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.
Sunday, October 5, 2014
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.
Saturday, October 12, 2013
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.
Sunday, August 28, 2011
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 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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)