If you want to rapidly increase wisdom, you must be willing to jump from one thing to something totally different. This only works, though, if you truly commit to the first thing before switching. For if the knowledge that you’ll never be anywhere for all that long leads to ambivalence, so many of the gains from doing a bunch of things is lost: you never, actually, did anything. Not all that well, at least.

There are benefits to long-term commitment, to being a “sticker.” A skilled “jumper” accepts this reality and attempts to close the gap by going so very hard while in any one thing. Instead of ambivalence, he realizes how fleeting it all is (by choice, sure), and doubles down efforts to suck as much value before it ends.

It’s much easier to live every day as if it’s your last if you know tomorrow will be totally different.

While you’ll find existence is a cornucopia of lovely experiences, you’ll also find that the current iteration of human is spending an outsized share of his time mired in frivolity and hate. Not that these states are necessarily bad or unproductive, just that creativity is dulled by residing in these states for too long.

And it is through creativity and the accompanying excitement it so often births that a population can become problem-solvers of the highest order. This is not only good for the advancement of society but also for the individuals themselves, or so King World XVIII believes.

See, instead of 4.15.20 Rule HJ8945 offering King World XVIII a respite from circling thoughts about free will, his thoughts merely morphed into an offshoot problem the Free Will Battles rarely cover. That is: why do humans use their free will in ways that reliably hurt their long-term self-interests? Yea, yea, yea, there’s the whole immediate satisfaction bit and evolution in a world of scarcity and blah blah blah, but none of that reasonableness offers a path forward. King World XVIII wanted a path forward.

(more…)

You think it’s hard to eat healthy when poor? Try being rich. For when you are rich, the enemy has maximal incentive to manically temp you. When you are poor, the upside of such efforts is necessarily limited by your minimal disposable income, so there’s a reasonable hope that you, dear poor person, can prevail.

Choice is so much of the problem. Rich people have too many choices and thus too many temptations. You can say “no” to the first fake-healthy restaurant, but can you resist the 12th? Poor people say “no” once to the single Chuch’s Chicken and the questions end.

Oh wait, are you one of those people who gullibly believes there’s a place with a lot of consumers and no grocery store? People would love to shop at the grocery store armed with no less than hundreds of food stamp dollars if only some generous businessman would build such a place? You realize this makes zero sense. If a confluence of people with any amount of money desperately want something, that need will be met.

And no, you don’t need to be rich to eat healthily. $175 pmpm from food stamps is more than enough to purchase pounds of frozen vegetables, chicken, and potatoes.

But of course we arrive back at a lesser version of the challenge rich people face: choosing healthy is harder than choosing unhealthy. Perhaps the contrasts are uglier for poor people with a single we-fry-everything “restaurant” competing against a dust-ridden yellow-lit grocery store. Still, temptation not yet being absolutely everywhere makes the poor person’s battle, all else being equal, easier.

about new love used to be the irrepressible conversational topic. Now it’s politics. Sad.

Unless you are in the 99th percentile of discipline and self-control you will fall. Such excellence shouldn’t be required to make it through a day, but it now is in our casino-like modern world. If some pleasure is good, more is better. If some money is good, more is better. And so, 5 grams becomes 50. The limiting principle is, presumably, an amount that’s so high it’s no longer pleasurable, but then we will just fall back to 50 – an amount nearly impossible to resist. Or maybe the limit will be an efficacy loss from repeated exposure? You suck down 50g so many times the rush is gone and you look for the next high. And then we get to a place where all the highs have been tapped and the board suggests selling lows as the “the new high”?

Those hypothetical limits are only hypothetical in our current trap of convenient pleasure.

What a splendid pie, pizza-pizza pie
Every minute, every second, buy, buy, buy, buy, buy
What a splendid pie, pizza-pizza pie
Every minute, every second, buy, buy, buy, buy, buy
Pepperoni and green peppers, mushrooms, olive, chives
Pepperoni and green peppers, mushrooms, olive, chives
Need therapy, therapy, advertising causes
Need therapy, therapy, advertising causes
Need therapy, therapy, advertising causes
Therapy, therapy, advertising causes

You really think with billions spent selling pleasure you can resist? You think with c-corps hiring the very best to manipulate your mind, a la casinos, you can just try a little? You think your “free will” matters in this? Ha. Lay’s told you the truth in 1983: NO ONE CAN EAT JUST ONE. And just think how much more sophisticated the salesmen have become in the intervening years.

I once thought Stan was so correct:

Dad, you like to drink. So have a drink every once in a while. Have two. If you devote your whole life to completely avoiding something you like, then that thing still controls your life and you’ve never learned any discipline at all … All or nothing is easy. But learning to drink a little bit responsibly, that’s a discipline. 

Sure, I still think moderation is possible, but I think the number who can do it well is rapidly diminishing as more and more and more stuff is tossed in the “Requires Discipline” bucket. Because while you may properly control your impulses with drinking, you have to fight that same battle on the tv, phone, porn, gambling, and food fronts as well. A safe haven simply doesn’t exist in 2022. Thus it’s a minor miracle if you only capitulate a few times in a day.

You’ll rebrand these capitulations as “moderation,” as if some amount of a bad thing is ok. Make no mistake, by taking cheap pleasures, your ability to capture real, sustaining pleasures, ones that are only accessible from extreme resistance to the present self’s desires, are greatly diminished. So diminished, in fact, you may well forget they exist. That is what the c-corps want, after all. They want you to think the highest form of pleasure is, indeed, eating a chip. And if you do still see that as the lie it is, can you muster the massive effort required to end the surrenders? That effort requires an understanding that the very notion of moderation is being aggressively sold by those same c-corps so you don’t ask whether nothing may well be the better choice.

I’m increasingly thinking nothing is.

I think our society too often celebrates the wrong things. And because of this, we humans are too often pursuing the wrong things. By wrong, I simply mean stuff that will not maximize flourishing, and may, in fact, militate against it. Which all leads to my appearance here today: I want to celebrate your candor, a vital right thing that you have demonstrated since the first day I met you.

Now, most everyone will nod their heads in agreement, Oh yes, being honest is so important. Crucial. Gotta do it. But then they will proceed to behave quite counter to this “obvious” ideal. Aside from a few truly malevolent actors, I think this discrepancy between words and actions is due to an incorrect prioritization, not actual falseness in supporting the value of truth.

Take a meet-up with a friend that begins the same way all such meet-ups begin, “How are you doing?” Let’s pretend this isn’t merely small talk, that the friend has infinite time and truly craves a real answer. You can (a) highlight (with perhaps some truth shading) the things that seem to enhance your status – Damn, she is smart! Damn, she is cool! Damn, she is impressive! – or (b) nakedly highlight the things that might reduce your status. Now, being smart, cool, or impressive isn’t a wrong thing, but the pursuit of status over all else is. It’s this attitude of more, more, more just because it looks good that drives (a) over (b). Nearly everyone wants to be truthful, but only about certain types of truths.

(more…)

will let you know she’s interested without explicitly saying so, the inverse is also true: a disinterested woman will let you know she doesn’t like you without explicitly saying so.

Importantly, the inverse is more broadly true since everyone prefers delivering good news. So, yes, sometimes a woman will explicitly say “I like you,” and those times will outnumber occasions when she says, “I don’t like you.”

The implicit disinterest may be so obvious nobody could miss it (e.g., ghosting), but infatuation, love, and lust can do weird things to even usually well-calibrated social sensors. What you would clearly see as Dude, that girl so doesn’t like you if your friend was telling the story becomes Maybe she lost her phone when it’s your story.

Someone must rise above cowardice. The woman and her I don’t want to hurt him mentality is cowardly. The man and his refusal to see clearly is also being a coward. The woman is protected by a society that cheers untruths that protect feelings. Yes, I love that shirt (that you hate); Dinner was incredible (when it totally wasn’t); and I really had a fun time (when you were praying for it to end). Correcting this social norm will take too much effort – especially since many people would see the above instances as kindness – so we must focus on the man.

There are three interrelated reasons the man misses the disinterest. The first is, obviously, the fact that nobody likes to be rejected. Me??!? How could she not like ME????? The second is that since nothing is explicit, there were, barring a total catastrophe, a few wins one could reasonably put on the She’s Into Me side of the ledger. In a world of “signals,” well-intentioned people can miss them. So what if you are wrong? You think she’s not into it when she is and you prematurely cut it off. This fear is the third reason.

Fortunately, a woman will let you know if she’s interested, so in any 50/50 situation, you can default to not being a coward and ending that which she herself can’t end since if you are wrong, if she was actually interested, she’ll find a way to let you know you erred in your conclusion.

is driven by merely having something to talk about? Craving a bag of easy conversation topics is closely related to having desires driven by social prestige – you want to be a lawyer because society values lawyers – but is more rudimentary: most conversations will stay in small-talk territory and naming the new restaurant you tried is more enjoyable (and more ego-boosting) than rain pattern breakdowns.

HERE

HERE