“Optimism is naively believing that everything will be all right, when we know that reality is far more complex and messy…. Optimism is like a sugar high that quickly fades…” - “Why to choose hope over optimism for 2020” by Kevin O’Brien
Viewing entries in
Explorations Outside
“…it was not until the 1920s, four decades after Thomas Edison’s first power station, that manufacturers embraced [his] killer app for electricity, designing factories to accommodate dynamo-powered assembly lines…. Genuine innovations are inherently difficult to spot in advance. So the game is more about creating the right conditions for companies to press ahead and to seize on breakthroughs when they arrive. Asian-tiger governments are steering their economies with a lighter touch
“We are mean-spirited little monkeys, capable of moments of great grace and kindness…”
Turns out our little friend is not a preprogrammed automaton but an unpredictable creature of “unexpected depths”, a complex and strategic decision-maker capable of “changing its mind” in response to failure. For example, Stentor roeseli “can dodge, duck or flee” to avoid a threat, alternating these evasive maneuvers in a seemingly random manner until the threat is gone. Here’s a nice illustration …
Good government seeks to foster conditions conducive to the well-being of its people. This mission is not all that different from that of a parent: provide a secure base while encouraging the child to leave the zone of safety to explore the world. There’s still a secure base to return to in case you lose your way - a solid safety net - but you’re free to wander, experiment, fail, get up again, and pursue happiness on your own terms.
According to the researchers, these emotional reactions are understandable in the context of human evolution. Human emotions evolved to help our ancestors survive and reproduce during a time when conditions were brutal. Emotional reactions served to reinforce behaviors necessary for individual and group survival: warm fuzzies for individuals who demonstrated a willingness to put in the effort, reciprocate, and cooperate; and anger for individuals deemed lazy, selfish or uncooperative.
Cross-cultural studies have found that most people agree with the following: 1) Distribute resources equally, when need and merit are equal and the rules allow it; 2) Give more to the needy at some threshold of neediness, regardless of merit; 3) If there are agreed upon rules, and resources are allocated unequally based on these rules, that’s okay; and, 4) Merit is partly based on considerations of effort, both quantity and quality.
… income and life expectancy have more to do with how we evaluate our lives and less to do with how we feel on a day-to-day basis…freedom to make life choices and a sense of community make us feel good…corruption, lack of social support, and lack of freedom make us feel lousy.
“The problem with free speech is that it’s hard, and self-censorship is the path of least resistance. But once you learn to keep yourself from voicing unwelcome thoughts, you forget how to think them – how to think freely at all – and ideas perish at conception.” George Packer, Mute Button /The New Yorker.
Free speech is essential for moving closer to the truth of things. That’s enough for me, but I’ll add that free speech is also good for problem-solving, good governance, and democracy. Apparently, that’s not enough for some people. It’s not so much that these folks have fully articulated arguments for limiting the right to speech. It’s more that they have ways of thinking that minimize its value and justify restricting speech. Here are a few examples: …
Psychology is implicated in everything humans do, think and feel - as in all humans…. But “psychology” is not independent of reality. Things are rarely “in our heads” or “in the world”. Pointing out that a belief serves a psychological need (a “use-value”) says nothing about whether that belief is correct (it’s “truth-value”).
Being at the mercy of another person means feeling one cannot get away from them, because they have something one wants badly and that something is not readily available elsewhere.
The program was funded by the city of Chester and had previously been managed by a local non-profit - rather poorly it would seem, given its dismal job placement and dropout rates. My employer - Associates for Research in Behavior - took over the city’s contract with the promise of improving outcomes by applying the principles of motivation to the business of training adult students. The main principles were: …
“With the abolition of private property, then, we shall have true, beautiful, healthy Individualism. Nobody will waste his life in accumulating things, and the symbols for things. ... Individualism will also be unselfish and unaffected.” Oscar Wilde, The Soul of Man under Socialism …“…conservatives are chastened by their principle of imperfectibility. Human nature suffers irremediably from certain grave faults, the conservatives know. Man being imperfect, no perfect social order ever can be created. To seek for utopia is to end in disaster, the conservative says: we are not made for perfect things. All that we reasonably can expect is a tolerable ordered, just, and free society, in which some evils, maladjustments, and suffering will continue to lurk. By proper attention to prudent reform, we may preserve and improve this tolerable order.” Russell Kirk, Ten Conservative Principles
Of course, some people need to be punished as a way to deter further bad behavior and protect the rest of us. We can still savor the satisfaction of someone getting their “just desserts” without elevating what is essentially a vindictive emotion to a moral principle.
As an imaginary politician, I care deeply about the environment, affordable housing, universal healthcare, maintaining a robust economy, the value of work, and the “American Project”: the idea of unity in diversity as we work together for the common good. Then I chill the passion to develop specific policy goals and proposals. And I make sure my proposed policies do not become an end in themselves but are easily scaled back, revised or reversed if they don’t work.
How to turn the Other Side into cartoonish villains? Let me count the ways …
In 1960, food, clothing, housing, healthcare, and transportation accounted for 86% of household spending. That left just 14% for everything else. In 2017, food, clothing, housing, and healthcare accounted for 73% of household spending… Progress has been made.
There is no natural connection between being pro-business and anti-environment. Nor natural connection between embracing gender fluidity and advocating for a more generous social welfare system. Nor between being a fiscal conservative and an evangelical Christian. These political orientations are correlated in the US, not because they “naturally” go together but because the American system of government favors a two-party system, which is turn favors broad coalitions. This is not the case in European countries with strong multi-party traditions, where you find much greater mixing of political views than in the US.
….These requirements pretty much rule out testing the UBI (Universal Basic income) before implementing it. In other words, claims about the UBI could not be subject to a process of scientific verification. It’s either all-or-nothing. Ya gotta take a leap of faith and just do it.