Tomorrow in retrospect

(Static) You’re tuned to 100% MHz FM and the Rationality network. I’m your host, DJ Daemon and now time for some messages from our sponsors.

(StationID) Rationaaaaaaaality, your reality leader…

Hanlon’s razor, the premier leader in logical deduction just got better! Hanlon industries presents the Hanlon+. The Hanlon+ cuts with better precision and the same quality you have come to expect from a true powerhouse of problem solver. With its double-action judgement free power shear, it will give you more than 30% better results. And that’s a promise! Hanlon+ is the thinking man- or laaaaady’s choice in thought management. It will keep your thoughts sharp and in peak condition when you need it the most.

Hanlon+, from Hanlon industries – the leader of good judgement since 1980.

And we’re back. This is Rationality, your reality leader. DJ Daemon here to talk about Hanlon’s razor and Hanlon+.

The famous Hanlon’s razor says that bad effects for you come from either a) the incompetence of others or b) the malice of others.

In short, if something bad happens. Someone did because they’re evil/uncaring or because they’re stupid/incompetent.

I have a bit of a problem with this. It’s way too judgmental. I don’t intend to remove judgement, not at all. It should just not be “built into” the first assessment. Instead, I propose, we change “Incompetence” to “Non-intentional” and “Malice” to “Intentional”.

To elaborate, let’s assume you accept a temporary position at a farm. You get a note that tells you that your first assignment is to operate the tractor. It has the usual number of warnings and reminders. You know you’ve seen them before and skip ahead. As you arrive to the farm, you check in, get the key and the walk to the tractor. As you try to start it, it will not work. The engine growels but will not start churning as you turn the key in the ignition. After an hour of troubleshooting, you find out that the tank is empty. That stupid sunnova…. The farmer totally forgot the fuel.

When you tell the farmer about the problem, he just sternly tells you to look at the assignment again. You do. And the notes tell you that you’re supposed to always check the logs in the house to know when refuel is necessary. Ow!

What’s the verdict, Hanlon’s razor? Malice! Clear as the day. The farmer knew you would skip over the instructions and this way, you learned that he expects you to know the check list by heart.

But malice? Really? It’s clearly intentional, not necessarily malicious. He gives you another chance, and you complete the work. The harvest looks promising, and you get paid. Hence, it’s “Intentional”, not malicious.

The “Nigerian prince” that offers money, if you just send him your bank account information is also intentional. And malicious. He wants to gouge you of as much money he can before you figure out that you’ve been had.

So “Malice” is now “Intentional”.

And then we have the other result of Hanlon’s razor: incompetence. Something bad happens, and that’s because of their (whoever they may be) incompetence. They certainly tried, but you know how they are, nothing ever comes out right. Aaaaargh!

No, I would say it’s “non-intentional”. That INCLUDES incompetence but does not restrict itself to that. Instead, it could be something like:

– Incompetence

Yes, actually. That’s that case when it IS exactly that. It’s a common reason for “non-intentional” consequences.

– Competent, non-participation

They know they could not solve the problem, so they didn’t. That caused problems on your side. Maybe it could have been solved, but not after so many mistakes or so much time had passed. Irregardless, it wasn’t possible. They should have told you, but maybe you didn’t get the memo. And there you are.

– “Act of <insert deity>”

Sometimes bad stuff happens ™. It’s not your fault, it’s not ours either. Sorry. Maybe if x haden’t been in power/in charge/tasked with fixing it. Or maybe it just happens. Reason unknown. An electric storm has no mind of its own, but due to it, you have no Internet connection. Non-intentional, not “incompetent”.

Summary

Hanlon+ replaces Hanlon’s razor. “Intentional” replaces “Malice” and “Non-intentional” replaces incompetent.

We’re going on with a two-hour marathon with the best thoughts from the 60s, 70s, 80s until today on Rationality FM – your reality leader. Stay tuned!

My mother loves citing Epictetus. I’ve heard quotes all my life, and they always intrigued me. She told me once that she saw Epictetus’s “Discourses and Selected Writings” on the sleeping room table of her father and mother and started reading it. Obviously, it resonated with her, and so she learned of stoicism.

In modern time, I sought stoicism mostly by stumbling across the Facebook group and I reconnected with old memories of what I’ve been taught. I loved it and felt that it had to be a solution how to better myself.

In retrospect I was (mostly) able to, and sometimes not. The process had its ups and down, and as I struggled to understand the parts that seemed hard for me to live by, the problems with stoicism became clear to me. In my opinion, the fundamentals are good, great even. But its chief problem is how uncompromising it is.

Just understand that I talk about stoicism, not Stoicism. As in, the “way for a better you” and not the religion. I’m not a great fan of Zeus, you see. Sorry if that offends anyone. He was not a great character in my book.

Before we start, let me say that I still read stoicisms teachings and apply them to my life. But I’ve given up on the idea of reaching it and becoming a true stoic, which many of my older text already reflects. So, what’s the reasons of that, in my opinion?

Problem 1: It will not let you compromise

“Drop the ego”

“You can only control yourself”

“You cannot complain about feeling that you have no control over”

“You must silently bear your emotions”

WHY?

Seriously, why??? Epictetus was limping through most of his life. The reason is unknown. Some people say that it was congenital. But legend has it that his slave owner, Epaphroditus, tortured him by breaking his leg. Epictetus answered, “Soon my leg will break” and then pretty much said “Told ya’ so” when it did.

Ok, could you do that? I certainly couldn’t. I would cry and scream, like most people. Torture always works. it’s just about finding a person’s breaking point. Awful subject let’s drop it.

But really, why is stoicism not allowing errors and non-adherence? Probably too hard to define how many retries you have before you must return your “stoicism club card”. Seriously, it does make people fail!

It’s not an easy problem to solve. If you think about the yo-yo behavior of failed diets, you understand that it’s deeply human to fight to better yourself yet failing. And still, “x is not a true stoic because x whines too much”. Right! That’s forbidden now. No, whining. (As I am right now, by the way).

The recovery

Push as much discipline as you can into applying your self-reflections into betterment. If you fail, understand why, and work with it. Make the uncontrolled situations rarer and less obvious. Often, I blame myself for when I get angry at some bleeding, insignificant problem like why VSCode applies </div>-tags when I don’t want it to, or some idiotic mail makes me say snarky stuff when I’m all alone. It’s small but becomes a problem if you don’t try to silence your emotions. Evetually, people will be around when you scream that Sataya Nadella (Microsoft CEO) should “#%#¤%&%”¤”¤%&/&&”%#.

• “Good that has never happened to you, Erik!”
• “Hmm… Yeah, let’s just say that and go on….”

Problem 2: the horizon of change – you may not even try

The tenement of wisdom is about knowing to differentiate between what you can change and what you cannot.

How would you even know?

I mean, without trying. We gain wisdom by trying what we cannot predict the outcome of. It’s a false positive – false negative problem, really. As in if I cannot know, should I prefer believing I can’t change it, when it turns out that I can (false negative)? Or that I must avoid changing stuff if I even I might be able to pull it through (false positive)?

The recovery

I believe in the wisdom tenement is about giving up when it’s clear to be a failure. This calibrates towards the false negative stance. But still gives it a shot. Paul McCartney tried to save the Beatles in the late 60s with the “Get back”-tour. It ended up becoming the “Let it be” album, released after the Beatles had split up. I’m just putting that out there. Please, please me by pondering about that.

The big question: what is the hardest thing to deal with while trying to become a stoic?

I don’t consider myself a stoic. Why? Because for me, those goals are unattainable. Sounds more than a bit defeatist, no? It’s a stoic trait to acknowledge what you cannot change. This seems like some loopy reasoning, but it really is not.

The goals of stoicism for me are to strive for. But every time my angry, uncool, and brittle side takes over I feel “but I’m angry/sad/moody, so how can I help it?”. As I cool down, I berate myself over this stupid mistake; that I let myself be overcome by emotion. It does not really do anything good. I say snarky things to Windows 11, bang my fists into the keyboard and swear loudly. Some stoic, eh? But, to a certain degree I know why this is hard. It’s not because I can do no better. Everyone can get angry, right?

Yes, that is true. But some people are just better at it, and for the rest of us, there is but one answer: others! I believe that that what keep us sane, is the support and restraint from others. Friends, coworkers, lovers, and parents. My point being that the framework of coexistence is what builds a better person. Stoicism may be the far end of such a road.

All negative emotions catch on, when no one is there to talk you down or support you. Think about all the loners in the world that go totally mental. Absolutely not all of them, but some do. And would having people to set limits for them, but more than anything giving them support have changed them to the better? I sure think so.

I’m a bit of lone wolf at least, so there is some self-recognition of a bit of projection on my part, I totally get that. But at some point, the people that NEVER talk to other real people or only ever communicate over forums, are at a greater risk than the rest of us. The restraint comes from temperance. It comes from a balance between filled needs and avoidance of overindulgence.

All I’m saying is that being a stoic is probably totally impossible in a vacuum, without others. Alone, we are all left to our own devices. My mother, herself close to a true stoic, says “you’re your own bad advisor”.

The idea of honest words from people saying hard truths but also showing kindness, saves any person from being knocked out of the “green areas” of the four tenements of stoicism.

Oh, and the answer? Alone! I think it’s being alone.

Picture by Gage Skidmore.

It has been many years since I attended public lecture, something I like to do back in the day. I have seen Stephen Hawking in Stockholm University, the amazing Randi (James Randi) and as of lately, Trevor Noah at Hovet.

A few days ago, an ad for an upcoming lecture by clinical psychologist Jordan Peterson came up in Facebook flow and decided to go. And so, I did. This is a bit of a walkthrough and some of my thoughts on him.

Jordan Peterson started his public speaking career as a lecturer with swiftly rising approval and spoke about psychology and your biology. Then he got more creative and started to compare development of a person by talking about Disney movies, books, and the bible. He compared stunted development of some people with “Peter Pan”, noting that Pan is the “god of everything”. He meant, that as we grow up, we must stop being capable of everything and chose to limit ourselves. When we were young, we could have been a cowboy, an astronaut, or a boxer. But as we go into adulthood, we choose careers and maybe a partner. The “Pan” part is now gone, and we specialize. “Peter Pan” is really a book about a boy who refuses to grow up. That did not work splendidly for Michael Jackson, now, did it?

But Mr. Peterson began talking outside his expertise more and more, causing him to become more and more divisive, as he became political. A darling to right wingers and not as much to the left. Personally, I think it’s a sad state of business, as he could have been a voice for everyone across the board. No one seems to get out of entering the political debate without losing a lot of followers and people that listen to your message.

I think most people will get something out of listening to him, and I most certainly did even though I have some points where I cannot agree. This is par for the course with everyone, so let’s not linger, with no further ado – I give you Dr. Jordan Peterson.

The show started 25 minutes late and was introduced by his wife, Tammy Peterson. The intro was way too long in my opinion, but she introduced the subject “rule 7” from of Peterson’s upcoming book “beyond order”. That rule is by the way “Work as hard as you possibly can on at least one thing and see what happens.”.

He came on stage and started up by noting that the most common question he gets is something like “how do I find a perfect partner for me”. Then he pointed out that the question is wrongly formulated. The better way of seeing it would be asking “how do I become a better person to be attractive for someone”. Those are not the exact words he used but set the tone for the whole lecture.

He then went on by going into identity politics and pointless pursuit of trying to label him as conservative or not. While I’m not sure what to label him in that regard, one thing was readily clear: he is a collectivist. Not authoritarian in any way, but he is very much against the identity politics as they are. The point he makes is that an identity is not atomic, as I “I am what I am, and you must respect that”. Instead, he said “you negotiate your identity with others”. Totally in agreement here, but he has a tendency of compromising that vision of his as well.

And so, he did by alluding to the trans person debate by just touch on the idea of biological and gender identity. Just by looking at his previous speeches, you know that he pretty much disqualifies the difference between biological and psychological gender identities. This is dumb! It’s been proven that trans persons have a biological difference that accounts for their identity not matching their biology. This is natural and Mr. Peterson ends up contradicting himself here. It’s not a good trait of a clinical psychologist to ignore biology just because he does not like gender identities. Also, few modern people would argue against trans people existing and being allowed to. Because they do and they should! But I’m not here to be contrarian, so let’s go on.

The most important part of the lecture was rule seven, but he methodically moved towards it by talking about development of personalities. He spoke about listening to a set of interviews with then President Donald Trump. He noted that he wasn’t really going to talk about Trump being narcissistic or not and instead offered a very interest view as a psychologist: “Trump is a nine-year-old bully”.

He noted that in the interviews he watched, Trump sent out uncommon assertions about every ten minutes. “I’m the greatest president in the history” or “I’m the most honest person ever”. This is strange for anyone to say once – but doing it every 10 minutes is remarkable.

And Trump did. According to Mr. Peterson, he simply uses the assertion to ask anyone to challenge him. Like a nine-year-old bully he screams “I’m the king of the school yard, fight me!”. That’s some sort of stunted development right there, eh?

Leaving trump, he went on to talk about the necessity of other people and connecting with them to build up your own constraints and sanity. Others will tell you when you’re out of line or plainly wrong. He talked about a particularly bad night out on the pubs with three married men that he said, “seemed to be in the marriage counseling business”. I think that was just a bitter joke. But they did nothing but complaining about their wives, while assuming everyone else did. Peterson recalled that they called them “bitches”.

He wryly stated something like “imagine arguing and then ‘winning’ against your wife every day? What have you won? If you won 20 times in a row, you now have loser of a wife. And she will resent you for It”. He meant that in a relationship, we all must sometimes put up with each other, but not with everything.

It seems to be up to everyone to follow their nature and interact with others in a meaningful matter, rather than demanding to the world that they accept you as you are without ever changing. To me it sounds about right. Mr. Peterson has met critique for those standpoints, but also acclaim.

The mantle piece of the storytelling was the “hard work”-part and he spoke with visible emotion about his first job. He was 14 and worked at a restaurant with the dishes. It was a horrible job as he struggled and barely managed to complete his task in time. Hid did it for a week and then decided to try a little bit more, before giving that crappy job up. The next week, just as he was getting ready to quit the job, the German chef come up to him. He taught him to order the plates before washing them, and suddenly the work was manageable and easy. You might say, “Nice to let him go through torment for a week before teaching him how to do it”. But there was a reason: most dishwashers quit and training them was useless as they disappeared after just a few days. But the chef saw that Jordan did not and decided to teach him the work. And that work gave him many personal friends and lead to career development.

A common theme of his is the path to personal growth. By the end of the lecture, he noted that the are levels of heaven above and many that leads into the deepest part of hell, if you want to make that fun journey.

So where lies Peterson’s heaven? I get the feeling of very traditional values coming into play when it turns out to be “get a job and a family”. Yeah, and friends. He reluctantly accepts that “some people may not want kids”. This is probably when you get not only what he is saying, but who he is: a counterweight to the counterculture. Not by any means wanting to turn the clock back to before the unkempt hippies but trying to counter what he sees as “rampant individualism”.

He sometimes comes out looking like an old man screaming “get off my lawn” and “my times were better”. But still, he is clearly skilled and insightful, and it was a pleasure to yet again attend a lecture held by a true intellectual.