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.

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.

My Story by Elizabeth Smart

I can't believe it's been two years since I've posted.  I've read plenty and keep meaning to come back to this, but it's taken this rainy Saturday for me to actually do it.  So here it is:

Earlier this week, I noticed that I had some audible credits building up and I wasn’t sure how to best use them.  The next day I read an NPR article about Elizabeth Smart writing an autobiography and decided to listen to it.

It was a very captivating and interesting book. The story of her kidnapping is terrible and bizarre.  For nine months she lived as a homeless person subject to the whims of a self proclaimed prophet who was cruel and controlling and raped her daily.  I find it interesting that she documented how she was broken.  Initially, she was chained to a tree and given no opportunities for possible escape.  But after months of abuse, threats to herself, and threats to her family, she was so thoroughly ruled by fear that the physical chains were unnecessary.  At several points, she was given opportunities that a healthy person might have taken to escape.  Once, a police officer insisted on seeing her face despite her captor’s insistence on her veil’s religious purpose.  The officer finally backed down when the captor pointed out that if she was a missing person, surely she wouldn’t just stand there.  The book made it clear how a 14 year old, abused, broken, and terrified girl certainly could just stand there despite desperately wanting to escape.

Listening to her autobiography, her religious attitudes were presented frequently.  She perceived herself as experiencing many miracles which clearly gave her comfort.  Her utter revulsion at the concept of alcohol and some other more mundane worldly things hit my ears as naive and judgmental, but perhaps with a tinge of sweetness to it.  Her love for her family and the stories of their kindness and extreme gentleness were absolutely endearing.  

One thing that struck me was that she often referred to her captors as wicked, evil, driven by Satan, etc.  And while what they did was unquestionably evil, I found such references off-putting.  Labeling a person as wicked and evil makes them something “other”, something that you yourself could never be.  It makes it okay to treat such people with revulsion or ridicule or shame.  And that’s dangerous.  I think even kidnapping rapists are still people.  They may be horribly selfish, weak, uncaring, manipulative people- but they’re still people.  People who have worth and could become something better.  And I think that’s important to see.  If the attitude of an evil, wicked, other gets extended to say, anyone who is not a part of religion X or is a part of religion Y or has a kid out of wedlock or any other perceived lapse in morality, it’s easier to see how destructive it is.  Remembering the humanity of even those who do the worst things, reminds me that I too am capable of being selfish, weak and uncaring and perhaps it helps me guard against being those things a little bit. Given what Elizabeth Smart went through, if she wants to call her captors wicked and evil, by all means, she has every right.  But I think that attitude on a larger scale is the cause of a great deal of pain and suffering.

Another thing that struck me was that as she recounted her story, she always took note of the things she was grateful for during her captivity.  When things seemed absolutely horrible, she would recount all of the small things that made her life a little better and all of her wonderful experiences from the past to help remind her that in many ways, she was lucky.  I think this attitude is overwhelmingly impressive and is clearly what allowed her to recover from the ordeal.  She said that if she let herself stay in a place of self-pity and failed to move on, she would be giving her captor all of the power and she wasn’t willing to do that.  Instead, she chose to be happy.  Her experiences show the incredible power of gratitude.  I hope that when I’m facing far inferior ordeals to hers, I’m able to keep in mind her attitude of gratitude and realize just how wonderful I have it.

The 100 Thing Challenge by Dave Bruno

In order to further enjoy my wonderful new Nook, I was browsing through the e-books available from the library and came across this book. I'd remembered a co-worker a year or so ago having heard about it on the radio and it inspiring a great conversation between us, so I thought I'd read it.

The book is about a man who felt he was so overwhelmed by consumerism, that he wanted to limit his personal possessions to 100 things in order to help him overcome that. I think as a personal project, that's great and interesting, but the book itself is not that exciting. Dave didn't literally have 100 things. He had 100 "personal" things. So everything that was family use- like a fully furnished house and kitchen was fine. In my mind, that makes the challenge fairly uninteresting. Other than clothes, you could get by okay without all of the other stuff, which is largely what he did. But I suppose doing so does require you to step outside of normal consumerism, as he did, and it seems he got a lot out of doing so.

I really did enjoy Dave's insights in to how he had used possessions in order to experiment with different idealizations of himself. He used woodworking tools in order to harbor a fantasy of himself as a master artisan. He used fancy pens to see himself as an extraordinary businessman. He used camping gear and the like to imagine himself as a rugged outdoorsman. It's not that any of these are bad items or things to aspire to, it was that these objects became about something other than what they were and took him out of the reality of his life. It wasn't about making a shelf, or signing documents, or enjoying camping, it was about a pretend version of Dave. I can certainly relate to that feeling. I remember buying a bike with the fantasy of myself becoming an avid cyclist and then using it maybe three times over a year. Even as I never rode it, owning the bike let me pretend that bike riding was something that I did, or at least would do and was in a way a part of my self-image. But really, it was a lie and I think those lies are somewhat destructive because they take us away from reality and seeing ourselves as we really are. I'm not saying owning the bike was bad- and I'll probably get a bike again. It's that seeing objects as a symbol of ourselves is a negative. We are what we habitually do- regardless of the objects that we own. I loved this quote that he included. "To be humble simply means to be realistic about yourself."

While the book was overall a bit boring, I think this point about not letting objects affect how you see yourself really resonated with me and made the book worth reading. I am very much an advocate of simple living and I think it brings with it a great deal of peace. I think this insight of Dave's helps shed light on one of the ways in which it brings peace and helps you to embrace your life and more fully live.

The Alchemist by Paulo Coelho

One of my co-workers highly recommended this book as moving and inspiring. Since my incredible friend recently gave me a Nook, I checked out this book as my first library e-book. I am now a huge Nook fan!

The Alchemist is a parable about a boy named Santiago who follows his dream to go to Egypt. I could write a seething review of it- critiquing the nonsense religion in it, people having a destiny that the universe tries to help them achieve, and a general vibe that reminds me too much of The Secret. But I don't really want to. I rather enjoyed the book. If you don't take the metaphysical aspects of it seriously, it's a beautiful tale about how to enjoy life. It says to pursue goals, take risks, and enjoy the unexpected turns on your journey because the journey is the true treasure of life. And I think that's a message worth reading about.

A Human Being Died that Night by Pumla Gobodo- Madikizela

Under Apartheid, the white controlled South Afirican government allowed covert programs of horrific violence in order to control the black majority. After Apartheid ended, South Africa instituted the Truth and Reconciliation Commission in order to bring to light the atrocities that happened under Apartheid. Ms. Gobodo-Madikela was a clinical psychologist who served on this commission. She became interested in meeting with the commanding officer of government death squads, de Kock, after two widows of men he killed met with him and spoke of how deeply his remorse touched them.

This book talks about Ms. Gobodo-Madikela's meetings with de Kock, and their impact on her feelings on evil, remorse, and forgiveness. I enjoyed how fully she acknowledges that the circumstances of a person's life frame how they see the world and how easily they can push the person in to seeing evil as good. Yet, while fully understanding this, she never fails to hold them accountable and still call them evil. I think that's interesting. When a person feels remorse and I see their humanity, I want to call them good and their actions/ thought processes evil. But at that point, what does evil even mean? Almost everybody sees their own actions as justified. And those that do not see it that way and have no remorse are almost by definition insane.

While she holds de Kock as evil, she also argues strongly for his humanity. She states that so many around her wanted to label him evil and then see him as an "other". She states "demonizing as monsters those who commit evil lets them off too easily... [it would] excuse the criminal by dismissing him in the category of the hopelessly, radically other." She says we can't do that. Part of being human is being capable of great evil. To not see that and to instead separate it as something a normal person is not capable of is to fail to learn from the past's lessons about human nature. Only if we understand just how capable each and every one of is of committing evil can we truly question if we ourselves are committing evil.

Ms. Gobodo-Madikela also makes the argument for the necessity of forgiveness for all. She cites the healing power that forgiveness has on victims and evil doers alike. I found the book an interesting and honest exploration of these topics. She never fails to acknowledge her own capacity for wanting to justify evil as good in the name of a cause she supports and in so doing invites readers to see this within themselves.

I see this capacity in myself. I can think of several cruel things I've done and justified in the name of a "higher" cause. I've long thought the worst evils committed in this world are done by people who probably think they're doing something good. Whenever a situation becomes "us" versus "them" instead of two groups of deeply human people who might disagree, I think there is potential for type of dehumanization that can lead to evil.

Lies My Teacher Told Me by James W. Loewen

So it took me forever, but I am finally done with this book!!! That doesn't come across as the highest praise, and that's because the last few chapters were so preachy and repetitive as to be slightly painful to get through. Which is a pity because the majority of the book was wonderful!

The book explores tons of fascinating topics about American History that don't often get covered because they don't fit in to a vision of America in which our founders were purely heroic and our nation moved ever forward in to progress. The truth is that life is messy. People, even great people, can do terrible things, or even just have a perspective that today would be foreign to us. The book urges for our history courses to teach this messiness and teach that there are unknowns and different perspectives. I've always loved history and that's because I've always seen it as a series of interconnected stories. But I think Loeswen is right that that is not how it typically taught. It's taught as a series of disconnected facts that are to be memorized. And that is a pity.

One of the insights he provided that I had no idea about is that when the pilgrims first settled, they weren't moving in to empty land. I mean, I knew there had been Indians but I assumed they were nomadic and weren't currently in the area the Pilgrims settled. Untrue! The Pilgrims moved in to already built towns with homes and crops that were growing. Via traders, European plagues had decimated the Indians living there to the point that the handful of survivors had abandoned the town for another village. Further, the people on the Mayflower chose that area for that exact purpose. I think that is beyond amazing because it's undisputed fact but even with a degree in history, I never learned it. And the consequence is a distortion. It allows us to think of the Indians as being less "civilized" than they really were and allows us to not dwell on the genocide that happened to the Indians (initially through complete accident).

Another example that I thought was interesting was the War of 1812. When I took AP American History in high school, I absorbed it. And I remember distinctly finding the War of 1812 perplexing. We were taught that it was caused by British sailors taking American sailors, trade issues, and a desire to expand territory (I assumed by taking British land). It just seemed off that Britain would take American sailors and that America would fight a war for British land without the Brits in the land supporting it. Here, I found the missing puzzle piece. Britain had mutual protection treaties with many Indian tribes in the Americas. The US could not expand to the West as much as they wanted to without causing war with Indian tribes that would in turn cause war with Britain. So they precipitated war and went to it. The result of the war was that Britain no longer signed mutual protection treaties with the Indians and the US expanded West. I certainly don't fault my high school history teacher for this, he was amazing and can't be expected to know every detail of everything that is commonly not taught. But this detail took a story that had been somewhat boring to me and made it interesting simply by making it coherent.

There are tons and tons more of enlightening examples that this book offers that are just eye opening. It reminded me of one class I took in college that really altered my perception on politics. It was called US Relations with Latin America. It was astounding to me how racist our politics had been and how easily we went to war for our own gain- especially wars fought largely for corporations. And just how many times we'd invaded Latin American countries! Something rarely covered. When taking the class, I resisted the message. Our teacher was quite liberal and at the time I was not. I remember wanting to see it primarily as racism we've gotten over and that while there may have been some wars that were indisputably fought for corporations, that time was behind us. We'd also learned from our rabid-anticommunism and that wouldn't happen again either. I had so internalized the message of progress that we're all taught, that it was hard for me to see what the teacher was trying to get at- that we need to be sure we don't do it again. But with time, the messages of that class sunk in. The issues that led to those wars were human issues of fallibility that could and do happen repeatedly. American society may improve in some respects and get worse in some respects at the same time. If we believe in continuous progress, it leads to laziness- because we know we're good and so what we're doing now must be good too. The point of teaching the underbelly of American history isn't to shame our past, it's to genuinely learn from it and try to make a better future.

I really enjoyed the majority of the book and highly recommend it. That said, I'd probably suggest stopping somewhere around Chapter 8 or possibly up to 10. The author has an ax to grind, and while you catch hints of it throughout, the first seven chapters are so rooted in well-supported fact, that it doesn't come across as extremely partisan, biased ranting. That's not so true of the last few chapters. The last few chapter do have some value, but they're a different book. And with the book being intimidatingly long, I think chopping down the book makes it more manageable.