J.D. Moyer

sci-fi author, beatmaker

Category: Metaprogramming Page 15 of 29

The Pursuit of Happiness Is Meaningless Without the Pursuit of Justice

By

On December 16

In Culture Rants/Shares, Metaprogramming, Utopian Speculations

Where’s the Justice League when you need ’em?

Ambushed By An Article

Yesterday morning I was happily drinking coffee and reading the New York Times, when I came across this disturbing article by conservative think tanker Arthur Brooks.

The piece starts off as a bland rehash of “the latest” happiness research (trotting out studies from the seventies). Nothing new, but nothing offensive either. Towards the end, the piece takes a sharp right turn as Brooks champions free enterprise as the solution to both personal happiness and global poverty. The bogeymen of socialism and collectivism are trotted out as the usual enemies. Perhaps as an apologetic concession to liberal NYT readers, Brooks does acknowledge that social mobility and economic opportunity are on the decline in the United States (at least as compared to Canada and the Scandinavian countries — ironically all collectivist social democracies). The whole piece is a confused mess.

Personal Development Hijacked by Corporate Ideology

So why am I writing about it?

This blog is subtitled “Systems for Living Well.” I agree with many of Arthur Brooks’ conclusions about personal happiness (a spiritual life, strong relationships, meaningful work, and connection to community are all important). But I want to distance myself from Brooks (as well as bloggers like Steve Pavlina, Gretchen Rubin, Tony Robbins, and Tim Ferriss) who approach personal happiness and life satisfaction in a “bubble” context, ignoring social and political issues as if they didn’t exist.

Too often, self-help philosophies function as a justification for right-wing ideology. Ignore the bad cards life has dealt you, and pull yourself up by your own bootstraps! Pursue your passion and beat the economic odds! Be a winner not a loser! A credo of personal accountability ties in neatly to ideals of free enterprise and anti-welfare sentiments.

In a similar vein, advocating gratitude and forgiveness as spiritual practices is usually good advice (in terms of emotional health and personal empowerment). But the same philosophy can be twisted to imply that workers should be happy with (and feel grateful for) whatever is doled out by their employers, instead of negotiating for better wages, benefits, and working conditions, or fighting against corporate crime and corruption. It’s one thing to forgive the CEO of a Wall Street company that swindled tax-payers, so you don’t have to live with hate in your heart. But it’s another thing to lie down and let them do it again.

I believe in personal accountability, the value of hard work, establishing effective habits, practicing gratitude — all the same things that the Pavlina/Rubin/Robbins/Ferriss types are pushing. But I also believe that if we truly want to live well, we should fight against the injustices that prevent others from living well.

So what are the injustices we should be fighting against? Well, for starters:

Maybe, if I’m not happy, it’s because my conscience isn’t clear. Maybe I’m not working hard enough for the right for others to get a fair shot at the pursuit of happiness. Yes, we’re all responsible for our own happiness and sense of meaning in life. But if we ignore injustice, others may not even get the chance to pursue happiness.

Call To Action

To writers, bloggers, economists, psychologists, and social scientists who are exploring the topic of happiness, here’s what I’m suggesting:

  • Don’t be a tool for corporate ideology. In the discussion of personal happiness and life meaning, don’t ignore oppression and injustice, wherever you see it.
  • Allow for the possibility that the concepts of personal accountability and social inequity/injustice can co-exist.
  • Don’t only look at happiness and life satisfaction on a personal level, but consider social and economic factors that affect us collectively, and call people to action to fight against injustice, greed, corruption, oppression, and other realities that hurt all of us.

I do understand why self-help writers want to steer clear of these topics. If you write about political issues, you potentially lose half your audience (or more). And I want to give credit to Ferriss and Robbins especially for raising money for schools, fighting poverty, etc.

But it’s delusional to think that we can *all* pull ourselves up by our bootstraps and visualize (or optimize) our way to an ideal life, when income inequality is so high, and social mobility so low, and we live in an age of rampant unchecked corporate irresponsibility.

Please share your thoughts below.

Goals Are For Soccer? (Reevaluating Goals vs. Systems)

By

On November 26

In Advice for Young People, Creative Work/Career, Life Purpose & Goals, Metaprogramming

Should the idea of goals be left on the field?

Should the idea of goals be left on the field?

Recently my friend Will Spencer sent me this article by Scott Adams (of Dilbert fame). Part of the article is a cautionary tale against listening to advice from successful people re: their methods (for example “follow your passion”). The rest of the article focuses on why Adams prefers systems over goals. “Goals are for losers,” writes Adams, pointing out that the majority of time for a goal-oriented person is spent in a “not yet successful” mindset (having not yet achieved their chosen goal).

I agree with Adams that we should be skeptical of career/success advice and self-help books. For every millionaire who made money on real estate, there are probably at least a dozen who lost their shirt (and didn’t write a book). As for “following your passion,” I had already considered the arguments against (a major theme of Cal Newport’s excellent Study Hacks blog), and generally found them to be lacking. Adam writes that when he worked at a bank, he was advised to avoid loaning money to small business owners who were following their passion; those types of businesses almost always went bust. Good advice, probably, and Newport’s advice on Study Hacks is also mostly sound; I completely agree with his emphasis on deep focus, hard work, effective systems, and attempting to live a meaningful, interesting life.

But for some people (like myself) there is no real choice when it comes to following your passion. If I didn’t, I would literally die of boredom (or at least accelerate my demise; I quickly get despondent and depressed if I am not actively and intensively pursuing writing, music production, and other creative endeavors). I made the choice in my twenties to follow my passion (start a music label and spend most of my time making dance tracks); I would earn money via IT freelancing on an as-needed basis. For me it has worked out so far. Not only is my soul intact, but I have significant savings, passive income streams (music royalties), and plenty of freelance work. Maybe, as Adams suggests, I’m still passionate about making music because I’ve had some success in that area. Certainly it’s nice to have a “win” in your field (money, a good review, a track in the charts, praise from fans, whatever). But most of the time, I create because I feel compelled to create. So my advice to anyone who asks is still to follow your passion. Just expect hard work and be realistic about how you’re going to pay the bills (and yes, you should be skeptical about my advice as well).

So that covers the first part of the article. The second part; where Adams argues against goal setting, made me think. I had never considered goal-setting to be opposed to a systems-based approach, and considered both to be useful tools (or, more accurately, I considered goal-setting to be part of my system).

In my own recent experience, setting and working towards a challenging goal was a positive, empowering experience. I didn’t feel, as Adams writes, that I was in a state of “near-continuous failure” because I hadn’t yet reached my goal. Rather, I felt like I was steadily working towards an important milestone. And that felt great.

But still, reading the article by Adams made me doubt my approach. Did setting the goal lead to success, or was it the system of daily effort that really made the difference? According to Adams I’d be better off tossing out the goal and keeping the system.

Adding fuel to this fire of doubt was the fact that after achieving my most recent major goal (completing the first draft of a novel), I floundered for a couple months. I knew I needed some time away from the manuscript before jumping into revisions, but it didn’t feel appropriate to set another major goal that wasn’t related to the book (after all, all I had was a first draft … I hadn’t actually completed anything yet).

After letting the question simmer in the back of my mind for a few weeks, here’s where I am at the moment:

  • in the long run, systems are more effective than goals (and habits, or actualized systems, are the most effective)
  • goal-setting can still be useful tool, especially if you are trying to create a new pattern in your life, and change the direction of your inertia
  • goal-setting is less helpful in life areas that require regular good habits and/or systems for ongoing success (for example physical health and fitness, unless you are training for a competition or something like that)
  • it’s not necessary to have a main life goal all the time; it is important to know where you are going (life purpose, and a clear vision of what you want your life and/or the world to look like)

You could accuse me of over-thinking this process, and you might be right. But the “tweaks” I make to my life system have real and immediate effects (to my productivity and happiness, to the quality of work I produce, to my ability to help others and make the world a better place).

How has goal-setting helped you? When has it felt awkward and contrived? What are your most effective life systems?

You Are Responsible For Your Own Brain Chemistry

By

On November 15

In Health/Body-hacking, Mental Health, Metaprogramming

Even cats like yogurt.

Even cats like yogurt.

Recently Kia was stressed out, and griping about some first-world-problem (I forget what it was; something along the lines of “my clients want me to do stuff,” or “the internet is too slow”). I gripe equally as much about such faux-problems, but at that moment I was feeling impatient. So I said “Go drink some kefir.”

Now why would I say that?

Most kefir contains live active cultures of lactobacillus rhamnosus, a strain of probiotic bacteria shown to reduce anxiety and increase resilient behavior in mice (and people too). Somehow, this particular bacterium communicates with the brain via the vagus nerve, stimulating GABA neurotransmitter receptors, and blunting the effects of chronic cortisol release. Which can bring a person down a notch.

Kia, who has a particular genius for neatly encapsulating complex ideas into catch phrases, drank some kefir, and came back with the following: “We’re all responsible for our own brain chemistry, aren’t we?”

I had never thought about it that way exactly.

Insisting on responsibility, I think, is different than blaming the victim. We are not all blessed with naturally buoyant mood, high motivation, or even the ability to distinguish our own thoughts from reality. Some people are less able to cope with the stressful, sometimes horrible events that make up day to day life. One person I know is prone to realistic, terrifying hallucinations if he does not take large amounts of antipsychotic medications on a daily basis.

But still, my friend is responsible for his own brain chemistry. Because who else can be?

Friends, family, and society should provide assistance and support for the mentally ill (the Mental Health Parity Act is a huge step in the right direction, and will protect thousands of middle-class families from medical bankruptcy). But in terms of personal responsibility, there is only one person involved. The person who owns the brain.

The principle is the same for serious mental illness or garden-variety blues and anxiety. The workings of the brain, factors that influence mood and motivation, are no longer mysterious. What works for most people?

  • reasonable amounts of exercise
  • adequate, regular undisturbed sleep
  • turmeric (yellow curry) [anti-inflammatory, increase BDNF]
  • probiotics that stimulate GABA
  • adequate dietary omega-3 (fish oil, wild salmon)
  • avoiding foods that wreak havoc with blood sugar, or disrupt/mimic neurotransmitter function (artificial colors, MSG, etc.)
  • limiting (or abstaining from) alcohol and recreational drug use
  • freedom from tyrants/oppressive personalities, or any situation that causes constant, chronic stress (periodic acute stress isn’t a problem)
  • slightly more social contact than you think you need
  • membership in a group that meets regularly
  • spiritual factors (clear conscience, clear life purpose, etc.)

On the other hand an austere life of strict discipline is probably unnecessary for most people (in terms of maximizing mental health). Exercising to exhaustion every day won’t make me happy if I’m socially isolated. A good night’s sleep won’t help if I have to get up and work for an evil sociopath boss (luckily I’ve never had to, but I hear they’re out there).

Chasing happiness and running away from suffering isn’t the point. But I do want to be firing on cylinders, awake and aware and relatively comfortable in my own skin, so that I can attempt to live a rich and meaningful life, with moments of joy and love and passion.

I’m sure I missed something … but you get the point. At this point we should all know what works (if not from clinical research, then from trial and error in our own lives). The trick is doing it day to day; turning knowledge into habits.

So here’s to better living through chemistry (in the healthful sense).

Update Oct. 2015:
Previously on this blog I’ve mentioned the importance of vitamin D in terms of reducing asthma symptoms and improving sleep, but I should also include it on the list of mood regulators in light of Rhonda Patrick’s research.

Is Grandiosity a Prerequisite for Greatness?

By

On September 19

In Advice for Young People, Creative Work/Career, Metaprogramming, Writing

Young Franzen's grandiosity turned out to be predictive.

Young Franzen’s grandiosity turned out to be predictive.

Just a quick shower thought this morning, something that occurred to me while thinking about Jonathan Franzen’s article/excerpt from The Kraus Project (about Austrian satirist Karl Kraus):

But Kraus had changed me. When I gave up on short stories and returned to my novel, I was mindful of his moral fervour, his satirical rage, his hatred of the media, his preoccupation with apocalypse, and his boldness as a sentence-writer. I wanted to expose America’s contradictions the way he’d exposed Austria’s, and I wanted to do it via the novel, the popular genre that Kraus had disdained but I did not. I still hoped to finish my Kraus project, too, after my novel had made me famous and a millionaire.

What struck me about the passage was Franzen’s confession of grandiosity as a young writer. In Franzen’s case his younger self’s grandiosity turned out to be predictive, but obviously there are far more grandiose young writers who do not become rich and famous (or even moderately successful). So what’s the relationship between grandiosity and greatness? None at all?

I’m trying this hypothesis on for size: grandiosity is a prerequisite for greatness.

Obviously there are many prerequisites for achieving anything even remotely great (as measured by popular appeal, universal appeal across cultures and generations, influence on thinking and the direction of a field, pleasing critics — however you want to define the term). Most would agree that some degree of natural talent is required, as is a cultural context of support (encouraging parents, mentors, access to equipment/gear/materials/information), a diligent work ethic, perseverance, and of course luck. I’d argue that grandiosity is an additional prerequisite, just as important as the others. Grandiosity is simply the conviction that you might be able to achieve something great before you have actually done so.

Is grandiosity only the expression of such a conviction? I don’t think so. If the conviction exists without being expressed, it’s simply silent grandiosity (the best kind). The strong ego is still there. Ego in this case is a good thing, a strong sense of I does not necessarily make someone egotistical. Without a strong ego, without the conviction that the work might lead to something worthy, there’s not chance of greatness. Instead the result is no work at all, or dabbling, or unambitious projects. Thinking small.

What about the artist/creator who sees themselves as a channel for some higher force? “I just get out of the way and the art flows through me.” Fine — whatever works — but the strong ego is still there (in the channeler/conduit role, if not originator).

So how should a person deal with these feelings, the conviction that something great might be achieved, with enough sweat equity? Here’s my take on it:

  • Keep the feeling to yourself. Don’t talk about what you plan to do, refer to only what you have done (and then only when asked).
  • Be in on the joke. The odds are against you. You’re probably wrong. Most people don’t achieve anything great. So what?
  • Focus on the things you can control. You can’t control your natural talent or your cultural background. You can control what you focus on (choose an area where you have some talent!), your practice/work habits, your perseverance, and your internal convictions.

The paradox is that the ego actually gets in the way when you’re doing the work. For creative work you need to be in touch with the subconscious and perceptual and empathic parts of the brain (at least in order to create anything interesting). Thinking about achievement and goals and how the work will be judged is a terrible distraction. But the ego plays a role in organizing and allocating the resources that allow the work to happen and continue (time, money, career), and the ego needs the promise of rewards. Without the conviction that there are rewards to be had (grandiosity), the ego might shut down the work.

The key thing to remember? Without a little grandiosity (hopefully not the obnoxious kind), there is 0% chance of achieving anything great. So cherish your illusions/delusions of grandeur. And keep working.

One Goal To Rule Them All

By

On August 29

In Creative Work/Career, Life Purpose & Goals, Metaprogramming, Writing

Apologies to Tolkien.

Apologies to Tolkien.

For the last fourteen months I’ve been practicing a new form of goal setting:

  1. Have only one goal at a time, that closely aligns with life purpose.
  2. Set an “evaluation date” for the goal (a deadline, more or less).
  3. Set up a reward for completing the goal, and a “kick-in-the-butt” motivator if needed.

My most recent goal was to finish the first draft of my sci-fi novel. I didn’t finish by my evaluation date (June 30th) which led to a kick-in-butt motivator of no alcohol until the draft was complete. (I did finally finish. Kia read it in two days; at least for one person the book is a page turner.)

I’ve refined the one-goal system considerably since I’ve started, so I thought it might be a good time to share my mistakes, missteps, and adjustments along the way (including how my goal-setting led to a mid-life crisis).

Read More

Page 15 of 29

Previous

Next

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén