ask Old People about video games. It's almost completely positive. Personally I still feel a little bit guilty about gaming. On the one hand, game worlds are not real, and they're rewarding in a way that's probably harmful in navigating the more-real world. On the other hand, we don't know where humans are going, and given that video games are at the cutting edge of interactive world-building, they could be an essential step in our story.
Lots of laughs in this Ask Reddit thread: What is your favorite article from The Onion?
Finally, sports. Morgan Weaver is my favorite soccer player, and not just because she went to college in my hometown, but because there's nobody else like her. She's both tall and fast, both unpredictable and clutch, and plays with a joy that's rare in any sport. Here she is scoring the late winner against Lyon, the European powerhouse, squeaking the ball through the narrowest angle.
September 15. I just got back from a trip. I wouldn't say that I hate traveling; but I hate being busy, and I hate spending money, and I hope one day to take a journey where I do neither of those things.
On the flight home we had some heavy turbulence, and I noticed that they no longer call it turbulence. Apparently the new airline policy is to call it "rough air".
I see why they did it. If English is your second language, or if it's your first language and you're dumb, "turbulence" is a difficult word. If you want passengers to return to their seats, "rough air" is easier to understand. But if a passenger wants to understand why the air is bumpy, "turbulence" points to the explanation.
This is part of a general cultural trend of black-boxification. It's the same reason that computer programs with viewable code, have changed to "apps" with airtight user interfaces. It's the same reason that bicycle bottom brackets have changed from user-serviceable spindles and bearings, to factory-sealed cartridges. These changes make the whole system less robust, because if things go wrong, fewer people know how to fix them.
Related: Norm McDonald has died. One of the principles in the book Finite and Infinite Games is that finite players play within the rules, while infinite players play with the rules. That's why other comedians laugh harder at Norm McDonald than ordinary people do. In his best bits, like the Moth Joke, or the Bob Saget roast, at first you're like, what is this weird thing he's doing? And then you're like, oh wow, he's showing us the machinery behind comedy.
September 7. Heading into a busy time, so I might not post again for more than a week. Today, a quick thought on nostalgia. I like the Ask Old People subreddit because it has good discussions, and I don't like the Gen X subreddit because it's mostly image posts of 70's and 80's pop culture.
And it occurs to me: nostalgia is a new thing. The farther back you go, the slower the pace of change, and the more likely that the culture of your youth would still be dominant when you got old.
Now, I'm glad the Brady Bunch is not in its 53rd season. My point is, a rapid pace of change makes a culture weaker, because most of the stuff that people are really into, is not around any more. On top of that, most of the stuff that people are really into now was never practical in the first place.
It's good that technology has given us the freedom to care about things that are useless. I'm grateful to be living at just the right time to play Starsector. But a robust society needs a lot more overlap between what people love to do, and what they have to do keep the whole thing going.
Imagine if all the attention that is now put into superhero movies, was instead put into woodworking, or agroforestry. Or if all the headspace we now fill with commercial jingles, was used for birdsongs. Taking a step back, a common theme of my fiction and nonfiction is this: I believe, if you put all possible human societies on a scale from 1 to 100, where 1 is worst and 100 is best, we're not even out of the single digits.
September 3. I've said this many times and I'll keep saying it: the prophet of our time is neither Orwell nor Huxley, but Kafka. Three quick links on Kafkaesque tech, starting with how i experience web today. Just keep clicking and you'll get it.
The Rise Of User-Hostile Software, defined as "software that doesn't really care about the needs of the user but rather about the needs of the developer."
And Minimum Viable Technology, a thoughtful post about how technology keeps grinding along and making things more complicated, long after it has improved quality of life.
My favorite personal example is user interfaces for ovens. In the old days there were just two dials, one for OFF BAKE BROIL, and one for the temperature. You could tell what the temp was at any moment just by twisting the dial and feeling the thermostat click. Every change since then has increased complexity and decreased ease of use.
Related: Redditors who remember life pre-internet. What the heck did you occupy your time with?
September 1. Continuing from Monday, one more societal failure incorrectly framed as a personal failure, is obesity. A month ago I linked to this scientific article,
A Contamination Theory of the Obesity Epidemic, which argues that some contaminant, either PFAS or lithium, is throwing off our lipostat, our sense of how much to eat. Via the weird collapse subreddit, here's another article, Bear Nation, arguing that the culprit is linoleic acid, which puts us in a state of torpor like hibernating bears.
I don't know which is right, but what they have in common is a rejection of the two most popular ways of framing obesity: 1) That the culprit is some broad class of food, like carbs or fat or calorie-dense meals. 2) That the solution to obesity is for every individual to keep track of calories in and calories out.
Until very recently, no one had to do that. Whatever food you think is bad, you can find populations in the past who ate worse than us, and did not have a problem with obesity. We think our bodies are stupid, and will inevitably get fat unless our heads intervene, but this has only been the case since around 1980. Something, we don't know what it is yet, is messing with our fine-tuned intuitive sense how much to eat.
I have a personal stake in this, and it's not that I struggle with weight, but that I'm tired of my intellect having to constantly overrule my feelings, in order to not crash and burn in life. Some days I feel like my will is dragging around a ball and chain.
We think it's our nature to be lazy, and we'll just sit around doing nothing unless we're forced to work for money. But look at all the things humans have done through history and prehistory, never mind the unforced activity of wild animals. It's the nature of life to be highly motivated, and something, we don't know what it is yet, is making more and more of us want to stay in bed all day.
August 30. Today's theme is societal failures incorrectly framed as personal failures. From a blog post about the fall of Rome:
Overall the various Romans who contemplated reform were in a way hindered by the tendency of Roman elites to think in terms of the virtue of individuals rather than the tendency of systems. You can see this very clearly in the writings of Sallust - another Roman writing with considerable concern as the republic comes apart - who places the fault on the collapse of Roman morals rather than on any systemic problem.
One example from our time is littering. I've written about Keep America Beautiful, an organization formed by manufacturers to make us think of waste "as an individual responsibility, and not one connected to the production process."
Another example: Big oil coined 'carbon footprints' to blame us for their greed
And another: How the work ethic became a substitute for good jobs
One of my pet subjects is procrastination. Of course, as an individual, there are things you can do to overcome it. But you shouldn't have to. All wild animals, and many primitive humans, make no distinction between "work" and "play". That distinction is an artifact of a society in which it's normal to be compelled to do things you do not find intrinsically enjoyable.
The only time a wild animal needs to distinguish between what it feels like doing, and what's good for it to do, is when it's facing a trap. Our whole civilization is a trap we've caught ourselves in, where we're getting in more and more trouble for not forcing ourselves to go against our nature.
I like technology, and I think it's possible for us to have quite a lot of it without involuntary labor or ecological destruction. We just have to make those constraints absolute, and then see how much cool stuff we can get away with.
August 26. Very loosely related links, starting with this great Neil Gaiman lecture from 2013, Why our future depends on libraries, reading and daydreaming.
I was in China in 2007, at the first party-approved science fiction and fantasy convention in Chinese history. And at one point I took a top official aside and asked him Why? SF had been disapproved of for a long time. What had changed?
It's simple, he told me. The Chinese were brilliant at making things if other people brought them the plans. But they did not innovate and they did not invent. They did not imagine. So they sent a delegation to the US... and they asked the people there who were inventing the future about themselves. And they found that all of them had read science fiction when they were boys or girls.
Blog post from 2014, always bet on text, explaining that text is the oldest, most stable, most flexible, and by far the most efficient communication technology.
From the etymology blog, the etymology of decide. It has the same root as words like homicide and suicide and genocide -- because when you make a decision, you are killing every other option.
And a smart essay on productivity, Efficiency is the Enemy:
All that time Gloria spends doing nothing isn't wasted time. It's slack: excess capacity allowing for responsiveness and flexibility. The slack time is important because it means she never has a backlog of tasks to complete. She can always deal with anything new straight away.
For much more on this subject, check out Chris Davis's Idle Theory.
August 23. Back to the subject of internet-aided mass insanity, and paraphrasing myself from July 30: What's rarely said about all the influencers and disinfo agents, is that they're not in charge, and their followers are not innocent. This is because nobody ever believed anything unless they got something out of it.
Where survival is difficult, it's important for beliefs to help you survive: these plants are edible; those animals are dangerous.
In the modern first world, where survival is easy and mental health is difficult, it's less important for a belief to help you survive, and more important for it to make you feel good.
One might think that counter-evidence beliefs would be mostly optimistic, but they're often pessimistic or hostile. This is because what makes humans feel best, is not the thought that their future life will be easy and fun, but the thought that, right now, they belong to a community that has special and important knowledge.
So flat-earthism is actually a good belief choice, because it makes you feel important, while having no practical downside -- although I would love to watch a TV show that funds flat-earthers in looking for the edge.
Taking another angle on the subject: hyperreality is the blurring of fact and fiction, and one of the big dangers is not that fact is being replaced with fiction, but that the proper attitude toward fact is being replaced with common attitudes toward fiction.
For example, in real life, if you go stay in a cabin in the woods, you don't want anything interesting to happen, beyond seeing a moose at a safe distance, or finding some cool mushrooms. But if you go see a movie about people staying in a cabin in the woods, you want them to be chased by a maniac.
You can see this on every scale from individual choices to global politics: when people try to make the real world as simple and exciting as the world inside their heads, it ends up being stupid and ugly.
The world of politics is real, with real implications, so we should all want it to be as boring as possible, just boring people reaching boring consensus to make society more nearly adequate. Ideally, all politicians would be like Angela Merkel, but right now someone like Angela Merkel could only get elected in a country still trying to live down Hitler.
Everywhere else (and eventually in Germany too) hyperreality is demanding that politics be epic and mythic and cartoonish. When reality becomes a compelling battle between good and evil, it's a roll of the dice whether you're in a pile of dead bodies, or guilty for putting them there.
August 19. Big reddit thread from yesterday, What is a supernatural event that happened in your life that just can not be explained? There are lots of communications from the dead, some premonitions, some phantom pushes and pulls, and a few UFO's.
Also, earlier this summer, US intelligence released a UFO report. That's an article and this is the report itself.
The reason this stuff is not considered real, is that it can't be called forth at will. The phenomena appear on their own terms, never on our terms. Everyone who has looked deeply into this stuff has reached a conclusion that seems crazy to modern metaphysics: there is a category of experience that knows who's watching. This is why John Keel wrote, only half joking, that UFO researchers aren't telling the government what they know.
In The Trickster and the Paranormal, George Hansen points out that psychic research gets stronger results when the research environment is more in chaos (and thus can be more easily dismissed). The more respectable the study, the weaker the results. This even happens in science, where it's called the decline effect. As I wrote in this 2011 post: "Almost at will, you can get one-in-a-million results that later taper off into nothing. This should happen only one time in a million, and yet it happens reliably."
It's like that singing frog cartoon, where the frog won't sing for an audience larger than its owner. Or it's like the Matrix movies, where if you want to hack into the matrix, you have to do it in the shadows, or the machines will get you.
None of this is weird, if you understand that reality is not made of matter, but of perspectives. Quantum physics consistently tells us the same thing, and scientists have to come up with increasingly convoluted stories to resolve the "paradoxes" and hold onto their imaginary third person universe.
So I'm wondering if it will always be this way. Maybe in the far future, when humans are more benign, the world beyond will trust us with more reliable contact. Or maybe in the near future, when we can no longer tell what's real, the ambiguously real will come more out in the open.