Sanctioned Manipulation

We live in an extrovert-positive world. That shouldn't be too hard of a claim to believe. After all, is it Steve Jobs or some guy called Woz who really made Apple famous? Why do we have a compulsion to share everything we do, especially if we're having alone private time? Why do we remember the advertised items, sales, and coupons over the baseline prices? We are attracted to extroverted actions. We respond to the positive stimuli of someone taking an interest in us. We like the flashing lights and movements vying for our attention. We are heavily biased towards positive signals.

It's a simple result of how our society is structured. We interact with a lot of people and a lot of things every day. We need ways to differentiate who we should care about and trust. So we filter out the background noise. We filter out the mundane and absent. What is left is the colorful and active and bursting sparkles and rainbows. And this bias is only getting stronger. As we are connected to more and more people via the Internet and social media the stronger we select for the "best" and strongest signals. We also have a limited amount of resources to keep track of others, so we try to squeeze in particular people while shoving out others who don't measure up.

We know that is how we respond. And so it is natural to assume that others respond the same way.[1]

Thus, we are masters of manipulation.

It's almost too easy. We know that if we act a certain way we will tend to get certain responses. If we signal that we are smart, our reputation will increase and others may seek our advice. If we signal we are fun-loving partiers, we will attract partiers. If we reveal something special and secret, people will think we are being frank and vulnerable and act accordingly. We intentionally craft an image of happiness and success on Facebook. Or, even better, we craft an image of bitter pain; hoping someone reaches down to help and sympathize with us.

Mentalism is this taken to an art form. You pick up on subtle cues about a person, then weave a narrative around them that you know something special about them or have unique powers. Most importantly they play up their successful guesses and minimize the flops. They create the image that they have supernatural powers. They are master manipulators.

But you don't have to take special training to do it yourself. It's something we are trained to do from an early age. Around the age of two the concept of Crocodile Tears appears. The child will fake crying, check if there's a response, then commence crying again. We quickly make connections between what we do (crying) and what the response will be (comfort, attention). As we get older, we just figure out how to be more subtle about it and the different avenues we have available.

As we get older, we also develop very good bullshit detectors. If someone is too overt, we pick up on it and it undermines their credibility. We don't like being "manipulated." It's an interesting model to think of these interactions as a constant struggle of bullshit versus bullshit detectors, but I digress. Still, many times even if we detect it we graciously allow it. There are certain bounds within which we have approved manipulations. And these are what are interesting.

Easiest example to pull out is on Facebook. Thinking way, way back originally Facebook was only about individual pages. You manually navigated to someone's page to see what they were up to. Now Facebook provides a nice curated stream of posts, pictures, and Life Events to your Newsfeed. Note I said curated. An important part of the algorithm is figuring out if something should be shown to you. My post about pooping that no one comments on? Probably not important for my olde buddy from college to know about. If I get married? Maybe a bit more important!!! One of the sneaky systems in place is Facebook figures out what is important by how many Likes and Comments something has. The more that show up, the more it shows up in your social network. This used to be a little opaque, but now Facebook creates an entry for when your friends Comment or Like someone's status. Even if you already saw it and buried it several days ago!

So, how does this all matter? If people want attention[2] -- and Likes and Comments are attention, and thus push the rewards systems in your brain (thus why FB has the notifications when someone does it. They are tapping into your rewards system!) -- then you begin to tailor your posts to maximize Likes. And how do you do that? You already make connections about what you post in the past and what has garnered more, or less, Likes and Comments. Grabby things about OMG MY LIFE IS AWESOME or woe-is-me or Behold How Clever I Am are commonplace. And we happily add our thumbs-up. Because we feel like we are engaging with the poster. We feel like we are promoting, celebrating, and showing we are there with them.[3]

But this isn't confined to Facebook. Facebook just provides it in black-and-white. Think about your daily conversations. What is the tone? For me, I often joke with people, teasing boundaries and showing how agile my mind is. I can figure out the reference and the underlying absurdity, hurray! Or I interject with a piece of trivia or a story about what's going on in the world. Look how well-versed and knowledgeable I am! I analyze things and think big thoughts!

We aren't completely to blame though. Much of what we are is dependent on who we are around and our environment. In my college experience it was highly valued to be smart, a little sarcastic, and supremely overworked. So people played to that value structure, showing off their smart wits, and peppering their walls with the battle scars of loaded schedules and massive works of endurance. Pecking order was developed based on achievements. So you strove to play those up. In my church circles you are often scored by your faith, insight, vulnerability, and empathy. So it's not surprising when a lot of people show off their humility and what they've done for others (as perhaps contradictory that seems in writing). One of my common interest groups is purely social, so much of the discussion centers around catching up with what's going on and planning for the next event. Considering the amount of time we've spent together, no one talks about feelings or troubles. We just stay at arms length.

It all comes down to signalling really. I signal interest, you choose to respond somehow which provides me with more information. Arriving promptly or being late sends a signal of your values. We then work within the bounds of social norms to optimize our signals. We don't have time to throw around half-signals. Remember, we are in a packed world and if I don't send out good, strong signals that others will pick up, I'll be lost in the noise!

And thus a new arms race is born. Everyone is rushing to signal as fast and as strong as possible to make themselves stand out from the noise. Do it too much and you're "manipulative," or "needy," or "whiny." Too little, and you fall into the noise; you're forgotten and ignored. But toe the line just right and you're an empathetic, novel, unique, interesting human being (and I want to be your friend and/or date you).

I am not saying these things are bad. Gathering information about those around us helps us make informed decisions. So finding the proper boundary is appropriate. As is the act of acknowledging and responding to a signal. Subtly exploiting these mechanisms allow us to promote the good attributes in people. Much of it comes down to positive reinforcement and negative reinforcement applied to social interactions. I think people should ask questions of others instead of waiting for proffered vignettes, so I pay more attention to people who ask me questions.

Going back to the FB like/comment-farming behavior I described above, someone mentioned that if we assume this is a cry for help and attention, then we should be concerned and try to help them. Figure out a stronger, deeper method to fix the underlying attention debt that they feel they can only fill via FB. This is a perfect example of how a "bad" signal should cause us to pause and refrain from condemnation and instead turn to figuring out how we can help.

Interestingly other cultures have a similar balance of signal-to-noise, but at differing points. Us Westerners like to toe the line being both passionate, emphatic, but also composed. We adore motivational speakers who get riled up and elect leaders who are passionate but also controlled. The Middle East's balance point tends to be tilted further towards passion. The silent person in the conversation is losing. Asian culture it is about controlling yourself and withstanding blows with hidden inner strength[4]. A friend of mine is a missionary in Japan and has been having trouble getting people to open up since they keep their thoughts very private instead of blasting them out into the world. The Joy Luck Club's quote "strongest wind cannot be seen" comes to mind.

So what does this all mean? On one hand, I would like to advocate that we should stop trying so hard with our image crafting. Ideally your first impulse when something exciting happens isn't to post about it on Facebook and Twitter. It's to call those you care about, or to try to remember it for later. You shouldn't take time crafting perfect moments and perfect presentations of those moments for mass consumption. They are to be valued and treasured. Firing into the void depersonalizes it, and we will pick up on bullshit. On the other hand, image control is super important! We all play the game. To not play the game is to lose in this instance. No one is going to walk up to a blank wall and start tapping it in the hopes they find the sequence to Diagon Alley. Be interesting and proactive! Do crazy stuff, share it, and celebrate with everyone! Wait, I just advocated you to do polar opposites.

So really my point is pay attention. We are all being manipulated and manipulating those around us. Try not to use that power for Evil.



[1] This is actually a horrible assumption. See The Usual Error.
[2] Beautiful comic about this.
[3] Weird item, how come changing your profile picture is such a big deal? I can understand if it shows off something awesome, like one of my friends crossing the Finish Line. Or if it's extra witty, like several of my other friends. I only swapped out my picture with a more up-to-date one and I garnered more Likes than any of my other posts in recent history. *mind blown*
[4] This article on cultural differences between US and Japan makes a stark contrast of imposing control versus stoicism. I also see it played out in Chinese culture. Remember, you have to ask at least three times to get the full answer. Thanks Camilo.

Picking Games for Game Day

Disclaimer: I primarily host board/card game days with friends. Typically it is a very open-door policy with varying skilled players playing a variety of games, often multiple ones simultaneously. These guidelines may only apply to my particular set of friends and the types of games.

Something I think I do well is organize events.

I particularly enjoy hosting board and card game days.

Thanks to the stigma of playing games as being inherently nerdy/geeky be lifted and now that Americans are slowly getting a taste of delicious Euro Gaming instead of just playing Monopoly and Risk, maybe you want to host one as well.

I could talk about setting up your house, or how to invite people, or the careful management of food supplies, or making sure you can competently and patiently teach the games you want to play, or the secrets of how to manage the mix of players so that the good ones don't railroad the weaker ones. Nope, instead I'm just gonna blab on about the games I have and how to figure out which ones to play with your group.

The overall goal is to maximize the amount of fun for all parties involved. Sometimes this is easy. I know if I rounded up a few of my hardcore fellows we'd tear through Agricola or Twilight Imperium. Sometimes the crowd all wants to play together so you need something that facilitates large groups like The Resistance (and other Mafia variants) or Two Rooms and a Boom. But don't be afraid to suggest games they don't know. Because the real fun is when stories are told. For my hardcore players we dissect what could have been done better and the twists and turns of the mechanics. For my casual friends they like inside jokes about that one time in What-If we all picked on person X or when we played Fishbowl and this one action was for Ghengis Khan. So, finding the right mix in your game can make or break the evening. Nothing worse than getting halfway through a game and someone storming out because they're bored.

First, partition your group. If you have a lot of players, they will naturally need to divide up into groups to play different games. Luckily this often solves the problem for you. Hardcore gamers will be attracted to Agricola while the casual ones will want to play Dixit and Anomia. Giving a solid ten-second pitch of what the feel of the game is like is crucial here. Don't just talk mechanics, maybe touch on the theme, but get to what makes the game fun. Agricola isn't interesting as a farming simulator. It's fun because you're jockeying for resources and growing your farm and doing tradeoffs. Pandemic is fun because you are racing against the game as a team. Dixit is fun because you get to tell stories and look at cool cards. Red-and-Black is all about brinkmanship and bluffing.

If you need to suggest games for a group, assess their abilities and what they want to play. Some people will play anything and get a kick out of it. But some people only enjoy particular types of games. Here's a few classic example:

Casual Fun: One of my friends only wants to play games that "make you laugh." I originally thought this meant I had to find games where humor played a major role, like how Quelf makes you do stupidly random things or What-If's absurd juxtapositions about other people are good for a chuckle. But then I realized she also likes Dixit and Anomia. Why? It's not that she wants to just laugh, she wants a smooth game that doesn't require too much thinking. She wants stories to be created. Look for light mechanics or "everyone wins" sorts of games. Also, if there's a large component of randomness, it helps even the playing field when they go up against more veteran players.

Theme is King: One of my friends was on a zombie binge. World War Z, Zombie Survival Guide, everything zombies he wanted in. He didn't care about the mechanics that much, just if the theme included zombies. So Last Night on Earth would work perfectly! But, Betrayal at the House on the Hill could also work. Broaden the genre a little and see how beholden they are to theme. Be very careful with these players though. I once described Agricola as a "farming game" and another friend's eyes lit up. But I happen to know she isn't as interested in interlocking Euro-mechanics, she was only interested in the theme. A good theme can also help create fun situations. Mascarade [sic] involves switching roles, so it's quite fun to declare "I am the King!" or declare "I think you're the Fool!"

Skullduggery: It has been said that games can provide a great means of building trust with a person. You trust they played by the rules, you learn that they have honor, a quick mind, and perhaps a sense of humor. Then there's these guys. You suddenly realize they can lie to your face without blinking and you are none the wiser. They revel in Mafia style games like The Resistance. They gleefully sabotage the team in Shadows over Camelot. Any time they can inject a bit of in-game treachery they are there. Granted, much of this is derived from a sense of secrets and holding exclusive information. So hidden roles games (2 Rooms and a Bomb) or systems with traps (CCGs) can also sate their hunger. Much of the fun is due to asymmetrical information. So Shadow Hearts plays into this perfectly. Not only are there hidden roles and powers, but part of the game mechanics is to use cards to tease out information about the other players.

Roleplayer: It is super fun to take on a character and act out what they'd do. These players don't care that Flash moves far as a stat in Betrayal at the House on the Hill. They care that Flash RUNS REALLY FAST. Any sort of RPG elements can help. BANG! is a perfect hit, as is Cosmic Encounters or anything where you uniquely can screw with the ruleset. Note this also plays into persistence in other means, such as building how your faction plays in Risk Legacy. But this is also tightly tied to theme. 7 Wonders you're "building" a civilization, but not really embodying or roleplaying said civilization. Dominion sorta works since you are "building" your kingdom and then use those cards later. However, Thunderstone does feel like you're building an adventuring party that goes out and slays monsters, and it's uniquely yours.

Puzzles: These are the ones who approach the game like a puzzle to be solved. Thus, they tend to enjoy more co-op oriented games with deep systems. But they also have to be transparent and solvable. Pandemic as an optimization puzzle or figuring out the nuanced timings in Agricola fit these players. These trend towards the Euro-style games. They tend to dislike dice.

Brinkmanship: A very close cousin to only caring about winning, these people like the stakes to matter. So you have the Poker players, the gamblers, or people who like to play at the edge of what is safe. Red-and-Black is a great bluffing and reading game where you have to just overreach what is safe to win. Persistent tangible rewards, like in Risk Legacy, also help.

Competitive: Really all they care about is winning. Games that involve direct conflict like Risk are good. But also there has to be enough skill involved that it feels like they can control their fate (i.e. a Risk variant like Risk 2210AD). You can tell who these players are when they lose and complain about some random element screwing them over (dice in Catan are permanently cursed I tell ya). So they will trend towards skill-based games with clean mechanics they can exploit. Euro-games are a plus. But they will shy away from complex games they don't have mastery in since it's less likely they will win.

I probably missed a few archetypes, but you get the idea.  And obviously lots of these overlap. Theme players usually enjoy Roleplaying. Competitive players usually like Brinkmanship and Puzzles.

So go out and game!

The Internal Struggles

From a Q&A with Jennifer Knapp

From Rachel: Jennifer, thank you so much for your music. It's been a big part of my life, and I am so grateful for you. I'll try not to fan out too much as I ask my question: I'm reading a book by pastor Jonathan Martin in which he discusses the fact that, in our current culture, fame and notoriety are treated as necessities, while obscurity is considered the kiss of death. He writes "Our society tells us that if and when we get "there"--the job or position or degree we've always wanted, the notoriety we've always dreamed of--that's when all the important stuff will start happening. Not so. All the good stuff happens in obscurity." Is this how you feel about your seven-year hiatus from the music industry? What are some important, valuable things you learned during that time away from the spotlight? Thank you!

Retrospectively, one thing I’d say is that while it is possible to learn from the experience of being ‘in the spotlight’; it is not the most fertile soil for significant growth. The spotlight is where we celebrate and commune with what we’ve learned. The growth, the creation, self-exploration and processing, I just can’t see how we can possibly do that effectively with an audience. It’s too exposed. Being observed inherently shapes the outcome. We usually talk differently when we are being observed. We perform. That’s not bad; it’s just not the entire purpose or the end game.

The spotlight is a fickle beast. It’s rewarding to find avenues to express our mastery over what we’ve learned. Reaching for achievement is a great motivator when you’re breaking your back perfecting your trade. To complete, sell, and talk about a book. Or sing, record and perform a record to a cheering crowd. I can’t lie. It’s powerful, fulfilling stuff to be able to be ‘the guy’ responsible for moving the room. But I think there’s a backside if you go into those situations looking to be the object that is celebrated. Being observed is often too great a temptation to imitate the style of characters we want to be rather than investing in the hard work of mindfully becoming our unique selves. Save the spotlight for the celebration, for the moments where connecting MUST occur to move forward.

Maybe it’s the difference between performing as a kid and getting older, but I view ‘the spotlight’ as a far more public property that I ever did earlier in my career. I learned that some things, you just have to learn in private. That what you say in those public spaces becomes a shared portion of our gathering together. It’s a public trust.

So what did I learn? I learned that I must find a way to nurture my spirit in solitude, away from the audience. It’s important for me to spend time in contemplation, discovery, and in practice, learning what I purpose or intend when I am afforded that sacred public space. The celebration, if there is any to be had, is simply being able to come to a point where we are capable of sharing that experience with the outside world without prejudice toward or fear of others. The personal journey evolves into an ability to be hospitable, if not hopefully, loving toward others. I didn’t know that I was learning anything while I wasn’t performing all those years, but learned to describe it later, when I tripped onto Nouwen’s depiction of the differences between loneliness and solitude. (Henri Nouwen, Reaching Out) It is in those (thankfully) obscured places where we have the opportunity to objectively better ourselves, make peace with who we are without the fear of failure or judgment. It seems incredibly self-centered, but surprisingly, it can lead to an amazing reaching out toward connecting with others.

I'm sorry if that all sounds too esoteric. But it underpins so much of where I’m at today. On one hand, if all you want is some kind of recognition for how awesome you are at your particular skill or level of intelligence, then the only option is to be undeniably good at what you do. So yeah, practice happens out of the spotlight. You practice what you do until you are flawless at that one phrase, that one act--perfect in your descriptions of one event or area of expertise. But I think there’s more to life than just the executables.

The spotlight or the communal exhibitions of our human experience are necessary. It allows us to connect with others, build and reaffirm community. It can be a healing process or practical act of human expression in being ‘known.’ It’s a point of celebration of our achievements and passions. But it must be put into perspective. These are but moments-glimpses; a poem, a song, a photographic still frame in what is the long and rich story of our lives. To aspire to only that moment is to miss out on all the extravagance of life. It’s what we do into the lead up and aftermath to those moments that says more about us than fifteen minutes of fame ever will.

The rest of the Q&A is exceptional as well, but I wanted to focus on this particular answer.

It touches on a strong dichotomy that we experience every day. As a society we love and adore the public face. We all just want to be big rock stars. We want to win the prize and receive the recognition. We heap rewards upon those who are strong enough to stand in the spotlight and show their muster to the world.

This mentality has seeped into everything, even our private lives. We celebrate the honesty and transparency of video bloggers. We are driven to share every little aspect of our lives on social media. We want all of our accomplishments, everything from a piano recital to resisting the urge to eat a candy bar, to be laid out and celebrated. We clasp hands and encourage each other to share our deepest fears and desires; and upvote the ones strong enough to be vulnerable in front of all of those unknown judging eyes.

This is all very good. We should encourage sharing. We should encourage people to be courageous and honest with their peers. Sharing stories gives us waypoints in life. We celebrate the great moments and strive towards them with fervor. We get a glimpse into others' lives and realize how similar we are, providing comfort. We can be empowered that the great heroes of our age are human after all. We should walk hand-in-hand alongside our peers who suffer secretly just like we do. We realize we are not alone.

But still, I feel we are not made for the mountains. We are made for the valley. Our lives on display are for our performances. We build up the image of ourselves through our carefully crafted stories. We perform to seek applause. But it also means we have to interact with the audience. We are driven to fulfill their desires and conform to the advertisements. We select for stories of success and triumph. We prefer the postmortem that says it all turns out A-OK and everything is alright. We provide a kind of social public agreement on who we are and what we provide. We begin to conform.

But it is in the quiet and away from the brilliant lights that we develop. That is where the chores are done and endurance to persevere is required. Small incremental steps with tiny gains that no one, not even yourself at times, can see. In private we are allowed to unpack and examine the minutiae of our psyche, our beliefs, our accomplishments and talents. That is where we, alone, have to face angels and demons within us and sort them out. In the quiet mundane there is no celebration. There is simply struggle and peace.

When we step back out on stage we show the results of those quiet days. We show the new and improved muscles we built from tireless days in the gym. We dazzle the audience with a new turn of step that brings awe. We pound out amazing new tracks that sound like nothing anyone has heard before but instantly reverberates through their very being. But that is just the performance. That is the moment of inspiration and interaction. Perhaps we receive a high-five or an award. Perhaps all we do is get to share a bit of our life with those around us.

But in the end, those are just the waypoints. Those celebrations and bright lights are not a whole life. We consume them from afar from a million other lives and think "my life should be that." Never looking at the long journey it took, the days of mundane, the quiet growth in the background.

In private is where we can grow.


And grow we do. But it is not through sharing that we grow. Psychologically sharing our goals can reduce our motivation to accomplish them. We feel like we've partially accomplished something even though we have done nothing. Sharing about my struggles in life doesn't resolve that they exist. I may experience catharsis, and at best find sympathizers and accountability, but that does not resolve the underlying issues. We move under our own power and that takes private self-motivated actions.

I don't want to undermine the power of sharing. One of the greatest burdens and barriers to progress is feeling the insurmountable weight of the task upon you. This can be from the inherent weight of the plan itself. Or psychologically from the sense of going in alone. Or shame of past failures. Providing a stage to share and receive stories of success and rehumanizing those around us is a perfect way to get around this problem. Being able to release your burden is uplifting. Carrying another's burden eases their load and gives them the room to succeed. Lying down after a long week and sharing with a friend how miserable it was is incredible and healthy.

But sharing for its own sake is not enough. It doesn't matter how many self-affirmations you give. The story of your dark past is simply a story. To actually crawl forward requires time and effort.


It is hard, tiring, and many times you will want to give up as you crawl forward. I have felt many times completely drained and unfeeling. I would stand looking at the times that have passed and the trials that I put myself through and see no appreciable progress. I would ask why go through all this work for nothing to show. Recently I have been grappling with social connections and how much I'd like to improve them. For the past year a decent number of brain cycles have been devoted to understanding social interactions and trying to deepen friendships. But sitting at home alone it often times feels like nothing has changed.

This is where sharing does help. I was sharing this with a close friend and they told me they couldn't understand what I was saying. They thought I was a pretty awesome person. Gee. I would have never known. My little internal world said I was pretty cruddy and not going anywhere. Share to help realign your perception of the world.

This also is why it's good to set benchmarks sometimes. While working out a few days ago I was gasping for breathe and wondering if I had made any progress in the gym. Then I remembered moments like struggling to keep going after running a mile in Middle School or how much I could lift when I first started. These were measurable differences of the now against the past. Not everything has clear-cut metrics. I can't measure my likability and friendliness by how many Facebook Friends I have. I can't measure how good of a programmer I am by how many bugs escape my notice. But some things can be measured. Use those benchmarks to shatter the perception nothing has changed.


The work we do in private is rough. But it is important and necessary. Don't buy the lie of an always shared life as the best life. Live an examined life. Fight the internal struggles. Become awesome. Then share it with the world.

Respect: Demi Lovato

Required watching for this post:

I have to say I'm rather impressed with Demi Lovato.

I recently noticed an odd trend in break-up songs. It typically is an anthem of how badass you are. You are free, independent, and will rise above the hurt. See Titanium, I Will Survive, Part of Me, Wide Awake, etc. From the lyrics, at first glance, it seems like Demi is saying the same thing. She will rise up "like a skyscraper" over all of this while the other party just "runs away" from it all.

But the performance and music video undermine that theme here. It is a raw, crying voice that carries out those lyrics. There is real hurt behind it all. Her first few lines talk about teardrops falling into her hands. There's a line about the guy making her feel like there's nothing left of her. This is not a triumph song. The video takes place in a desert. She walks over glass in bare feet. She is wearing just a few flowing robes, showing how vulnerable, although free, she is. This has cries of pain, emptiness, and the raw feeling of being left alone.

This isn't about how strong she is. It is more an anthem trying to psyche herself up. She is not a skyscraper in the clouds just yet. She is still trying to pick herself up and rise to the challenge. This is more about her repeating the lines to herself in an act of protest and self-affirmation; that while it all hurts now she can rise above it all.

Major kudos. Break-ups are messy. And it is OK to feel the pain. That doesn't diminish who you are. It isn't a measure of your worth or strength how long you have to grieve. The pain is real, it will hurt, and people suffer. We are fragile like paper and glass. We get torn up and broken, and that is OK. But at the same time we don't merely sit in the pain. We crawl our way out of the pit towards a different place. Pain turns into motivation to move. We set our sights on triumph. We try to walk out of that pain eventually. In the meantime though, it all still hurts.

Balancing these two aspects of pain and triumph into a single song is amazing in today's bland clean-cut pop version of love. Hm. That's it for today's random thoughts.



PS Browsing YouTube, another song of hers that does a remarkable job of mirroring real-life a bit is Heart Attack. I was just talking with a friend about how sometimes we cover up, scared that if we let the person we like know how much we like them we leave ourselves vulnerable. Demi in some ways gives us a lovely cutesy crush song. But she also does a remarkable job of showing how much we play defense in our scared world.

PPS I think we all do the self-affirmation part. We like to post and repeat quotes not because we're living them but because they give us a waypoint or beacon of where we'd like to get. Many of these posts on this blog giving "advice" are not just for you as a reader but also to pound into myself what needs to change. We envision the change we want to be. We acknowledge how short we fall. Then we get to walking.

Initial Conditions

I was having a discussion two weeks ago and the subject of logic came up. Logic is a very powerful tool and the basis of sound arguments. Knowing, identifying, and calling out rhetorical and logical fallacies is extremely crucial to ensure a discussion stays on track and stays evidence based. However, someone brought up the fact that logic isn't sufficient. Otherwise we would have solved a lot more problems long ago by following Kant's Maxism philosophy. Most of what we talk about is based on logic built upon very specific, fundamental, a priori value systems. They are the input to the logical arguments, and the logical ramifications follow from them. And when your initial values logically lead to very unsavory or non-empirical conclusions, you can trace it all back and conclude that initial condition was wrong or misguided.

This got me thinking where else the initial conditions really mess with things. Obviously from math there's chaotic systems where the slightest deviation creates wildly different results. Plus there are the clear scientific chemical reactions. Wood + Gas != Wood + Gas + FIRE. Very, very different end results. Also the a priori postulates that we use to form the basis of logic and math, like Euclidian Geometry. Pick a different set of a priori constants, and the whole system changes.

But let's think about some other, more life applicable things. (OK, yes, making fire is super life applicable. Just went to a party and some people didn't know how to start a fire. *sad*) For example, there are two major ways to look at the transitory nature of life. On one hand you can become detached and say "everything will change anyways." Or you can grasp a hold of every unique moment as it comes. Or how children with two working parents who aren't around turn out so differently. Some become extremely responsible taking care of themselves. Others go a little crazy without the authority figures around to help rein them in. Or heck, look at political debates. Both sides can see the same set of data (assuming your pollsters aren't jerks and cherry-picking, but that's another rant) and yet come to completely different sets of conclusions.

Let us do a concrete example. A friend of mine was offered a part-time position at $32.50/hr. Doing the math, that's around $67,600/yr on a 40-hr workweek. That kind of yearly salary easily puts a single person in the top quarter of household earning in the US. Combined with a spouse at that same rate, you're in the top 10% (source). That is pretty awesome for the majority of people, and most of my other friends would kill for a part-time wage that high. But he turned it down. Why? Because he feels that he can demand a higher wage due to his profession; especially if he lands a full-time job. His initial conditions also include the fact this would be the second part-time job he took, and eat up precious time during the week. So while the majority of people might jump at the chance for that extra income, he places greater value in his time and potential income from a full-time position.

In math and science, these initial conditions are the postulates. We assume them to be true, and within that self-consistent framework they are true. For example, Euclidian Geometry serves us very well. Much of physics was based on this framework. Unfortunately, one of those postulates is the Parallel Postulate, or that if two lines bisect another line at right angles, they won't ever meet. (OK, he actually said, "That, if a straight line falling on two straight lines make the interior angles on the same side less than two right angles, the two straight lines, if produced indefinitely, meet on that side on which are the angles less than the two right angles" so what I said is the converse) Unfortunately, it turns out this only works in a flat plane. Space-time turns out to not be flat. And so science had to figure out a new set of postulates to properly model the universe, and Relativity was born.

Not understanding initial conditions is the reason people often argue past each other. If you start with a specific initial condition, say you believe America is in decline, then you are strongly predisposed to evidence that supports that ideology. You reflexively agree with data that supports your position, and then go in and critique or rationalize away data and anecdotes that contradict. I have seen people actively seek out a small flaw in an argument whether it be tone or the person presenting is looks funny and conclude the entire argument is false (i.e. actively employ the Fallacy Fallacy). This predisposition to embrace incidents that support your theory and ignore counter evidence is called Confirmation Bias. And when someone challenges your precious position, they have to first navigate all the facts you've amassed that support your theory. Or you completely miss each other since you are working from totally different reference frames. In a better argument, you need to get to the core initial conditions, the basic postulates, properly define them, and work out their differences and merits.

One classic example of two sides talking past each other is the old thought fielded by some Creationists. The argument goes that the Theory of Evolution, since it prescribes order (life) from chaos (random chemicals+energy), violates the basic Laws of Thermodynamics which say Entropy must increase. This makes perfect sense to the Creationist and they can't see why people would support Evolution when it clearly goes against fundamental Physics. When you study the argument though, it's a misuse of what the theory actually says, which is local entropy can decrease as long as it is offset by external entropy such that the entropy in the universe increases. So the Evolutionist can't see with the Creationist would be so blind and support Creationism.

And this "misunderstanding" happens all the time in arguments. How many times have you looked at someone's stance and shook your head going "only crazy people would believe that." Have you tried to figure it out? In college I didn't know too much about politics except that there were two parties and George Bush (and later Obama) was in power. I heard about the Religious Right and started to wonder about a Religious Left. Turns out there is one (but they prefer to go by the name Christian Left). When I first looked at their Wikipedia article, I shook my head. I read about how they valued love, grace, and social justice more than upholding morality and justice. Being a very injured person myself, I thought this was extraordinarily naive. "Sure love is important, but Hard Love is still Love," I would say. "I want what's best for them, and without correction they can't see the light!" This concept of just loving people regardless seemed completely crazy to me. I read more of their articles written for their audience and was shocked at how they shook their head and called people like me buffoons, idiots, bigots, and misogynist jerkwads. It all seemed like a bunch of naive assholes, who didn't understand my life and my way of thinking, having a big old laugh at my expense in their ivory tower. But later as I dug into their core tenants I eventually found myself agreeing more and more with their concepts and logic. I finally teased out the core initial conditions and their implications, and came to adopt a few as my own.

Another aspect is shown when I previously wrote about how advice seems to contradict itself. This is not because the advice is inherently wrong, but different pieces of advice are for different people. Telling a very shy person they need to "tone it down and let others talk" isn't very productive. Or if someone already feels deficient, telling them that with hard work anything is possible they might think their poor state is because they've been lazy. You don't need to give advice to conservative individuals to stop being promiscuous. Telling your macho friend who ain't afraid of nothin' to "man up" isn't quite the same as telling it to the wimpy guy who's too scared to ask out a girl. You have to consider the initial conditions, see the goal, and plot an appropriate course when giving advice.

I don't mean to say these initial conditions are something we should question all the time. We build a working set of them as shorthand, allowing our brains to quickly make decisions without wasting conscious brain power. It doesn't suit me to second-guess if gravity works every time I take a step. Philosophically it is fun, but practically I take it on faith it is true. If I am ever in a fight, I will not take the time to think about the morality of punching someone's face in. I better be using every part of my faculty to getting out alive, which probably means running really fast. It's even been shown that often times our snap decisions serve us extremely well; better than our rationalizing logical arguments. There's a whole book on the subject called Blink. One of it's highlight examples is how quickly we can read someone's face. Or how intuitively archaeologists knew the Getty kouros was a fake before its evidence was dismantled. A highly tuned set of initial conditions is a huge boon.

In short, I urge you to take a moment to think about your own set of initial conditions. Take some time to poke and prod them from time to time. Identifying them, understanding what they are, and where they come from helps illuminate your blind spots. Understanding this effect can help you get to the root of an argument instead of clobbering each other with superficial facts. Once you have a good set, rely on them to get you out of tough situations quickly. These are extremely important, and you can't afford to get them wrong.


PS. I recommend you read about Short Inferential Distances and how to properly walk someone through an argument. Starting in with your alien conclusion makes no sense if the other person doesn't realize all the background thought you've put into it. And be ready to work this backwards so you can understand and perhaps adopt someone else's initial condition.

PPS. I highly recommend reading The Positive Programmer where the author talks about unlearning negativity and proactively getting yourself out of the self-depreciating rut. It tends to lead to depression.

Empathy and Encouragement

When someone is dealing with a problem, there seems to be two prevailing responses. On one hand, there's the empathy response. You come alongside and grieve. You feel the pressure and pain and help shoulder it alongside the bearer. On the other is encouragement. Phrases like "man up" or "you're better than that" point to pushing an individual out of the rut and on to bigger and badder things. It is a call to rise above the circumstances and show off awesomeness innate in the person.

These are both very, very good responses and trying to figure out which one to apply when is extremely hard.

Obviously the far extremes are pretty easy to pick out. Someone just got hit hard (breakups, job interview, failed project, missed the goal), you should probably opt for the empathy response. Grieve with them, provide support, and affirm they are still a good person. This is when cliches like retail therapy or having drinks is applicable. You sit beside and show you are there for them. You help shoulder their burden and empathize. You let them release their pain and grief.

Then there are those who seem stuck in a rut. So stuck they don't even try. So you should opt for the encouragement. Get them moving along. Get some momentum rolling. Pump them up to make them realize they can do it! Off your sorry ass and get CRANKING! The world doesn't care about your intentions, they care about actions, so go and get ACTIVE.

Those are easy.

I'm more concerned about finding the inflection point between the two.

Let's take myself as an easy example. I tend to have bouts of depression. They are mostly tied to concepts of self-worth, especially with respect to skills and achievements for my age bracket. On the downward spiral I find immense solace in certain music. Music that seems to empathize with my rage and pain. Trying to pump myself up with boisterous YOU CAN DO IT articles backfires. I wonder why I can't pull out of the spiral. I wonder why I'm not good enough and strong enough to be the badass everyone seems to think I can be.

But then there is the other side. As I hit rock bottom and start to turn around I pick up the pieces. On the upswing those same kinds of you-can-do-it articles that caused more grief start to resonate. Heck yeah I am awesome. It really is never too late to start. I have a strong skillset and can devote time to improve myself. I will make a difference. There is hope. And those self-medicating empathic items? They lose their usefulness, like a coat you throw off in warmer weather.

Trying to identify the inflection point is rough. Figuring out where you can shift to encouragement, thereby minimizing the downward slump, is extremely nuanced. Improper application of encouragement early only creates the opposite effect*. Especially when you are trying to provide that support for someone else and don't have access to their internal mindset.

Granted, you shouldn't try to cover up a proper grieving period. I was listening to a talk about break-ups and the speaker talked about how he once broke down crying and sobbing uncontrollably for several days. Why? Because even after several breakups throughout his life he had never grieved any of them, and suddenly it all welled up from inside. He became overwhelmed and had to just cry it all out. A proper grieving period is healthy for emotional healing. And providing that is something we can and should provide. Sit and listen. Don't try to correct, just empathize. Provide a safe place for them to be vulnerable and become free.

But I don't want to stand around providing only empathy and say "it's all right" all the time. That's a severe disservice to the individual. Your natural response is to stay safe and stay comfortable. But I want to see you be awesome and max out your potential. I want to max out my own potential. So sometimes you need to give a bit of a nudge, a pep talk, or even a hard kick in the nads.

Two sides of the same coin. But completely radical in their application. I'm still trying to figure out how to properly apply them to myself. And providing both to others is even harder.


* I think this is because encouragement tends to run counter to their current state of mind and view of the world. This cognitive dissonance results in uneasy bad feelings, potentially resulting in further depression or an antagonistic response. I'm sure you've experienced when you try to help someone by providing positive critiques and they just shove it all away in anger.

Methods of Preparation

I feel like there are two methods of preparation for an event. 

The first is to be over prepared.  When I had a concert I would diligently practice my part over and over until I knew all of it by heart. Then I would mess with it to see if I could still perform it. Perhaps moving up or down an octave giving it a new sound and body position. Or adding syncopation. Or playing it as fast or as slow as I could. All to shake up what was becoming sedentary in my brain and muscles. These variations ensured I knew the part inside and out. 

This paid off quite well. Inserted restart points helped me get through a difficult piece. Once the piano had a stuck key so throughout the piece I had to pull it back up before striking that note again. Don't ask how I managed. I recall it being an almost reflexive and flawless performance. I also remember someone being quite surprised I pulled it off. These extra layers of preparation meant I was flexible enough and able to freely react to new situations are they arose instead of devoting all of my concentration on execution of the piece.

But these are the foibles of youth. Looking back I realize just how much free time I had to devote to these extra explorations. As I grew older my time shrank, I wanted to do more things, and I started to develop a sense of doing just enough to get by. What was the minimum amount of time I could devote and still have reasonable chances at success. So a relatively rock solid record of completely confident performances segued to usually successful events with the occasional mess up. Slowly I became aware of expectations and nervous sweating or lip shaking snuck into the performances. This is the other method. Prepare consistently and build up enough to make success relatively likely. This is often how physical feats are prepared. Most people I know (i.e. not competitive marathon runners) prepare for a marathon not by running marathons but running shorter distances. At the actual event they push their limits to cross that finish line.

So on one hand you can try to perfect your craft. You ensure that you will succeed by over preparing. By exploring the boundaries of your skills in such a way you build in a safety buffer for mistakes. The event itself then leads to a more natural feeling where expression is the key motivation. Or you can make the event the edge of your reach. Crossing the finish line is the goal, so you devote enough time to succeed even if you trip and stumble a few times.

One obviously takes much more time than the other. If you have the time and drive you can prepare and ensure success. If you don't, or can't devote enough time (it's usually the latter) then we often aim for passing. I wish we had enough time to flourish and thrive. But we don't.

Still, if you are dedicated enough and passionate enough you can still make an art of something. Whether it be making art, musical instruments, or programming code, if you devote enough time to create not just mediocre passing quality but extraordinarily refined pieces then I applaud you. And I am sure the rest of the world will as well.