Friday 21 September 2012

Why did the chicken run across the road? It was chasing its happiness. Yet, the more it chased, the farther away happiness seemed.

Happiness is the most unpredictable thing of all. It's not without reason that people often recite the saying "Be careful what you wish for", and it is not just because sometimes what you wish for comes to you but in a shape and form you never expected. It is even more disappointing when your dreams come true, as you wished them to be, and they disappoint you, it hits you hard because of the discrepancy between how you thought you would feel and how you feel in reality. Even if factually what you wanted and what you got is exactly the same.

A flaw in human psychology or perhaps a fundamental misunderstanding of our own psychology is the reason  for unhappiness. If given the option, we would wrongly prefer to have more choice, more options, more money, when in fact being limited is the core predicament of happiness.  Choice confuses our circuits, it causes doubt, it occupies our brain with endless analysis of all possible outcomes, and an ultimate discontent that we can't have everything. Of course, having everything would lead to more discontent for the same reason. Did you know that a year after the event, a parapalegiac and a lottery winner report the same level of happiness? Absurd, perhaps. But we assume that the intensity and longevity of our emotions, both good and bad ones, will be much higher than they are in reality.

I personally have been happiest when swamped with work, when I had to optimise my time and my efforts. Those were the times I worked hard and played hard, and I believe in some way, the best thing you can do to make yourself happy is to make yourself busy. The reverse leads to apathy. Working hard means that you have to play hard to counteract the work, and you have to work hard to earn the play. On a more superficial level, I was happy because I felt I was being productive, that what I did mattered (even if only a little), it made an impact, it was necessary. The explanation on a more psychological level stems from the setting and achieving of goals. Humans, proven, function very well when they have a day-to-day plan, when there are many but small goals in sight- a course work every week means that my brain is constantly occupied with simple, doable tasks. The reason why 5 year plans worked so well for Russia was because Stalin understood that. It worked so well because Stalin understood that a plan for the development of Russia in the next 50 years would have simply been inconceivable for the average person. Where do you start, even? Thanks to his understanding of this, Russia was able to compete in the Space Race at all in the 50's and 60's,  and thanks to him, Russia is a world power even today, when, before his rule the country was absolutely destroyed.

What makes short-term goals such a positive reinforcement is that rewards are visible quickly, it's a Pavlovian scheme of operant conditioning that motivates us to achieve more and better next time... but on a small level. It extracts the best, it motivates and enhances, mostly because we feel that our work is rewarded and appreciated. Even more pivotal to the success of short-term goals is that we feel we have deserved this success. In the army, it is much more difficult to be promoted to a higher rank than it is in the air force. Yet, studies have shown that members of the military are considerably happier with their promotions, albeit much less often because the air force know that they have been promoted because somebody died, not because of their own merits. They don't feel that they have deserved it. They also get habituated to getting promoted and the frequency lowers their enjoyment and appreciation of the event.

What makes us happy very often is something we didn't expect or wish for. Why? Because we had no expectations that could be unmet, and because, unfortunately, what we wish for does not make us happy, it makes us miserable. We wish for choice, money and fame, but those will confuse us more than they will make us smile. The greed is not material, the desire for material possessions is only a physical manifestation of greed on a psychological level. Greed is particularly emphasised in societies with an individualistic centre. It is hardly surprising that some of the most capitalistic, individualistic societies are the most secular societies, the cult of a god has moved towards a cult of things and individuals, but it is only a recent realisation that people are most unhappy when they live in individualistic societies. The highest suicide rates are there.

I am secular but that does not prevent me from seeing that religion is simply a function of our human psychology. Ultimately, very subconsciously, even our predecessors whose brain was 1/3rd of our mass, understood that we need to be limited in order to prosper, both as individuals and as a collective. That is why they created religions and gods, because we can fear them, we can rely on them, we can pray to them, and finally, they give us a sense of perspective- there are things that gods can do that we are no capable of. Unfortunately, and it hurts me deeply, religion is pivotal to human success and happiness. This is the most developed that any of us have ever been, so much is available to us and we want more because now there are no limits to our dreams, supposedly. Yet we end up wishing for more power and more money, resulting in confusion on what to do with such disproportionate amounts of it; it leads to fear that we will lose our money and power, which in turn leads to aggression and/ or escapism- drugs, alcohol, shopping, entertaining TV shows with yet more competition.

What will happen? The most developed, those who are leading us into this towards the top of the ladder will collapse first. It will be a total annihilation, to the very core- the economy, their belief system, their social system. Has it not happened already with the Economic crisis? This crisis happened also in 1929 for the same reason- a success too rapid is unstable, it was too good to be true. I personally believe that, very much like a Pheonix, we will rise and rebuild our societies and ourselves. Stupidity was defined by Einstein as repeating the same action and expecting different results each time. Unfortunately, the human race is stupid. Fortunately, ignorance is bliss.

Wednesday 5 September 2012

Whether the chicken crossed the road or not, we can no longer tell because the chicken updated its security settings.

“Goodbye, said the fox. And now here is my secret, a very simple secret. It is only with the heart that one can see rightly. What is essential is invisible to the eye.”  Antoine de Saint-ExupĂ©ry 



Privacy often comes up when we discuss the relationships between large corporations, usually Google or Apple, and their customers. Let's call it macro-privacy. What never seems to be addressed, or I have been perpetually missing it, is micro-privacy: what are the boundaries in our daily routine, how easy is it to cross them? What are the repercussions and who do I really hurt if I cross that boundary? Who will know, if I do? Maybe, and that is what really concerns me, how often do we know that we've crossed that boundary?

The questions are too many for this to just be a hypothetical discussion, indeed. A particular incident happened a few days ago and it stuck with me, it is marinating in my mind, my brain has been trying to simultaneously forget it and understand it. 

Violence doesn't have to be physical to be tangible. Symbolic violence, though usually a reserved guest to feminist theologians (among others), is a curious concept that can be felt and that can confuse just as much as a slap in the face. If I get slapped in the face, I'd probably at least know where it came from. 

An early train ride towards the airport had me leaning on the window. The slow rocking of the train, perhaps reminiscent of a cradle, got me drifting off. I was day dreaming, snoozing, feeling my eye lids heavy and sleeping, and waking up again. I opened my eyes, for no real reason, and I saw a man with a his phone aimed  at me, taking a photo. He saw me open my eyes and immediately, quickly, swiftly and soundlessly walked away. That is it. That is all that happened.

Did he think it was funny I was asleep at 5 am on the train and wanted to post it online with a funny tagline underneath? Did he think I was cute while I was sleeping? I've been told that before but I never thought it was worthy of a photo. Maybe it wasn't the sleeping bit... so I looked at my reflection in the window which had, until seconds ago, provided me with a resting place and given space to my dreams; but no, I wasn't wearing any interesting clothes, didn't have any make-up smeared on my face. I still don't know why this stranger felt the need to take a picture of a sleeping person on a train at 5 am. 

I get the feeling that there was no purpose to it, though. This is where privacy comes in. He felt it was OK for him to do it, yet not OK enough that he would be arrogant about it: me waking up snapped him out of it and he left, ashamed, perhaps. Where does the boundary come in, when you have a camera phone, when you can upload photos instantly and share them, literally, with the other side of the planet? I think, because technology allows us to do something, it is easy to assume that it grants a moral and social permission too. I ask myself questions too: why was I so taken aback by this? What was the worst that could happen, really, I thought to myself. Some strangers may see me sleeping. I don't even think you could see my face and I wasn't drooling... Yet, it was a very clear violation, it felt as strong as a punch in the chest.

To answer my questions:
1. it is incredibly easy to cross micro-boundaries because they are so subjective. There is a discrepancy, what we can physically accomplish has surpassed our development psychologically on an individual level, let alone the social one.We may be able to do something but that doesn't mean that we should or we are allowed to. Perceptions change slowly. I am not even disputing whether they should change, whether some opinions are better off "un-evolved". 
2.usually, if you cross a boundary, in the cases of micro-privacy anyway, it won't be a major problem. Sure, the victim may tell you off or punch you (if you chat up someone's girlfriend in a bar, for example) but there rarely would be great consequences. It mostly tells something about you and your character. 
3. the issue is that you may not know you've crossed a boundary. Because we're talking about such small moments that only last a second, sometimes without any witnesses or time for reaction, you may not feel that anything has happened. And if that's the case, returning to Question 2, mostly, it hurts the perpetrator, not the victim. 

Ultimately, trust your instincts. And if you hear a silence, then that's more telling than the loudest scream. But just because you can do something, it doesn't mean you should. And frankly, I feel this ending to be a bit false, a bit unstable. This is my attempt at concluding a story which doesn't have a natural ending. This is just my brain, doing what it's made to do- trying to solve a puzzle and have closure.