Jivism.com

There are endless distractions out there, and if we fail to moderate what is distracting us and consuming our precious time, we will spend our lives beholden to this (overwhelmingly life wasting) noise.

When Thoreau was saying he wanted to live simply so that he could suck the marrow out of life, in the 1800s no less, he set himself up in the woods. He removed the comparatively scant distractions at the time. Our task is much greater.

Don’t wake up old and immobile and wonder where it all went. It went to Instagram and TikTok and Facebook and meme texts and parties you didn’t want to attend and so on. Actively ignore distractions so you can architect and live something magical.

In relationships of all kinds, people often disagree. Disagreement is often interlaced with ego, in which case a disagreement can become conflict, which I contend is needless in relationships of consequence.

In the field of conversational science, a number of thinking / interpretative / intentional errors have been discovered that cloud or distort the topic and prevent a productive outcome in these instances of misalignment. Then there are the adaptations that spawn other forms of protectionism, offense, dynamiting the foundation, generalization, intermixing, and other unproductive contributions.

These unproductive replies will frustrate any productive outcome, and it is helpful to label them when they take place. When two individuals are truly seeking resolve a misalignment while remaining on the same team, these would be offside and disallowed when identified. Alternatively, the following approaches could be taken.

Misalignment does not need to evolve into conflict and opposition. Two people on the same team will often have differing perspectives, and this tends to be a source of strength when the tension is appreciated and nurtured. When one side elects to use unproductive and likely adaptive approaches to meet that misalignment, the predictable end result is enlargement, clouding, subsumation, and other undesirable outcomes that transform a strength into a defeat.

It is a base belief in mainstream science that our brain is a receptor of information, meaning that observations are made and interpreted in a reactive manner. That we observe what is in front of us objectively and then appropriately process that reality.

Those in the social sciences had a sneaking suspicion that this wasn’t quite true and that somehow our perceptive lenses altered reality. Stephen Covey said, “We see the world, not as it is, but as we are──or, as we are conditioned to see it.” Growing up in an abusive household normalizes aggressive and violent behaviour and thus makes it less noticeable. Being raised by a narcissist makes the importance of the self hugely diminished and hence less focal. And of course my favourite “wood eye” parable, which makes it seem like everyone is focused on your vulnerabilities simply because you are too. Your upbringing and your repeated experience markedly change your psychology and the resulting adaptations are carried long past their relevance or usefulness.

A new study has augmented this understanding quite profoundly. Rather than our ‘psychology’ being the interpretative lens, it is now understand that the brain takes sensory information and supplements it with what it expects to see. According to the study, the brain combines what is real with what is expected (based on past memories from the occipital cortex) and in effect creates an “average” of reality and expectation.

This may seem underwhelming, however this new paradigm means that the brain is not a passive tool for interpretation, but rather it is the arbiter of reality for each individual. Your past experiences and how you have internalized them determine your future experiences. What you see, what you hear, what you smell, what you feel, are all concoctions of your physical mind as well as your psychology. And if your past experiences have included long term exposure to harsh environments, repeated trauma, difficult personalities, or other challenging life circumstances, those experiences will paint your future experiences to ignore harm, accept dysfunction, and even seek out abuse.

I try to avoid prescription in my blogs, but this does raise the question of what ought to be done given this very important finding. The answers will be difficult for a species hellbent on increasing dysfunction, isolation, and discord. We need to better protect individuals of all ages from harm, particularly from harmful parents and households. How this is achieved is very complex and controversial. And if an individual is imbued with reality-shaping adaptations, they need a form a therapy that assertively smashes their entire belief system and helps to reconstruct it in a manner that avoids permeation of distorted thoughts. Not an easy thing since it really needs to come from someone who spends an inordinate amount of time with that person.

Our brains are not reactive, passive tools. They are what determine every experience we have forever. Our social and educational systems ought to understand the profound importance of training the mind, not merely by filling it with knowledge, but by helping it to interpret and then define reality for a lifetime of experiences.

Too often I observe and participate in conversations that needlessly take unproductive turns. Factors such as emotional activation, imprecise language, symbology and semantic riddles cloud and derail otherwise worthwhile attempts for people to find common ground and conduct themselves with care and kindness. Below is a little table to demonstrate the ways that people can be productive and unproductive in their dialogue.

Unproductive approaches are often taken when an adversarial and illogical mindset is used. ‘Unless he agrees with me, he’s not listening!’ ‘A good relationship includes this.’ ‘That perspective is unhealthy.’ ‘Our friends don’t do it like you’re suggesting.’ ‘I know you’re thinking x.’

A work in progress, I have stratified some categories under which communication issues arise, and further delineated among productive and unproductive utterances.

Representation of Parties – Refers to how it is unproductive to speak as anything except yourself and your own subjective experience. Too often people want to assume and intuit the thoughts and feelings of others, or point out why this issue is the same they are experiencing with their mother, but this is overreach and commandeers more authority and wisdom than one truly possesses. We can only know our own experience, and talking about it in any other way attempts to suggest our perspective is more than our own perspective, which is unproductive and likely to create conflict.

Quality of Statement – Refers to what is actually being said or the content. Per the table, much of this can be innocent imprecision in language, confusion among thoughts and feelings, or concepts relayed not fully formed. The content is better understood when it is clear whether it is intended to be conversational or a monologue that is informational. Neither is unproductive, but it is helpful to be clear what is for discussing and what is for hearing. It is unproductive to communicate with symbology, to combine topics or concepts, to pass off platitudes as valuable and relevant, or to be combative rather than conciliatory. Speaking in normative ways of how things ought to be is similarly unproductive, or expecting and demanding a certain response during the delivery of the message (‘you are showing no emotion’).

Delivery of Statement – What you say is sometimes eclipsed by how you say it. Nothing screamed at someone will be parsed productively for its content, so the method of delivery is another key factor in communication success. Emotional neutrality or an absence of contorting emotions such as anger are important, even if its the absence of sadness as this can also contort the outcome unproductively. Like any other form of communication, parties should relay messages aligned to topics. If someone says, ‘I don’t like when you interrupt me’, and the other responds with ‘Then maybe you should stop doing that to me’, they are conflating by combining two separate topics that need to be separately addressed. The contours of each topic are things like a specific issue to be raised (and resolved), and are addressed fully and completely before another topic is broached, and if unable, appropriately parked for future address. Critically, delivery should be done in a way that reflects the care and closeness of the relationship and the intended outcome. Threats and insults cannot accompany goals of understanding and conciliation, nor can aggressive and combative tactics. Using a kind tone, inclusive pace, loving language absent of accusations, and respectful timing will all support a productive outcome. Take turns talking and allow parties to speak and hear, and use echoing to demonstrate a shared understanding. Understand that disagreement is not conflict, it is an inevitable and wonderful facet to any dynamic that deserves honouring.

Authority of Statement – Refers to how parties attempt to build power and legitimacy in their arguments. Regardless whether you are a psychologist or trained scientist, in communications there is a level playing field. Nobody has the strength of a profession behind them. Nobody is allowed to label something as healthy or unhealthy, right or wrong, good or bad, by citing some authority. People can only speak about their opinion, their feelings, their beliefs, and not attempt to enlarge this as what a psychologist would say, or what is normative in the community. Facts are useful when uncontroversial. When they are controversial, they cannot be treated as facts. This means nobody can speak in a universal sense by declaring truths. Even if 6 people agree, if the other party doesn’t, and you attempt to invalidate their perspective by citing the 6 other people, your approach is unproductive.

The person you are dealing with is not someone to dominate with your opinion. Disagreements are not conflict and there is no winner. This means you should not try to convince someone of your point of view, rather you should simply share yours and allow them the free will to retain theirs or alter theirs as they deem worthy. There is no space for threats, aggressions, ambushes or explosions.

If you find you are not fully clear of your message, like whether it is a feeling or thought, have not strategized the optimal delivery method, or found the way to communicate to avoid unproductive approaches, take the time first to ‘discuss’ it with yourself. See it from both sides so you can understand that there are other perspectives. Strip out the emotions that distort the delivery and outcome, and omit references to authorities. A well contoured, well thought out communication that is free of unproductive approaches and content can result in dramatically better dialogue and in turn a closer and more intimate relationship.

Somewhere in the West, we developed this notion that life can properly begin after some anchoring situation that requires life inertia until such time. This is painfully sad to hear.

The primary anchoring situation is kids. I cannot possibly pursue the life I want because my kids are fixed in a community and I don’t want to upset them. I’ll start my life when the youngest goes to university. This is noble and even necessary for kids that are fragile and have a precarious inability to adapt to change. However, kids are notoriously adaptive, and more importantly (1) people benefit from change, and (2) kids benefit from strong parenting models that demonstrate how living ought to happen.

Change and challenge are the forces that bring growth. In fact, evolutionary fitness is defined as being adaptive to change. So while we want to prevent little Timmy and Jenny from experiencing discomfort, we fail them as parents by not subjecting them to meaningful and challenging change that requires them to learn new routes, meet new people, understand different norms. Really, can you be said to properly raise a child without exposing them to such simple and necessary things? The absence of this is what is called a crisis in resilience. The upcoming generation is unable to withstand even mild variance in their lives due to extreme homogeneity in life and an absence of challenge and struggle. It is imperative that we allow our children to experience, and manage though, change.

Life is meant to be lived today. When we have children, this does not change that edict. Children are meant to accompany you on your life; adults are not supposed to revolve their lives around their children and make needless sacrifices for their intended benefit. What do you teach when you really want to live in Paris or Bali, but do not? Or that you want to start a new venture, but do not? You are teaching that life is meant to be lived for others, and more profoundly, that adults ought to make proactive sacrifices for children who neither want them nor benefit from them. It is well established in psychology that this is quite harmful. You must represent yourself in this lifetime. This teaches your children to represent themselves. Any alternative to this will teach intergenerational sacrifice that is needless, harmful, and ensures the smallest form of living possible for every subsequent generation.

The next dominant anchoring situation is money. I cannot possibly start a new venture because I can’t pay my bills. Or, I cannot start enjoying my time until after I retire and have no financial worries.

Everyone has their own relationship with money and financial security, which unfortunately is mostly couched in fear. In the West, money is not a reason to avoid pursuing a dream or enjoying your life. There are endless supports for people who are in financial trouble, but the odds of needing that given the availability of investors, partners, family, friends, associates, etc. is small. If you are not up to your eyeballs in debt and payments already, for which you can legitimately be scared and ignore this advice, there are countless ways to earn money and take risks, more now than ever with the proliferation of remote work and the availability of funding from international sources. This is not a blog about securing funding, but it’s out there, as are people and opportunities. Money is not a reason to avoid living today.

Health is a tricky anchor, and a general prescription cannot be reasonably made. In decision science, the difference between a great outcome and a poor outcome is often the identification of which variables are changeable and which are not. Quality healthcare is available globally. Sick people do not need to remain in place. There is plenty of living to be had in between treatments and periods of convalescence. Don’t let what you can’t do stop you from what you can do. This applies to the sick and their caregivers. The meat in the sandwich of life must live today. Their journeys are accompanied by their loved ones, same as it’s always been, not subsumed by those of others.

Life anchors are not only artificial and based on fear, but are maintained to the massive detriment to those watching and living within those decisions. It’s better to regret living, and what you are waiting for is not real and totally insignificant. It’s crazy to have to hear this (no?). LIVE YOUR LIFE!

Humankind has experienced the Age of Enlightenment, characterized by huge advances in science, art, and philosophy, to name a few. Then the Industrial Age, where the science was applied to create automation and mass production that enabled more convenience and service to growing populations. We are now officially in the Information Age, where information is the resource around which industry and society revolve.

While it is clear that information is still an immensely valuable resource, another sociological phenomenon is taking place concurrently that is not adequately captured under this title, and this is (1) evolution from the corporeal self to the digital self, and thus (2) becoming part of the ‘machine.’ I call this the Age of Surrender.

In the 80s kids would play early video games like Pac Mac and Q*bert. Games became far more sophisticated in the 90s and 00s with simulation and role playing games with first person views. But they were still games and we shut them off when told. However the rise of the digital community carries the additional social demand of availability. I am summoned through my VR headset to participate in a multiplayer immersive game that feels quite real (and evokes real hormone responses) where I am represented by a digital avatar who my comrades recognize as me. I curate my digital self with digital weaponry, clothing, skills, and of course, dialogue and presence.

From a social standpoint, much of our lives have shifted from the in-person to the phone, to social media today. Our communications and visibility are no longer 1-to-1, or 1-to-some, they are 1-to-world. Not only does this make us minor celebrities, but it necessitates communications to be meticulously curated to once again manage and protect our digital existence. Birthday wishes are broadcast to the world; comments on trip photos are viewable by anyone; our selfies are reusable by anyone anywhere. This obviously requires skilful curation.

Given that our digital selves exist without time zones, and have a potential reach as great as Drake or LeBron, digital identity management has become an obsession, and like most obsessions, consumes an inordinate quantity of our time and effort, as well as our concentration. Even in those moments we are not curating ourselves, we are managing our digital identities with carefully constructed comments on the digital lives of other people, causes, or organizations.

What was once shopping for the right brand of jeans is now shopping for the right cause to which one wants to identify and hashtag. It’s attending the equivalent of an online protest against some despotic leader or product of a company engaged in malfeasance against the environment. Managing a digital identity today takes far more work than simply acquiring a fancy wardrobe.

With all this effort put in to our digital selves, there is a commensurate decline in the effort put in to our corporeal selves. Test scores show less effort in learning. Mortality statistics show less interest in healthy living. Anecdotally, declines are visible in hygiene, fashion, arts, hobbies, and myriad other things. On a Zoom call it’s quite apparent the relative declining interest in physical appearance, engagement, conversation skills, and availability. People are preferring to quit their jobs than turn on their cameras, assumedly to neglect their appearance and to remain hyper engaged in the perpetual call of digital identity curation.

We are willingly transitioning from a corporeal existence to a digital identity, like the Matrix movie, or Avatar. It is fascinating, and difficult to understand given how hard people have fought for rights and freedoms in real life to watch them be surrendered for a concocted existence. Let’s explore why.

Life is difficult for many people. Historically this has always been the case, and given rising standards of living, justice, equality, etc., along with lower crime, bigger communities, more connectedness, etc., one would believe that life is getting easier or better for people. However, if pharmaceutical use is a useful measuring stick, people are struggling more now than at any time in the past, including during prolonged wars, famine, depression. This is not to suggest those pills weren’t needed in the past had they been available (many were), but the usage today is quite broad including among younger members of society who otherwise experience severe depression, anxiety, ADHD, and other ailments.

I have often said that the purpose of life is to unapologetically and in full plumage be what you were born to be. I have no great foresight, but I’m fairly confident that no creature was born to be a digital celebrity, managing their digital identity 24/7 while monitoring those of others to remain fully engaged in this digital existence. The pressure is overwhelming, and the pursuit is vapid and without benefit. I would have trouble with my existence if I thought there was nothing more to life. I’d have even more trouble when exposed to experiences in life where I felt I needed to remain in constant digital vigilance.

All of this gives rise to part (2), which is the consequence to society. The above describes the loss to the individual from the surrender of the corporeal self, but for this to be an Age there must be a corresponding sociological effect, and there is. This is the mass surrender of self empowerment and the corresponding shift of responsibility to the parent proxy (PP).

Roger Martin wrote a great book called The Responsibility Virus where, in the workplace, one can observe the overbearing boss disempowering her employees by micromanaging tasks, and the employees responding by becoming more reliant on the boss to get things done. Both parties are unhappy and suboptimal outcomes are achieved, and this unfortunate outcome only requires the surrender of power from one side.

This same effect is evident in all dynamics where an overbearing leader will sap the power in a population. They learn to be helpless, expecting of the leader to solve all issues, including their own. The more reach the leader exhibits, the more prolific the virus.

Society has given rise to the Helicopter Parent who, despite being well intentioned, absolves their children of worry by taking it all them self. This has taught children that their life worries are the job of another person – a very confusing but comforting understanding, and really works nicely with the new primary job of the child, which is to exist in the digital space.

But parents are not the only origin of the virus in modern society. Repeated bailouts of Fortune 500 companies like GM and American Express have taught investors that PP will ensure they don’t fail. COVID cash and handouts have funded small businesses, students, seniors, everyone really. These financial worry shifts have, of course, not been equal across society, but the release of trillions of dollars attempted to provide financial support for all entities.

Leading up to this, society as been shifting responsibility for things like education, morality, and many other things to a PP. Schools are regarded as the sole responsible party for education, despite the unprecedented quantity of information available at our fingertips. Doctors are solely responsible for our health, despite the vast health information available for us to maintain our own health. Governments are picketed to take action rather than individuals and groups taking action directly against some perpetrator. And the list goes on because PPs are overextending by doing things like closing off nature to us, erecting more and more fences and barriers, and generally taking away risk and control.

It is easy to give up control on the premise that someone else has ‘got it.’ The phenomenon known as bystander apathy is all about thinking someone else has ‘got it.’ Most of these relationships evolve this way without fully understanding what is being lost.

What is lost is our very free will. Our creativity, our participation, our power, our strength and diversity. Our ability to function independently, and our confidence in doing so. It has disempowered our children so that they are dysfunctional as they need to enter the world and compete and self sustain. And as adults, we are a society of whiners who record “Karens” and post the videos online so they can be lambasted in the flaccid manner that is done today – a comeuppance that lacks any impact.

Ronald Reagan famously said, “Government is not the solution to our problem, government is the problem.” If we see what we’ve become and permitted, we have a chance of wresting back the power we’ve ceded, if we want it.

Living includes risk and lack of control, and things that may result in pain, failure and humiliation. That is life. Personally, I’d trade 100 lifetimes of the responsibility virus for 1 hour of complete freedom, but we all dance to our own drummers.