6. Love and Marriage

6. Love and Marriage:

            There is nothing as exhilarating as romantic love. Well, maybe crack, but I have yet to try that.  They both have something in common in their ability to bring as much joy as sorrow in its wake.  For all its pitfalls it preoccupies a large chunk of our social consciousness.  This idea of having a deep emotional bond of love with one’s spouse is, however, a recent phenomenon.  Even up to the 19^th century, most marriages in western societies were arranged based on financial or political gains for the families involved. In fact, most societies throughout history have been polygamous rather than monogamous.  But through these changes, one thing that has remained constant in most societies, that the males have been writing the rules and setting the societal norms on this subject for a very long time.

But before we delve into romantic love, we have to discuss how it differs from love in general – the type between mother and child, family members, and close friends.  The one difference that complicates romantic love versus all others is the question of fidelity, and more to the point, the lineage of the offspring.  The strategy of each sex in maximizing the chances of passing on one’s genes run counter to other.  Men have to two major challenges in terms of leaving behind their genes.  One is clearly access to women.  The other is to guarantee that the children they are investing their resources to, are indeed their lineage, and not a result of infidelity.  Infidelity becomes an important issue, because cheating can benefit both sexes greatly.    

On the woman’s side, pregnancy is a dangerous proposition indeed.  Any decision to mate can mean a heavy investment of her health and time.  Because of this, women have to choose their mates very wisely.  Since women only have a limited number of eggs (one released a month) compared to the sex cells of a man (millions produced daily), each coupling must be considered carefully.  Not only must women make sure a man will stick around and share his resources for her children – they must also consider how high ranking their child may be in status and sexual attractiveness.  The more successful their offspring are in propogation, the more assured their genes survive and pass on.  But whereas men’s strategy values quantity, for a woman’s evolutionary gain – stability seems more of a benefit.

            We now can guess why romantic love is so tenuous.  If you ask women, most would put the blame on men’s inability to remain faithful.  The reason I wouldn’t even bother asking men is because men set up the rules in the first place.  That’s right - men invented the “institution” of both romantic love and monogamist marriage. This seems contrary to our gut instincts – so let’s take a closer look.  

            Humans have oxytocin neurotransmitters flooding the brain to help us deeply connect with another being.  When a mother’s eyes stare into the eyes of her newborn, it is this chemical that seals the bond.  We can see the reasons why evolution set up this powerful tool.  For a relatively slow moving species with no remarkable physical characteristic for defense, cooperation and mutual support is indispensable. The reasons we Homo sapiens ran over the Neanderthals was due to the immense size of our villages, compared to groups of five Neanderthals scattered among caves.  We can see how the love of one’s tribe or nation is just an extended manifestation of that bond we have formed in our immediate families.  And yes, the life of a nation too, outlasts many a romance.  So when humans really want to, relationships and bonds can last.  But when it comes to romantic love, stability is not always the best strategy for winning the game of genetic competition. 

            If we accept the premise that until the later half of the 20^th century, men have dominated the legal and societal discourse in the vast majority of societies, then the idea doesn’t seem far fetched that the rules of romance have been developed to benefit men.  It is no wonder that so many more women then men have stories of heartbreak endured at the opposite sex’s hands.  Ironically though, women are the biggest stalwarts and defenders for the romantic visions of love encapsulated in fairy tales and romance novels.  It seems counter-intuitive that a concept seemingly desired by most women should be something that harms them, but this is not a rare phenomenon as we shall see.

            Let’s look at the unfortunate practice of female circumcision, which still occurs in some remote villages in Africa.  In this practice, mothers and grandmothers insist that it is better for a little girl to have her clitoris cut out – and it is the women who perform this act.  Clearly, however, this procedure benefits men.  The intention of the procedure is to control a woman’s sexual desires, so as to minimize the chances of losing one’s virginity, and later on, one’s faithfulness to a husband.  The greatest threat to men in the evolutionary race is mistakenly providing  resources to a child that is not his.  An unsafe procedure for girls with its risks of infection and possibly death has only upsides for men. 

            Female circumcision is an extreme example – but drives home the point that a fervent belief  defended by one group may have been created for the benefit of another.  Perhaps this is more common than we think.  If we analyze our own views on love and marriage within this perspective, we may be surprised how similar, if not in extremity, but in kind, our society is from those we judge as primitive.   Could it be then, that romantic love is the ultimate invisible chastity belt ever created?  Through the use of the double standard, women who have sex only for love are esteemed, and those who indulge solely for its pleasures – harlots.  While men cheat and play loose with their fidelity, they can be more assured that they have a faithful wife waiting at home who would refuse casual sex without the ties of love.

          Most people assume that monogamy is a far more equitable arrangement then polygamy.  Polygamy is viewed as a remnant of a bygone era where women are mere property to be hoarded by the few powerful men.  But monogamy’s actual benefit to women may be illusionary ones that don’t exactly pan out for women. 

              In Robert Wright’s the Moral Animal, he argues that women lost an evolutionary advantage when society transitioned from polygamy to monogamy.  He compares how men of various ranking  (say 1 to 1000 ) based on wealth of resources would mate with similarly ranked women in both types of societies.   Based on the historic inequalities between the sexes, the rankings would be determined for men based on power and those for women based on beauty. 

            Suppose polygamy was still the norm.  In that society, a man with a number one ranking (imagine Bill Gates) would have access to many women ranked in the upper echelon  ( say # 1 to 40 : the Victoria Secrets models – according to the superficial way men have traditionally ranked women).   But more importantly, from a woman’s perspective, the 40^th ranked female and her children have access to the resources of the #1 ranked man.  Granted that the attentions of the husband must be shared with 39 other women – there are benefits in sister wives when it comes to help in raising and caring for their young. 

            Now let’s see how the rankings work out in a monogamist society.  Theoretically, the highest ranked man will seek out the highest ranked female  ( #1 male with # 1 female : let’s think of a power couple like Brad and Angelina), and so on.  But a curious thing happens to every woman not ranked number 1 – they all get access to a lower ranked male then they would have had under polygamy.  Furthermore, the burden of raising the children and managing the expected duties of a female in their society all falls solely on the wife. 

            If the transition to monogamy did not benefit women, we have to ask how it benefitted men.  It seems odd to think that access to only one woman would ever be codified into law by a society run by men.    Isn’t it a cliché, the image of the man with cold feet – the commitment-phobe?  How often have we seen men look with longing at Hugh Heffner’s life and complain about being married?  According to Robert Wright, this seeming contradiction makes perfect sense.  Polygamy is great, but only for the top ranked men, the rest get screwed – or rather don’t.  If the most powerful men take all the available women, this leaves a majority of men with no access to reproduction – a drive so powerful, that its denial produces instability and violence in society.   This dangerous state of unrest is what brought about the compromise towards monogamy. 

            Evidence can seen today of how violence could ensue when reproduction is thwarted.  In China, seemingly random acts of violence perpetrated by men have spiked over the past several years.  In one instance, a man savagely attacked scores of children in a school yard with a knife, killing several and critically wounding others.  Such acts have of course been noted in many countries, but the sudden rise in incidence have raised some theories as to the cause.  The interesting combination of medical technology and China’s one child rule has had the curious effect of couples being able to choose a son over a daughter.  There are too few women, and too many men. 

            A curious fact about suicide bombers in the Iraq also illuminates this connection.  It is very difficult, even among extremist groups to find volunteers for suicide missions .  Apparently there is a certain North African town where a vast of the majority of recruits were found.  In this town, polygamy is very much well and alive, and many men find themselves without the resources to obtain a wife.  No wonder these potential weapons are promised with eternal heaven with scores of virgins to choose from. 

The best argument that monogamy may be a male centered institution could be found in societies where women hold a higher status than men.  There are very few societies throughout history where women actually hold the highest status in society, but the Mosuo people of the mountainous region in China is one.  Due to its very limited resources, women and their reproductive potential are much more valuable than men in this harsh agricultural landscape.  In this culture, the maternal matriarch holds the highest position in the family.  None of the males in the family are ever allowed to marry and leave the household.  Their job is to stay home and help rear the children of their sister’s offspring.  The men would actually be insulted if the child’s biological father would even try to take part in the child’s upbringing.

Only at night, are the Mosuo men allowed to leave their household to spend the night in a lover’s bed.  In the morning, however, the men must return to their own households.  The sight of men walking home in the morning dawn has given this practice the name of “walking marriage”.  Both men and women are allowed multiple lovers.  At a communal dance in the center of town, a woman can secretly invite a man to her bed that night by tickling the underside of his palm while hands are clasped during the dance.   

So the picture is far different it seems when women call the shots.  Perhaps this suggests that women are far better off challenging long established notions of what marriage and relationships mean.  Interestingly enough, women have been doing this more and more over the past few decades.  In the United States, the percentage of women who have decided not to marry have steadily increased.  Sweden leads all other countries in the number of single moms.   Even in Asian countries like Korea and Thailand– whose nuclear families have long had a stable and traditional influence on society, more women are opting out of marriage.  The multiple pressures of being a career woman, caretaker, wife, and the burden of caring for their aging parents have resulted in more women from declining marriage and children. 

Now a  bit about the poor plight of men in nature’s sexual strategizing.  One would think that since men had the luxury of running the ship for the past eons that all would be happiness and sunshine where marriage was concerned.   However, let us remember that what is prudent and beneficial for human adaptation often does not have happiness as its goal.  Although women fair far worse in this regard, men are miserable enough.   This is mainly due to two powerful drives that vie for the man’s mind, and depending on the day, each takes turns winning over the other.

One powerful drive is common to both sexes – the need for human connection.  Humans are emphatically social beings.  In fact, our brains are especially adapted to live in complex and large societies.  But modern society has removed the individual farther away from a connection to the public square and community.  To make matters worse, men have innate deficits in the ability to communicate deep feelings – which all humans need to share.  Men will talk plenty with their male friends, but mostly about sports, politics, shared hobbies – but it is mainly with their spouses that they let their guards down. I know that some women must be rolling on the floor laughing hysterically at this,”What!! That beer guzzling guy watching football for hours on end opens up to me?” Consider the statistic that married men live longer than single men.  Also consider that after divorce, it is men who in the majority of times, remarrires first.  

If it was indeed true that men are happier being single, then why is it that most men do commit, either in marriage or an exclusive relationship (or at least attempt  being exclusive)? 

            If this were the only drive in men when it comes to romance, women would be a lot happier – in fact, so would men.  Unfortunately for both - there exists in men that all too familiar drive to mate with as many different women as possible.   We have seen all too many examples of famous men who have lost both fortune and prominence due to wandering lust – from presidents to pastors. 

Even amongst single men, this tendency shows itself in the practice of serial monogamy – where men go from one relationship to the next.  This is probably why women came to view men as commitment phobes who keep delaying that walk down the aisle.  I do not envy women who desperately want to marry and wonder if their investment of years in dating  would lead to matrimony.  I don’t believe that most men intentionally seek to confound women by lying – although there are men who do.  It would be more accurate to say that the male mind lies to itself.  Nature has set up an arms race of lies and its detections. The guessing game between the sex’s on intent has become ever more subtle and complex. It is no wonder then, that the best liar is one who believes his own lie.  A man may indeed believe he is in love with a particular woman, but how easily it often fades in time.  I speculate, that more times than not, the reason for the breakup is not due to a drastic change in personality of the partner.  It is more likely the case, that the sexual attraction, which helped a man overlook other incompatibilities at first, decreases as time passes.  All of a sudden, the way the other chews their food and communicates becomes a point of contention.  People call this “falling” out of love. 

How sad it seems, that couples that have been together for decades, fall out of love and become strangers.  There is a problem when the criteria for romantic relationships do not change much from our teen years to middle age.  It is all too common that a couple, after years of joyful union abandon it all after a revelation of infidelity.  Two souls may be so compatible in interest, personality, and mutual fondness, but if the man or woman were to sleep with another, all of it becomes nullified. 

Of course, the solution to charting one’s course through the minefield that is love and marriage is not easy nor universal. Everyone has their unique point of view with their own moral and emotional boundaries.  The solutions may neither be simple or trouble free.  But as men and women adapt to constantly changing societies, perhaps happiness would be more realistic if we questioned age old assumptions of what romantic love truly means.  A great movie that illustrates the all too possessive nature of societal views on love can be see in the move, the Enlgish Patient.  Often times art can best open our minds to new discourse.  It is a beautiful movie that illustrates both the transformative and destructive nature of this all too human desire. 

4. Fate vs. Free will

4. Fate vs. Free Will

            To most of us the idea that we make our decisions freely seems obvious.  When we go through the decision making process, like what to eat for lunch, our brain is aware of the conflicting emotions and thoughts stirring within. When we finally decide, our brains then tell our bodies to take a left on main street towards the pizza shop instead of a right.  Most of us assume that the decision could easily have been a pastrami sandwich, or in fact, a thousand other choices of food at that moment.  We would all be surprised if there existed a book written thousands of years ago that foretold of your exact decision for pizza that day.  

 

But Humans have been questioning the notion of free will since ancient times.  The Greek playwright, Aeschylus, wondered how much of our decisions were pre-determined by outside forces.  In his play, “Oedipus”, the fates have foretold of a man who would one day kill his father, marry his mother, and become king.  Throughout the play, we as the audience hear the chorus (the fates) both understanding and scorning his destructive pride that leads to these acts. 

            Most societies today have embraced the concept of free will.  It is mentioned in the constitutions, the scriptures of religious text, and the law books of judicial systems.  Even in our everyday interactions, we make endless judgments about the actions of those around us.  We reward, love, hate, ridicule, and praise the acts of others based on the notion of individual merit and free choice.  We blame ourselves for the wrong choices we make.  We fill with exuberance when our choices lead to fortuitous ends.

Experiments in modern neuroscience, however,  have tipped the scales in favor of fate (determinism) in this ancient debate. Experiments have shown that our decisions must start from the unconscious part of our brain instead of the frontal cortex – the site of conscious thought.  Electric sensors were placed on both the frontal cortex and the nerves inside the forearms of human subjects.  They were instructed to move an object on a table whenever they chose.  The conclusions were unexpected.  The arm nerves charged up a split second before the nerves in the frontal cortex even made the decision. Apparently, our conscious brain was only made aware after the unconscious part of our brain had already made the decision. 

Although these results have been publicized in newspapers and magazines, the world hasn’t exactly run wild on the streets crying over the loss of free will.  Such a notion that we are nothing more than complicated robots is both unbelievable and threatening to many of us.  It’s one of those twilight zone scenarios where we suddenly find wiring behind our skin and a bar code beneath our scalp.  Many would wonder if the very fabric of our society would fall apart - where crime and greed could be rationalized.  Let me rephrase (since these rationalizations alread exist in a “free will” dominated world); we may fear a stark rise in selfish behavior.  The logic goes as such: why control our darkest desires since we can’t stop it anyway?

There are no signs that this new discovery registered anything more than a blip in our collective consciousness.  I will argue though, that the world would be a far more peaceful and happy place if determinism was embraced instead of the notions of free will.  It has been the belief in free will which has in fact rationalized many of humanity’s heinous atrocities throughout history.  Is not the basis of the fall of man in Christianity, the willful disobedience to God?   Human suffering exists as a punishment for choosing knowledge over God (although I don’t see how a few missing apples factor into it). 

          There were innumerable horrors carried out in the name of saving our fellow humans from choosing the devil’s path, not the least of which, a thorough burning at the stake.  The monarchs of old and many of today’s wealthy class have often expressed disdain for the lower classes for reasons similar to that debunked Lamarkian view of evolution –  that the rabble have chosen to be sloths and deserve no programs to improve their lot.    The privileged on the other hand, have picked themselves up by their own boot straps; and to the willful victor goes the spoils.

I would argue that tolerance and mutual understanding are more likely the result of a belief in determinism rather than free will.  By viewing the deficiencies and shortcomings of our fellow travelers as determined by circumstances beyond their control, I believe that we would be less judgmental of their failings.  We would understand that their lot may very well have been ours, had the universe been so inclined.  Social programs to alter the circumstances of future generations would be better funded.  Those of us, who are privileged, either in riches or talent, would not view our standing with such superiority as to devalue the humanity of others who are less fortunate.  Although our paths may differ greatly, the realization that our lives are determined by the same forces must have a unifying effect rather than not.  We may be on different ships, but we are all tossed about in the same seas.

Neuroscience is not the only argument for supporting a deterministic explanation of human decisions.  Several important concepts in physics have added to this debate – Newtonian physics and Quantum Mechanics. The former, with the help of Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity, explains almost every motion we see at the macro level – the precise movement of oceans, planets, stars, humans and everything in between.  Quantum Mechanics, on the other hand, describes the subatomic world of particles inside of an atom, which we will discuss, brings an aspect of uncertainty into the universe of matter.  Although these two laws may seem contrary to one another (at least for now, since scientists are scrambling for the theory of everything that would integrate these seemingly opposing laws), they both undermine the arguments for free will in their own way.

Take Newtonian physics.  In it is described the actions and reactions of everyday motions – gravity, friction, you name it.  It is a world governed by determinism, in which every event has a causative event that preceded it.  Time always seems to go foreword and never backward.  The coffee mug shattered because I pushed it off the table.  In other words, there could only be one outcome for a specific set of circumstances at a specific moment in time.

       Every decision we make – whether it’s deciding to eat a celery stick or a calorie filled brownie – is based on a past event (according to classical physics).  So right now, I’m typing this sentence at my favorite bookstore.  Let’s analyze how my decision to write this chapter today was a consequence of a string of cause and effects.  First off, some brilliant person came up with the idea of putting café’s in book stores with convenient little tables and chairs. Also thank goodness someone thought up the idea of a laptop. Since my penmanship is terrible, I would never have had the patience to write a book using paper and pen.  I’m glad I was born a human because claws are downright impractical for a keyboard.

I could go on and on – possibly to the first amino acids that came together billions of years ago to form protein chains that would ultimately create the first cell. You get the point.  Every decision is like a falling domino in a series of falling dominos: A causes B, which causes C, etc.  But here is the mistake that most humans make – we forget that the earliest domino pieces lacked even our slightest input.  Imagine how different our lives would have turned out if just one of these early events were otherwise:  your family, your sex, your genes (had it been another sperm or egg that united, your sister or brother would have been born – not you), your country, the century born into, and your species (thank the fates you were not born a dinosaur).

 If we did not choose event A, then why do we believe we freely chose Z today.  Is this not the same reason we don’t assign free will to our computer programs?

 A computer program called Big Blue defeated the then greatest chess player, Kasparov – and yet few would credit the program as having made its decisions freely. Why?  Dominos - that’s why.  We won’t give that program credit because it was created with a set of instructions.  Last time I checked, we were born with a set of instructions too – a code if you will: DNA.

                        Now let’s talk about quantum theory – which is a field of physics advanced by the works of Maxwell Planck, and yet again, Albert Einstein.  The most puzzling aspect of this theory is the question of why subatomic particles behave both like particles and waves at the same time.  Take light for example.  We know that light is made up of streams of energized photon particles.  But if light were merely particles, they would behave only like tennis balls thrown on the floor with a path predicted by Newtonian physics.  But any inquisitive child seeing a rainbow must wonder if there are red photon particles and blue photon particles that somehow turn into green photon particles when they mix.  Scientists realized light waves interfere with each other – imagine two waves in the water combining or cancelling each other out.  But how can something be both a single particle and a diffuse wave?

            In a famous double slit experiment, this phenomenon was clearly illustrated.  When one photon of light passed through 2 slits on a screen, an unusual pattern of alternating light and dark bands appeared on the far wall across the room. If light behaved only as particles, we would only see two narrow slits of light on the wall.  The many bands are a result of the tops and bottoms of many waves emanating from each slit interfering with each other - some constructively (bright bands) and some destructively (dark bands). 

           The matter was complicated by Heisenberg’s principal of uncertainty which said that momentum and position of any subatomic particle atom could never be known simultaneously.  When scientists determined the position of an electron, its momentum could never be accurately calculated.  When scientists calculated the momentum of the electron, the exact position was impossible to calculate.  To make matters worse, this meant that we could only know the probability of an electron particle in an atom being at a particular position at any moment.  For example, there is a 90 % chance that electron A can be at position 1, but a 10% chance it could be at a totally different place at position 2.

            So why all the talk about electrons?  Our thoughts depend on electrons.  It just so happens that our brain cells rely on the electrical differences created by electrons to send electrical impulses controlling thoughts, emotions, senses, and voluntary movment.  This electrical potential is achieved by the electron configurations in salt ions: Na+, K+, Ca+, and Cl-.  There is a reason why we have a taste for salt, it is essential for survival (at least in small amounts).

The supporters of free will have argued that uncertainty is an argument against determinism.  If electrons are needed to trigger human thoughts, and electrons are unpredictable, then our thoughts must be unpredictable. There are free will supporters who use this unpredictability to say – aha, this proves that cause and effect is humbug – free will wins.   The problem with this argument is that it merely reassigns the falling dominos to an earlier set of events that we still have no control over.  The beginning domino A is now the random instability of an electron.  What made these electrons unstable?  Who knows – cosmic rays…our souls?  And if it is our souls- the “ghost in the machine” – then who assigned this soul as opposed to that other guy who chose hot dogs over pizza.  Sheesh, it’s endless. 

Another problem with uncertainty is that it reduces the definition of free will to such a low standard that it is no longer distinguishable from determinism.  If I start walking to work, and all of a sudden I have the urge to jump in front of a train with no warning whatsoever, is that the definition of free will we are okay with given the uncertainty principle?  Let’s see, there is a 90 percent chance I’ll bring wine to your dinner party, and a 10 % chance I’ll bring a ticking bomb.  What’s the difference whether  the fates or misplaced electrons  made Oedipus kill his father?  In either case, it was out of his control. 

This random firing of electrons does in fact occur occasionally in computers.  I found this the hard way when a 30 page paper I was writing in college suddenly disappeared without a trace in my diskette (I know, diskettes, how old am I?) and in the computer’s hard-drive at 3 am the day my history paper was due.  Luckily, my brain’s electrons fired uncontrollable fits of laughter instead of homicidal thoughts.  Computers have random firings of circuits, which often result in our screens freezing or programs shutting down with apologies. 

Although our brains neural networks are not exactly the same as computer circuits, there are similarities.  Random firings of neurons happen a lot more in our brains than inside computers.  Our brains have a 30 % error rate compared to the less than 1 % error rate needed in computers to function properly.  That said, computers currently have nowhere near the complexity and processing power of the human brain.  Our brains just ignore the vast majority of these misfiring – that’s why we don’t see an object in front of us when there is none. Well, that is, if you don’t have schizophrenia or hallucinogens in your blood stream.

If one day, we are able to construct computers as complex as the wiring in the human brain, an interesting question will arise.  Will computers become conscious?  If they do, another dilemma will face humans which we will find hard to ignore.  What would it say about our notion of free will?  But still some will say, “Fine, maybe a program could make simple decisions, but surely, humans make immensely more complex ones. We live in such intricate societies, that only free will could lead to such things as cooperation and even deception.” 

Interestingly enough, robots with only 8 lines of program developed these very human-like abilities in an experiment simulating evolution.  A hundred four-wheeled robots the size of toy cars were fitted with solar cells to search for lights emanating from a floor as its food source.   The robots themselves could both emit and detect light. A computer randomly assigned each robot a set of 8 programs (genes).  Depending on these set of programs, a robot could react in several ways.  For example, after detecting light, some robots raced towards it, away from it, or had no reaction at all.  Also, some robots could flash their own headlights or not. The environment was a darkened room with a limited number of food stations. 

            The first trial represented the first generation.  Many robots just didn’t have the evolutionary lotto ticket and soon ran out of energy.  The minority few who fed and survived were allowed to “reproduce” with one another.  Since robots can’t mate on their own, the experimenters simulated reproduction by copying these winning programs and placing them into the other robots who didn’t survive.  To factor in variation – or genetic changes – a computer randomly changed one of the 8 genes in each of the robots in the second generation. 

            The experiment was run for many generations, each time letting only the successful genes pass into the next generation.  A curious behavior evolved among several groups of robots.  Some actually learned to cooperate with one another.  When one robot saw a food source, it flashed its blinkers to others – who then came to share the food.  By cooperating, these individuals were successful in this game of survival of the fittest.  But another fascinating behavior arose. 

Other robots became successful by doing the exact opposite of cooperation. These  robots falsely alerted others to a spot that had no food source.  While the others rushed to that dark void, the cheating robot would sneak towards the real food source.  Amazingly these simple 8 lined programs evolved the ability to deceive as well.  We can imagine how fine tuned these strategies would have gotten if the robots contained more than 8 lines of program.  Cooperating robots may evolve special signals and codes of blinking to recognize fellow friends.  The lying robots could in turn learn to replicate these signals.   This arms race of deception vs. detection would become ever more nuanced.

 So the difference between simple robots and humans may be one of degrees.  When we confront new people entering our lives, we have a bunch of incoming stimuli (behaviors, facial expressions, intonation, words) that we have to analyze to determine if we should trust them or not.  Much of this drama can be observed between men and women in the rituals of dating – but let’s leave that for another chapter.  To make matters more difficult, humans also have a myriad of responses to “choose” from when deciding how to act. 

The next obvious question is– why the self delusion?  Why did evolution even bother making a conscious part and make us believe we are making decisions there?  Many theorists have speculated that the extreme social complexity of human life required a mind that was partitioned into conscious and unconscious parts.  Lying to others and to oneself seems to be a skill humans specialize in.  This is why Tony Soprano has such a hard time revealing his motives to his therapist.  The best liar may indeed be the person who actually believes their own lie.  Rationalizations for discomforting desires and deeds can only happen if the unconscious withholds information from the self aware parts of the brain.  So you may smile and make small talk with the higher ups in the office, but in reality, the unconscious mind is left to do all the unsavory conniving it wants. 

In a society as large as humans, where tribes can develop into a city of millions, the concept of self-identity is essential in keeping order.  Man must always be aware of the relative status of their own identity versus the rest of society’s.  Although every person would love to be king, we can see how chaos would ensue if everyone thought that way.  The Romans hated the endless civil wars that erupted whenever there was a power vacuum, and were more than willing to hand Julius Caesar the title of Emperor.  In our lives – at work, in relationships, with our families, we constantly keep track of where we stand in relation to others.  This could only happen if our self identity was somewhat consistent and continuous.  If self identity changed as often as the wind, no society could function. There would be too much discord and a lack of cooperation.   It would be a world filled with people with multiple personalities disorders.

But we must not confuse self awareness with free will.  This is the confusion that most people can not get over.  We can be aware of our brain having thoughts without having any control over the thoughts themselves.   Feelings are a great example of this.  How great would it be if we could choose to feel whatever emotion we wanted, whenever we wanted?  Unfortunately, we wake up one morning and we are cranky as heck.  Another day we feel depressed and we can’t seem to shake it.  Sometimes we feel so happy, and we don’t know why.  So it is possible for us to be self aware and yet have no control.  Now I know some will point out that it can work in reverse too – thoughts can illicit feelings as well.  This is the whole concept behind Cognitive Therapy.  To that I’ll say….see above arguments concerning falling domino’s.

Even though free will may turn out to be only an illusion, we still experience life as if we had free will.  Should one buy the gas guzzling muscle car or the slow running hybrid?   Should one leave their spouse or continue on with the unfulfilling marriage?  Even if everything is determined, the conscious regions of our brain still carries the weight of our potential decisions – and that will never change. The key is to figure out how to use determinism in ways that helps us lead a healthier and happier life.

 

 

2. Positive Pessimism

2. Positive Pessimism

A very interesting event happened to me about two years into writing this book.  One day while perusing through a magazine, I came across an article about a book called Antidote: Happiness for People Who Hate Positive Thinking, by Oliver Burkeman.  I felt two opposing feelings wash over me at the same time.  On the one hand, I felt as if someone just punched me in the stomach.  The premise of the book suggested by the title seemed to mirror my unfinished book.  On the other hand, I was excited at the prospect that there were others who saw the benefits of pessimism – that I was not just shooting arrows in the dark. 

I immediately looked up his book and voraciously started reading.  Some of the introductory passages that almost seemed verbatim to mine.  I was floored.  Yet a smile crept upon my face.  Although I have firm beliefs in the existential and psychological benefits of negative thinking, I have to admit that it is not always easy to be a minority voice in anything in life, whether it is political beliefs or being the odd one out amongst  your coworkers or friends.  There is always a small inkling of self doubt that one has to confront on a daily basis.

It turns out that Mr. Burkeman’s book makes the most comprehensive argument for a negative path towards happiness ever written – encapsulating the ancient stoic philosophers, modern psychological studies, sociology, modern spiritual leaders, and Buddhist writings.  A part of me felt relieved, however, that my book rather complemented his in providing other particular ways to incorporate positive negatism into our lives.

It has also relieved some pressure to make the argument for the benefits of a negative approach to happiness in the first place.  The first few chapters were the most difficult for me to articulate.  This is because happiness is such an illusive concept to define. There are so many paradoxes and linguistical sandtraps when trying to describe happiness, as if it were some destination, or final state of being.  Like most things in the universe, our own concepts of happiness are always in flux, depending on our particular temperaments and lots in life.  For that, I like to gratefully thank Oliver Burkeman in articulating the argument is such a well written and thought out manner.

No sooner had I read his book, than I decided to email Oliver Burkeman and describe to him my surprise at coming across his book and to thank him for writing it.  He was more than gracious to reply and even gave some words of encouragement after reading several of my chapters. So to Mr. Burkeman, I again thank you.  And to everyone reading my book now, I suggest you actually first read Antidote: Happiness for People Who Hate Positive Thinking.  If I were talented enough to have written his book, then this current one, Cynical Pessimist’s Guide to Happines, would certainly have been the follow up.

Getting back to the unhappy history of mankind, we have to ask ourselves how pessimism and optimism each helped our ancestors survive millions of years of scarcity. If there is one thing Darwin taught us is that variation is the key to any specie’s survival.  Like the markings on the wings of butterflies and the different beaks of finches, humans were born with variations in temperament between optimism and pessimism.  Anyone with experience around a newborn knows that they have innate temperamental differences in areas of bonding, fussiness, startle reflexes, exploration, happiness, etc.  And as children grow, depending on the nurturing environment, these innate differences may be heightened or reduced. 

            There are many instances in our lives when it is clearly better to be pessimistic and cynical.  Many scam artists rely on the fact that some people are very trusting and naïve.  There wouldn’t be telephone and internet scammers if there weren’t susceptible victims among us.  When an offer sounds too good to be true, cynical pessimism is our defense against it.  If England’s Prime Minister Chamberlain was less optimistic about Hitler’s intentions, perhaps the world would not have appeased Germany’s early aggressions in 1938, and prevented a World War where millions of lives were lost.  We can think of thousands of instances where it pays to suspect negative motives in people or the negative outcomes of certain decisions.  It’s a pessimist that invented such things as first- aid kits, fire extinguishers, and insurance policies – and that’s a good thing.  Every single day, drivers do something very pessimistic – they click on their seat belts. 

            On the other hand, where would society be today without optimism as well?  It was the optimist in Martin Luther King Jr. that spoke the famous words to the throngs at the Lincoln Memorial – in an era of church bombings, lynchings, and apartheid.  It was the optimists who believed that machines could fly, diseases could be cured, and kings could be resisted.  If it wasn’t for optimism, we would never dream of what could be possible and nothing would change.  This is not only true of society as a whole, but in our individual lives.  We would never delay gratification, if we did not believe that a better future awaits us for our efforts.  It enables us to invest in an education, children, and a career. 

If we imagine the totality of humans on earth currently as one organism – and each of us cells in that larger network.  We can then ask whether humanity as a whole is healthy or sick. Systemic illness in the body often arises from individual cells gone awry.  Diabetes is a problem of the body’s cells failing to process sugar molecules or pancreas cells not secreting hormones.  Cancer starts off with one cell miscopying itself.  With the symptoms of famine, war, and excess – we see that we are much out of balance.  Likewise, humanity’s role in the disruption of nature’s global cycles is a product of something amiss in us as individuals. 

            The recurring strategy for wellness, in both organisms and ecosystems, is the concept of equilibrium.  Take water, that most essential of life’s requirements.  We know that dehydration can kill us in less than a week.  On the flip side, runners during a marathon have literally drunk themselves to death.  Our body temperature, if altered a few degrees higher or lower than 98.6F, results in sickness or death.  Diabetics may fall into comas, if their blood sugar goes to either extreme.

            For a variety of reasons, society today has demonized pessimism and cynicism to the extent that the words are synonymous with dysfunction.  So when such an important part of the human psyche is stigmatized, then society loses an immense tool of thought that can help make sense of the world.  I’m tempted to think of the happily ignorant, but doomed humans in George Orwell’s novel, the Time Machine.  We are slowly sinking into the rabbit hole with a smile on our faces. 

 What we mostly see on television are sitcoms that wrap up all of life’s problems with little bows in an hour or less.  Political campaigns simplify most complex issues into a dualism of good versus bad – with all the distractions of cute babies and balloons. 

Instinctually, parents try to shield their children as much as they can from the darker realities of life.  Childhood at home is mostly spent watching cartoons and school is not much better. Watered down history books have reduced complex historical events into moral sitcoms, again pitting all-good characters vs. all-evil characters.  Children grow up unable to understand complex events where the lines between right are wrong are blurred.  

The one constant message that society hammers home is that money and materialistic gain leads to happiness.  From MTV’s cribs, to the “Apprentice”, to movies about billionaire website wunderkinds – the religion of money acquisition has dominated the conversation of the path toward happiness.  Everyone has dreamt of winning the lottery.  However, a study concluded that money only increased ones happiness level to a certain point.  Beyond $ 75 K a  year, happiness did not seem to increase with income.  Initially, as money lifts people out of poverty, there is an initial reaction of joy and pleasure .   Beyond that, it seems that too much of a good thing, may be just that.  Our brains seem adept at becoming bored and dissatisfied with whatever level and type of stimulation we are talking about – even if it is millions of dollars.

            Primo Levi, a holocaust survivor and the author of the book, Survival in Aushwitz, wrote about the depression many of the survivors felt during the years following their horrors in concentration camps.  After they had been rescued from that nightmare, they knew their experience would haunt them for the rest of their lives.  They were sure, however, that they would not take life for granted again.  But as the years went by, many were disheartened that little frustrations – like bills and traffic – affected them just the same as it did before. For some, the inability to integrate the vast memories of dark events in their past, must have islolated them in a world that just wanted smiles and handshakes. Primo Levi himself committed suicide.

          What is the solution?  There is something to be said about the eastern concept of Yin and Yang.  If the diagnosis is an overabundance of one extreme, the remedy is often exposing one-self  to the opposite condition. If one is thirsty, then drink.  If one is cold, get to a heat source.  So in order to have sustainable happiness that is not dysfunctional – we need to be aware of and incorporate what society has deemed  the “negative” aspects of life. 

            Since optimism continues to have more than its share of publicity, the following is a compilation of every cynical and pessimistic thought I have come across in my few decades of life.  Some were found in books while others were hatched from late night debates with fellow like-minded travelers. Some are hard earned personal conclusions, painfully extracted through years of stumbling in the dark.  Believe it or not, some even came from watching television – who knew.  But regardless of its source, I hope cynical pessimism will help a few others, the way it’s helped me.  It allows me to withstand life’s ever changing winds while keeping my sense of awe of the universe.  Most importantly, it’s allowed me to view humanity with empathy while still being critical of its many faults. This book does not ultimately presume to answer the question of what happiness is – but rather – on how to navigate the path to seeking our own answers,  without being consumed in the process.

1. A new path towards happiness

1.A new path towards happiness.

                      But the question must be asked, why did our minds develop this way?  What is the purpose of having a large part of the mind kept in the shadows of our awareness? A very ingenious experiment called the self awareness test may reveal an answer. Only a handful of species on earth have the ability to recognize their own image in a mirror as themselves.  When a dot is placed on their face, only humans, orangutans, chimpanzees, dolphins, and magpies attempt to remove it after seeing their image in a mirror.  All other species, including dogs, cats, and by the way – humans younger than 12 months of age fail this test.  What do these handful of species have in common? It is not only that they live in social groups, but that social status is ever changing depending on the alliances made within that group. 

            Here in lies the possible reason we developed a hidden unconscious.  If survival meant negotiating the ever more complex nuance of human society – then strategies in alliance forming such as deceit and deception becomes increasingly more important.  Analogously, the detection of deception would become nuanced as well.   Consequently lying would have to get even more subtle. This positive feedback loop would ultimately lead to the evolution of a more perfect liar.  The perfect liar is someone that doesn’t realize they are lying – or at least – the motives behind their actions. It seems that evolution accounted for our poor acting chops.

            Another aspect of our unconscious that aids in our survival is its speedy response.  If it was left to the unconcsiou mind to decide to jump back from a slithering snake in the path, we’d already be bitten.  In this sense, uncontrollable and splits second responses by our unconscious protect us.  Likewise, the unconscious constantly scans our minds, pushing up important worries and reminders of what we should be doing to prepare for future calamities. But these advantages become disadvantages if we let them take over control of our conscious minds.  Many of us let our minds wander, not realizing who is steering the ship.  

            Descarte had famously postulated, “ I think therefore I am”.  But which “thoughts” and which “I” – the conscious or unconscious?   This leads to a more complex question – which of my conscious thoughts are really manifestations of the unconscious.  Hence, all the more reason that laying open our unconscious is a crucial step in self-discovery and eventual happiness.

            Our early ancestors may not have had time worry much about happiness since they were too busy looking for food or running from saber tooth tigers. Considering that early humans confronted death around every corner, it is no wonder we were endowed with those coupled traits of fear and anxiety.  If every misstep – be it physical, emotional, or social – could result in oblivion, the mind had better worry rather than relax. 

            But in modern life, we do have extra time and have the unusual standard of wanting to feel happy.  The main problem is that our brains are outdated…and our surrounding have far outpaced a brain more suited for the harsh ancestral plains.  We, however, still walk around our modern lives reacting to its hurdles and setbacks as if death still lurked around every corner waiting for our miscalculations.  A lost smart phone becomes an extinguished flame in a blazing storm.  The monthly accounting report presentation is now a tribunal in front of the village Mayan chief.  Breaking up with a significant other is now isolation from your village and all the resources and support they represent.

            The claim that runs throughout this book, is that most forms of unhappiness – aside from biochemical and organic pathology in the brain, relates to this unconscious brain churning out constant loops of dissatisfaction and worry.  The forms that it takes are numerous: loneliness, loss of reputation, guilt, addictions, jealousy, boredom, stress, existential crisis, violence, disillusionment, chaos, and a sense of failure. 

Let’s take a closer look at this relatively new approach to alleviating fears called cognitive exposure therapy.  On its face, most would think to be itcounter-intuitive, but there is no better proof of its effectiveness, then its positive outcomes with soldiers returning from war with PTSD.  Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome may well be the disorder most directly linked to the fear of death.  These soldiers have experienced terrifying scenes of destruction and their brains made sure that the circumstances of that scene became deeply imprinted in their brains.  The brain is literally warning them, “Remember this life threatening situation with utter clarity – avoid this in the future! ”

The public has learned much about the devastating effects of PTSD through countless stories of soldiers, whose lives have been devastated by its symptoms.  A sudden boom of a car backfiring sends them into the same panic mode as if the horrifying memories were happening to them all over again. Nightmares also make them relive these scenes.  Many soldiers cannot sustain employment, nor relationships, and a staggering rate of suicide pervades their ranks.

The last thing a soldier with PTSD wants to do is what exposure therapy requires – talk about the horrifying events, again and again.  In the early sessions, patients experience the increased heart rate, terror, shallow breathing, and the cold sweat that comes with the fear of dying.  But as the sessions continue, the soldiers begin to feel lower intensities of those symptoms – as if the brain is realizing- okay, maybe you won’t die after all when remembering these awful events.  Remarkable recoveries have been seen with soldiers, some of whom have holed themselves up for decades since the Vietnam war.

I believe there is an important lesson here for the rest of us, who most likely do not experience the extremes of these soldiers, but are burdened with fears and anxieties that rule our daily lives, and prevent us from living a fulfilling life.  We may or may not have experienced trauma such as theirs, but as we know, humans have been burdened with an almost innate tendency erring on the side of a constant state of anxiety – honed by millions of years hardship. 

What has been the common strategy of a vast majority of modern western societies to overcome this innate discontentment?  If one was merely an observer from another planet, I would say advertisements and commercials would be a pretty good clue as to this strategy that has mass appeal – a desire to wash over our discontentment with a barrage of positivity – be it pleasure, hope, laughter, consumerism, accomplishments, progress – plug in any word that seems bright and cheery.

I like to call this approach the Disney strategy.  We live in a society where the dream of Walt Disney - the fairy tale of “happily ever after” -  has moved from childhood imagination to adult longing.  In the steady bombardment of popular media, lies a promise that happiness is just a matter of being positive , and that it comes prepackaged  with that next big promotion, purchase, or relationship.  Forgetting that more than half the world’s population lives in poverty; that war, famine, and disease kills millions of children a year, we erroneously believe that the next acquisition or situational change within our lives will finally fulfill our desires to be happy.  Relative to the suffering of a vast portion of the world’s population, shouldn’t we in the first world countries be ecstatic?  But it’s clear that for most of us, finding meaning and contentment is still a challenge we are struggling with. 

            Again, it is important to repeat, and not as a model for what should be, but as something to overcome – the  human brain evolved for survival as its priority, and not lasting happiness.  The pleasures dangled in our brains were mere incentives to get us out of caves – and only temporarily until another pleasure took its place.  So no matter how endlessly we achieve our goals, whatever they may be - our brains will always circle back

to the same starting point of discontentment.  Our brain is its own barrier to achieving that very contentment we so desperately want – and evolution made it that way. 

To add to this, our list of wants and desires knows no bounds.  What sets humans apart from other organisms is a brain whose imagination and abstract thinking can conjure infinite desires as never before.  This imagination has been key to our species development, as evidenced by the artifacts of jewelry found amongst the fossils of our ancestors just about the time modern man evolved.  A brain that can imagine future scenarios and outcomes has great survival value.  With it we can plan and problem-solve for possible misfortunes that other animals are ill prepared for.   But like many adaptations, it also comes with a price.  We have desires and disappointments beyond what any animal can conceive.   Humans not only suffer from present misfortunes but from imagined future ones – not the least of which is death.

              So what is the solution if not scurrying on to the next happiness fix?  We must accept that everything, even the all powerful need for happiness, has a basis in the fear of death and all its manifestations.  We are not so much desperately running towards happiness as trying to temporarily forget our fears about our mortality.  We may succeed for a bit, but that mental unrest always creeps back upon us, and whatever sense of security we have from the source of our happiness crumbles like a fragile umbrella in a storm. 

                        So any approach or discussion on the topic of achieving happiness must first and foremost tackle the subject of our mortality head on.  This is no easy task, and it is pretty evident that most people in society avoid this topic as much as they can.  Death is seen as a pessimistic idea, and pessimism is rarely seen as something useful or essential to one’s

happiness.  It is not in admiration or praise when people make the comment that another is a pessimist, nor a cynic. 

            Just as the soldiers with PTSD must face what scares them most to achieve happiness, so must we.  It is not merely enough to understand one’s physical death.  We must have the courage to confront death in all its various forms – which most of society has labeled as pessimism.  It is often true, that what we don’t understand and avoid, scares us the most.  So when we fail to ponder on the so called “negative” aspects of life – mortality, suffering, violence, injustice, isolation, selfishness, nihilism – these will forever shroud us in fear, and leave us incapable of living a full and happy life.

            Just to be clear, I’m not advocating that people would be happier engulfed with dark thoughts and images – just as soldiers PTSD who have persistent thoughts of bombings.  However, the gold and glitter fantasies of our present society is also not healthy.  The rest of the book will focus on counteracting this skewed imbalance.  As the title suggests, it’s correct to assume that it is partially for my fellow cynical pessimists hiding in shame and seclusion in our caves.  Cynicism is the belief that most people’s actions, whether society deems them good or evil, are based on motives of self interest.  And of course pessimism is the belief that there is more bad than good in this world, and that Murphy’s Law applies – anything that can go wrong eventually will.  Yes, I believe in those precepts, and yes, I am happy and content.  

 It is also defense of like-minded souls whose natural temperament led them to cynicism and pessimism- but have yet learned to use it for self fulfillment.   As the rest of the book will argue, these traits are as useful to mankind as their opposites of hope and

idealism.   In fact, we will see that the latter cannot be obtained without the former.  Cynicism and Pessimism can lead to spirituality, transcendence, and humanitarianism, as much as idealism and hope can lead to destruction and genocide.  As in much of life, any extreme or imbalance often leads to malady.  People who are too pessimistic and cynical indeed may fall on their own petard.   All darkness and doom, without light can lead to despair.  The universe becomes an ugly place devoid of mystery and wonder, and one might be prone to becoming a misanthrope with no empathy at all for the human plight. 

But this book is also for those who desperately try to hide in the brighter side of life.  They gravitate always to the sunlight, and shun any form of negativity they may encounter or perceive.  The problem occurs however, when they do face hardships and encounter horrible events in their protected world.  Then, confusion and fear seizes their very core.  They cannot understand how the darker aspects of life fit in with their world view.  When sickness and other tragedies enter their lives they realize how fragile their sense of security really is.  Many are left feeling rudderless when fate deals an unexpected blow. 

Those are always living in fear of losing it all, have also something to gain from this book – a guide to integrating the many sides of life into a meaningful world view that understands and transcends life at the same time.  Cynicism and pessimism then become tools for human growth, and not the much maligned concepts that society often associates with maladjusted anarchists or doomsayers.  In our vernacular, these terms are often used to tarnish an opponents views as neurotic.  But we must stop infantilizing our discourse in such a manner, and understand, that if cynicism and pessimism had no value at all, they

would not have survived in our brain makeup over these past millionsof years.  Optimism needs Pessimism.  Idealism needs Cynicism.  They are all tools nature has provided to us – so why not use them. 

5. A happier deterministic you.

5. A happier, deterministic you.

            Many will argue that a belief in determinism undermines hope and leads to despair.  But this assumption overlooks the fact that our future is still hidden from us - whether good or bad outcomes await us around the corner.  I don’t know anyone that would blindfold themselves and walk across a highway, leaving it up to fate.  I believe whole heartedly in determinism, yet I don’t purposely make rash decisions or ignore making them in the forks of my life.   I struggle with the pros and cons of everyday decision like everyone else.  The reasons are two-fold.  One is that we all worry about the possible outcomes of our decisions, regardless of the source of culpability in making those decisions. Secondly, our minds operate as if we have free will – this is just the way our brains are set up (the reason why forthcoming).

           But a belief  in determinism can be useful in counteracting negative emotions and thought patterns that arise after decisions we badly regret.  Excessive guilt is a very destructive force.  Guilt and regret are important for us to have a moral conscience.  It allows for analyzing our wrong doings and keeps society from total anarchy.  Serial killers are notoriously known for their lack of guilt.   But excessive guilt immobilizes us, keeps us from rationally understanding and learning from our past actions.  There are also some unfortunate souls who spiral into guilt when there is no rational justification – as in the case of abused spouses and children. 

            It is no coincidence that most 12 step programs use the Serenity prayer at every meeting:

“God grant me the serenity
to accept the things I cannot change;
courage to change the things I can;
and wisdom to know the difference.”

One of the things that we can’t change is the past.  This prayer is spoken by many recovering addicts.  It may seem counterintuitive to encourage addicts to acknowledge a powerlessness over their addiction, but it’s the first step in forgiving themselves and moving forward.   The God referred to in the prayer does not necessarily have to mean a religious figure, but rather the universe itself, that we accept is beyond us.  Our mistakes in the past were meant to be; the universe determined for us to make those exact choices, and none other.  Think of the last time you made a terrible mistake.  In that very moment of decision making, you honestly believed it was the best choice – whether it turned out well or not.  No one makes a decision, and then does the exact opposite.  

 In order for us to heal and learn from past errors, we have to forgive ourselves by accepting that we are human and fallible. Then the road is open to understanding why we made the error.  We can figure out how to avoid making the same decisions again.  Excessive guilt only seeks self punishment but no solution.  The pain of that guilt may even manifest outwardly and violently towards others.  Those with excessive guilt may believe that the burden of guilt itself is an absolution of the original deed, and avoid tackling the real issue. 

Low self esteem is another destructive pattern of thinking that has real consequences in people’s lives.  Many studies have shown that low self esteem is a factor in drug and alcohol abuse, depression, social anxiety, teen pregnancy, codependency, abusive relationships, criminal violence, drop out rates, and academic underachievement.  One particular study showed the extent to which self esteem affected even cognitive performance.  Groups of Asian American women were asked to take a math test.  But prior to the test, they were told that the study was measuring how Asians tended to outperform other ethnicities in math.  As a result, there was a significant rise in test scores compared to a control group of Asian women who were told nothing.  Another group was told that the study was testing how men outperformed women in math.  A significant decrease in test scores was observed in this group versus the control group. 

Apparently, self esteem is deeply affected by one’s perceived standing among peer groups.  We all remember what it was like being a teenager, but perhaps as adults we falsely believe that peer pressure is a remnant of our past.  Keeping up with the Joneses is nothing more than teenage peer pressure with bigger and more expensive toys.  Humans are social animals if nothing else, and we may not believe that the comparisons we make with others affect us, but they do.

Another  bi-product of low self esteem is envy.  Envy not only produces a dislike of others, but also blocks our appreciation for another’s achievements.  Internally, it brings a simultaneous belittlement of one’s own achievements – thus lowering self esteem even further.  We all have known children and adults who shy away from trying something new, because they compare themselves too harshly against another’s performance.  Whether the environment is in a school, the workplace, or a social situation – low self esteem may prevent many from leading a diverse and fulfilling life. 

Determinism can help view other people’s successes from a healthier perspective.  We should appreciate and learn from the positive qualities of others without putting ourselves down.  I remember having real trouble with this as a college student.  My roommates happened to be future law students and two in particular, were the best debaters I had the pleasure of meeting.  In the early years of our friendship, not only did I struggle with holding my own against them in discussions, but I felt a shame for not being able to.  But later on, I learned to see the situation deterministically.

I had always been an extremely shy child.  Anxiety was something my mother and I had in common.  This anxiety definitely affected my social interactions at school and with friends.  I realize now that there is a definite genetic factor to this anxiety. Not only did my mother and I share similar physical symptoms but also reacted well to the same group of medication - Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors such as Prozac. 

The symptoms were so bad for my mother that she came close to dying. The GI specialists misdiagnosed her chronic heartburn as merely a digestive disorder.  Her weight dropped to a dangerous 90 lbs before a doctor suggested anti-anxiety medicine.  For, the heartburn was not as severe, but  in college, I had recurrent Irritable Bowel Syndrome related to anxiety.  To this day, whenever I forget to refill my prescription, heartburn and IBS returns with a vengeance. 

My parent’s work schedules and own solitary personalities did not provide for a model of gregariousness for me to emulate.  I don’t fault them at all for this – they were who they were and they had to put food on the table. Enrolling me for 8 years in catholic school with stern nuns didn’t help much either.  Also, throw in the mix a bit of struggling with  my Asian-American identity – and it was no wonder it took me so many years to find my voice. 

At the trial that would end with his state ordered suicide, Socrates proclaimed,” In the end, I only know that I know nothing.” Yes, we can approximate our fellow human’s  experiences through the medium of art and language, but at the end of the day – it’s only an approximation.  Who is to say how others would have turned out, had they switched places anyone else’s.  Since that experiment could never be done, why do we put so much stock in comparing ourselves to other people?

Today, I can walk into any room – be it a room full of master musicians, or scienctists, orators, or the most beautiful actors in the world – but still manage to balance that fine line between admiration and self confidence.  I will neither diminish their achievements nor my own, for their road is as fated as mine.  Whether someone embodies an extraordinary beauty , or likewise, an extraordinary horror – it is not that due to that person’s credit nor blame – it is only manifestations of the universe.   

One of my friends helped me to solidify my deterministic perspective when he shared his life story with me.  He grew up in a poor village in Nigeria.  His formal education was neither exceptional nor privileged, yet he is the smartest person I have ever met.  For as long as he could remember, his brain always thought things through logically.  No one ever taught him about the syllogisms in the field of logic – he was just exceptional at it.  He questioned everything, which brought him many beatings by teachers and elders in his village.   Of course, his deductive skills increased exponentially as he entered college and became exposed to higher levels of knowledge. 

It wasn’t just his exceptional intelligence that fascinated me.  It was the fact that he achieved this amazing level of achievement despite the numerous obstacles that most others have tripped over.  At age fifteen, he came to the United States to live with his father in Brookyln, New York.  He lived there with his two younger brothers in a notorious housing project in the Bushwyck section, noted for its high crime. The school district was one of the worse performing, yet he managed to graduate 2^nd in his class.  His two younger brothers were not as fortunate.  Both got involved with gangs and dealing drugs.  In one instance, his youngest sibling shot him in the leg, as revenge for flushing a stash of drugs down the toilet.  When I did meet his two younger brothers when they visited him in college, they were disarmingly nice, and it never occurred to me that they had murdered people in the past. 

He is currently a lawyer in Minnesota and has attempted to help his younger brothers.  Although both brothers were sentenced to state prison in New York, he convinced them to move out west after their release.  He let them move into the house he bought in a quiet suburb near the Twin Cities.  He hoped that the change in environment and safer surroundings would draw them away from fast money.  It only seemed to help one of the brothers, who managed to get a career fighting forest fires in the midwest. The other turned into a severe alcoholic who had several more run-ins with the law.

My friend’s story reaffirmed my belief that we can only judge a person’s life relative to their own circumstances and conditions they lived through.   Many times we judge ourselves by what society defines as “successful”.  Of course, it is not a bad thing to have role models, but we often forget, that not everyone starts at the same level.  We tend to only look at the finish line and not credit the actual struggle that individuals make to get to that finish. 

In regards to my friend,  by societal standards, he is not very successful.  After college he joined a non-profit legal aid firm to help those with economic disadvantages with legal representation.  Much of his income went to helping his family and village back in Nigeria.  As I write this, he is currently funding a middle school for poor children in his neighborhood.  His savings are down to almost zero.  Just looking at his net worth, society might label him as unsuccessful.  But if we look at his life in totality – can we say that a majority of people could have overcome his situation and obtained a law degree.  Relatively, he may be as rare and extra-ordinary as a fortune 500 CEO.  Likewise, perhaps the bus driver we see every morning has more vigilance and extra-ordinary achievement then 95% of the graduates of Harvard University. 

Determinism can  help us  forgive others.  Hatred is such a draining emotion that causes misery to all parties involved.  Whether the hatred stems from serious injustices or small slights, it can fester in our minds for years.  One can wake and relive the moment over and over, as if it just occured.  Hatred is not only a failure to view the humanity of another person, but a failure to admit to one’s own weaknesses.  Hate is responsible for some of the most heinous acts perpetrated by humans on each other.   From racism, sexism, religious and ideological intolerance, to xenophobia, hatred has had a hand in countless atrocities throughout history.

Determinism  gives us perspective when other people wrong us.  It is important to remember that the universe conspired to have them make that decision at that time.  Now this does not excuse the other person’s actions nor relieve them of accountability.  The most extreme cases are those heart breaking experiences felt by the family of murdered victims.  It is quite extra-ordinary when a few actually come to forgive the murderer years later.  Society should still imprison these violent offenders for the safety of the rest of society, but hatred can destroy the lives of the victim’s family as much as the loss of the loved one.  

A failure to forgive other people is a failure to understand their humanity.  As a consequence, it negates our own humanity and the realization, that we too are fallible.  The harsh judgment of others seems to be a prerequisite for a lot of horrible actions that occur around the world - from ethnic cleansing, to rape, to enslavement, etc.  Particularly destructive is the never-ending cycle of revenge between groups that have had violent pasts.  We can see this in the Israeli – Palestinian conflict and between gangs in LA.  We have seen this tragically played out between Hutus and Tutsi’s in Rwanda, where tens of thousands were killed in a senseless blood bath.   

Finally, let’s talk about a type of mental pain unique to humans – anxiety about the distant future.   Our imagination comes at a great cost.  We can play out future events in our minds to determine if the possible outcomes of certain decisions are desirable or dangerous.  This may inspire hope but also dread.  Let’s take common occurrence that most people have experienced sometime in their lives.  Remember the last time you misplaced something important, like a wallet or a smart phone.  You are hoping that you left it back at home on your desk.  We all felt that feeling of panic beginning to stir, and suddenly the brain imagines all the dreaded consequences of your worst fears.

Anxiety itself is an evolutionary adaption that allows us to prepare plan B’s for rainy days.  It has its uses, but when it spirals out of control – anxiety can prevent us from overcoming the problem at hand.  Perhaps modern life and all its complexities have made anxiety more common – frenzied schedules, information overload, overpopulation, social isolation, etc.  And of course, there are the time tested worries about one’s health, job security, and raising a family. All this could make life one big worry fest.    

Determinism can be a useful cognitive tool when anxiety takes over.  In a deterministic view point, the future is out of our control.  Again, it does not mean we cease making decisions.  There is a certain peace that comes over us in accepting that there are limitations that are beyond us – often unseen and unpredictable.   There are many examples today of people already using this strategy.  Many religions have an aspect of determinism when it comes to the divine plan of gods.  The Christian bible and the Muslim Koran often mention prophecies to describe god’s ultimate plan for the future of mankind.  There is a certain relief on the part of many religious followers, in leaving their fates up to God’s will.  If this wasn’t the case, these religions would probably have fizzled out in popularity. 

            In the midst of our deepest anxiety, it can be comforting to know, that the future is up to greater forces than you and I.  Whether these greater forces are called God, or energy, electrons, dark matter, or whatever else is out there, it can be very comforting to know that we are all just actors in a preset play – and although it may have tragedy as well as joy – we all do the best we can – there is no other choice but to.  I’m reminded of a lyrics to a classic song I first heard played by Sly and the Family Stone called “Que Sera Sera”:

                                    “When I was just a little girl,

                                     I asked my mother, what will I be,

                                     Will I be rich, will I be pretty,

                                     This is what she said to me,

                                     Que, Sera, Sera,

                                     Whatever will be, will be.”

           

            Before I end this chapter, I want to take a moment to discuss medication to alleviate psychological disorders.  I’ve been taking Prozac for the last decade and it has helped my anxiety immensely.  When I tell people this , however, I inevitably run into different categories of criticism. One common criticism puts the stigma of weakness on those suffering from organically caused mood disorders.  I believe this criticism is another manifestation of the free will myth– that everything depends on our own willingness to act.  I will be the first to admit, that the cognitive strategies I lay out in this chapter for anxiety can not help if the cause is a chemical imbalance in the brain.  Just as a diabetic should not be made to feel weak in character for taking insulin, those suffering from mental disorders should not feel a stigma for taking medication.  Too often, those who don’t understand mood disorders make the statement,” Just don’t think about those things. Be positive.”  The reality is that runaway feelings drive thoughts of anger, depression, and anxiety.  If these feelings are a result of neurotransmitter imbalances in the brain, then professional help is required – be it therapy or medication.

            Another criticism centers around the fear of dependence on drugs.  Again, I believe this stems from the myth of free will.  There is this American ideal of the independent and self-reliant hero.  The hero alone accomplishes the impressive feat of pulling themselves from rock bottom to the heights of achievement.  The only problem with this perspective is that it is false.  Aside from the fact that it does take a village to raise a child – there are other obvious facts that debunks this myth.  The modern human rarely knows how to grow their own food, knit their own clothes, nor smelt metals out of rocks.  Most of us that need eyeglasses do not how to cut and measure lenses.  Most people can’t do surgery and most people can not extract oil out of the ground.  The idea that an individual is an island is wishful and narcissistic thinking.