But I gain so much pleasure from [x].

So?

So, are you saying I don’t get to do [x] anymore? 

Yes, that’s exactly what I’m saying. 

—

If things are radically wrong, radical changes are required. Stop expecting this to be pleasant.

Yet, most are still left wanting – a state of being endemic to humanity. Two explanations are generally proffered. First: people pick wants that are far too ambitious. Think of the obese person aiming for 100lbs of shedding or the unpaid intern expecting to be salaried at $200k/yr in 16 months. Incredible turns are indeed possible, but compelling them into existence almost always requires tremendous work. This degree of difficulty is too easily underestimated basking in the glow of outcome dreams, and so when the grind really sets in, few have the willingness to persist. They’ll make excuses or claim they didn’t really want what they thought they did or employ any number of defense mechanisms aimed at preserving a confident self-identity. None of this erases the fact that most wants are achievable if one can avoid tapping out.

Second: whenever a want is met, a new one emerges. It happens with little things: I’ll feel good today as soon as I eat lunch – [Eat lunch] – If only I had a coffee, then I’d be content … It happens with big things: I’ll be happy once I become VP – [Become VP] – If only I was CEO, then I’d really feel great … These cycles are infinite, and only by seeing them as such does one have any chance of defeating them. Good luck with that, though. This challenge is so oppressive it takes a certain type of credulousness to think it can be resolved with a few minutes of observation and meditation. Still, this challenge remains fundamentally in the realm where input necessarily yields output.

In the midst of a terrible moment, “better” seems a hopeless, foolish wish; the temperature will rise forever and always. Of course, that’s not how anything works. Ebbs do follow flows, even if the change arrives not nearly soon enough.

The end of Trump, whenever it comes, will not magically wash away all tensions. I do think, though, it will subdue one terrifically corrosive element of the culture whereby you see someone with a MAGA sign or hat and conclude the is awful. Accurate or not, this clearly is not an ideal reaction if one cares about both community and individual well-being. To be sure, going forward there will be other markers that trigger negative responses, but I struggle to see any of them surpassing Trump. I have this faith because it’s tough to imagine a more divisive figure than Trump. If that prediction is true, whenever future triggers begin, one can partially comfort himself by recalling that this current thing can’t possibly be more incendiary than Trump. I may not like this thing you support, but at least it’s not Trump. 

Any discussion about our current polarization is guaranteed to include some commentary about how our “echo chambers” are part of the problem. Which totally makes sense. If you only listen to one set of ideas, you are much more likely to believe those ideas are correct. But, actually, I think what we have is indeed worse than pure “echo chambers.”

Listen to any partisan media – from The Daily Show to Rush Limbaugh – for a mere 10 minutes and you’ll quickly notice that opposing voices are not only not absent, but featured prominently. Hell, the entire programming model is play clip of political rival, make fun of clip, and repeat. Some of this is particularly egregious when the rival’s point is intentionally misinterpreted or when a particularly fringe rival is cast as representative of the other side. Though even when that perniciousness is absent the point is the same: the other side is so stupid so as to not even be worth trying to interpret charitably. This amounts to something far worse than an echo chamber because a consumer does rightfully¹ believe he is indeed hearing from the other side. Echo chamber? I’ve heard all those lib senators and they are idiots. This belief is surely possible because the host will always direct you to that conclusion, because the host is telling you what you want to hear.² Which is all to say that the consumer is far more sure of his rightness than he would be if he only ever heard his own side speak.

The not-actually-echo-chamber phenomenon is also weirdly true with Twitter, the place everyone is so sure is an echo chamber. The disconnect is apparent as soon as someone, inevitably, talks about how Twitter is such a “wasteland filled with hate.” This sounds fine, but it doesn’t compute. If everyone only listened to their own side, who is doing this hating? Some can be explained away as the fun of “scoring points” on the enemy. Some can also be explained by the general attraction of celebrity and the desire to stand out. But there remains the non-prominent journalists getting vicious responses to innocuous tweets like, “I’m not going to be writing an article this week.” How does a hater even find this non-trending person? They would have to, like, being following them, right? Even if you want to dismiss this all as bored people having fun by trolling, these people are necessarily being continually exposed to ideas they do not support. And unlike in the case of Rush Limbaugh, there is no host telling them why the idea is awful.

Hence my skepticism that “listening to the other side” will get us out of the current mess.

a tour.

Getting to really know someone is an undeniable path toward kinship. So we ask questions and pay attention and learn. Yet, many times words are not enough; there is something to seeing rather than merely hearing. For many matters, seeing isn’t all that possible, which makes it all the more vital to seize the opportunities when it is. As in, take the house tour, the hometown tour, the mall-where-I-met-my-first-girlfriend tour. By doing this one not only better understands another, but also gains knowledge about the world that would be otherwise unobtainable. ³

is knowing what you will regret.

For teens devoid of experience, predicting future feelings is rather challenging; highs are higher and lows are lower as a result.

With, however, wisdom and the accompanying confidence to say “I know who I am,” if you pause before making a decision, an accurate sense of what action will produce regret appears.

And just like that you have earned a remarkably robust, intelligent philosophy for a good life: anticipate regret and avoid it. 

And it is rare for sons to be like fathers; only a few are better, most are worse

There is no harm in mourning when a person dies; it is the only honor we can pay the dead – to cut our hair and drench our cheeks with tears.

So may the gods grant all your heart’s desires, a home and husband, somebody like-minded. For nothing could be better than when two live in one house, their minds in harmony, husband and wife. Their enemies jealous, their friends delighted, and they have great honor.

So you must never treat your wife too well. Do not let her know everything you know. Tell her some things, hide others.

I would prefer to be a workman, hired by a poor man on a peasant farm, than rule as king of all the dead.

We will notice errors in others that we, ourselves, commit. That’s OK. It’s also OK to point out these errors. What makes this practice far less OK is when the knowledge of your own similar failings is nonexistent.

Can you believe the hypocrisy?

Um, yea.

No, but seriously, this is crazy.

Dude, I know you really hate the other side, but how can you not see that your side does this same type of thing on a host of matters? Sure, be upset, but your indignation level should drop just a tad. And here’s a simple way to achieve that drop: start or end your first sentence with an acknowledgment that this hypocrisy you so loathe is not unique to your enemies. Maybe the degree is different. Maybe this thing your enemy did really is the worst thing ever. Still, your side does it too. I’m not even asking you to care about self-sins, just to see them. Because once you see them, the whole situation becomes a lot less obvious and your the-world-has-gone-insane act will be much harder to execute. In other words, you will see the world more clearly. 

is not an actual argument against the talking point. Tell me why the point is wrong, not who happens to utter it. If you resort to the latter tactic, I’ll safely assume that you can’t win on substance, that indeed [insert bad person] has discovered an uncomfortable truth.

The Dems are out to get Trump w/ this Corona stuff, AND it may be true that Corona is serious.

Anti-vaxxers are stupid, AND it was probably unwise to ever say anything is 100% safe.

AND

AND

AND

AND