Impact bias -- apparently I'm not original

I recently (within the last year) came to the conclusion that it is a fallacy to project my current emotional state far into the future. For example, I often worry that I'll become locked into the same job for the rest of my life with no opportunity for change. However, the reality is that opportunities present themselves regularly and I always possess the freedom to find some new career.

I realized that this fallacy could be generalized to many different things and have given it as advice to others under some sort of stress. I was rather proud of this idea and thought it to be original. Like many intellectual constructs, however, I was merely reinventing the wheel.

While reading through the comments on a post at LessWrong I discovered the idea of impact bias. It's precisely what I had in mind, though much more developed. For example, it also states that we have a tendency to project positive emotions too far into the future. Take a look at the link. It's interesting and to keep it in mind helps to alleviate a lot distress we inflict upon ourselves.

Into the lion's den

Confirmation bias is the term for seeking out sources of information that positively reflect one's current beliefs. Sometimes these sources can be other people.

Today I had a conversation with an old acquaintance who readily extolled his beliefs on religious open-mindedness, problems with government, and other weighty affairs. I agreed with nearly everything he said; I found myself making small remarks in agreement. And these were the only remarks I was making.

I notice that when like-minded people converse on polarizing topics, their conversations simply reflect their collective moods and nothing much new is learned. To arrive at new conclusions, we have to challenge our beliefs. Very often this means associating with people who have very different views from our own. It's good practice at arguing, and is valuable so long as we remain open-minded to allowing our beliefs to change.

Note: I wonder if my idea of values and beliefs, as defined in LessWrong, are the same thing.

What I've learned from the past few months

I'm home for the holidays and, as always happens on these breaks, I am in a very philosophical mood. So, I decided to write a little and see what became of it.

I haven't written--at least in this blog--for a very long time, so I think a summary of things I've learned over the past few months is in order. I may expand upon each point later, but for now I'd like to simply enumerate with brief descriptions major thoughts I've had. They've all been fueled by major events in my life. If you choose, you may easily divulge what they may have been from their content.

I was asked recently what love meant to me. After a minute of thought, pouring over tired responses about dedication and sacrifice in my mind, I gave the following, honest response: I am a rationalist. I analyze ideas down to their roots. I look at them from different perspectives to gain an appreciation for how others view them and to gain new insights. I break them into their logical pieces until I possess cold, static blueprints of their workings, then I file them away until I need them to analyze other ideas. However, love is not something that I wish to subject to reason. I stubbornly refuse to define it. Love is something so intrinsic to human nature that it coexists in the hierarchy of the human being at the same level as intellect. No matter our mental faculties, we simply can't hope to understand something at so basic a level. I love, and am loved, and nothing can make me happier than this.

The greatest moments in my life have occurred during times of flux. Starting graduate school, making the conscious decision to be happy, the passing of my mom. Great moments are born when I am pushed by external circumstances to be great. Sometimes these circumstances are beyond my control, but often I possess the ability to place myself in the position to take advantage of the energy that change provides. For this reason, I don't foresee working in the same career or living in the same place for the remainder of my life.

On a related topic, I've recognized the ill effects of being in the same situation for so long. Graduate school is starting to wear on me. I think very little on the news, on philosophy, or things beyond science and optics since my thought is dominated by school. Most of my time is spent in the lab or in the office, often out of guilt for not having achieved as much the day before. My mental math skills aren't as sharp. I have more difficulties following conversations with friends. I need a change in my life to reinvigorate me. Finishing graduate school is a priority, but I don't want to slip further from my universalistic thoughts to achieve it. I'm very much looking forward to big changes in my near future. For now I must endure my current situation.

I think this is enough writing for now. My thoughts are starting to wander and I am losing focus. I am glad I managed to form these thoughts into words. I'll revisit them in the near future and hopefully act upon them accordingly.

Honesty and happiness

My recent forays into the dating scene and discussions with some of my friends have enlightened me to one important quality in the search for happiness. That quality, I believe, is nothing more than honesty, both with oneself and to others.

No one doubts the value of being honest to others, but I think that honesty with oneself is something that is extremely undervalued or not even recognized by many. Being honest with oneself means critically examining the choices that she or he makes with regards to things such as careers, dating, and outward behavior. Once one becomes truly open to his or her own feelings, I think that this person will be in a very good---if not the best---position to positively affect their life. Knowledge is power and it precludes constructive action, so I don't think that self-honesty is a quality whose value can be challenged.

But is this quality enough to achieve happiness? That question is debatable and subtle. A friend of mine argues that it is not simply enough to know what makes us the happiest. Often times we are unable to achieve those things. For example, a love interest may not reciprocate romantic feelings or income may not suffice to live the lifestyle of one's choosing. For this reason she argues that finding satisfaction with the things that she currently has is more important than knowing what makes her happy, since these things might not be attainable.

I can think of examples of friends with whom this idea may not work. Specifically, I have friends who are miserable at their jobs but are unwilling to switch because the money supports their lifestyles well. I concede that they may truly value their own entertainment and financial freedom more than satisfaction with their careers, but I honestly don't believe this. Being unhappy at work bleeds over into so many other aspects of their lives, so I doubt that settling for five unfulfilled days a week is an optimum behavior for being happy. Here I believe that a close self-examination of their situations would reveal the culprit behind their discontent and provide the basis for making a change for the better.

Despite this counterexample, my friend's advice has definite merit. I suppose then that there can be no general rule for finding happiness with either of the two approaches. Individuals must find a blend of the two that works for them and provides them a degree of satisfaction that they can be, well, satisfied with.

Side notes: What are the obstacles to self-honesty? Why do people value the things that keep them from attaining the maximum degree of happiness? I may be in error by placing so much emphasis on a quantification of happiness, but I think that without this tool I have no way of discussing it. I do wonder, though, what other models exist for such a thing.

Products of the mind

This morning I read an article in the Guardian about the late and former NFL star Dave Duerson. On February 17, 2011, Duerson killed himself inside his apartment in Florida by shooting himself in the heart. Though he had experienced several bad setbacks over the past several years, including a faltering business and divorce, family and doctors do not attribute these to his death. The cause, they say, was a disease known as chronic traumatic encephalopathy, which is a severe degeneration of structures in the brain due to repeated blows to the head. The disease is most commonly found in athletes who participate in sports featuring strong physical contact, such as boxing, hockey, and American football.

Those closest to Duerson reported that he was becoming increasingly unable to focus on complex problems and recently made many uncharacteristically bad business decisions. He also suffered severe mood swings and was unable to enjoy his usual happy demeanor. Hours before his death, he had unofficially arranged for his brain to be examined by the Center for the Study of Traumatic Encephalopathy. It seems that he understood that his life was deteriorating due to the problems with his brain.

Stories like this one remind me how much we are products of our own minds, and not just of our thoughts. Many people have turned to ideas borrowed from eastern philosophies for finding happiness within their lives. Own little; eat lightly; think positively. There is however no amount of positive thought that can overcome depression when there is a physical reason for it.

But how are we to recognize the difference between the two causes---external and internal? I suspect that the growth of modern neuroscience will lead to new (albeit incomplete) understandings of the physical causes of depression, which in turn will lead to medicines with the possibility of their misapplication. Is it right to prescribe an anti-depression drug when the stress is external and natural or holistic remedies exist? These questions are of course relevant now, but I think it is enlightening to examine them from a philosophical context, especially one that attributes so much power to the mind in finding happiness for oneself.

A dynamic value system—revisited

It is interesting to note that a world view that is based upon a dynamic value system is similar to a Bayesian reasoner. This is a model for designing algorithms that must make decisions based upon incomplete information. Once more data is received, the degrees of plausibility that certain propositions are true are recalculated by the reasoner.

A world view based upon dynamic values changes its conclusions and outlook when its values change, and these change with experience (similar to acquiring new data in the Bayesian model).

This brings to mind a curious question: if two individuals share the exact same life experiences, are they necessarily the same person?

And to further explore this question: will differences in their physiology cause them to adopt different personalities and world views? Is it impossible to impose the exact same events in the two lives, making the question unanswerable? Because Bayesian reasoning, if it can even be correctly applied to human reasoning, is still based upon probabilities, is it actually only a question of how likely the two individuals will be more or less the same?

These thoughts have been fueled by E. T. Jaynes's "Probability Theory: The Logic of Science."

Addendum: I think the question above is only relevant within the context considering a Bayesian reasoner, i.e. not an actual human. Actual human thought is driven by more than reasonable analysis of propositions, such as physiology and emotion.

Happiness and careers

Last night I had a conversation with a friend about the nature of work and our careers. For context, I'm a graduate student entering my fifth year and hoping to finish in six; he's three years older than I am and working as a programmer for a web development company. Careers are important parts of the lives of those of us in our mid-to-late twenties since we are working so hard to establish them. The popular thought is that without a proper career, we can not find happiness later in life. This happiness comes from the attainment of wealth, family, and the approval of our friends and family for having achieved these things. This, at least, is my interpretation of the general consensus of my generation.

My observation is that, from this viewpoint, the happiness obtained by a career is from things external to ourselves. Wealth, a family, and social recognition are all independent of our own minds. But I think people often fail to realize the importance of the internal rewards earned through their careers. For example, one can find happiness knowing that their job helps others (teachers, doctors) or is aesthetically pleasing (artists, mathematicians). This is evident by the number of people willing to teach and the "starving artists" that frequent coffee shops and small venues the world over.

Many of my close friends are struggling to find what exactly they value more: internal or external rewards for their hard work. Granted, the two are not mutually exclusive, but the optimal ratio of the amount of the one to the other-the one that provides the greatest degree of happiness-can vary drastically depending upon the individual. Unfortunately, failing to recognize which of the two any of my friends value more can keep them from finding contentment.

A simple recognition of one's own values is not enough to find happiness with a career, though it certainly is an important first step. This observation (that self-understanding is not sufficient) underscores the importance of acting on one's desires. However, it takes courage to change careers (or even jobs within the same field), especially considering that one might suffer a severe cut in pay or the uncertainty in reestablishing oneself in a new workplace. An additional difficulty with changing jobs is that people may place the values of others above their own in deciding upon their career path. A society might greatly value wealth, so a person may lock themselves into a high-paying job, despite being unhappy, because it's what others think is important. In this case, I believe that the individual's values should trump those of others, though this too takes a certain degree of courage and sense of self.

To summarize, the point of a career is to find an optimum degree of contentment. This comes in the form of compensation, which includes both external and internal rewards. Though not mutually exclusive, people tend to favor one type of reward over the other. Failure to recognize what one wants out of their career often leads to boredom and discontent, but so too does failing to change careers because of prejudices based upon what career success means. The first step in finding happiness is to establish one's values, then act accordingly. This will take courage, but many things in life that are worthwhile do.

After thought:  I didn't address it, but some people may also find difficulty pursuing their chosen career field, which adds another degree of complexity to my analysis. For example, women may face barriers in many fields dominated by men. Consideration of these factors might change my conclusions, but I think that for the most part they apply in general.

I am not alone

It really is quite amazing when you stumble upon a quote from a historical figure that so precisely reflects your state of mind that it gives you a slight chill when you first read it. Such was my reaction upon reading a quote from Kierkegaard on Wikipedia's entry on existentialism:

What I really lack is to be clear in my mind what I am to do, not what I am to know, except in so far as a certain knowledge must precede every action. The thing is to understand myself, to see what God really wishes me to do: the thing is to find a truth which is true for me, to find the idea for which I can live and die. ... I certainly do not deny that I still recognize an imperative of knowledge and that through it one can work upon men, but it must be taken up into my life, and that is what I now recognize as the most important thing.

—Søren Kierkegaard, Letter to Peter Wilhelm Lund dated August 31, 1835, emphasis added

I knew there had to be a reason that I kept notes

In addition to writing in two blogs I keep a personal journal to track the evolution of my thoughts. While reading an entry from a year ago, I came across a quote from a short blog post from James Garvey at Talking Philosophy Magazine. The theme of this post has dominated my thought lately, having been fueled by a discussion with my roommate about whether developing a personal philosophy as a goal is selfish.

I think Garvey's anecdotal lesson is something of a warning to thinkers. A solution is only valuable if it solves a problem, and problems are of relative importance to people. Therefore, it may just be foolish to presume I'm pursuing a noble and universal truth.

Coming to grips with this fact may clear up a lot of questions about the pursuit of happiness that I've been pondering about as well. However, the caffeine is wearing off now and I'm afraid my intellectual energies need to be put on hold so I can finish off the pile of Netflix movies at our house.

The quote from Garvey:

It pushes me again to the thought that the headlines are all wrong.  Philosophy isn’t the love of wisdom or the pursuit of truth; it’s nearer an effort to think through your own conception of things, make things clearer for yourself, render coherent your own outlook.  In stockpiling all your premises and conclusions, the only person you will ever convince is yourself.  And that’s if you’re lucky.

Where does happiness fall within a world view?

In my first post I concluded with a paragraph that began as follows:

The grander purpose [of this blog] is that I wish to create my own philosophy upon which I can base my actions, thoughts, and conclusions. I've come to believe that people give meaning to their own lives and for me it is in analyzing and placing this world in a context with which I can admire its beauty and complexity. But this can only be done once I wrestle from it the essential facts and shape them into some meaningful form, as humans are meant to do.

The other night while reading in a coffee shop I realized that this statement is a bit naive. I think that the statement is in general true; I believe that it is worth our while to take some control of the factors that influence our lives, such as our relationships to others and our general outlook, rather than play the part of the passive observer. There's a certain nobility to reducing life to its basis. Doing so provides us the intellectual materials that are required to place us in the position to be masters of our own existence. However, a singular intellectual pursuit of translating our realities into a coherent framework leaves little room for spontaneous joy. This is because of the enormous complexity of reality--it may simply be too much for any individual to fully understand. And the rejection of happiness for a synthetic, mindful pursuit smacks a bit too much of piousness for my own taste.

So how can happiness fit into one's world view, especially one whose aim is to critically examine every piece of information that it is presented? If I were to fully understand my life through contemplation, would I be happy? If I gave up entirely upon philosophy to focus my energies on more tangible sources of enjoyment such as my friends and going out every night, would this provide me with contentment? My opinion is that neither extreme can give me the most satisfaction. As usual, a balance between the two seems to be the best option. But these concerns raise more fundamental and interesting questions.

Is happiness an end to be achieved by the meaning and goals we set for ourselves, or does the pursuit of these goals fill us with contentment, regardless of whether they are achieved? Maybe happiness is obtained independently of how we choose to run our lives, but I doubt it. Furthermore, I know that I find happiness in both the satisfaction of the mind and in the body. Does this mean that there exist two forms of happiness, or are they one in the same?

To be fair to myself, I think I understood that the statement that I began this piece with was naive when I originally wrote it, hence the conclusion:

Intellect was not bestowed upon us to simply reflect on reality; we were meant to transform a piece of it into something that we can claim as our own, even if it be the tiniest fraction of what we know of as existence.

Perhaps we who possess philosophical tendencies should be content with just taming "the tiniest fraction" and cease our metaphysical exertions lest we be consumed by our own minds.

A dynamic value system

During my bike ride this morning I struggled to understand how a philosophy can be built upon a base set of values that are allowed to change.

Let me clarify: I understand many philosophies to be structured in a manner similar to a mathematical theorem. One first states relevant definitions and assumptions, then makes (hopefully) consistent arguments based these assumptions which lead to a conclusion. I believe that values are the analog to assumptions in philosophy.

I've developed a suspicion that this structure is perhaps too rigid to support a world view that can satisfy me. As I age I change my mind on opinions and my general outlook, i.e. my values change. It seems that I've encountered the difficulty of trying to formulate a philosophy grounded in dynamic principles.

I'm also trying to come to grips on why a changing set of values can be preferred to a static one. Perhaps the empirical evidence I gave above--that my opinions change with time--is enough to make this claim.

What I blogged for

It recently occurred to me that the amount of time I have available each day to pursue free thought--my term for mental activity that is not directed towards a specific purpose or task--has dwindled down to a few sporadic and all too brief moments throughout the day. It's really not surprising considering that I'm in my twenties, am a graduate student in the physical sciences, and frequently spend my free time socializing with friends at bars, shops, or the movies. These considerations, coupled with the all-too-often cited "information overload" of the digital age have left me feeling bit anxious. Free thought, I believe, is the thing that my brain has been desiring for some time. Unfortunately, this anxiousness is its only way of communicating its need to my consciousness.

I came to this realization because for all times in my life until the past few years I enjoyed the liberty of letting my mind run wild in pursuit of its whims. A leisurely childhood in the country and a college career full of frequent breaks and travel provided fantastic settings onto which I could project my overactive consciousness. This would in turn make way for what is, I suspect, an even more powerful subconsciousness to process and make sense of my position in this world. I've always been an overactive thinker, but I never considered the effect of eliminating the freedom (in terms of time and energy) of the brain to make its random walk over the data it receives until now. The effect, at least for me, I believe, is the anxiety that hints at something that my mind is missing but needs to feel satisfied.

So I created this blog to help me place my thoughts into words, which by doing so might help reclaim some of that time during the day that was once dedicated to free thought. I find that when I write, the end result is almost never what I intended it to be from the start. This suggests that while I write both my conscious and subconscious are acting in concert to create something akin to the products from my unencumbered mind.

The grander purpose is that I wish to create my own philosophy upon which I can base my actions, thoughts, and conclusions. I've come to believe that people give meaning to their own lives and for me it is in analyzing and placing this world in a context with which I can admire its beauty and complexity. But this can only be done once I wrestle from it the essential facts and shape them into some meaningful form, as humans are meant to do. Intellect was not bestowed upon us to simply reflect on reality; we were meant to transform a piece of it into something that we can claim as our own, even if it be the tiniest fraction of what we know of as existence.

Here is an older but interesting article on a trip undertaken by scientists to go off the "grid": http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/16/technology/16brain.html#.