This book is an incredibly well written history of how the modern birth control pill came to exist. Eig sets this history up as a story with four main characters and explores each of their unique motivations and contributions to making this happen. The first cast member is Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, who devoted her life to liberating sex. She started off the driving passion by getting the scientist Goody Pincus, who was intent on changing the world, to work on it. Then Sanger looped in a wealthy woman named Katherine McCormick to help fund it. McCormick had devoted a great deal of her life to women's liberation and came to believe that the key was controlling pregnancy. If women had all of their legal rights and education, she felt it amounted to little if they were going to be endlessly pregnant. As Pincus worked on his research he brought in a catholic gynecologist named Dr. Rock. Rock's belief in the cause came from working with women who were troubled by having far more children than their bodies, minds, and pocketbooks could manage. He argued with his church that this was something for a married couple to decide for themselves.
Eig makes all of these characters vivid and expertly weaves together the narrative of trying to find the right chemicals, testing it, getting it past the FDA, and eventually marketing it. The book is littered with interesting tidbits. When they initially brought the pill to the FDA, to avoid controversy, they said it was to help with irregular menstrual cycles and avoiding pregnancy was a side effect. The book also reflects on how life was for women before pregnancy became a choice. It's witty and generally a great read.
Saturday, February 28, 2015
Saturday, February 7, 2015
Power Concedes Nothing by Connie Rice
This is one of the most potent books I have ever read. Connie Rice has devoted her life to trying to improve social justice in America and her passion and stories are exhilarating. The book is a memoir of a civil rights' attorney, but a good portion of the time it reads like a mix between an action thriller and Chicken Soup for the Soul- which is to say it is page turning and made me tear up repeatedly
Connie Rice's life is defined by action. She worked as a civil rights' attorney winning important cases with the intent of protecting the poorest and most over looked in society. When the Rodney King riots started, she felt like her lawsuits weren't doing enough to effect change so she went to the poorest, most violent gang-ridden projects and asked them what she could do to help. First, she met with a bunch of women and the women told her to help the men- who at that moment were working on a gang truce. So right then, she walked herself over to a meeting between the Bloods and the Crips and asked how she could help. That level of fearlessness and unwavering resolve are constant in her stories and make this woman a hero.
Rice worked with people on the street for years doing what she could via the court and in-person, but she also started to form relationships with the police. She notes that in one neighborhood, there were around 8,000 unsolved murders over 20 years. And in that type of environment, there is no concept of rule of law or expectation of safety. Dropout, unemployment, and literacy rates were all over 50%. Boys grew up with the expectation that they'd die young in gang violence or that they'd end up in prison. In one heart breaking story, she went to the hospital bed of a kid she'd come to care about who'd been shot. She asked him to name a real job he's ever wanted and she'll make it happen for him. The greatest aspiration this kid could come up with was to "work the machine with the pictures", or the cash register, at McDonalds. These neighborhoods dispel the idea of equality of opportunity in America
Over time, Rice started developing friendships with select police officers who seemed intent on doing good. She found that the attitude was of containment of the bad areas. That police viewed their job as making sure the bad gangs and violence stayed in the bad areas- not as actually trying to protect people in the bad areas. Rice wanted police who saw themselves as protectors of the community- even in the bad areas. And her constant action and sincerity slowly won over several influential police officers. She went from suing the LAPD to being one of the LAPD's last two chiefs' top advisers. She headed a commission on how to reverse gang violence and found a lot of concrete solutions that when the chiefs' put in place, have helped in drastically lowering violence rates. She became such an expert that top generals in Afghanistan asked her for advice because they felt that LA's gangs were a lot like the insurgents with whom they dealt.
This woman's energy level is amazing. She has done more good in her life than the vast majority and she feels it's not enough. She has so much compassion and empathy that when you read about the stories of gang members and people on the streets that she met, you feel you understand them and that your help is needed. She constantly holds the reader to task for needing to see the poorest of the poor as their problem- not something we can overlook so long as their plight is far removed for our daily sight. Rice frequently quotes Martin Luther King Jr. and calls for the "Fierce Urgency of Now". And Rice effectively sells her message with countless stories of hope. She shares stories of prisoners and prison guards moving from bitter enemies to seeing each other as human and embracing each other. She tells of a terrible neighborhood that went from seeing cops as the enemy to having gang members protect a cop's family after he was threatened. She tells of gang members turning their lives around and relentlessly doing everything they can to help the next generation of neighborhood kids have something better than they did.
This book is testament to building hope amidst despair. It is a call to action to remind us that we not only can tackle the worst problems in our culture but that we have a moral obligation to do so.
Connie Rice's life is defined by action. She worked as a civil rights' attorney winning important cases with the intent of protecting the poorest and most over looked in society. When the Rodney King riots started, she felt like her lawsuits weren't doing enough to effect change so she went to the poorest, most violent gang-ridden projects and asked them what she could do to help. First, she met with a bunch of women and the women told her to help the men- who at that moment were working on a gang truce. So right then, she walked herself over to a meeting between the Bloods and the Crips and asked how she could help. That level of fearlessness and unwavering resolve are constant in her stories and make this woman a hero.
Rice worked with people on the street for years doing what she could via the court and in-person, but she also started to form relationships with the police. She notes that in one neighborhood, there were around 8,000 unsolved murders over 20 years. And in that type of environment, there is no concept of rule of law or expectation of safety. Dropout, unemployment, and literacy rates were all over 50%. Boys grew up with the expectation that they'd die young in gang violence or that they'd end up in prison. In one heart breaking story, she went to the hospital bed of a kid she'd come to care about who'd been shot. She asked him to name a real job he's ever wanted and she'll make it happen for him. The greatest aspiration this kid could come up with was to "work the machine with the pictures", or the cash register, at McDonalds. These neighborhoods dispel the idea of equality of opportunity in America
Over time, Rice started developing friendships with select police officers who seemed intent on doing good. She found that the attitude was of containment of the bad areas. That police viewed their job as making sure the bad gangs and violence stayed in the bad areas- not as actually trying to protect people in the bad areas. Rice wanted police who saw themselves as protectors of the community- even in the bad areas. And her constant action and sincerity slowly won over several influential police officers. She went from suing the LAPD to being one of the LAPD's last two chiefs' top advisers. She headed a commission on how to reverse gang violence and found a lot of concrete solutions that when the chiefs' put in place, have helped in drastically lowering violence rates. She became such an expert that top generals in Afghanistan asked her for advice because they felt that LA's gangs were a lot like the insurgents with whom they dealt.
This woman's energy level is amazing. She has done more good in her life than the vast majority and she feels it's not enough. She has so much compassion and empathy that when you read about the stories of gang members and people on the streets that she met, you feel you understand them and that your help is needed. She constantly holds the reader to task for needing to see the poorest of the poor as their problem- not something we can overlook so long as their plight is far removed for our daily sight. Rice frequently quotes Martin Luther King Jr. and calls for the "Fierce Urgency of Now". And Rice effectively sells her message with countless stories of hope. She shares stories of prisoners and prison guards moving from bitter enemies to seeing each other as human and embracing each other. She tells of a terrible neighborhood that went from seeing cops as the enemy to having gang members protect a cop's family after he was threatened. She tells of gang members turning their lives around and relentlessly doing everything they can to help the next generation of neighborhood kids have something better than they did.
This book is testament to building hope amidst despair. It is a call to action to remind us that we not only can tackle the worst problems in our culture but that we have a moral obligation to do so.
Sunday, October 5, 2014
Leadership and Self-Deception
Years ago, I read The Anatomy of Peace by the Arbinger Institute and absolutely loved it. Since then, I've been interested in reading their other best selling book. I really enjoyed it. At times, it's a little overly campy with the wise sage passing on principals in the format of silly catch phrases and terminology. But I think the principals genuinely are wise and wonderful to ponder again and again.
The most important piece of advice in the book is Question Your Own Virtue. The basic gist of the book is that people will deny an instinct that they have (help a co-worker, friend, neighbor) and when they don't do what they feel is right, they start justifying that behavior to themselves. This is called "being in the box" and usually involves finding flaws/ blame in somebody else and inflating your own virtues. When you do this, you're treating the other person as an object and failing to see them as a person with their own set of wants and needs that are equal to your own. The book suggests that the best way to "get out of the box" is to question your own virtue. Allow yourself to see that you might not be behaving well towards someone. Genuinely question your own motives and whether they are really about improving a situation or more about feeling right. I think this is incredible advice and something I should strive to routinely do.
The most important piece of advice in the book is Question Your Own Virtue. The basic gist of the book is that people will deny an instinct that they have (help a co-worker, friend, neighbor) and when they don't do what they feel is right, they start justifying that behavior to themselves. This is called "being in the box" and usually involves finding flaws/ blame in somebody else and inflating your own virtues. When you do this, you're treating the other person as an object and failing to see them as a person with their own set of wants and needs that are equal to your own. The book suggests that the best way to "get out of the box" is to question your own virtue. Allow yourself to see that you might not be behaving well towards someone. Genuinely question your own motives and whether they are really about improving a situation or more about feeling right. I think this is incredible advice and something I should strive to routinely do.
Thursday, March 13, 2014
The Glass Castle: A Memoir by Jeannette Walls
Jeannette Walls' memoir tells her story of growing up with a charismatic drunk father and an eccentric, neglectful mother. While stories of neglect and poverty are not new, Jeannette brings an analytical eye to what caused the events in her childhood and uses it to deliver many refreshing insights.
When the kids were little, the father seemed quasi-behaved. There was chaos in their lives because the father had a strong personality and would move from job to job and then from town to town, but for the most part he seemed to be working. There was also chaos because their mother had a belief in free-range children that bordered on neglect. But the kids' saw their lives as an adventure and for the most part, the family seemed happy. Things changed when the family decided to move to the father's hometown to receive help from his family. There, the father seemed to give up. He barely worked and became the town drunk. The mother and extended family were no better, and the kids were largely left to feed themselves. While the kids banded together and stayed afloat, they did so with their family as constant obstacles.
While Jeannette never lets her father off the hook for his utter lack of responsibility, she clearly loved him. He seemed to be the type of person who was very good at spinning tales to the point that he could often believe the lies he told himself. I suspect he could always frame the bad things in the now as temporary and pretend that just around the corner there was a brighter future that in some ways felt more "real" to him than reality.
Jeannette seems less understanding of her mother. On the one hand, her mother was often very rational and empathetic. She taught her children to see all others as equals and to try to understand situations from the other person's perspective. But it seems like these skills often stayed in the intellectual realm and didn't cross over in to the more personal, emotional realm- or if they did, they didn't lead to action. Her mother could have seen how much her children were suffering and made choices to change that. But instead, she largely stayed mired in self-pity about how miserable she was herself. She wanted the kids to see her and their father's perspective, but felt less of a need to validate their perspective.
I think both of the parents' flaws are things that I see to some extant in most people, including myself. I think it's easy to see your dreams of the future as having more reality than the negative aspects of your current. I think it's easier to intellectualize empathy in theoretical situations than it is to feel and act on empathy in the emotionally agitating realm of one's own life. I don't think most are in danger of making the choices that Jeannette's parents made, but I could see those flaws leading to poor choices- even if less dire ones. I think her tale serves as a reminder to take the hard path. Sometimes we have to do the things we don't want to in order to avoid things that we want even less.
When the kids were little, the father seemed quasi-behaved. There was chaos in their lives because the father had a strong personality and would move from job to job and then from town to town, but for the most part he seemed to be working. There was also chaos because their mother had a belief in free-range children that bordered on neglect. But the kids' saw their lives as an adventure and for the most part, the family seemed happy. Things changed when the family decided to move to the father's hometown to receive help from his family. There, the father seemed to give up. He barely worked and became the town drunk. The mother and extended family were no better, and the kids were largely left to feed themselves. While the kids banded together and stayed afloat, they did so with their family as constant obstacles.
While Jeannette never lets her father off the hook for his utter lack of responsibility, she clearly loved him. He seemed to be the type of person who was very good at spinning tales to the point that he could often believe the lies he told himself. I suspect he could always frame the bad things in the now as temporary and pretend that just around the corner there was a brighter future that in some ways felt more "real" to him than reality.
Jeannette seems less understanding of her mother. On the one hand, her mother was often very rational and empathetic. She taught her children to see all others as equals and to try to understand situations from the other person's perspective. But it seems like these skills often stayed in the intellectual realm and didn't cross over in to the more personal, emotional realm- or if they did, they didn't lead to action. Her mother could have seen how much her children were suffering and made choices to change that. But instead, she largely stayed mired in self-pity about how miserable she was herself. She wanted the kids to see her and their father's perspective, but felt less of a need to validate their perspective.
I think both of the parents' flaws are things that I see to some extant in most people, including myself. I think it's easy to see your dreams of the future as having more reality than the negative aspects of your current. I think it's easier to intellectualize empathy in theoretical situations than it is to feel and act on empathy in the emotionally agitating realm of one's own life. I don't think most are in danger of making the choices that Jeannette's parents made, but I could see those flaws leading to poor choices- even if less dire ones. I think her tale serves as a reminder to take the hard path. Sometimes we have to do the things we don't want to in order to avoid things that we want even less.
Sunday, March 2, 2014
Into the Wild by Jon Krakauer
I found this book extremely impactful. It is the story of a kid who abandoned everything he knew in search of adventure. Immediately after graduating college, Chris gave away all of his money and set out to travel across the US, experience the natural beauty, and see what life threw at him. Along the way he met many people that he made a deep impression on. Then he wanted to have a final adventure living off the land in Alaska for a few months. Unfortunately, that adventure killed him. The book goes through interviews with people he met trying to piece together his journey and motivations.
One of the things that struck me about this book was the effect Chris had on others that he met on the journey. The book made him out to be a quiet guy who didn't seem particularly extroverted. Yet one elderly man completely abandoned his old lifestyle and took to the road at Chris' prompting. Chris was an idealist who was willing to do whatever it took to live by his ideals. I think that is extremely rare and extremely potent. I think it mostly exists in the young because they haven't yet had to make choices that might compromise those ideals. The most finite resource we have is time, and there's just not enough of it to do everything we can imagine. So people prioritize and pick some dreams over others. They might pick a steady paycheck to support the family they've always wanted over their desire to live day to day, travelling the world. Or they might make other compromises that while they understand, they can't help but admire and feel drawn to somebody who makes no compromises.
This book also left me with the question of what makes a life meaningful? Chris absolutely led the life of his dreams. But he died at the age of 24 with so much potential for life left. He knew that what he wanted to do was risky and gladly took those risks. But he didn't fully consider the impact they would have on others. He was angry with his parents and utterly unconcerned about their feelings. He was not angry with his sister but also seemed unconcerned about how his actions would affect her. I don't know what I think. I can't decide if his choices amounted to childishness and an unnecessary death or if his death was merely an unfortunate event that came from the very worthy pursuit of living life to the absolute fullest.
I thoroughly enjoyed this book and highly recommend to any who find the above questions worthy of exploration.
One of the things that struck me about this book was the effect Chris had on others that he met on the journey. The book made him out to be a quiet guy who didn't seem particularly extroverted. Yet one elderly man completely abandoned his old lifestyle and took to the road at Chris' prompting. Chris was an idealist who was willing to do whatever it took to live by his ideals. I think that is extremely rare and extremely potent. I think it mostly exists in the young because they haven't yet had to make choices that might compromise those ideals. The most finite resource we have is time, and there's just not enough of it to do everything we can imagine. So people prioritize and pick some dreams over others. They might pick a steady paycheck to support the family they've always wanted over their desire to live day to day, travelling the world. Or they might make other compromises that while they understand, they can't help but admire and feel drawn to somebody who makes no compromises.
This book also left me with the question of what makes a life meaningful? Chris absolutely led the life of his dreams. But he died at the age of 24 with so much potential for life left. He knew that what he wanted to do was risky and gladly took those risks. But he didn't fully consider the impact they would have on others. He was angry with his parents and utterly unconcerned about their feelings. He was not angry with his sister but also seemed unconcerned about how his actions would affect her. I don't know what I think. I can't decide if his choices amounted to childishness and an unnecessary death or if his death was merely an unfortunate event that came from the very worthy pursuit of living life to the absolute fullest.
I thoroughly enjoyed this book and highly recommend to any who find the above questions worthy of exploration.
Saturday, January 4, 2014
The Honest Truth About Dishonesty by Dan Ariely
I thoroughly enjoyed this book. Behavioral economist Dan Ariely makes the assertion that almost all people want to see themselves as honest, good people, but we're also all willing to lie and cheat just enough that we can rationalize it away as "not really" lying or cheating.
One of the studies he did involved having participants take a very hard math quiz with 20 questions. The control group was asked to turn in the paper and it was graded- with the average number of correct answers being 4. The experimental group was asked to shred their papers and then report how many they got right- and amazingly this group had 6 right on average! This group was cheating- but only by a tiny bit. As I think of this, I can remember a time or two I've taken a hard quiz in a magazine or done a test prep and felt that I was really close on several that I missed and thus that I probably "really" did a bit better than my actual performance. Which is of course completely irrational and self-deceiving, but it appears to be extremely common.
Ariely expanded the study in a wide variety of ways. One that I found particularly interesting was that he made rewards dependent on how many answers were correct. Participant groups were offered either $0.25, $0.50, $1, $2, $5, or $10. If people were lying purely out of a selfish self-interest, you would expect for cheating to increase as the reward increased. However, they found cheating was the same (2 questions) for all groups and slightly decreased for the $10 group. Because at $10 per question, reporting the wrong number was harder for participants to rationalize and it felt more deceitful.
The key to how much we lie/ cheat seems to be related to how much we deceive ourselves in to believing our lie. Ariely provided a different quiz to participants and this time the control group averaged about 50% correct. The experimental group received the same quiz but with an answer key at the bottom. Suddenly, this group reported having 70% correct. The group was then asked to rate how well they thought they would do an equivalent test with no answer key at the bottom and their payment depended on how accurate their predicted score was. If people acknowledged that they were genuinely cheating by using the answer code, they would say less than 70%. But people did not acknowledge it, and felt confident that they could get 70%! While this is clearly foolish, I can remember taking practice tests and after doing each problem, looking at the answer key "just for that one" but maybe glancing another answer out of the corner of my eye and then finding that problem much easier to answer. I can see how easy it would be to rationalize that I'd genuinely gotten them all right.
The book expounds upon topics such as our inability to overcome conflicts of interest, how we are more willing to cheat when it benefits others, how much we cheat when we feel wronged, and so many more- all of which are incredibly interesting. While it's somewhat upsetting just how willing we all are to lie to ourselves, it also rings true to my experience of people. What areas and ranges people feel comfortable in fudging the truth may vary, but most people seem willing to fudge just a bit. The book does offer hope. Simple things like a statement in front of quizzes stating "I will not cheat" that ask for a signature dramatically reduced cheating. Even asking people to remember the 10 commandments reduced cheating. I think the positive part of Ariely's message is that almost all of us DESIRE to be good. It seems like most people aren't going to go out of their way to lie and cheat. They only do it when it's so easy that they can deny to themselves that they're even doing it. I also think helping people be aware of areas where us human are most susceptible to self-deceit goes a long way towards helping us overcome those pitfalls and try to design systems that remove the temptation to cheat as much as possible. While all of the little cheats add up to a tremendous amount of cumulative dishonesty, I think people's inclination towards goodness is incredibly powerful and is what allows our society to be the fairly safe and functioning place that is.
One of the studies he did involved having participants take a very hard math quiz with 20 questions. The control group was asked to turn in the paper and it was graded- with the average number of correct answers being 4. The experimental group was asked to shred their papers and then report how many they got right- and amazingly this group had 6 right on average! This group was cheating- but only by a tiny bit. As I think of this, I can remember a time or two I've taken a hard quiz in a magazine or done a test prep and felt that I was really close on several that I missed and thus that I probably "really" did a bit better than my actual performance. Which is of course completely irrational and self-deceiving, but it appears to be extremely common.
Ariely expanded the study in a wide variety of ways. One that I found particularly interesting was that he made rewards dependent on how many answers were correct. Participant groups were offered either $0.25, $0.50, $1, $2, $5, or $10. If people were lying purely out of a selfish self-interest, you would expect for cheating to increase as the reward increased. However, they found cheating was the same (2 questions) for all groups and slightly decreased for the $10 group. Because at $10 per question, reporting the wrong number was harder for participants to rationalize and it felt more deceitful.
The key to how much we lie/ cheat seems to be related to how much we deceive ourselves in to believing our lie. Ariely provided a different quiz to participants and this time the control group averaged about 50% correct. The experimental group received the same quiz but with an answer key at the bottom. Suddenly, this group reported having 70% correct. The group was then asked to rate how well they thought they would do an equivalent test with no answer key at the bottom and their payment depended on how accurate their predicted score was. If people acknowledged that they were genuinely cheating by using the answer code, they would say less than 70%. But people did not acknowledge it, and felt confident that they could get 70%! While this is clearly foolish, I can remember taking practice tests and after doing each problem, looking at the answer key "just for that one" but maybe glancing another answer out of the corner of my eye and then finding that problem much easier to answer. I can see how easy it would be to rationalize that I'd genuinely gotten them all right.
The book expounds upon topics such as our inability to overcome conflicts of interest, how we are more willing to cheat when it benefits others, how much we cheat when we feel wronged, and so many more- all of which are incredibly interesting. While it's somewhat upsetting just how willing we all are to lie to ourselves, it also rings true to my experience of people. What areas and ranges people feel comfortable in fudging the truth may vary, but most people seem willing to fudge just a bit. The book does offer hope. Simple things like a statement in front of quizzes stating "I will not cheat" that ask for a signature dramatically reduced cheating. Even asking people to remember the 10 commandments reduced cheating. I think the positive part of Ariely's message is that almost all of us DESIRE to be good. It seems like most people aren't going to go out of their way to lie and cheat. They only do it when it's so easy that they can deny to themselves that they're even doing it. I also think helping people be aware of areas where us human are most susceptible to self-deceit goes a long way towards helping us overcome those pitfalls and try to design systems that remove the temptation to cheat as much as possible. While all of the little cheats add up to a tremendous amount of cumulative dishonesty, I think people's inclination towards goodness is incredibly powerful and is what allows our society to be the fairly safe and functioning place that is.
Friday, November 29, 2013
A Guide to the Good Life: The Ancient Art of Stoic Joy
A blogger I've recently come to love, Mr. Money Mustache, recommended this book and I decided to give it a try. I am so glad that I did. This book feels so filled with wisdom that I hope I read it multiple times in order to better absorb the deepness within it.
William Irvine is a philosopher who states that he'd long felt drawn to Buddhism and decided to write a book on what religions and philosophies through the ages have had to say about desire. He said it was his secret hope that he would be converted to Buddhism through this study but that instead he discovered Stoicism and felt it was an even better fit. I can totally relate to this experience. Years ago, I listened to a series of talks from a conference about neuroscience and one of those talks was by the Dali Llama. He was completely open to science and said that if faith and science conflicted, it was the faith that should change. I enjoyed his short talk so much that I've subsequently read many of his books. The Buddhist view on taming our desires, emotions, and attachments in order to obtain peace has long appealed to me. However, the Dali Llama would sometimes start talking about more supernatural items like karma, dharma, and past lives which felt more alien to me. So here comes the ancient philosophy of stoicism, tempered for modern readers by Irvine, and it offers all of the incredible benefits that Irvine and myself have seen in Buddhism without the religious aspects.
According to Irvine, a Stoic's main goal is to obtain tranquility, or peace. In order to obtain this peace, people have to learn ways to cope with human insatiability. It is a natural human tendency to start to take the good things in our life for granted and become dissatisfied with what we have. Wisdom across the world has long found that the key to happiness is wanting what we already have. The Stoics had several psychological techniques to help do this.
First, they encourage a practice called Negative Visualization. This consists of stepping back and imagining your life without certain things. I can think back to times that I've been extremely ill and then imagine in detail a life without health. This is very distressing and it makes me extremely grateful for my health. When I think on it long enough, I'm sure that hard as it would be, I would adjust to such a life and can imagine things in that life that would still make it worthwhile. I would still have people that loved me, the ability to read and learn, and many other things to look forward to each day. So in the visualization, I continue to take things away and try to see life as still be livable. Could life be meaningful if I was alone, blind, deaf, and horribly ill? Well, it would be a lot harder, but it seems likely that even then, I could learn Braille and continue reading. I could think back to happier memories and enjoy them. I could get a dog to keep me company. Etc... In reality, people have terrible things happen to them all the time and generally speaking, they learn to adjust and keep going. So no matter how bad it got, I would most likely continue to find reasons to want to live. After this visualization, I can bring all of the good thing back. I do have vision, hearing, health, and loved ones! And the contrast between the imaging and the reality makes me feel great gratitude for all of that I have.
Another technique is focusing only on those things over which you have control. Irvine divides the world in to those things that you completely control, those things over which you can influence but not completely control, and those things over which you have no control. The category of things that you can truly control mainly consists of your goals, values, and reactions to external events. Things that you can influence but not ultimately control tends to include anything you might do with your time. You can work hard at your job and you're more likely to get a promotion, but you might not. Irvine suggests that we make our goals only things that we can control. For example, if I make doing the best I can at my job my goal rather than a promotion, I will be happier because I can completely control how well I do at my job. Similarly, in relationships with others, we can make our goals relate to how we treat those people- something we can control- rather than trying to control how those people feel about us- something we ultimately can not control.
Next, Irvine speaks of fatalism. He says the ancient Romans focused on how the fates had written the past. This was useful when looking at other people that one might find difficult and when looking at one's own past. Instead of becoming irritated with a person or being filled with regret over past choices, seeing that person or your past self as being a victim of circumstance makes it easier to accept. I found this especially interesting as I tend to think that the combination of a person's genes, specific life experiences, and some factor of random chance essentially dictate the choices that he or she will make. I have found that viewpoint extremely helpful in viewing others with empathy and in avoiding regret. However, I have never felt that my present/ future is dictated even though by that logic, it is in a way. It appears Irvine takes the same approach. Even if it is a trick of the mind to imagine that current choices are true choices where we could choose differently, it's a necessary trick and somehow I find it very easy to hold the somewhat contradictory view that the past is written but the future could be changed.
The fourth psychological technique is self-denial. By practicing minor self-deprivations, we put actions to the negative visualizations to an extent. Sleeping on the floor could be such an example. It not only helps one build appreciation for their bed, it also increases strength of will and makes a person more adaptable. I know that I have a deep respect for people who can adapt to any situation and accomplish anything that they pursue. I desire a will of steel and this technique is clearly a good route to accomplish that end.
Finally, Irvine describes regular self reflection as being vital to Stoicism. A person must pause regularly and reflect on how well they have been living. They can consider if their current actions will lead to the fruition of their goals. If they identify something that was poorly handled, they can imagine other ways to deal with it.
The book has many other interesting tidbits from a Stoic feeling a deep sense of duty to mankind to tips for dealing with difficult people. But since almost everything in this book is fascinating, I had to focus on what intrigued me the most to keep this review from getting too long. I feel as though I aspire to be a Stoic. I don't think I am yet; but I think the journey will be a reward in and of itself.
William Irvine is a philosopher who states that he'd long felt drawn to Buddhism and decided to write a book on what religions and philosophies through the ages have had to say about desire. He said it was his secret hope that he would be converted to Buddhism through this study but that instead he discovered Stoicism and felt it was an even better fit. I can totally relate to this experience. Years ago, I listened to a series of talks from a conference about neuroscience and one of those talks was by the Dali Llama. He was completely open to science and said that if faith and science conflicted, it was the faith that should change. I enjoyed his short talk so much that I've subsequently read many of his books. The Buddhist view on taming our desires, emotions, and attachments in order to obtain peace has long appealed to me. However, the Dali Llama would sometimes start talking about more supernatural items like karma, dharma, and past lives which felt more alien to me. So here comes the ancient philosophy of stoicism, tempered for modern readers by Irvine, and it offers all of the incredible benefits that Irvine and myself have seen in Buddhism without the religious aspects.
According to Irvine, a Stoic's main goal is to obtain tranquility, or peace. In order to obtain this peace, people have to learn ways to cope with human insatiability. It is a natural human tendency to start to take the good things in our life for granted and become dissatisfied with what we have. Wisdom across the world has long found that the key to happiness is wanting what we already have. The Stoics had several psychological techniques to help do this.
First, they encourage a practice called Negative Visualization. This consists of stepping back and imagining your life without certain things. I can think back to times that I've been extremely ill and then imagine in detail a life without health. This is very distressing and it makes me extremely grateful for my health. When I think on it long enough, I'm sure that hard as it would be, I would adjust to such a life and can imagine things in that life that would still make it worthwhile. I would still have people that loved me, the ability to read and learn, and many other things to look forward to each day. So in the visualization, I continue to take things away and try to see life as still be livable. Could life be meaningful if I was alone, blind, deaf, and horribly ill? Well, it would be a lot harder, but it seems likely that even then, I could learn Braille and continue reading. I could think back to happier memories and enjoy them. I could get a dog to keep me company. Etc... In reality, people have terrible things happen to them all the time and generally speaking, they learn to adjust and keep going. So no matter how bad it got, I would most likely continue to find reasons to want to live. After this visualization, I can bring all of the good thing back. I do have vision, hearing, health, and loved ones! And the contrast between the imaging and the reality makes me feel great gratitude for all of that I have.
Another technique is focusing only on those things over which you have control. Irvine divides the world in to those things that you completely control, those things over which you can influence but not completely control, and those things over which you have no control. The category of things that you can truly control mainly consists of your goals, values, and reactions to external events. Things that you can influence but not ultimately control tends to include anything you might do with your time. You can work hard at your job and you're more likely to get a promotion, but you might not. Irvine suggests that we make our goals only things that we can control. For example, if I make doing the best I can at my job my goal rather than a promotion, I will be happier because I can completely control how well I do at my job. Similarly, in relationships with others, we can make our goals relate to how we treat those people- something we can control- rather than trying to control how those people feel about us- something we ultimately can not control.
Next, Irvine speaks of fatalism. He says the ancient Romans focused on how the fates had written the past. This was useful when looking at other people that one might find difficult and when looking at one's own past. Instead of becoming irritated with a person or being filled with regret over past choices, seeing that person or your past self as being a victim of circumstance makes it easier to accept. I found this especially interesting as I tend to think that the combination of a person's genes, specific life experiences, and some factor of random chance essentially dictate the choices that he or she will make. I have found that viewpoint extremely helpful in viewing others with empathy and in avoiding regret. However, I have never felt that my present/ future is dictated even though by that logic, it is in a way. It appears Irvine takes the same approach. Even if it is a trick of the mind to imagine that current choices are true choices where we could choose differently, it's a necessary trick and somehow I find it very easy to hold the somewhat contradictory view that the past is written but the future could be changed.
The fourth psychological technique is self-denial. By practicing minor self-deprivations, we put actions to the negative visualizations to an extent. Sleeping on the floor could be such an example. It not only helps one build appreciation for their bed, it also increases strength of will and makes a person more adaptable. I know that I have a deep respect for people who can adapt to any situation and accomplish anything that they pursue. I desire a will of steel and this technique is clearly a good route to accomplish that end.
Finally, Irvine describes regular self reflection as being vital to Stoicism. A person must pause regularly and reflect on how well they have been living. They can consider if their current actions will lead to the fruition of their goals. If they identify something that was poorly handled, they can imagine other ways to deal with it.
The book has many other interesting tidbits from a Stoic feeling a deep sense of duty to mankind to tips for dealing with difficult people. But since almost everything in this book is fascinating, I had to focus on what intrigued me the most to keep this review from getting too long. I feel as though I aspire to be a Stoic. I don't think I am yet; but I think the journey will be a reward in and of itself.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)