evokit

Eats concepts. Coughs up ideas.

[evokit]

RVMC (†24.4.2016)

Back in Feb-Mar 2011--shortly after joining Tumblr--I stumbled upon a violet-kitty via a tag search. The violet-kitty (R. IRL) openly discussed the very intimate details of their life--their ”personal shit” as it was tagged. After reading one of the posts I sent R. a message, from which grew a very close bond. In the subsequent 5 years we corresponded in some form every other day. We have even been fortunate enough to meet IRL three times, despite living in different countries--a ditch apart. 

On 18th April a confluence of Chaos and Circumstances with a capital C combined to force R. to attempt to end their life. The attempt left R. comatose and on life support. In this state R. stayed while tests were performed to determine the extent of the damage to R’s brain. Unfortunately it was too extensive. Shortly after the life support was turned off. R died a few hours later in the early hours of 24th April (GMT+12).

R’s death has left behind a gaping hole. With R. though, I think is more appropriate to call it a void given R’s love of nihilism. The void cannot be filled, but one must come to terms with it. This post is an attempt to do just that. It seems an appropriate place to do it too given it’s where it all started. 

Back in 2011 when we first met, we were both going through similar difficulties, but from opposite sides of the fence. R was being crushed in a failing relationship and was trying to stand their ground. I, on the other hand, was being shoved away from someone whom I become attached. Reading R’s “personal shit”, which detailed the failing relationship, helped me deal with my own situation. I in turn, helped R. The contrasting but complementary experiences and approaches is one of the elements that lead us to be such close friends. R’s openness and me keeping my private feelings, thoughts and feelings close to my chest is another good example. There is no way in hell I would have disclosed what I’m writing here when I first met R. Being more open is definitely one lasting legacy R. will leave on my life. 

R. was someone that loves things with an absolute passion. Whenever R would come across something that exited them, they would be shared widely and enthusiastically. The same goes with things that R. would detest. I up to that point had never come across someone would acted with such passion. Here again we have contrasting approaches to life. I tend to quell such passionate urges, seeing them when I first me R. as dangerous. Instead I tend to revert to rational thought. R taught me that it’s okay to let one’s passions guide you. I think some of my rational approach might have rubbed off on R. too, whether for the better or the worse I don’t know.  Behind the differing approaches I turned out that we liked and were captivated by a lot of the same stuff.

Both R. and I shared problems with social anxiety. R’s problems were more transient, mine were omnipresent. When R’s mood was up, social anxiety would virtually disappear. It was the depression that brought it out more than anything. When depressed, R. would go into internet lock-down, privatizing or deleting large chunks of their online presence. At times, whole blogs, twitter and Facebook accounts have been erased. I’ve never had an urge strong enough to do such a thing, but I can certainly understand why someone would do so. That depth of mutual understanding made it easier for us be be open with each other and to connect. It’s much easier to dismiss things like being too anxious to navigate public transport (albeit in a foreign city), which occurred to R. when we first planned to meet IRL while she was in the country. Fortunately for us, the anxiety died down enough meet a few days later on the 19th Feb 2013. We talked for about four hours. A few months later, in April-May 2013, I visited R. in Wellington, staying for a week. R showed me around town: visiting Te Papa (R. loved museums); renting a car and visiting the obligatory sights, as well as the more rosy bunkers; and hired bikes, doing a little circuit around the Miramar peninsula. I also got to meet some of R’s friends. R. got to meet one my friends when I hopped across the ditch for the second time in Dec 2014-Jan 2015--the last time I saw R in person. The second visit was a bit mixed. R. was in a dark place and we didn’t get much time to talk. We did get to visit two museums, but the darkness was too much to celebrate NYE together. I’m sure R. would have liked to, should the Chaos have allowed. 

One cannot talk about R. in depth without talking about the Chaos. Very early on I identified a need to depersonalize R’s mental heath problems--to separate R from the illness and to make it easier to talk about. The name that stuck was Chaos. Chaos lived in a jar and liked escaping, causing havoc and disrupting up peoples’ lives. Chaos was an absolute menace. Chaos was a major factor why R. dropped out of school, had difficulty holding a job and maintaining friendships. Chaos wasn’t all negative though. When it was contained in the jar, it was an amazing source of enthusiasm and passion--and one would say love. Chaos was one those things that drew people towards R in the good times, as well as the bad. R. spent an inordinate amount of time and energy trying to keep Chaos contained in the jar, much more than many people would even be able to comprehend. It was amazing to witness how hard R. fought to contain it. R also helped others to with their own battles. I cannot recount the number of times I have witnessed R help others. R always seemed to know what to say. She was a great friend to have when you were in need of support.

Apart from the three brief IRL meetings, the vast majority of our interaction was text based--Tumblr, FB, email, Twitter. We never phoned or video-chatted. In a strange way having that internet-based friendship worked extremely well. R’s sharing of personal shit and some very long emails from me kept each other up-to-date and involved in each others’ lives. Twitter also helped to facilitate things, by allowing us to spontaneously share an experience in real time. FB did this a bit too. Twitter feels a lot more private than FB though. The friendship between us would have been much different had we lived in the same location. That in itself is one of the greater laments. This was a lament shared by R too. 

I don’t think R and I would have met hadn’t it been for the internet. And, here I don’t mean given our two different geographic locations. The people I hung-out with and the people R did are very different. There are a group of R’s friends, whom I wouldn’t want to associate with even now. But at the same time, my net has been widened greatly to include some fantastic people. I think R was drawn towards me because I was from a different group too. I think part of that was because my outsider perspective may have allowed R to escape a number of toxic friendships or at least see them as being problematic.   

One cannot fill the void left behind when someone close dies. There will never be another R. One carries the void around for as long as the memories survive. The void needn’t be a burden. R’s death almost coincided with my birthday. With each birthday to come I can view it as an opportunity to morn or I can see it as an opportunity to remember an incredible friend, someone that has left a positive mark on my life and many others. The void can be used as a source of strength too. For me the void is a reminder of the importance of being open with other people--sharing one’s joys, embarrassments and struggles. It’s about the importance of sharing one’s passions and letting those with similar tastes gravitate towards you. 

In the aftermath of R’s death one thing that gnaws at me the most, which is epitomized by this quote:

If you love someone, let them know. One of the things I’ll never regret is how many times I told her I loved her.

It gnaws at me because I never did, not explicitly anyway. I have an extremely poor record of telling people that I love them and how much the mean to me. That’s not just a poor record with R, but in general--not with close friends, not with family. That must change. All I have to do is think of R for motivation. 

I don’t think I could finish without mention R’s obscure sense of humour. That’s one of the things I will miss the most. R had this uncanny fascination with the obscure and absurd--from the depths of Ali Express to the most bizarrely morbid. R’s wit was incredibly quick too. The playfulness was uncanny. 

Above all what R. showed me is what a good friend is like. 

[evokit]

Factors that maintain Social Anxiety Disorder

Social Anxiety

Anxiety vs Fear: Anxiety refers to a general apprehension about anticipated future threats, whereas fear is a response to a present danger.

Social Anxiety: Social anxiety occurs when we anticipate ourselves being humiliated, embarrassed, evaluated, or rejected by others.

Evolutionary perspective of social anxiety

Social anxiety alerts us to situations that could alter our social status (standing).

Gilbert’s (2001) evolutionary theory suggests that social anxiety is a mechanism that evolved to facilitate group cohesion.

Social Anxiety Disorder (SAD)

Social anxiety is beneficial up to a certain level, as it alerts us to situations that could be important to our social status. Social anxiety becomes problematic is when it is excessive and causes significant distress or impairs social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning.

According to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5; pp. 202–203), a diagnosis of SAD is warranted when the following key features are present:

a marked and persistent fear of social and performance situations (criterion A);

the individual fears that behaviors or anxiety symptoms will be negatively evaluated by others (criterion B);

social situations almost always provoke fear or anxiety within the individual (criterion C);

feared situations are avoided and, when not avoided, endured with intense fear or anxiety (criterion D);

the fear or anxiety experienced by the individual is out of proportion to the actual threat posed by the social situation (criterion E);

the fear, anxiety, or avoidance is persistent—lasting for 6 months or longer (criterion F); and

the fear, anxiety, or avoidance causes clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning (criterion G)

Social/performance situations

Most people with SAD fear eight or more distinct social situations such as initiating a conversation with a stranger, maintaining conversations, going on a first date, going to a work party/function, talking with an authority figure, talking in front of a group of people, and eating in front of other people (Ruscio et al., 2008).

Fear of positive evaluation

At first, researchers believed that the core feature of SAD was a fear of negative evaluation —… being unfavorably judged or rejected by others (Watson & Friend, 1969). Recent evidence has suggested that people with SAD are actually concerned with both positive and negative evaluation. Fear of positive evaluation is the dread associated with success and public favorable evaluation, raising the expectations for subsequent social interactions. The fear of being positively evaluated is particularly relevant when a social comparison occurs, such as when a person gets a promotion at work

Whereas fear of negative evaluation is relevant to other psychological conditions, such as depression and eating disorders, fear of positive evaluation is unique to SAD

Affect Forecasting

In order to experience anxiety we must first predict what the most likely outcome is going to be and how it will make us feel. In the psychology literature this is process is known as affect forecasting. Like any cognitive process affect forecasting is subject to cognitive biases.

Impact bias: In general, people tend to overestimate the intensity of their future feelings.

Durability bias: In general, people tend to overestimate how long future feelings will affect them.

Memory bias (mood-congruent memory)

Retrieval of memories is affected by our current mood. For example, when you are sad, it is easier to recall the sad memory of your dog’s death than it is to recall the happy moment when you received the dog. This tendency to recall memories that are similar in valence to our current mood is known as mood-congruent memory.

Implications for social anxiety: When you are anxious, you are more likely retrieve memories of situations where you were negatively. As a result you might conclude that social situations are more dangerous than they actually are and that negative outcomes are more likely to occur. You are also more likely to retrieve memories where you acted poorly and thus underestimate your ability.

Implications for depression: If you are feeling depressed, you are more likely to retrieve sad memories. As a result you might conclude that you have had a tough, depressing life.

[Missing name] people think that their anxiety leading up to a situation (anticipatory feelings) will only increase further in the actual situation, when, in fact, our anxiety tends to peak in the moments before a situation.

Expectation effects (The self-fulfilling prophecy)

Previously formed expectations can alter emotional responses to the event itself, motivating forecasters to confirm or debunk their initial forecasts. In this way, the self-fulfilling prophecy can lead to the perception that forecasters have made accurate predictions. Inaccurate forecasts can also become amplified by expectation effects. For example, a forecaster who expects a movie to be enjoyable will, upon finding it dull, like it significantly less than a forecaster who had no expectations.

Beliefs about oneself and social situations.

Central to social anxiety is how a person thinks about him- or herself, about others, and about social situations.

According to the self-presentation theory of social anxiety (Leary & Kowalski, 1995), people feel socially anxious when they wish to make a good impression on others but doubt their ability to do so. People with excessive social anxiety are likely to view themselves as having more flaws or deficits, compared to those who rarely feel social anxiety (Clark & Wells, 1995); thus, for SAD sufferers, social interactions may seem like dangerous places where flaws can be observed and scrutinized (Moscovitch, 2009).

People with SAD believe they will act in an unacceptable way, leading to catastrophic social consequences. Negative social outcomes are viewed as highly probable and costly.

Emotional Regulation

Emotion regulation refers to efforts made to influence the particular emotions one has, when one has them, and how these emotions are (or, in some cases, are not) experienced and/or expressed [13].

The most common framework for understanding emotion regulation is the process model of emotion regulation (see Fig. 1), which includes five specific families of emotion regulation processes—situation selection, situation modification, attentional deployment, cognitive change, and response modulation. Situation selection refers to efforts made to influence emotion by either increasing or decreasing the likelihood of encountering a given situation where particular emotions are likely elicited. Situation modification refers to efforts made to alter one’s emotions by changing external, physical features in the environment.

Attentional deployment refers to efforts made to alter one’s emotions by directing one’s attention in a particular way in a given situation. Cognitive change refers to efforts made to alter one’s emotions by modifying the subjective meaning of the situation. Lastly, response modulation refers to efforts made to alter physiological, experiential, or behavioral responses in a situation.

Situation selection

Situation selection: efforts made to influence emotion by either increasing or decreasing the likelihood of encountering a given situation where particular emotions are likely elicited.

Avoidance

In SAD, situation selection involves the avoidance of feared social and performance situations.

How avoidance positively reinforces SAD

Avoidance “works” because it creates immediate, short-term relief from having to encounter the feared stimuli. Accordingly, patients judge the avoidance of the situation as a “success” since the situation and emotion (fear/anxiety) are avoided; yet the maladaptive avoidance behavioral pattern is reinforced. The utilization of situation selection not only avoids the feared environment, but it also avoids experiencing the feared emotion of anxiety. Consequently, the patient does not have the opportunity to increase tolerance to the seemingly intolerable situation/emotion.

Most people are able to “power through” the situation, eventually feeling more comfortable and learning that it was not as bad as expected.

TREATMENT: Reduce avoidance / Exposure therapy / acceptance vs avoidance / CBT (behavioral component)

Situation modification

Situation modification: efforts made (in a social or performance situation) to alter one’s emotions modifying the situation

Engaging in safety behaviors

Safety behaviours are a form of avoidance and are behavours used to maintaining a sense of safety. These include things like:  

rehearsing exactly what to say in a conversation, asking questions of others to deflect attention from themselves, and holding a drink or food to have an excuse to pause before responding to a question, choosing a seat at the back of the room out of view of others.

How safety behaviours positively reinforces SAD

Cognitive models of SAD posit that safety behaviors contribute to the maintenance of anxiety and negative beliefs about social situations.

Safety behaviors … can inadvertently … cause patients to appear less appealing to others, thus providing more “evidence” for the patient’s catastrophic beliefs and predictions

TREATMENT: Research suggests that when instructed to reduce safety behaviors, patients with SAD perceived and actually received more positive responses in a social interactions … Research has also demonstrated that patients instructed to eliminate the use of safety behaviors during cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) had greater reductions in social anxiety symptoms following treatment compared to those who continued with safety behaviors [30].

Attentional Deployment

Attentional Deployment: Once in a social situation, an individual may direct attention in a particular way to influence emotions.  

When anxious people direct their attention towards signs of danger. In terms of social anxiety people direct their attention outwards towards signs of disapproval, for example angry faces. Social anxious people also direct their attention inwards towards their own behaviour looking for things they are doing that could be interpreted negatively by others.

Increased attention towards negative, threatening information in environment People with SAD are quick to recognize any signs of social threats. For instance, they are faster at detecting angry faces in a crowd.  …. At the same time, SAD sufferers’ attention is biased away from positive, rewarding information (see Taylor, Bomyea, & Amir, 2010). This means that people with SAD are unlikely to notice the smiling, nodding faces in the crowd, and they fail to pick up the subtle hints that somebody wants to spend more time with them or to be asked out on a romantic date. These interpretation and attention biases are obstacles to starting and maintaining social relationships. When you attend to only negativity, you start to believe that you are unlovable and that the world is a hostile, unfriendly place.

Increased self-focused attention During social situations people with SAD tend to direct their attention inwardly (e.g., “Did my comment sound stupid? Can she tell that I’m sweating?”). This running internal commentary prevents people from focusing on the situation at hand, and even simple social interactions may become overwhelming

How biased attention positively reinforces SAD

Because there is only so much we can pay attention to in a given moment, excessive self-focused attention detracts from a person’s ability to be mindful in a social encounter. In effect, by devoting effort to controlling emotions and minimizing the potential for rejection, a person paradoxically increases the likelihood of misunderstanding others or appearing aloof. Such encounters are also less enjoyable and possess less potential for deepening relationships.

TREATMENT: Reduced vigilance / reduced self-focused attention / increased attentional control / deliberate attentional avoidance of negative information

Cognitive Change

Cognitive Change involves utilizing reappraisal (e.g., perspective taking; reframing the meaning of thoughts and situations; challenging interpretations; finding alternative, constructive ways of thinking about a situation) to modify the meaning of stimuli that generate emotional reactions

Difficulty employing reappraisal is considered a core mechanism in the maintenance of psychopathology in individuals with anxiety and mood disorders [44].

Complete the following sentence: “As I passed a group of people in the hall, they burst out in laughter, because . . .” People with SAD are more likely to complete the sentence with a statement suggesting that there is something wrong with their behavior or appearance (e.g., “they thought I looked ridiculous”) as opposed to a neutral explanation (e.g., “one of them made a joke”). The problem is that when you assume people are attacking you, you feel more self-conscious and are less likely to stay in a situation and to interact with that group of people or others in the future.

Interpretation bias

People with SAD are more likely to interpret: • ambiguous information as negative [which is particularly relevant because social information is often ambiguous] • slightly negative social situations in a catastrophic manner

After the social situation (post-event processing)

Once you have left a social or performance situation feelings of anxiety linger. It is during this stage that you process much the event by reviewing it in detail. People with SAD tend to make negative interpretations, which reinforce the negative self-image and expectations of poor performance in the future. This post-event processing is key factor in maintaining social anxiety disorder (SAD).

Inter-personal cognitive change (Taking to others)

Discussing your anticipated feelings with others (before entering a social situation) or in post-event assessment is an additional way of regulating your emotions. Talking to others is a very effective method because other people are likely to have different perspectives of the situation, expect different outcomes and have different cognitive biases.

TREATMENT: Talk therapy / CBT / Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction

In Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction individuals cultivate the mental quality of mindfulness—a non-judgmental, flexible, and presentmoment attentional focus. Through training and practice, the exercises taught in MBSR are thought to reduce the habitual tendency to automatically and compulsively engage in and react to mental states and external environments.

Response Modulation

After an emotion has occurred, response modulation refers to strategies to modify one or more components of the emotional response (e.g., experience, behavior, physiology).

Expressive suppression: inhibiting outward expressions of the emotion, such as facial behavior.

People with SAD report greater use of expressive suppression than to people without SAD.

Why suppress emotional expression? [A]voiding public displays of … emotions is another way that people with SAD can avoid scrutiny (e.g., not laughing because others might not find a joke funny) and prevent the wrath of powerful others (e.g., not expressing excitement about a personal triumph because others might be envious). … [S]ocially anxious people believe that openly expressing emotions is likely to have negative consequences (Juretic & Zivcic-Becirevic, 2013).

Experiential avoidance: altering, avoiding, or concealing anxious thoughts and feelings from one’s self.

Experiential avoidance is common in patients with SAD. Individuals with SAD report paying less attention to their emotions, and having more difficulty describing their emotions than either persons with general anxiety disorder or controls

Socially anxious people reported less intense positive emotions (e.g., joy, happiness, calm), regardless of whether they were around other people (whereas, less anxious people report more intense positive emotions when socializing). Socially anxious people experience less frequent positive emotions even when spending time with close friends and family members. In fact, even in the most intimate of situations—during sexual encounters with romantic partners—socially anxious people report less intense pleasure and less intimacy.

How Expressive suppression and experiential avoidance maintains SAD

Expressive suppression and experiential avoidance often leads to less warm and outgoing behavior, which may in turn elicit less friendly behaviors (even rejection) from others, which subsequently generates negative emotions.

Sources

Text in italics has been copy-pasted from the following sources:

http://nobaproject.com/modules/social-anxiety

Jazaieri, H.,  Morrison, A., Goldin, P. & Gross J. (2015). The Role of Emotion and Emotion Regulation in Social Anxiety Disorder; Current Psychiatry Reports, January 2015, 17:531 (http://spl.stanford.edu/pdfs/2015/Jazaieri.pdf)

Spokas, M., Rodebaugh, T., Heimberg, R. (2004); Cognitive biases in social phobia; Psychiatry 05/2004; 3(5):51-55 (http://www.cla.temple.edu/phobia/int/Publications/2004/230-%20Spokas%20et%20al%20Information%20Processing%20in%20Social%20Phobia%20Psychiatry%202004.pdf)

[evokit]

Where learning social norms fail

Lately I’ve been thinking about social norms. Picking your nose in pubic is definitely a social no-no. How is it that we learn this? Seeing us picking our noses, our parents told us not to using some story about inkiness. Another way is when others react react squeamishly with disgust. If our parents don’t tell us off, we rely on the squeamishness of others. Some people, though, are polite and will ignore the nasal excavations, others maybe oblivious of the act. These are three ways we fail to learn social norms. Lack of feedback from others is only one form of failure. Failures can also occur on our side. We can fail to pay attention to the feedback or our sense mightn’t notice it entirely. Our memory can fail to recall that noise picking is bad the next time we feel the urge to pick. And finally, we can lack the self-control to override the urge even if we recall the memory. 

Social norms do not just proscribe what not to do, in social taboos, but also says what to do via social conventions. Social conventions are learnt much the same way as social taboos--by receiving feedback from others. In this case, though, it is positive rather than negative feedback. Social conventions can be learnt one additional way, which social taboos can’t. That is by copying others through observation. This requires you to have someone--a role model--to copy. It also requires you to have all the same abilities discussed previously, namely: it requires you to pay attention to the role model; it requires you to be able perceive them (to see and hear); it requires you to remember how they acted and be able to make your body perform the same actions at the required time.

Now that’s the theory is out of the way. What’s the implications?

The people with the best understanding of social norms are actors. Actors are really good a copying others. They pay really close attention to what people do, picking up all the subtitles. They also good at picking up the reactions of others. They’ve also got good memories and bodily control. Anyone with these four abilities and ample social contact is likely to have a strong understanding of social norms. Social norms don’t have to be obeyed of course. Comedians exploit social norms for their benefit all the time. To draw attention to their cause activists break social norms. 

Breaking norms is generally locked down at, especially in the absence of mitigating information. The shouting activist is only seen in a positive light if their cause is seen as worthwhile. People are also more lenient to transgressions when some lacks one of the required ability. A person with hearing disability or who is visually impaired isn’t expected to behave like an abled bodied person. These though are clear boundary cases. A person with ADHD who has limited ability to stay focused has a much harder challenge gaining such a waiver from others. A person on the autistic spectrum may have small deficiencies in one or more of the required abilities. People with anxiety disorders, who are fully capable of perceiving, paying attention to and remembering social norms, may fail at the last hurdle, being unable to act in the socially acceptable manner because of anxiety, despite their knowledge of what is required. The socially anxious have the additional layer of having distracted attention, which is constantly on the lookout for negative feedback from others. Attention is also lessened by the heightened anxiety of making and maintaining eye contact. Low social contact also stretches the intervals between observing social norms or receiving feedback and utilizing what’s learnt, making memory more important.

[evokit]

You’re weird

What is it about someone saying “You’re weird” that cuts to the bone, almost to your being? The statement has this aura of objectivity to it, something that you must counter directly. The person saying it has role in the matter. It’s simply a matter of fact. The thing is it can’t be. They have no special insight about the reality of the world than you do. It’s a purely subjective statement. So, what do they mean by “You’re weird”? 

Said in a subjective, rather than objective, way “You’re weird” really is “I find you weird”. Now that’s much less cutting. It brings the person making the comment back into frame. It makes them responsible for what they are saying. It’s a statement that can be interrogated: “What is it about me that you find weird?” You no longer have to defend yourself. The person making the statement who has to explain. 

The same situation repeats itself with all statements of being, like “You’re ugly” or “You’re bad”. They’re shorthand that obfuscates the person saying it, making it sound objective. That air of objectivity can be quickly erased by asking why: Why do you find me weird, or ugly, or bad?

[evokit]

Let’s start by splitting the above tweet/tumblr post in two. First is the issue people not courteously avoiding potential collisions. The second claim, made by thislittlecitygirl, is that the 28 collisions are evidence of misogyny. 

If two people walk towards each other, who should move out of the way? This is a problem that has existed for a long, long time. Not only does it occur with people in the street, but it also occurs with cars on the road, boats on the water and planes in the sky. Since the consequences of a collision are high, especially with cars, boats and planes, social norms have evolved. On the water, for example, when two boats approach each other head on, both vessels should alter course to starboard (right side). There are similar rules on the road and in the sky. With people walking there is no strict regulation, but in general there is an unwritten rule that copies the local road rules. So in a country where people drive on the right, the unwritten rule is that when people are walking head-on towards each other, each person will move to their right. 

Walking is slow and the consequences of a collision are generally low. So there little need to have formal, enforceable rules. The slow nature also means that both parties have adequate time to sense which direction the other person is travelling in and which direction they are likely to turn. Courteous people will sense a potential collision well in advance a move to one side. Arseholes, on the other hand, will pay no attention to other people and will simply walk in the direction they were going, forcing the other person to alter their direction. Anna Breslaw’s sister is being an arsehole. She is being an arsehole, though, as part of an experiment. Whether this experiment is ethical or not is another question. Imagine doing the same experiment in a car, both driving head-on towards each other. 

So that brings us to the second claim, that of thislittlecitygirl. By being an arsehole, by not altering her course, Anna Breslaw’s sister is able to identify other arseholes--those with whom she collides. Anna Breslaw’s sister is selecting choosing the people she is performing this experiment with, which is a selection bias in itself. She chooses men. Of those men that she choose we don’t know how many altered their course. It could be none it could be 1000. We simply don’t know. For argument sake lets say 100. A second issue is that she only choose men. To make any claims about misogyny, we need to run the experiment again but this time with replace Anna Breslaw’s sister with a man. If the man ran into 28 out of 100 men, then this whole claim to misogyny would be null and void. The fact of the mater is, without running this second experiment we can’t make any claims to presence of misogyny. The only thing we can claim is that there are 28 arseholes who didn’t alter the direction they were walking in (29 if we count Anna Breslaw’s sister). I’ll let you make up your own mind about thislittlecitygirl arsehole status. 

Endnote: What’s also interesting is that Anna Breslaw’s tweet has only been favorited ~7800 times on Twitter  and retweeted ~6000 times, whereas thislittlecitygirl’s post has over 600,000 notes. Anna Breslaw’s tweet makes no claim of misogyny, thislittlecitygirl does. 

[evokit]

"Things I Like" [modified]

(Tagged by redicine)

Zero song(s): Zero not because I don’t like music, but because I can’t think of anything. Music isn't--for historic reasons--a central part of my life. Growing up I cannot recall much music being played. I’m sure there must have been some though, but it would have been sporadic, limited to listening to the radio in the car. Further limiting access was that we didn't have a television until I was 11 or 12. Television did eventually though provide me increased exposure to music in the form of music videos. The visuals of the music video captured me more than the lyrics. I’m more of a visual than auditory person. I can recall an occasion, probably when I was a teenager, when I wanted to listen to music. My younger brother had a Walkman which he wasn't using.  I, of course, had no cassettes to play on it. It did, though, have have a radio. The only catch was that headphones were broken. I managed somehow to repair them. The other option--to ask my parents to buy me some--was a too anxiety provoking an option to execute. The headphone repairs only lasted so long before they broke terminally, and with it went the desire to listen to music.

Many years latter I met someone who was really into music that tried to introduce me to music. My shyness, limited social contact and the technical nature of my tertiary studies meant that I somehow avoided music for that long. I’m sure music had been raised in conversations by other people but as soon as some asked what music I liked the conversation died. I can remember being a passenger in a car and being asked to select music from a pile of CDs to play on a number of occasions. I didn't know any of the names so it was an impossible task. I was also to embarrassed at the time to admit that that was the problem at the time.  

The introduction to music, if we can call it that, was a little bit strange. I was sent a list of albums to listen to, which I did of sorts. I listened to the music while I was surfing the net. So I wasn't really paying full attention to it. I wasn't trying to connect with the song or trying to grasp what the lyrics were about. After listening to the songs for a while I when back to the person whom had sent me the list and asked for more. This was met by bewilderment: “How could you be asking for more after such a short period of time? Such a list would have kept me engaged for months”. To be fair part of the bewilderment might have been due to me not communicating clearly enough that I liked the songs that they had suggested. Part of this is because I lacked the musical vocabulary to talk about why I liked a certain song or artist. Another part is because I have difficulty committing to my interests, especially in qualitative ways. To give you an idea I wasn’t comfortable leaving the title as “things I love”. Part of the difficulty is knowing how other people will react.

Somewhere in this introduction to music, which extended much beyond the initial introduction I mentioned, I looked up lyrics on the net. Many songs become unintelligible blurs to me. This is partly because I have difficult understanding the sung word and partly because I have difficulty making the metaphorical connections. For example, the lyrics of Radiohead’s Creep sound to me like an extended whine. I can hardly understand a word. Even if I look the words up, I have difficult deciphering what it’s about. Then there are songs at the opposite end of the spectrum: lyrics that I understand but whose meanings are so simple and superficial they bore me. I am someone who searches for essences. Once I’ve grasped it I move on to something new. I search for underlying explanations, very much in a reductive sense. I try to understand things, and from these understanding make predictions. I also use these essences to improve things. Music, and indeed all art, works in the opposite sense. A good work of art resonates on many levels. They unlock memories; they join together many distillates that do not normally occupy the same dimension. The more metaphoric threads they join together, the more powerful. They work more at the level of the psyche than some objective realm. Turning my convergent brain around to see the divergent threads takes real effort on my part. 

One TV show: Black Mirror 

Two people: [omitted]

Three ~movies from 2015: Citizen Four, The Salt of the Earth, Wild Tales

Four foods: fruit (minus pawpaw), .................,  ................. , ................. 

[evokit]

I’ve been going through an online lecture series on emotion, which should be obvious from viewing evokit-notes. I’m about halfway through the 120 odd 15-20min videos. I’m up to the part on emotional regulation, which has some relevance to me as well as a few people I know. 

Many affective disorders (i.e. mood and anxiety disorders) are thought of as being problems of emotional regulation. What’s interesting is that research has shown that people with such disorders have the capability to regulate their emotions but are unable to cue themselves to utilize emotional regulation strategies successfully. This is a little abstract; so I will use a concrete example relevant to me. 

In a study where they put healthy controls (HC) and people with social anxiety disorder (SAD) in a fMRI machine and elicited embarrassment, they found indistinguishable differences in the brain between them, meaning that both react the same way to the embarrassing stimulus. There wasn't a greater re-activity in the brain that was expected to match the greater reported, subjective feeling of anxiety. Instead what this suggests is that the “heightened negative emotion responses reported by patients with SAD may be related to dysfunction in higher cognitive processes (e.g., distorted appraisal, attention biases, or ineffective cognitive reappraisal)”. In another study, which I unfortunately don’t have a link to, HC and SAD subjects were asked to use a specific emotion regulation method to down regulate (e.g. reappraisal) an elicited emotion of embarrassment. SAD subjects were “just about as good as HC”. What this suggests is that people with SAD have the capability to regulate their emotions but are unable to “appropriately invoke” them. The mystery is why they are unable to do so. 

When you actually think about it, the finding is rather stating the obvious. If people with such disorders weren't able to regulate their emotions, things like talk therapy and CBT wouldn't work. Essentially what such therapies are doing is teaching regulation strategies, as well as when to use them. They are also methods to retrain the underlying faulty emotional response or at least dampen the magnitude of its subjective experience.

It’s a bit of a misnomer to think that people should be able to regulate their emotions without external assistance. People, in fact, utilize friends, family and even strangers all the time. Blurting your outrage on social media or posting cute memes for others to coo over (increasing your positive feelings), or telling a loved one about your shitty day are all ways others assist in regulating your emotions. What’s difficult to say is who initiates or cues such regulation. Through this interaction, though, individuals learn regulation techniques from others, as well as discover and correct maladaptive thoughts, just as cognitive therapy does. This is evidently why talking to friends/loved ones can be as effective as talk therapy for the more mild problems. This whole social regulation of emotion and social learning of emotion regulation strategies isn’t utilized fully by people with social anxiety, as the whole idea of sharing one’s inner emotional world with others is anxiety provoking.

[evokit]

Serious play

Look over this blog or my notes and you will find nothing but seriousness. The same story applies on my internet presence elsewhere. There is also no rage or dispute, just things informative. This is in stark contrast to other corners of the internet, where play abounds, jokes are made and entertainment rules. This, of course, doesn't mean that I do not partake in such things, but rather than I am more inclined to lean towards one extreme. It seems, though, that this lean has become more acute over the last couple of years. I've found comedy less funny, for one. This increased seriousness applies to my internal world as well--in how seriously I take life. One of the way this manifests itself in through the pursuit of perfection. Making mistakes seen as more vital to avoid. The effort invested in ensuring the best they can be heightened to new highs. 

Neither seriousness and play are better than one another. Both are needed. A mix is required though. Too much play can be detrimental, as can too much seriousness. Too much play can lead to a neglect of the longer term goals in life. Play is about being in and enjoying the present. At the other extreme, too much seriousness leads to a neglect of the present. It’s about scaling the heights of perfection. And only perfection will do. It’s black and white, total victory or utter devastation. Play doesn't care who wins, as all that counts is the here and now. This play/seriousness dichotomy doesn't exist in the real world. Instead there is always a mix of the two. Some people lean too much towards seriousness and others too much towards play. I am more of the former. The latter--people that lean towards play--are more fun people to be around, or at least they have wider appeal. People with a serious lean have a narrower audience, where the pairing is through mutual interests or aliments. 

The extent to which someone leans one way or the other can be easily distinguished by their choice of profile pic/avatar, their usernames, what they post/reblog and the comments that they leave. In the IRL environment they way people dress and accessories, the way the decorate their rooms/houses, as well as their general demeanor all indicate their propensities towards play or seriousness. At the playful end these external displays are social gestures, designed to entertain others as much as themselves. People laugh, joke and comment on cuteness in reply. At the other end, serious people share to inform and to garner solidarity. Comments in reply are more along the lines of “that is so true” or people respond with criticism. Conversations become deep and intellectual--that is if they get of the ground.

I feel a need to become more upright--to decrease the seriousness and to increase the play. I’m just not sure how. One way would be to take myself less seriously--to laugh at my mistakes. A friend of mine upon checking out at the accommodation where we were staying, automatic replied with “you too”, which would fine if he wasn't responding to manager who said “have a nice trip”. Rather than dwelling on the mistake he resided what had happened to me as a joke. He’s definitely leads towards entertainment and play. He often playfully breaks social norms with joyful intent and a smile that seems to entertain others. This way of seeing social interactions as something entertaining and fun is probably something I should take on more too.

[evokit]

If only they had more empathy

Empathy is often posited as the solution to evil and suffering in the world: "If only they see the situation for the other person's perspective", "If they could empathise better, then things would be better"; and the more frequent "they don't have any empathy". This call for empathy is indeed what's need but not just in the way most expect. For the sufferer and the disadvantaged the call for empathy is simple: The person that caused them to suffer or to be disadvantaged needs more empathy. They need to see and feel the suffering that they've caused. But empathy is needed in another way, which projection unlocks. Projection reflects the need for empathy back on the disadvantaged. If the disadvantaged had more empathy and could see things from perspective of the person, whom they think caused them to be disadvantage, they too would reduce the suffering that they endure, thought anger or reparations.

As one who calls another a bigot must check that they are not projecting their bigotry onto another, so too must one calling for increase empathy must check that they are not projecting their own lack of empathy onto others. 

[evokit]

Arrogance and Ignorance

This started as a twitter conversation about the relationship between arrogance and ignorance. And, since twitter is useless depth discussions I have decided to put this here. 

Arrogance

Arrogance, for me, is not being open to alternatives ideas or the unwillingness to re-evaluate one's beliefs. An arrogant person believes they know the truth with absolute certainty and hence do not need to consider any alternatives. 

Ignorance (unknown)

Ignorance is being unaware of something. An ignorant person is someone that doesn't know something. It is unknown to them. 

Arrogance and Ignorance in Others

The way an arrogant person appears to others depends on whether they are in possession of information that counters the arrogant person's beliefs.

--In possession If the observer knows information or arguments that counter an arrogant person beliefs, the the arrogant person appears ignorant. That's because the observer knows something that the arrogant person doesn't. The arrogant person also appears arrogant. This is because the arrogant person's confidence now seems unwarranted. 

-- Not in possession If the observer doesn't know any counter arguments or isn't in possession of any information unknown to the arrogant person, then the arrogant person appears wise. This wisdom is backed up by the confidence by which the arrogant person holds their beliefs. Their beliefs must be right because they are so confident. And, since the observer isn't in possessing of any countering information they have no reason to question the arrogant person's beliefs. (This is, of course, assuming that the reasoning that the arrogant person's uses is sound)

Certainty in one's beliefs

How certain can anyone be that their beliefs are true? We can't know anything with absolute certainty. We can be pretty certain that the sun will rise tomorrow but we can't be 100% sure. The certainty that we have in our beliefs very from person to person. We both might believe that it will be sunny tomorrow but you might be confident and I might be a little more uncertain. A a result of these beliefs I carry an umbrella and you don't. Only tomorrow will tell who was more sensible. This may seem a trivial difference, but when it comes to fight or retreat decisions the discrepancy between uncertain and certain becomes much more important. Our certainty in our beliefs also affects the time we spend making decisions. Someone who is less certain will be inclined to spend much more time and effort researching the best option. There are trade-offs to each approach. The difference in people's approach to uncertainty can be seen in the Myer-Briggs Type Indicator Judging (J) and Perceiving (P) personality types, the P being more uncertain and the J being more certain. Care should be taken with generalizations, though, as person's certainty in their beliefs vary from belief to belief, some being very certain and others being quite fluid. 

Wilful (known) Ignorance 

People do not stay ignorant for every, not even the arrogant. We can become aware of new information, and hence know about it, through a number of different ways. We can actively seek information by learning or thinking about it. We can stumble across it in everyday life or we can have it forced upon us by others. With this new information we can either integrate it into our beliefs or we can suppress it. Information that is compatible with our existing beliefs are easily integrated. Information that is strongly counter to our existing beliefs have held for a long time or a painful to come to grips with are commonly suppressed. We push them to the side out of anger or disgust. They take time to come to grips with, like the news that a family member is dying, or they may be pushed away indefinitely. In a public argument the ego also plays a role, not wanting to loose face or social status. Suppressed information is known but is wilfully ignored temporarily and sometimes permanently. 

Arrogance and Wilful Ignorance

An arrogant person, whose arrogance is the result of unknown ignorance, could be excused as simply being overly confident. But when presented with information contrary to their beliefs, their ignorance shifts to wilful ignorance. And, it is this wilful ignorance that we find morally unacceptable, especially when they have been given time to reassess their beliefs and the certainty in which they hold them. 

Arrogance and Personal Development

Arrogance perpetuates ignorance. Dogmatically holding onto one's views despite information to the contrary stifles personal development. It is also something that stifles cultural, political and scientific improvement. 

There is no necessity for an arrogant person to abandon their views entirely when presented with contradictory information. All that is required is that the certainty be toned down and the information eventuated rather than being suppressed. It may well be that the contradictory information is ill-informed but there is no way of knowing if the arrogant person rejects without enquiry.

Challenging and changing our beliefs when there is contrary evidence is the way we learn. It is the basis of the Greek dialectic and is the basis of the scientific method. 

Ignorance, Arrogance and the Dunning-Kruger Effect

The above explanation of provide an alternative explanation of the Dunning-Kruger Effect. Basically the effect is where unskilled individuals rate their ability much higher than it actually is, and at the other end of the skill spectrum, highly skilled people tend to under estimate their ability. 

Starting with the unskilled: The unskilled have limited knowledge--there is much they are ignorant about in the unknown sense. Their ability has not really been tested. As the unskilled learn they become aware of how little they know and their estimate of their ability drops, causing a skewed average.

At the very top, the highly skilled and former arrogant people have been humbled as a result of having their arrogance tested many times. Another factor skewing the statistical results at the top is the fact that the arrogant learn slower and are held back.

Summary

To others an arrogant person, someone who is unwilling to re-evaluate their beliefs, appears to be arrogant because of ignorance. This is because they are in possession of information that is counters the arrogant person's beliefs. The contrary information also makes the perceived certainly with which the arrogant person holds their beliefs appear false, giving them aura of superiority. 

If an arrogant person is genuinely unaware, and thus ignorant (unknown), of counter information, their arrogance is understandable and to a degree excusable. On the other hand, if an arrogant person is aware of countering information and has had time to evaluate it but still hold fast to the certainty of their beliefs, then it is a case of wilful (known) ignorance. And, it is this wilful ignorance that we find morally unacceptable. The cause of wilful ignorance, as with suppression, is a desire to the painful situation that results from changing their beliefs. 

[evokit]

The Politics and Rhetoric of Freedom

There are few words in politics that are as strong as the word Freedom. Freedom is the rallying call of the oppressed, whether it be those wanting freedom from taxes, freedom from certain laws or freedom from the state entirely. In this context, a common definition of freedom is freedom from coercion or the will of another. This is usually translated into the moral: freedom to do what you want as long as it doesn't harm others. 

It it really possible to achieve this in society? Is there a society where you are free from coercion or the will of another? Well in short, yes--a society of one. As soon as there are two people in a society, what you can and can't do is shaped by the other person. If the other person likes heavy metal music, there is no harm caused; everything is fine. But if they don't like it, then their will has been imposed on yours. The only way of averting incompatible likes is to live separate lives--back to the society of one. 

Then why doesn't everybody live alone, where they can do what they what; when they want; how they want? If freedom from coercion was the aim, we wouldn't have friends, partners or any form of group activity. The reason why is because our definition of freedom is too narrow. While we forgo some freedom from coercion when we are with other people, we gain other freedoms. In groups we gain the freedom from boredom, for example, or the freedom from feeling alone.

This trade-off between freedoms always exists, but is hidden when use the word freedom on its own. For example, many people want the freedom from death, the holy grail, whereas others want freedom from life, those with terminal illnesses who are suffering greatly. Some, so baffled by the options available, desire freedom from choice, whereas others desire the freedom to choose. 

When someone proclaims that they fight for freedom, ask them for what freedom they fight. Behind the call for freedom lurk hidden freedoms waiting to be imposed.

[NB: There is a striking parallel between the last sentence and Orwell's Animal Farm]

[evokit]

The harm obsession

Having receiving a message from this idiot saying "You write like a 12 year old who just read a set of extracts from Nietzsche for the first time.", I've decided to write more highbrow post in response. 

"Do no harm" or "cause no suffering" is a core element of veganism, Buddhism and libertarianism. In veganism causing animals to suffer is wrong. Buddhists seek a suffering free life. And, libertarians using the harm principle claim that people should be free to do what they want as long as it doesn't harm another person. "Do no harm" is the same as saying "do no evil" and are as such aimed at achieving moral neutrality. 

One must ask if it is actually possible to actually do no harm. Taking the veganism as an example, is it possible to lead a life that causes no harm to animals? One can consume no animal products, use nothing that has been tested on animals but does this cause no harm to animals? The simple act of eating plants or drinking water does in certain circumstances cause harm to animals. What certain circumstances are these? In drought where water is scarce, drinking water means there is less available for animals to drink and as a result they suffer and possibly die. The same applies in famines, during winter and in desert and polar regions where food is scarce. In libertarianism the same situation arises with the harm principle. 

Does this mean we shouldn't strive to minimise harm? Of course not. There is, though, another way of looking at the situation. This is to use Schopenhauer's principle "Injure no one; on the contrary, help everyone as much as you can". Rather than obsessing about doing no evil we should also be doing something morally good. 

Returning to our vegan example, rather than trying to cause no harm to animals we should also be trying to help them. So rather than walking past an injured animal, causing them no harm, we should help them by providing them with medical care. That's just one of many ways we can help animals. Simply by playing with animals rather than walking by achieves a moral good.

"Do no harm" libertarianism, which has resulted in the individualistic, disconnected western society of today, can only achieve a morally neutral society not a good one. It is only by adding the "help everyone as much as you can" that it is possible to achieve a good one. 

[evokit]

Compassion and the vegan extremist

Speculations on the origins of the vegan ethic

The vegan ethic, whether it’s not to eat, consume or use animal products, did not just appear from nowhere. It must pre-date religious sources, for example Jainism. Someone must have at some time in the long distant past decided harming animals is wrong. Indeed, it probably goes back further still to an even older ethic which says harming others is wrong. But how did we come to the conclusion that harming others is wrong? We can only speculate to it origins. 

First we need is self-awareness — the separation of me from you. Without this there can be no others. Then we need empathy so that we are able to experience the emotions experienced by others by grasping the causal link: “I feel bad because they feel bad" or “I feel good because they feel good". Finally we need compassion — the desire to make another feel better — by establishing the causal link: "If I make them feel better, then I will feel better". Only with all this in place can we begin to form a simple explicit ethic like “It’s wrong to hurt others". This final step is important because everyone has a developed sense of empathy or feelings of compassion. By forming the ethic, either in a rule “thy shall not kill" or in the form of a myth, it is possible to transmit wisdom without having to physically experience something first hand. 

Using rules and using myths as moral guides have side effects. Rules sever the moral from its origin and motive for existence. Myths, on the other hand, maintain this link, but require people to decipherer the subtle morals. Rules are easy to communicate and police.

The vegan activist and vegan extremist

The vegan activist is motivated, not just to follow the vegan ethic, but to see others do the same. The motivation comes from a compassionate desire to make animals feel better and/or a belief in the justness in the vegan ethic. Individuals motivated by the latter seek to punish people that have broken the rules of the vegan ethic. People motivated by compassion, on the other hand, don’t care about offenders. They simply want to make animals feel better.

The vegan extremist is a vegan activist motivated solely by their belief in the justness in the vegan ethic. The compassion motivation plays no part. This is why they are prone to moralise without taking the feelings the people they are addressing into account. In so doing, they fail to recognise the compassionate origins on which the vegan ethic is based.

[toddingram-deactivated20201210]

Interesting Perspective on Veganism

I forget where I found this article, but I think its author makes a really good point.

“Everything that we eat involves some degree of animal suffering; our goal is to vigorously reduce that suffering. Frankly, some not-quite-vegan food is more vegan than the streets and tires we drive on, the houses we live in, the petroleum products we use, and many other animal-based products that we unwittingly consume on a daily basis.

Remember, if you give a server in a restaurant the third degree or spend all your time with your parents telling them that this, that, or the other is not vegan on the basis of some infinitesimal ingredient that they’ve never even heard of, you’ll inadvertently be transforming your noble desire to promote compassion into the message that being compassionate is an arduous chore.”

[evokit]

The important point that the passage highlights is that it is impossible to lead a life that causes no suffering to animals. While someone following the vegan ethic—not to consume animal products—does minimise the animal suffering they do cause, they still indirectly cause animals suffering. If anybody buys vegan product from non-vegan, then they are indirectly causing animals to suffer. 

Veganism draws a line in the sand which says this is the maximum level of animal suffering that we are willing to tolerate. The vegan ethic is only one way of achieving this level. 

[evokit]

Nuclear morality

Far too often debates over nuclear power get abducted by debates over its safety. There is, though, a much more clear cut issue at hand. That is its morality. When we produce electricity from nuclear sources, we get the benefits: cheap, clean electricity. The people of tomorrow, who receive none of those benefits, are burdened with the nuclear waste. They have to guard it. They have to repackage it when the container corrodes. They have to ensure its safe from natural disaster, be it an earthquake, flood, fire or tsunami. They get none of the benefits but get burdened with the costs. The speech bubble really should say, "Here's a present from your 25x great grandparents. Enjoy." 

[evokit]

Good addiction, bad addiction

Addicted to food, drugs, weight-loss and work. Addicted to the internet,  exercise or love. Addicted to life. Surely addictions can't all be bad?

Bad addictions are obvious. They are those that effect your health and prevent you achieving your goals in life. Some addictions, though, can help keep one focused. For the athlete, addicted to winning gold, their addiction is what drives them to achieve, keeps pushing through pain and injury. Pushed too far this good addiction can turn bad. So addicted to winning, the athlete sacrifices their heath by injecting steroids, neglects their friends and family or disregards their other goals in life. The athlete's life is in the hands of the addiction. It is in control. The athlete, then, must fight to regain their life from the addiction. Once complete, the addiction is transformed or replaced by the good form, aligned with one's goals in life. 

[evokit]

Why don't they thank the losers?

When the game has been won, the champion crowned, why don't they thank the losers? Without the losers willingness to compete, to accept the possibility of defeat, there could be no competition. So, next time they are busy singing "We are the champions" don't forget the losers. Without them there could be no champion of the world.