Friday, April 29, 2011
Complex Systems and Emergence
The thesis for this post is that "Emergence" is fragile and everything that prevents this phenomenon from occurring is robust and more predictable and deterministic.
So what is emergence, to understand this phenomenon I will post a video on fractals:
The video shows how simple rules generate complexity. The emergence property is also visible which emerges after a few iteration. The complex pattern visible at the end cannot not be explained apriori and comes as a complete surprise.
Now the problem with the complex pattern is that it is extremely fragile and dependent on the simple rules which is followed at the bottom. The pattern is constructed bottom-up and if this simple rules changes then something completely different emerges. The following video shows how a simple change of angle in the tree branches changes the emergent pattern.
Hence, the simple rules are robust, and emergence occurs really late or higher up in the hierarchy. So if we break down things into smaller blocks, then these would be more robust.
Evolution leads to emergence based on these simple rules. But complexity is always fragile. Simple insects etc have survived on this planet from the start, where as more emergent species have gone instinct.
Democracy or dictatorships are therefore both emergent properties and both are fractals.
So what is emergence, to understand this phenomenon I will post a video on fractals:
The video shows how simple rules generate complexity. The emergence property is also visible which emerges after a few iteration. The complex pattern visible at the end cannot not be explained apriori and comes as a complete surprise.
Now the problem with the complex pattern is that it is extremely fragile and dependent on the simple rules which is followed at the bottom. The pattern is constructed bottom-up and if this simple rules changes then something completely different emerges. The following video shows how a simple change of angle in the tree branches changes the emergent pattern.
Hence, the simple rules are robust, and emergence occurs really late or higher up in the hierarchy. So if we break down things into smaller blocks, then these would be more robust.
Evolution leads to emergence based on these simple rules. But complexity is always fragile. Simple insects etc have survived on this planet from the start, where as more emergent species have gone instinct.
Democracy or dictatorships are therefore both emergent properties and both are fractals.
Thursday, April 14, 2011
Dreams and Careers
A lot of literature has been written about following one's passion and dreams, which reminds me a lot about my own dreams. I remember reading "The Alchemist" and wanted to be like the boy who followed his dreams. I followed his footsteps and ended up crashing and burning. Is there something wrong about our dreams?
Well the problem is that we dream about superstars and most superstars belong to fields which produce superstars. Your cricket and sports heroes inspire you an motivate you to join their field. So if there are 140 million people and 11 members in a cricket team then its pretty much a matter of luck that you will ever succeed. Everyone would have worked hard but to select 11 requires pure luck.
So, the problem is that we dream about fields which are dominated by power law distributions. Few superstars and plenty of failures e.g. 11 superstar cricketers with thousands of wannabe cricketers who probably are working equally hard.
Here's what I wanted to be:
1) cricketer
2) WWE wrestler
3) A noble prize winner
4) A philosopher and a writer
All of the above should be practiced as a hobby, not as a profession. It's ok to feel like a loser if its your hobby, but not if its your profession. Being a loser in your profession debilitates your life, and failure feeds failure, just like success feeds success. Its called path dependence.
Next time beware if someone tells you to follow your dreams. Do something which has no super stars and no inspirations, that field would be more stable and would reward you better.
Here's a further take on Cal Newport, like his work but he fails to understand superstar careers.
http://amaurosis-fugax.blogspot.com/2011/04/calvin-newport-and-wrong-advice.html
Well the problem is that we dream about superstars and most superstars belong to fields which produce superstars. Your cricket and sports heroes inspire you an motivate you to join their field. So if there are 140 million people and 11 members in a cricket team then its pretty much a matter of luck that you will ever succeed. Everyone would have worked hard but to select 11 requires pure luck.
So, the problem is that we dream about fields which are dominated by power law distributions. Few superstars and plenty of failures e.g. 11 superstar cricketers with thousands of wannabe cricketers who probably are working equally hard.
Here's what I wanted to be:
1) cricketer
2) WWE wrestler
3) A noble prize winner
4) A philosopher and a writer
All of the above should be practiced as a hobby, not as a profession. It's ok to feel like a loser if its your hobby, but not if its your profession. Being a loser in your profession debilitates your life, and failure feeds failure, just like success feeds success. Its called path dependence.
Next time beware if someone tells you to follow your dreams. Do something which has no super stars and no inspirations, that field would be more stable and would reward you better.
Here's a further take on Cal Newport, like his work but he fails to understand superstar careers.
http://amaurosis-fugax.blogspot.com/2011/04/calvin-newport-and-wrong-advice.html
Calvin Newport and Wrong Advice
Before starting, I would make one thing clear that I really admire Calvin Newport's writing and it provides great insight about how work should be done. After all, MIT epitomizes brutal work ethics and to manage that and still have a life is something truly remarkable. This insight provides people like me with the opportunity to somewhat decode what remarkable people do to get to where they are.
But there is one problem, it's good to have a remarkable work ethic but it would do you no good if that work is not valued. You can be a superstar at digging ditches or flipping burgers but it will not get you very far and that will make you lose your work ethic.
Just to illustrate one horror story, the person has a remarkable work ethic but the work metaphorically requires digging ditches. Sadly, he hasn't gotten far and is now angry, miserable and without money.
http://phdtips.blogspot.com/
Downplaying passion is always important, but sometimes downplay hard work should also be considered. Everyone loses passion about his work if he is made to do that work day in and day out with very few breaks in between. Similarly, you will lose your work ethic if you know that there is nothing at the end of the tunnel.
One of my favorite Nassim Taleb quote is that:
"Preoccupation with efficacy is the main obstacle to a noble, poetic, elegant, robust and heroic life"
When I read Cal's blog, I feel that Cal is preoccupied with "efficacy". The nature of his work forces him to be preoccupied with it. Most of his posts stress on being a superstar and he clearly defines a simple method to being one (which works by the way). But the problem is that if everyone becomes a superstar then you'll only end up raising the bar for being a superstar. A positive feedback loop would be formed. Everyone reading Cal's posts would suddenly do better but the standard of better would change and we would then have to come up with something....."better". This reminds me of George Soros' reflexivity theory.
WIKIPEDIA:
Reflexivity refers to circular relationships between cause and effect. A reflexive relationship is bidirectional; with both the cause and the effect affecting one another in a situation that does not render both functions causes and effects. In sociology, reflexivity therefore comes to mean an act of self-reference where examination or action 'bends back on', refers to, and affects the entity instigating the action or examination. In this sense it usually refers to the capacity of an individual agent to recognize forces of socialization and alter his or her place in the social structure.
So the problem is in a way compounded. Improving your work ethic would simply make you improve it more in the future. As I look around, I see that the most successful people are those that aren't very brilliant and have a relatively poor "work" ethic as defined by Cal Newport. In Academia, where everything is structured and to an extent properly defined, this might work (I suspect it doesn't).
Do we work for passion or for money or to be superstars? The question itself is hard to answer but there is a certain ambiguous and unclear criterion of success in every field which would be hard to put in words. Success is also relatively defined. You can just look at a person and judge him to be successful or not in an ambiguous and split second intuition. Somebody who is extremely happy with his work and professional life but hasn't been an outstanding employee is inspirational and motivating at times. On the other hand, somebody who has assumed leadership roles but seems to be depressed and overworked might be considered a sorry sight.
As I look around myself, people work for different things, but superstars are never defined by their work ethic. The number one reason for being a superstar is networking, and not just normal networking. It is the type of networking that would make people trust you blindly, say bad things about you but they would still be willing to give you a chance. Making friends and keeping them is a talent that comes naturally. You could improve on it, but the talent comes from within. Somebody who is autistically inclined would love to read books but wouldn't be much interested in people.
In the research field even, networking plays a much more important role than whatever work ethic you possess. Success is not a mathematical equation where it is proportional to the number of papers you have published. Scalability of those papers is important. You can work alone and at best publish 1 paper a year, or you can be scalable and publish 5 papers in a group.
Scalability is everything, networking gives you the opportunity to become scalable. No one would in the end really look into you and see if you possess a good work ethic. I know of people who have possessed really poor work habits but have used their charm to get work out of people who weren't even their subordinates. The ability to get names into papers, where one has done nothing, is true ability and by passes work ethic. It is called being tactful and charming. Steve Wozniak and Steve Jobs are good examples of this. One has charm and the other has grit. When building a narrative people will write about how hardworking Steve Jobs really is, but that is how we want to see him, when in reality he might just be in it for partying and as a side venture would be selling his apple story. A true superstar is one who understands humans and knows how to take advantage and make things scalable. As I read numerous autobiographies of Edison, I realized that although the person had a remarkable work habit, but it never was his work habit that distinguished him. Almost everyone has a remarkable work habit. Even people who are complete failures have remarkable work habits. The real talent is to make things scalable and to understand humans and human nature.
Another of Taleb's quotes:
"A loser generally bemoans mankinds flaws, contradictions, irrationality; without exploiting them for fun and profit."
Success is a side effect of scalability. Even failures work hard or may have superior work ethics. If passion has to be downplayed then so does work ethic. Passion and work ethic are no match if somebody has the charm and ability to manipulate and control and take advantage of other people's emotional flaws.
So next time if you hear about Edison or Steve Job or Bill Gates, then don't think that they work hard and therefore they are successful, because failures work hard as well. What truly distinguishes success and failure is the ability to make things scalable, the ability to network and charm and control other people.
Scalability and Career Options
One important distinction is still pending and that is that you cannot possibly make non-scalable career or profession scalable. If you're a doctor, then there is only a limited number of patients that you would handle. Your income growth would never be nonlinear, which might be the case if you are in finance.
Never chose a career which is dominated by super stars. Any field that has superstars is dominated by power law distribution where a few superstars get all the acclaim (and the money) while the rest are all considered losers who struggle hard to attain this elite category. Academics is one such field where one superstar ends up with everything while the rest will always be treated as losers. Plus, everyone in academia has more or less a remarkable work ethic, but it is very difficult to remove your loser tag and replace or topple a superstar. So a select few would end up with tenure, while the rest will slave the rest of their life for part time academic jobs.
Gaussian deterministic careers like Medical Doctors have no superstar phenomenon. The credit is always equally distributed (in a guassian way) with few fat tails. I was also reading stats on petroleum geologist who are paid well with few fat tails. Everything is well distributed around a mean.
Hence, if you are starting a profession then carefully read the following;
Watch this video at the end, where a life of a has been wannabe WWE wrestler is described. Never be a part of a profession with superstars and dominated by power law distribution. Your life would be miserable. That includes Academia as well.
But there is one problem, it's good to have a remarkable work ethic but it would do you no good if that work is not valued. You can be a superstar at digging ditches or flipping burgers but it will not get you very far and that will make you lose your work ethic.
Just to illustrate one horror story, the person has a remarkable work ethic but the work metaphorically requires digging ditches. Sadly, he hasn't gotten far and is now angry, miserable and without money.
http://phdtips.blogspot.com/
Downplaying passion is always important, but sometimes downplay hard work should also be considered. Everyone loses passion about his work if he is made to do that work day in and day out with very few breaks in between. Similarly, you will lose your work ethic if you know that there is nothing at the end of the tunnel.
One of my favorite Nassim Taleb quote is that:
"Preoccupation with efficacy is the main obstacle to a noble, poetic, elegant, robust and heroic life"
When I read Cal's blog, I feel that Cal is preoccupied with "efficacy". The nature of his work forces him to be preoccupied with it. Most of his posts stress on being a superstar and he clearly defines a simple method to being one (which works by the way). But the problem is that if everyone becomes a superstar then you'll only end up raising the bar for being a superstar. A positive feedback loop would be formed. Everyone reading Cal's posts would suddenly do better but the standard of better would change and we would then have to come up with something....."better". This reminds me of George Soros' reflexivity theory.
WIKIPEDIA:
Reflexivity refers to circular relationships between cause and effect. A reflexive relationship is bidirectional; with both the cause and the effect affecting one another in a situation that does not render both functions causes and effects. In sociology, reflexivity therefore comes to mean an act of self-reference where examination or action 'bends back on', refers to, and affects the entity instigating the action or examination. In this sense it usually refers to the capacity of an individual agent to recognize forces of socialization and alter his or her place in the social structure.
So the problem is in a way compounded. Improving your work ethic would simply make you improve it more in the future. As I look around, I see that the most successful people are those that aren't very brilliant and have a relatively poor "work" ethic as defined by Cal Newport. In Academia, where everything is structured and to an extent properly defined, this might work (I suspect it doesn't).
Do we work for passion or for money or to be superstars? The question itself is hard to answer but there is a certain ambiguous and unclear criterion of success in every field which would be hard to put in words. Success is also relatively defined. You can just look at a person and judge him to be successful or not in an ambiguous and split second intuition. Somebody who is extremely happy with his work and professional life but hasn't been an outstanding employee is inspirational and motivating at times. On the other hand, somebody who has assumed leadership roles but seems to be depressed and overworked might be considered a sorry sight.
As I look around myself, people work for different things, but superstars are never defined by their work ethic. The number one reason for being a superstar is networking, and not just normal networking. It is the type of networking that would make people trust you blindly, say bad things about you but they would still be willing to give you a chance. Making friends and keeping them is a talent that comes naturally. You could improve on it, but the talent comes from within. Somebody who is autistically inclined would love to read books but wouldn't be much interested in people.
In the research field even, networking plays a much more important role than whatever work ethic you possess. Success is not a mathematical equation where it is proportional to the number of papers you have published. Scalability of those papers is important. You can work alone and at best publish 1 paper a year, or you can be scalable and publish 5 papers in a group.
Scalability is everything, networking gives you the opportunity to become scalable. No one would in the end really look into you and see if you possess a good work ethic. I know of people who have possessed really poor work habits but have used their charm to get work out of people who weren't even their subordinates. The ability to get names into papers, where one has done nothing, is true ability and by passes work ethic. It is called being tactful and charming. Steve Wozniak and Steve Jobs are good examples of this. One has charm and the other has grit. When building a narrative people will write about how hardworking Steve Jobs really is, but that is how we want to see him, when in reality he might just be in it for partying and as a side venture would be selling his apple story. A true superstar is one who understands humans and knows how to take advantage and make things scalable. As I read numerous autobiographies of Edison, I realized that although the person had a remarkable work habit, but it never was his work habit that distinguished him. Almost everyone has a remarkable work habit. Even people who are complete failures have remarkable work habits. The real talent is to make things scalable and to understand humans and human nature.
Another of Taleb's quotes:
"A loser generally bemoans mankinds flaws, contradictions, irrationality; without exploiting them for fun and profit."
Success is a side effect of scalability. Even failures work hard or may have superior work ethics. If passion has to be downplayed then so does work ethic. Passion and work ethic are no match if somebody has the charm and ability to manipulate and control and take advantage of other people's emotional flaws.
So next time if you hear about Edison or Steve Job or Bill Gates, then don't think that they work hard and therefore they are successful, because failures work hard as well. What truly distinguishes success and failure is the ability to make things scalable, the ability to network and charm and control other people.
Scalability and Career Options
One important distinction is still pending and that is that you cannot possibly make non-scalable career or profession scalable. If you're a doctor, then there is only a limited number of patients that you would handle. Your income growth would never be nonlinear, which might be the case if you are in finance.
Never chose a career which is dominated by super stars. Any field that has superstars is dominated by power law distribution where a few superstars get all the acclaim (and the money) while the rest are all considered losers who struggle hard to attain this elite category. Academics is one such field where one superstar ends up with everything while the rest will always be treated as losers. Plus, everyone in academia has more or less a remarkable work ethic, but it is very difficult to remove your loser tag and replace or topple a superstar. So a select few would end up with tenure, while the rest will slave the rest of their life for part time academic jobs.
Gaussian deterministic careers like Medical Doctors have no superstar phenomenon. The credit is always equally distributed (in a guassian way) with few fat tails. I was also reading stats on petroleum geologist who are paid well with few fat tails. Everything is well distributed around a mean.
Hence, if you are starting a profession then carefully read the following;
- Choose careers which is not dominated by superstars. Academic careers are dominated by superstars. If you can't find a person in the field who inspires you about that field, then that field has no superstars and might be the right choice for you. Telecom engineers, geologist etc (not writing, academics etc).
- Work ethic and passion are not that important. Improving your work ethic wouldn't get you far because even failures have excellent work ethic. Focus on the human side and try to manipulate and take advantage of people's biases.
- If you're treated like a loser in your field, then you'll lose the ability to be passionate and hard working. Try not to chose careers with superstars who would make you look like a loser.
Wednesday, April 13, 2011
Suppressing risk only increases tail risk and chances of blowups
All natural things are Gaussian in nature.
Take wealth distribution for example. The moment a person becomes increasingly wealthy, then his chances of being robbed or blackmailed increases. In more traditional countries, people go out of their way to act poor so that the risk of getting robbed or blackmailed is reduced. This keeps the distribution more or less Gaussian.
But the problem becomes nonlinear once someone introduces laws that protect property and ensure safety. The moment such laws are introduced to protect a person's wealth then his wealth grows nonlinearly and exponentially. The end result is that if you sample 100 people, then 90% of the wealth would be distributed among 1-5 persons while the rest would be classified as poor. Without law and regulation, the 95 poor souls would try and rob these 5 rich people. So laws and regulations make the rich more infrequent but their impact is greater.
The clip above is a must watch. The clip is about traffic in the absence of any regulation. The traffic apparently flows very smoothly with little or no hindrances. Now some people would criticize the absence of law on the roads in Iran. But the traffic accidents are Gaussian in such a situation. People will drive slowly and carefully and there will be more accidents but of less severity. Now, suppose this is a developed country with first world road rules. Then, their would be lesser traffic accidents but the drivers would drive faster and less carefully and when a traffic accident happens then it would be more severe.
So, is law making distributions prone to tail risk.
PS: I have driven in the roads shown in the video and trust me, I feel a lot safer, drive a lot slowly and carefully compared to driving on a motorway in a developed world.
Take wealth distribution for example. The moment a person becomes increasingly wealthy, then his chances of being robbed or blackmailed increases. In more traditional countries, people go out of their way to act poor so that the risk of getting robbed or blackmailed is reduced. This keeps the distribution more or less Gaussian.
But the problem becomes nonlinear once someone introduces laws that protect property and ensure safety. The moment such laws are introduced to protect a person's wealth then his wealth grows nonlinearly and exponentially. The end result is that if you sample 100 people, then 90% of the wealth would be distributed among 1-5 persons while the rest would be classified as poor. Without law and regulation, the 95 poor souls would try and rob these 5 rich people. So laws and regulations make the rich more infrequent but their impact is greater.
The clip above is a must watch. The clip is about traffic in the absence of any regulation. The traffic apparently flows very smoothly with little or no hindrances. Now some people would criticize the absence of law on the roads in Iran. But the traffic accidents are Gaussian in such a situation. People will drive slowly and carefully and there will be more accidents but of less severity. Now, suppose this is a developed country with first world road rules. Then, their would be lesser traffic accidents but the drivers would drive faster and less carefully and when a traffic accident happens then it would be more severe.
So, is law making distributions prone to tail risk.
PS: I have driven in the roads shown in the video and trust me, I feel a lot safer, drive a lot slowly and carefully compared to driving on a motorway in a developed world.
Friday, April 8, 2011
Rules for Love and Rules for Hate - Classical versus Modern
Classical heuristics have always had strong laws for constraining love. In traditional societies, whether they are religious or tribal, love has always been seen with contempt and stringent laws have been in place to restrain it.
Honor killing is a very common practice in many traditional societies, whether they are arab or hindu. A senior tribal elder's daughter eloped with another man and ran away to kabul. The tribal elder belonged to a pashtun tribe. Following pashtunwali, the tribal elder sold his shop and house and went to reclaim his honor by killing both his son-in-law and his daughter. Now this would seem violent for anyone who has lived and grown up in a modern culture, but for traditional societies, love is often treated in derogatory terms. Many similar practices are observed in many parts of the world. Karo-kari murders alone are upwards of 10,000 where the killer is often treated with respect. Men and women are often killed in equal numbers, but it is always easier for a man to runaway than for a woman.
Going by the above figures, any reader should be convinced about the deep disgust with which love is treated which is unfathomable for anyone living in the modern world. So is this just pure barbaric savagery or is there some natural hidden logic??
Biologically, love and hate are considered the same emotions which follow the exact same neurological pathways and trigger the same psychological and physiological responses. Murder is the culmination of extreme hate where as fornication is the culmination of extreme love. Now biologically, these two emotions can very easily flip as well as they are pretty much two different faces of the same coin. Rejected lovers often commit suicide or kill their cheating lovers. Now, every emotion whether it's love or hate, does not culminate in crime.
Both hate and love are also celebrated in traditional societies, but it should be the right type of hate and love. Marriages are grand occasions and are often celebrated with great zeal and zest, but so is revenge. Revenge is treated as something honorable. So love and hate are not inherently good or bad but the category that each emotion falls into based on certain preset principles which are heuristically defined. Hating your mother or father is extremely repugnant and society rarely tolerates it. In modern societies, this has now become tolerable to quite an extent and often parents in their old age are neglected but rarely in traditional societies. Similarly, divorce is often a widely accepted norm in modern societies but not in ancient or traditional societies.
The real difference comes when we speak of rules. In a modern world, there are not many rules associated with love and there are then they are very weak. Cheating is more a function of individual preferences. Similarly, kids can be brought up in or without wedlock. Very few rules are now really there to regulate love. Some are present, like underage sex, but these don't really deal with love per se. Love is a free concept but hate isn't. The modern world is trying to eliminate all types of "hate". A simply verbal death threat could end you up in jail now. Physical forms representing hate is simply nonexistant. You cannot beat your enemies now, but you can make them bankrupt and do far worse to them.by taking them to court. So we have developed this asymmetry about the love/hate idea. Love is good and hate is bad, when biologically they just might be the same.
So the real question is, whether love or hate are equally dangerous or not. We can invent reasons and rationalize the whole idea but the unobserved silent evidence would be missing. So why did classical heuristics invent so many ways to control these two emotions and only allowed the right type of love/hate to prosper in society.
Honor killing is a very common practice in many traditional societies, whether they are arab or hindu. A senior tribal elder's daughter eloped with another man and ran away to kabul. The tribal elder belonged to a pashtun tribe. Following pashtunwali, the tribal elder sold his shop and house and went to reclaim his honor by killing both his son-in-law and his daughter. Now this would seem violent for anyone who has lived and grown up in a modern culture, but for traditional societies, love is often treated in derogatory terms. Many similar practices are observed in many parts of the world. Karo-kari murders alone are upwards of 10,000 where the killer is often treated with respect. Men and women are often killed in equal numbers, but it is always easier for a man to runaway than for a woman.
Going by the above figures, any reader should be convinced about the deep disgust with which love is treated which is unfathomable for anyone living in the modern world. So is this just pure barbaric savagery or is there some natural hidden logic??
Biologically, love and hate are considered the same emotions which follow the exact same neurological pathways and trigger the same psychological and physiological responses. Murder is the culmination of extreme hate where as fornication is the culmination of extreme love. Now biologically, these two emotions can very easily flip as well as they are pretty much two different faces of the same coin. Rejected lovers often commit suicide or kill their cheating lovers. Now, every emotion whether it's love or hate, does not culminate in crime.
Both hate and love are also celebrated in traditional societies, but it should be the right type of hate and love. Marriages are grand occasions and are often celebrated with great zeal and zest, but so is revenge. Revenge is treated as something honorable. So love and hate are not inherently good or bad but the category that each emotion falls into based on certain preset principles which are heuristically defined. Hating your mother or father is extremely repugnant and society rarely tolerates it. In modern societies, this has now become tolerable to quite an extent and often parents in their old age are neglected but rarely in traditional societies. Similarly, divorce is often a widely accepted norm in modern societies but not in ancient or traditional societies.
The real difference comes when we speak of rules. In a modern world, there are not many rules associated with love and there are then they are very weak. Cheating is more a function of individual preferences. Similarly, kids can be brought up in or without wedlock. Very few rules are now really there to regulate love. Some are present, like underage sex, but these don't really deal with love per se. Love is a free concept but hate isn't. The modern world is trying to eliminate all types of "hate". A simply verbal death threat could end you up in jail now. Physical forms representing hate is simply nonexistant. You cannot beat your enemies now, but you can make them bankrupt and do far worse to them.by taking them to court. So we have developed this asymmetry about the love/hate idea. Love is good and hate is bad, when biologically they just might be the same.
So the real question is, whether love or hate are equally dangerous or not. We can invent reasons and rationalize the whole idea but the unobserved silent evidence would be missing. So why did classical heuristics invent so many ways to control these two emotions and only allowed the right type of love/hate to prosper in society.
Thursday, April 7, 2011
Enemies and Friends - Pashtunwali and Modernity
It is a very dehumanizing experience to sit with people or be around people that one hates and dislikes. Office/work life is all about struggling to cope with emotions like hate which one often feels towards his fellow colleagues and bosses. Humans are not made to fit cubicles inside offices that look like cubicles etc. We have evolved to live in a different world all together, a world where enemies are enemies and friends are friends. Modern life has blurred this definition of friendship and animosity. It's actually beneficial in a modern work place to be friends with your enemies, not showing your inner emotions to your closest enemies.
Now the problem with hiding emotions is that it is chronic. And this happens day in and day out and goes non-stop. People rarely fight in offices, and once too often we hear of people completely going nuts breaking stuff with some of their friends (disguised enemies) uploading their youtube videos and making them and instant hit.
I was reading on pashtunwali and thinking about this difference between modern and ancient heuristics about friendship and enmity.
Modern heuristics on enmity:
1) Treat your enemies as your friends, call them once in a while, go and meet them and act friendly towards them, go out of your way to make sure that your inner emotions are always hidden.
2) Be even more friendly to your enemy than your closest friends if there is a reward at the end of the tunnel
3) Your friends wouldn't really be sure if they truly are friends because friendship/enmity signalling is so mixed up. You would most likely have no real friends and the people you think are your friends may actually be your enemies.
4) Be chronically stressed about your relationships
Ancient Pashtun heuristics
Melmastia (hospitality) - Showing hospitality and profound respect to all visitors, regardless of distinctions of race, religion, national affiliation as well as economic status and doing so without any hope of remuneration or favour. Pashtuns are considered to be the most hospitable people in the world. A Pashtun may go to great lengths to show his hospitality.[4][14][15]
Nanawatai (asylum) - Derived from the verb meaning to go in, this is used for protection given to a person who requests protection against his/her enemies. The people are protected at all costs, in many cases even people running from the law must be given refuge until the situation is clarified.[4] It can also be used when the vanquished party is prepared to go in to the house of the victors and ask for their forgiveness. (Is a peculiar form of "chivalrous" surrender, in which an enemy seeks "sanctuary" at his enemy's house).
Badal (justice) - To seek justice or take revenge against the wrongdoer. This applies to injustices committed yesterday or 1000 years ago if the wrongdoer still exists. Justice in Pashtun lore needs elaborating: even a mere taunt (or "Paighor") is regarded as an insult - often, shedding the taunter's blood is the only acceptable redress (and if he isn't available, then his next closest male relation). This in turn may lead to a blood feud that can last generations and involve whole tribes with the loss of hundreds of lives.[4]
Tureh (bravery) - A Pashtun must defend his land/property, family and women from incursions wherever he or she might reside. A Pashtun should always stand brave against tyranny and he should always be able to defend his property, family, women and the honour of his name; killing the offending party is an acceptable recourse for an attack on any of these.[4]
Sabat (loyalty) - Loyalty must be paid to one's family, friends, and tribe members. Disloyalty is extremely shameful in Pashtun culture, and a Pashtun's family, friends, and tribe members are also shamed if one is disloyal.
Imandari (righteousness) - A Pashtun must always strive towards thinking good thoughts, speaking good words and doing other good deeds. Pashtuns must behave respectfully towards all creations including people, animals and the environment around them. Pollution of the environment or its destruction is against the Pashtunwali.[4]
Isteqamat - Trust in God (known as "Allah" in Arabic and "Khudai-ta-Allah" in Pashto).[4] The notion of trusting in the one Creator generally comports to Islamic belief in only one God (tawheed).
Ghayrat (self honour or dignity) - Pashtuns must maintain their human dignity. Honour has great importance in Pashtun society and most other codes of life are aimed towards the preservation of one's honour or pride. They must respect themselves and others in order to be able to do so, especially those they do not know. Respect begins at home, among family members and relatives.[4]
Namus (Honor of women) - A Pashtun must defend the honor of Pashtun women at all costs and must protect them from verbal and physical harm.[4]
Now the problem with hiding emotions is that it is chronic. And this happens day in and day out and goes non-stop. People rarely fight in offices, and once too often we hear of people completely going nuts breaking stuff with some of their friends (disguised enemies) uploading their youtube videos and making them and instant hit.
I was reading on pashtunwali and thinking about this difference between modern and ancient heuristics about friendship and enmity.
Modern heuristics on enmity:
1) Treat your enemies as your friends, call them once in a while, go and meet them and act friendly towards them, go out of your way to make sure that your inner emotions are always hidden.
2) Be even more friendly to your enemy than your closest friends if there is a reward at the end of the tunnel
3) Your friends wouldn't really be sure if they truly are friends because friendship/enmity signalling is so mixed up. You would most likely have no real friends and the people you think are your friends may actually be your enemies.
4) Be chronically stressed about your relationships
Ancient Pashtun heuristics
Not all apply to enmity and friendship but here is the crux of the matter.
In pashtunwali, you treat your enemy in the worst possible manner (revenge is compulsory) but when he seeks hospitality/help or asylum from you then its your duty to take care of him even if your own family goes hungry. In pashtun culture, the enemies house is the best place to seek help when one is in trouble.
In modern times, it's the opposite, you treat your enemy as your friend but when he seeks hospitality/help or asylum, you hesitate to offer it, which is a weaker form of revenge and far worse.
In pashtunwali, you treat your enemy in the worst possible manner (revenge is compulsory) but when he seeks hospitality/help or asylum from you then its your duty to take care of him even if your own family goes hungry. In pashtun culture, the enemies house is the best place to seek help when one is in trouble.
In modern times, it's the opposite, you treat your enemy as your friend but when he seeks hospitality/help or asylum, you hesitate to offer it, which is a weaker form of revenge and far worse.
Tuesday, April 5, 2011
Daily Water Requirements - Going Paleo and Water Myths
Dear Mark,
I always hear that I should be drinking eight glasses of water a day, but it takes a lot of unnatural effort to get close to that. Is it just me? What’s your take on the water rule?
Best,
Jaime
As you know by now, my job is to question Conventional Wisdom. One of the classic health paradigms I’ve always had a problem with is the blanket recommendation by the general health community that we all should be consuming copious amounts of water. It just doesn’t make sense to me and it never has. Face it, Grok did NOT walk around with a canteen or an Evian bottle affixed to his loincloth. He and the Grok family thought Nalgene was the name of the tribe across the valley and they never owned a sippy cup with which to gulp down mass quantities of H20. Day after day it was a drop here and a mouthful there – if a source of water other than a dewy leaf was even available. Since Grok and his cadre probably didn’t spend too much time hanging around the water hole. (All those predators you know…) 8 glasses of water a day is unlikely a physiological necessity, not to mention an evolutionarily relevant model. Grok obtained most of his water directly from the food he ate, and I believe that we probably should, too.
I don’t get thirsty very often. I rarely drink so much as a single glass of water during my normal daily routine. When I was a runner, and later as a triathlete, I would go out for long runs or rides without much water – if any at all. Sure I’d drink a bit to recover lost sweat when I returned home, but if I was riding for less than two hours, or unless it was unusually hot, I didn’t even put a water bottle on my bike. Even today when we take a break playing Ultimate Frisbee on hot Sunday afternoons, I have to force myself to drink sometimes when I might just as easily skip the water altogether. Meanwhile, I see people at the gym with 2-gallon bottles of Arrowhead, fully intent on polishing them off before dinner, thirsty or not. So, am I flaunting conventional wisdom at my own peril? Or am I just doing what comes naturally to a Primal being?
Years ago someone put forth the idea that we all needed to drink 8 glasses of water a day. Perhaps it came from a series of studies in the 1940s after which the Food and Nutrition Board of the Institute of Medicine opined that the “RDA” for water should be roughly 1 ml per calorie consumed. At their recommended 2000 calories a day, that worked out to 2 liters a day, or roughly 8 eight-ounce glasses. Lost in the translation somewhere was an important caveat that much – if not most – of the water we required could actually be obtained from the foods we eat. In other words, it simply was not necessary to actually drink 8 glasses a day. And since the recommended diet at the time included substantial portions of water-sopping grains, maybe that initial recommendation was too high for someone eschewing grains altogether. (On a related note people will tend to drink more if the beverage is flavored. And, guess, what: carbohydrates (particularly sweet tastes) encourage increased fluid intake. So, it’s useful to ask if the hankering is real thirst or a flavor related craving.)
Nevertheless, over the years, this hydration mandate has become burned into the health consciousness of most people. It appears that nearly every health guru (except yours truly) hammers on this point. Food doesn’t seem to count at all anymore. Eight means eight. And forget including coffee, tea, soft drinks or beer because Conventional Wisdom says that these are diuretics and therefore only increase your requirement for pure water. Of course, that’s wrong, because coffee, tea, soft drinks and alcoholic beverages do actually add to water intake rather than detract from it. Alcohol and caffeine only become significantly diuretic in very large and otherwise dangerous amounts. But I really wonder if all that extra water – however you take it in – is necessary or even healthy if you are already consuming lots of vegetables and other healthy Primal Blueprint food. The average person is said to obtain 20% of his/her water from foods throughout the day. If the bulk of your diet is vegetables and fruit, this percentage is assuredly higher.
Contrary to what your neighbor might advise you, there is no evidence that drinking eight or more glasses prevents constipation, kidney stones, bladder cancer, urinary tract infections or that it guarantees you’ll have clear skin and a toxic-free liver. Yet these are often cited as the main reasons to drink so much. And forget the so-called hyper-hydration properties of “clustered water,” “ionized super waters,” “penta-water” and the rest of the scam-waters, about which I have blogged in past posts. Water is water is water.
On the other hand, there are some possible health consequences of overdoing this hydration thing. Chronic over-consumption of water can cause the relative concentration of important electrolytes in the blood to drop, a condition called hyponatremia (Wikipedia), which in turn forces water out of the bloodstream and into cells, causing them to swell. Not a big deal for a muscle cell, but catastrophic when it’s a brain cell and there’s no extra space to expand into. Each year we read about people in endurance contests who sweat profusely, overcompensate by replacing the water but not the salts and wind up with cerebral edema. Last year a woman died in a radio-sponsored “water drinking contest,” drinking only about two gallons in a short period of time. Of course, those are extreme examples, but I do have several readers who have shared with me their intent on getting “100 ounces a day”, and I have to advise them to cut way back.
(The following contains my own personal hypotheses. I would love to see some research done in these areas. If anyone is aware of any please drop me a line.)
Conventional Wisdom suggests that drinking water with your meals is fine – even recommended. But I suspect that some heretofore undiagnosed digestive issues may arise when people drink significant amounts of water or other fluids with their meals. The digestive process starts with, and depends on, a very acidic environment in the stomach (a pH of 1 to 2 ideally). That highly acidic environment also controls the timing of when the stomach empties.When you drink lots of fluid at a meal, you are substantially diluting the stomach acid and diminishing its ability to effectively digest your food. I would guess that many cases of GERD, gas, stomach upset and other common complaints might be addressed simply by NOT drinking so much water throughout the day and refraining entirely from drinking while eating. (Except maybe a little wine, which, having a pH closer to stomach acid has been shown to aid in digestion) This might also explain why some proteins that only break down under optimum acid conditions pass into the intestines only partially digested and thus might be recognized by the immune system as “foreign invaders”, setting up some immune response that gets diagnosed as a food allergy.
Furthermore, unbeknownst to many people, the stomach is one of the first lines of defense in your immune system. Bacteria and yeast that are regularly consumed along with your food can be quickly and easily dispensed with in a very acidic stomach, preventing what might otherwise become a short term bout of food poisoning or a possible longer term GI tract infection. Dilute all your meals with water, however, and the pH rises enough to possibly allow those same bacteria to pass through to the intestines where all hell can break loose. Literally.
Even cold and flu viruses that permeate the air around us are generally rendered harmless when they reach a normally acidic stomach, (after being breathed in and drained with mucous into the stomach). Drinking a ton of water all day long just might disarm that security measure as well.
So how much water does a person need? I think this question exemplifies our tendency to over-think many aspects of our health and well-being. I’ve mentioned on a number of occasions that animals seem to get along just fine on their own instinct. Do we really think we evolved any differently? Thirst is a physiological instinct that is there for a reason. Still, the makers of this bogus rule also tell us that the thirst instinct comes “too late”: we’re already on our way to dehydration once we get to that point! This is where the paleo-perspective comes in handy. Has our “defective” thirst instinct been leading us wrong – for tens of millions of years? I think you know where I stand on this one. So if you actually feel thirsty, by all means have a drink. For anyone interested in a little history of the rule (and confirmation that thirst doesn’t signal dehydration), check this (PDF) out.
Our individual need for water depends on numerous factors. Activity level, body size, environment (humidity level and altitude, most significantly), quality of health, age, and pregnancy/breastfeeding impose the most legitimate variations. In general, we want to replace the fluids we lose in a day, and intensive activity (with its accompanying sweat) will increase the amount of fluid we need. (For prolonged, intensive exercise and/or significant water intake, it’s essential to balance salt/electrolytes with water.) The drier our climate, the more water we tend to lose, but unless you’re sitting out in the blazing sun for hours at a time, it doesn’t make a huge difference. Altitude, because of the body’s more laborious breathing, can increase our need. Those who are ill can require more, depending on their condition and any treatments they’re receiving. (People with kidney disease, kidney stones, a history of bladder cancer, or a tendency for urinary tract infections are usually advised to drink more.) Women who are pregnant or nursing definitely need to drink more. Finally, I mention age not because older men and women necessarily need more water. In fact, if they’re more sedentary, they probably need less. However, some research has shown that as we age our thirst instinct may not be quite as sharp as it used to be.
For most of us, however, we can safely rely on that brain stem of ours to tell us when it’s time to belly up to the drinking fountain.
One final word on water intake:
Bottled water is a joke. If you don’t trust your tap, get a simple Reverse Osmosis filtering system.
Thanks for your questions, and keep ‘em coming!
Further Reading:
Monday, April 4, 2011
Elephants eat Salads - Herbivores vs Carnivores
- Elephants and cows eat grass (salads) to get fat. Lions/tigers etc would eat meat and no matter how much meat they eat they will never get fat. Counting calories is simply ridiculous and nonsensical. Elephants get their fats from salads and not from fat. Your body creates its own stuff. Horses don't gain muscle mass by eating protein (wild horses). Each animal is unique, the diet and physiology changes. Hence remember, eating fat will not make you fat, or eating cholestrol wouldn't make your cholestrol high. Chickens don't eat cholestrol but produce eggs which are high in cholestrol. So the whole point is whether your body is creating its own stuff from other stuff or is it using the stuff already present in the diet.
- Herbivores/carnivores have two different modes of eating. Herbivores have to eat a lot of salads (grass) and then have to do a little regurgitation as well. Most herbivores just eat the whole day non-stop. Carnivores are different, they just eat after a high intensity hunt and then rest most of the time which requires no eating, a carnivore is either starving/resting or is feasting.
- Humans are part carnivore and part herbivore (omnivore). Hence you can graze all day on salads but have a big high intensity feast of meat/fish etc at the end of the day. And remember, eating cholestrol does not increase cholestrol in your body. If that were the case, then elephants only eat salads and should be the slimmest in the group. Try and understand how your body has evolved rather than fit man made theories.
- Remove foods from your diet which are not traditional, just imagine what human diet would be a few thousand years ago when there was no agriculture and tamed animals. No cow milk, no bread, no rice etc but lots of fruits, vegetables and game meat.
- Workouts should be high intensity and short. Not low intensity and long (jogging). That is why carnivores are so muscular. A lion would only hunt and work out with intensity in a short burst once every two days and then doesn't even bother to get up. But he gains a lot of muscle mass. Just try and differentiate between a carnivore/herbivore diet and work out and you'll get added insights.
Sunday, April 3, 2011
Obsessive Compulsive Disorder (OCD) and Success
I recently read an article which described Obsessive Compulsive Disorder (OCD) as a disease that needed a cure. Here are a few symptoms associated with the illness.
Signs and symptoms of obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD)
Most people with obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) have both obsessions and compulsions, but some people experience just one or the other. The symptoms of OCD may wax and wane over time. Often, the symptoms get worse in times of stress.
Common obsessive thoughts in OCD include:
- Fear of being contaminated by germs or dirt or contaminating others
- Fear of causing harm to yourself or others
- Intrusive sexually explicit or violent thoughts and images
- Excessive focus on religious or moral ideas
- Fear of losing or not having things you might need
- Order and symmetry: the idea that everything must line up “just right.”
- Superstitions; excessive attention to something considered lucky or unlucky
Common compulsive behaviors in OCD include:
- Excessive double-checking of things, such as locks, appliances, and switches.
- Repeatedly checking in on loved ones to make sure they’re safe.
- Counting, tapping, repeating certain words, or doing other senseless things to reduce anxiety.
- Spending a lot of time washing or cleaning.
- Ordering, evening out, or arranging things “just so.”
- Praying excessively or engaging in rituals triggered by religious fear.
- Accumulating “junk” such as old newspapers, magazines, and empty food containers, or other things you don’t have a use for.
Now here's my problem with the above, I can't remember anyone who hasn't got less than 70% of the symptoms listed above. Are most of my friends suffering from OCD or is this just another hogwash where humans are using their type-2 error to invent knowledge and diseases where there is no knowledge existing, only randomness.
It would be understandable, if someone kept on washing their hands non-stop and somebody diagnosed them with OCD. But all the above listing is just part and parcel with what comes with being human. We can't change ourselves even if we know what are limitations are.
Now Robert Sapolsky suggested that OCD is closely related to Religion, which makes a lot of sense. Religious rituals cannot be achieved if one does not obsessively and compulsively follow religion. Islamic rituals are done five times a day, and most muslims obey those instructions religiously, which doesn't make them any more diseased than the rest. Most traditional rituals are overtly repetitive and we are biologically fit for these rituals. Now humans will go to any extent to understand why that is, but complexity is difficult to decipher. We would create narrative fallacies and explanation based on evidences that we can see and not on the hidden evidences or the future evidences which are yet to come. Our type-2 errors will create explanations and create models that fit the human which would simply not be complex enough, and any thinking or theories that would be derived from this model would itself be flawed because of the gigantic assumptions required to create it (hint: economic theories).
Now the above findings prove that religion is natural. But the real problem is that we already knew that religion was natural, it came naturally to us. Why did we have to go through the horrors of communism to figure out that it is impossible to separate humans and religion. What is the advantage of being religious? to answer this question, we'll create another rational theory, but the truths would always be hidden by blankets of complexity and hidden evidences. Sometimes it's better to trust evolution, god, etc then to trust what comes from the human mind.
And our genes are all different, different heuristics apply to different people from different places on the planet. We all have evolved differently and we need to accept this plurality. We must make an effort to stay away from the rational method and its sets of problems (hume/descarte). Human thinking is terribly flawed and we learn to stop trusting it as we grow older and older. An aging brain refuses to trust newer information/theories/models.
Here's a nice video explaining human creativity and brain aging
The problem discussed above is also the confidence problem. Hence a basic rule for life should be the older the better. Be skeptical of new things and trust old things even if you don't know or understand them. Really old phenomenons should be treated as sacred because the human brain can simply not comprehend the advantages of these phenomenons. Religion is one of those phenomenons which is as mental as it is biological. It fits us perfectly and comes naturally. We don't know it's advantages, but if evolution went out of its way to make us religious then we must understand that evolution is simply a lot wiser than human thinking.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)