Jordan Peterson’s 12 Rules For Life Quotes

Peterson keeps coming up in discourse, and yet he neither blogs nor writes articles which makes it hard to know what he’s about if you don’t want to watch YouTube videos. So I bought his recent book, and then pulled out a bunch of quotes, so that y’all don’t have to. You can get like 90% of the value of the book from reading these quotes, unless you REALLY VALUE reading about how it all ties metaphorically and archetypically into the story of Genesis, or whatnot.

Note: I ran into the publisher copy-paste Kindle limit so only did 9 rules. I may add the final three later.

Order and Chaos

Chaos is the domain of ignorance itself. It’s unexplored territory… It’s the place you end up when things fall apart; when your dreams die, your career collapses, or your marriage ends..Chaos is where we are when we don’t know where we are, and what we are doing when we don’t know what we are doing… And Chaos is freedom…

Order, by contrast, is explored territory. That’s the hundreds-of-millions-of-years-old hierarchy of place, position and authority… Order is tribe, religion, hearth, home and country. It’s the warm, secure living-room where the fireplace glows and the children play… Order is the public façade we’re called upon to wear, the politeness of a gathering of civilized strangers, and the thin ice on which we all skate… But order is sometimes tyranny and stultification, as well, when the demand for certainty and uniformity and purity becomes too one-sided… In order, we’re able to think about things in the long term. There, things work, and we’re stable, calm and competent.

Order, the known, appears symbolically associated with masculinity…It is because men are and throughout history have been the builders of towns and cities, the engineers, stonemasons, bricklayers, and lumberjacks… Order is God the Father, the eternal Judge, ledger-keeper and dispenser of rewards and punishments. Order is the peacetime army of policemen and soldiers. It’s the political culture, the corporate environment, and the system….Order, when pushed too far, when imbalanced, can also manifest itself destructively and terribly. It does so as the forced migration, the concentration camp, and the soul-devouring uniformity of the goose-step.

Chaos—the unknown—is symbolically associated with the feminine. This is partly because all the things we have come to know were born, originally, of the unknown, just as all beings we encounter were born of mothers….In its positive guise, chaos is possibility itself, the source of ideas, the mysterious realm of gestation and birth…

Chaos, the eternal feminine, is also the crushing force of sexual selection. Women are choosy maters… Most men do not meet female human standards…It is for this reason that we all have twice as many female ancestors as male… It is Woman as Nature who looks at half of all men and says, “No!” For the men, that’s a direct encounter with chaos, and it occurs with devastating force every time they are turned down for a date.

There is also a third place, the thin line between Chaos and Order, which is the optimal place to be.

…Cold War. I couldn’t understand how belief systems could be so important to people that they were willing to risk the destruction of the world to protect them.

I came to realize that shared belief systems made people intelligible to one another—and that the systems weren’t just about belief. People who live by the same code are rendered mutually predictable to one another. They act in keeping with each other’s expectations and desires. They can cooperate. They can even compete peacefully, because everyone knows what to expect from everyone else….

It isn’t precisely that people will fight for what they believe. They will fight, instead, to maintain the match between what they believe, what they expect, and what they desire. They will fight to maintain the match between what they expect and how everyone is acting…

There’s more to it, too. A shared cultural system stabilizes human interaction, but is also a system of value—a hierarchy of value, where some things are given priority and importance and others are not. In the absence of such a system of value, people simply cannot act. In fact, they can’t even perceive, because both action and perception require a goal, and a valid goal is, by necessity, something valued.

….loss of group-centred belief renders life chaotic, miserable, intolerable; presence of group-centred belief makes conflict with other groups inevitable. In the West, we have been withdrawing from our tradition-, religion- and even nation-centred cultures, partly to decrease the danger of group conflict. But we are increasingly falling prey to the desperation of meaninglessness, and that is no improvement at all.

…We can no longer afford conflict—certainly not on the scale of the world conflagrations of the twentieth century. Our technologies of destruction have become too powerful. The potential consequences of war are literally apocalyptic. But we cannot simply abandon our systems of value, our beliefs, our cultures, either.

Rule 1- Stand up straight with your shoulders back

Lobsters have a sort of social hierarchy in which challenges progress through 4 levels, starting with an exchange of information, and progressing perhaps as far as all-out fighting. If a lobster loses a big fight it severely changes his brain chemistry. He produces less serotonin and becomes super submissive in posture. He is more likely to lose future fights, even against lobsters he could previously best. Prozac actually works on lobsters, because they have the same brain structures we do for this (or rather, vice versa)

Lobsters are really old. Older than trees or dinosaurs. Dominance hierarchies are really old and have been in our brains a really long time.

It does not matter whether that feature is physical and biological, or social and cultural. All that matters, from a Darwinian perspective, is permanence—and the dominance hierarchy, however social or cultural it might appear, has been around for some half a billion years. It’s permanent. It’s real.

The dominance hierarchy is not capitalism. It’s not communism, either, for that matter. It’s not the military-industrial complex. It’s not the patriarchy… It’s not even a human creation; not in the most profound sense. It is instead a near-eternal aspect of the environment, and much of what is blamed on these more ephemeral manifestations is a consequence of its unchanging existence.

We (the sovereign we, the we that has been around since the beginning of life) have lived in a dominance hierarchy for a long, long time. We were struggling for position before we had skin, or hands, or lungs, or bones. There is little more natural than culture. Dominance hierarchies are older than trees.”

Summary: There are feedback loops. If you’re high status you get to live in nice places and eat nice food and this makes you healthy and attractive and this gains you desirable mates which makes you more confident and all this further heightens your status, and so on.

Unfortunately the same holds true if you’re low status or stuck in a negative feedback loop. This includes your brain being stuck in stress mode which is Bad For You and often leads to bad choices, besides.

Sometimes things go wrong. Maybe you were bullied when you were young and never managed to escape the negative feedback loops, even though you’re in a different environment now.


His number one advice is to wake up at a consistent, and reasonable hour every day. “The systems that mediate negative emotion are tightly tied to the properly cyclical circadian rhythms”.

Second advice is to eat a fat and protein heavy breakfast ASAP after awakening. Something medical about stress and insulin. Although his explanation made it sound like this is important mainly IFF you are depressed/anxious.

Then he goes all Power Pose-y with the whole “standing up straight with good posture will make your brain release the good chemicals, make you feel more confident, and start a positive feedback loop.

But then he just starts equating “stand up straight” in a more metaphorical way to mean taking heroic responsibility.

nihil supernum and all that.

To stand up straight with your shoulders back is to accept the terrible responsibility of life, with eyes wide open. It means deciding to voluntarily transform the chaos of potential into the realities of habitable order… It means willingly undertaking the sacrifices necessary to generate a productive and meaningful reality.

He also goes into a bit about accepting your inner dominance/MTG Black. You’ll be pushed around until you become willing to stand up for yourself. “If you can bite, you generally don’t have to.”

“Naive, harmless people usually guide their perceptions and actions with a few simple axioms: people are basically good; no one really wants to hurt anyone else; the threat (and, certainly, the use) of force… is wrong. These axioms collapse, or worse, in the presence of individuals who are genuinely malevolent…

In my clinical practice I often draw the attention of my clients who think that good people never become angry… No one likes to be pushed around, but people often put up with it for too long. So, I get them to see their resentment, first, as anger, and then as an indication that something needs to be said, if not done… Then I get them to see such action as part of the force that holds tyranny at bay—at the social level, as much as the individual.”

Rule 2: Treat Yourself like Someone You Are Responsible For

Even when their lives depend on it, people don’t take required medication. However if they have a pet, they make sure the pet takes their medication. How bad is it if you love your dog more than yourself?

If we wish to take care of ourselves properly, we would have to respect ourselves—but we don’t, because we are—not least in our own eyes—fallen creatures…

In the areas where Christianity emerged two thousand years ago, people were much more barbaric than they are today. Conflict was everywhere… Then, the primary moral issue confronting society was control of violent, impulsive selfishness and the mindless greed and brutality that accompanies it…

But now, also, another problem has arisen… [People] have the opposite problem: they shoulder intolerable burdens of self-disgust, self-contempt, shame and self-consciousness. Thus, instead of narcissistically inflating their own importance, they don’t value themselves at all, and they don’t take care of themselves with attention and skill… They are excruciatingly aware of their own faults and inadequacies, real and exaggerated, and ashamed and doubtful of their own value.

…To sacrifice ourselves to God (to the highest good, if you like) does not mean to suffer silently and willingly when some person or organization demands more from us, consistently, than is offered in return. That means we are supporting tyranny, and allowing ourselves to be treated like slaves. It is not virtuous to be victimized by a bully, even if that bully is oneself..

If I am someone’s friend, family member, or lover, then I am morally obliged to bargain as hard on my own behalf as they are on theirs. If I fail to do so, I will end up a slave, and the other person a tyrant. What good is that? It is much better for any relationship when both partners are strong.

This sort of everyday heroism is the rule, I believe, rather than the exception. Most individuals are dealing with one or more serious health problems while going productively and uncomplainingly about their business. If anyone is fortunate enough to be in a rare period of grace and health, personally, then he or she typically has at least one close family member in crisis. Yet people prevail and continue to do difficult and effortful tasks to hold themselves and their families and society together.

To me this is miraculous—so much so that a dumbfounded gratitude is the only appropriate response. There are so many ways that things can fall apart, or fail to work altogether, and it is always wounded people who are holding it together. They deserve some genuine and heartfelt admiration for that. It’s an ongoing miracle of fortitude and perseverance.

…enough do so that we have central heat and running water and infinite computational power and electricity and enough for everyone to eat and even the capacity to contemplate the fate of broader society and nature… itself. All that complex machinery that protects us from freezing and starving and dying from lack of water tends unceasingly towards malfunction through entropy, and it is only the constant attention of careful people that keeps it working so unbelievably well. Some people degenerate into the hell of resentment and the hatred of Being, but most refuse to do so, despite their suffering and disappointments and losses and inadequacies and ugliness, and again that is a miracle for those with the eyes to see it.

Humanity… deserve[s] some sympathy for the appalling burden under which the human individual genuinely staggers; some sympathy for subjugation to mortal vulnerability, tyranny of the state, and the depredations of nature. It is an existential situation that no mere animal encounters or endures, and one of severity such that it would take a God to fully bear it. It is this sympathy that should be the proper medicament for self-conscious self-contempt, which has its justification, but is only half the full and proper story.

Hatred for self and mankind must be balanced with gratefulness for tradition and the state and astonishment at what normal, everyday people accomplish—to say nothing of the staggering achievements of the truly remarkable. We deserve some respect. You deserve some respect. You are important to other people, as much as to yourself. You have some vital role to play in the unfolding destiny of the world. You are, therefore, morally obliged to take care of yourself.….

To treat yourself as if you were someone you are responsible for helping is, instead, to consider what would be truly good for you. This is not “what you want.” It is also not “what would make you happy.” Every time you give a child something sweet, you make that child happy. That does not mean that you should do nothing for children except feed them candy… You must help a child become a virtuous, responsible, awake being, capable of full reciprocity—able to take care of himself and others, and to thrive while doing so. Why would you think it acceptable to do anything less for yourself?

You need to consider the future and think, “What might my life look like if I were caring for myself properly? What career would challenge me and render me productive and helpful, so that I could shoulder my share of the load, and enjoy the consequences? What should I be doing, when I have some freedom, to improve my health, expand my knowledge, and strengthen my body?”

You need to know where you are, so you can start to chart your course. You need to know who you are, so that you understand your armament and bolster yourself in respect to your limitations. You need to know where you are going, so that you can limit the extent of chaos in your life, restructure order, and bring the divine force of Hope to bear on the world.

Rule 3: Make friends with people who want the best for you

But not everyone who is failing is a victim, and not everyone at the bottom wishes to rise, although many do, and many manage it. Nonetheless, people will often accept or even amplify their own suffering… if they can brandish it as evidence of the world’s injustice… It’s the easiest path to choose, moment to moment, although it’s nothing but hell in the long run.

Imagine someone not doing well. He needs help. He might even want it. But it is not easy to distinguish between someone truly wanting and needing help and someone who is merely exploiting a willing helper. The distinction is difficult even for the person who is wanting and needing and possibly exploiting. The person who tries and fails, and is forgiven, and then tries again and fails, and is forgiven, is also too often the person who wants everyone to believe in the authenticity of all that trying.

…When it’s not just naïveté, the attempt to rescue someone is often fueled by vanity and narcissism.

The same thing happens when well-meaning counsellors place a delinquent teen among comparatively civilized peers. The delinquency spreads, not the stability. Down is a lot easier than up.

Maybe you are saving someone because you’re a strong, generous, well-put-together person who wants to do the right thing. But it’s also possible—and, perhaps, more likely—that you just want to draw attention to your inexhaustible reserves of compassion and good-will… Or maybe it’s because it’s easier to look virtuous when standing alongside someone utterly irresponsible. Assume first that you are doing the easiest thing, and not the most difficult. Your raging alcoholism makes my binge drinking appear trivial…

Or maybe you have no plan, genuine or otherwise, to rescue anybody. You’re associating with people who are bad for you not because it’s better for anyone, but because it’s easier. You know it. Your friends know it. You’re all bound by an implicit contract—one aimed at nihilism, and failure, and suffering of the stupidest sort. You’ve all decided to sacrifice the future to the present…

Before you help someone, you should find out why that person is in trouble. You shouldn’t merely assume that he or she is a noble victim of unjust circumstances and exploitation. It’s the most unlikely explanation, not the most probable… It is far more likely that a given individual has just decided to reject the path upward, because of its difficulty. Perhaps that should even be your default assumption, when faced with such a situation. That’s too harsh, you think. You might be right. Maybe that’s a step too far. But consider this: failure is easy to understand. No explanation for its existence is required…

Success: that’s the mystery. Virtue: that’s what’s inexplicable. To fail, you merely have to cultivate a few bad habits. You just have to bide your time. And once someone has spent enough time cultivating bad habits and biding their time, they are much diminished. Much of what they could have been has dissipated, and much of the less that they have become is now real.

Things fall apart, of their own accord, but the sins of men speed their degeneration. And then comes the flood. I am not saying that there is no hope of redemption. But it is much harder to extract someone from a chasm than to lift him from a ditch. And some chasms are very deep. And there’s not much left of the body at the bottom.

If you surround yourself with people who support your upward aim, they will not tolerate your cynicism and destructiveness. They will instead encourage you when you do good for yourself and others and punish you carefully when you do not. This will help bolster your resolve to do what you should do, in the most appropriate and careful manner.

People who are not aiming up will do the opposite. They will offer a former smoker a cigarette and a former alcoholic a beer. They will become jealous when you succeed… But mostly they are dragging you down because your new improvements cast their faults in an even dimmer light…

Don’t think that it is easier to surround yourself with good healthy people than with bad unhealthy people. It’s not. A good, healthy person is an ideal. It requires strength and daring to stand up near such a person. Have some humility. Have some courage. Use your judgment, and protect yourself from too-uncritical compassion and pity.

Make friends with people who want the best for you

Rule 4: Compare yourself to who you were yesterday, not who someone else is today

It was easier for people to be good at something when more of us lived in small, rural communities. Someone could be homecoming queen. Someone else could be spelling-bee champ, math whiz or basketball star. There were only one or two mechanics and a couple of teachers. In each of their domains, these local heroes had the opportunity to enjoy the serotonin-fueled confidence of the victor. It may be for that reason that people who were born in small towns are statistically overrepresented among the eminent.

If you’re one in a million now, but originated in modern New York, there’s twenty of you—and most of us now live in cities. What’s more, we have become digitally connected to the entire seven billion. Our hierarchies of accomplishment are now dizzyingly vertical. No matter how good you are at something, or how you rank your accomplishments, there is someone out there who makes you look incompetent. You’re a decent guitar player, but you’re not Jimmy Page or Jack White. You’re almost certainly not even going to rock your local pub.

We are not equal in ability or outcome, and never will be. A very small number of people produce very much of everything. The winners don’t take all, but they take most, and the bottom is not a good place to be. People are unhappy at the bottom. They get sick there, and remain unknown and unloved. They waste their lives there. They die there.

… Worthlessness is the default condition. What but willful blindness could possibly shelter people from such withering criticism? It is for such reasons that a whole generation of social psychologists recommended “positive illusions” as the only reliable route to mental health. Their credo? Let a lie be your umbrella. A more dismal, wretched, pessimistic philosophy can hardly be imagined: things are so terrible that only delusion can save you.

Here is an alternative approach (and one that requires no illusions). If the cards are always stacked against you, perhaps the game you are playing is somehow rigged (perhaps by you, unbeknownst to yourself). If the internal voice makes you doubt the value of your endeavours—or your life, or life itself—perhaps you should stop listening. If the critical voice within says the same denigrating things about everyone, no matter how successful, how reliable can it be? Maybe its comments are chatter, not wisdom.

There will always be people better than you—that’s a cliché of nihilism, like the phrase, In a million years, who’s going to know the difference? The proper response to that statement is not, Well, then, everything is meaningless. It’s, Any idiot can choose a frame of time within which nothing matters. Talking yourself into irrelevance is not a profound critique of Being. It’s a cheap trick of the rational mind.

Standards of better or worse are not illusory or unnecessary. If you hadn’t decided that what you are doing right now was better than the alternatives, you wouldn’t be doing it. The idea of a value-free choice is a contradiction in terms. Value judgments are a precondition for action. Furthermore, every activity, once chosen, comes with its own internal standards of accomplishment. If something can be done at all, it can be done better or worse.

To begin with, there is not just one game at which to succeed or fail. There are many games…—games that match your talents, involve you productively with other people, and sustain and even improve themselves across time. Lawyer is a good game. So is plumber, physician, carpenter, or schoolteacher. The world allows for many ways of Being. If you don’t succeed at one, you can try another. You can pick something better matched to your unique mix of strengths, weaknesses and situation….

It’s also unlikely that you’re playing only one game. You have a career and friends and family members and personal projects and artistic endeavors and athletic pursuits. You might consider judging your success across all the games you play… You might object: I should be winning at everything! But winning at everything might only mean that you’re not doing anything new or difficult. You might be winning but you’re not growing, and growing might be the most important form of winning. Should victory in the present always take precedence over trajectory across time?

Finally, you might come to realize that the specifics of the many games you are playing are so unique to you, so individual, that comparison to others is simply inappropriate.

You have a nature. You can play the tyrant to it, but you will certainly rebel. How hard can you force yourself to work and sustain your desire to work? How much can you sacrifice to your partner before generosity turns to resentment? What is it that you actually love? What is it that you genuinely want? Before you can articulate your own standards of value, you must see yourself as a stranger—and then you must get to know yourself..

You could force yourself through your daily grind and kick your dog in frustration when you come home. You could watch the precious days tick by. Or you could learn how to entice yourself into sustainable, productive activity. Do you ask yourself what you want? Do you negotiate fairly with yourself? Or are you a tyrant, with yourself as slave?”

We are always and simultaneously at point “a” (which is less desirable than it could be), moving towards point “b” (which we deem better, in accordance with our explicit and implicit values). We always encounter the world in a state of insufficiency and seek its correction… Even when satisfied, temporarily, we remain curious. We live within a framework that defines the present as eternally lacking and the future as eternally better. If we did not see things this way, we would not act at all…

Because we always contrast what is with what could be, we have to aim at what could be. But we can aim too high. Or too low. Or too chaotically. So we fail and live in disappointment, even when we appear to others to be living well…

Perhaps happiness is always to be found in the journey uphill, and not in the fleeting sense of satisfaction awaiting at the next peak.

Ask yourself: is there one thing that exists in disarray in your life or your situation that you could, and would, set straight? Could you, and would you, fix that one thing that announces itself humbly in need of repair? Could you do it now? Imagine that you are someone with whom you must negotiate…

“Excuse me,” you might say to yourself, without irony or sarcasm. “I’m trying to reduce some of the unnecessary suffering around here. I could use some help.” Keep the derision at bay. “I’m wondering if there is anything that you would be willing to do? I’d be very grateful for your service.” Ask honestly and with humility. That’s no simple matter.

You might have to negotiate further, depending on your state of mind. Maybe you don’t trust yourself. You think that you’ll ask yourself for one thing and, having delivered, immediately demand more… Who wants to work for a tyrant like that? Not you. That’s why you don’t do what you want yourself to do.

[And offer yourself a reward]

Aim small. You don’t want to shoulder too much to begin with, given your limited talents, tendency to deceive, burden of resentment, and ability to shirk responsibility. Thus, you set the following goal: by the end of the day, I want things in my life to be a tiny bit better than they were this morning. Then you ask yourself, “What could I do, that I would do, that would accomplish that, and what small thing would I like as a reward?” Then you do what you have decided to do, even if you do it badly. Then you give yourself that damn coffee, in triumph…

And you do the same thing tomorrow, and the next day, and the next. And, with each day, your baseline of comparison gets a little higher, and that’s magic. That’s compound interest. Do that for three years, and your life will be entirely different. Now you’re aiming for something higher.

Rule 5: Do not let your children do anything that makes you dislike them

She was out to produce a little God-Emperor of the Universe. That’s the unstated goal of many a mother, including many who consider themselves advocates for full gender equality. Such women will object vociferously to any command uttered by an adult male, but will trot off in seconds to make their progeny a peanut-butter sandwich if he demands it while immersed self-importantly in a video game. The future mates of such boys have every reason to hate their mothers-in-law. Respect for women? That’s for other boys, other men—not for their dear sons

There are no bad children,” such people think, “only bad parents.” When the idealized image of an unsullied child is brought to mind, this notion appears fully justified…. But such an attitude is dangerously and naively romantic. It’s too one-sided, in the case of parents granted a particularly difficult son or daughter. It’s also not for the best that all human corruption is uncritically laid at society’s feet. That conclusion merely displaces the problem, back in time….

Even more problematic is the insistence logically stemming from this presumption of social corruption that all individual problems, no matter how rare, must be solved by cultural restructuring, no matter how radical. Our society faces the increasing call to deconstruct its stabilizing traditions to include smaller and smaller numbers of people who do not or will not fit into the categories upon which even our perceptions are based.

This is not a good thing. Each person’s private trouble cannot be solved by a social revolution, because revolutions are destabilizing and dangerous. We have learned to live together and organize our complex societies slowly and incrementally, over vast stretches of time, and we do not understand with sufficient exactitude why what we are doing works.

Thus, altering our ways of social being carelessly in the name of some ideological shibboleth (diversity springs to mind) is likely to produce far more trouble than good, given the suffering that even small revolutions generally produce. Was it really a good thing, for example, to so dramatically liberalize the divorce laws in the 1960s? It’s not clear to me that the children whose lives were destabilized by the hypothetical freedom this attempt at liberation introduced would say so.

Horror and terror lurk behind the walls provided so wisely by our ancestors. We tear them down at our peril.

In general, people improve with age, rather than worsening, becoming kinder, more conscientious, and more emotionally stable as they mature. Bullying at the sheer and often terrible intensity of the schoolyard rarely manifests itself in grown-up society.

Because children, like other human beings, are not only good, they cannot simply be left to their own devices, untouched by society, and bloom into perfection. Even dogs must be socialized if they are to become acceptable members of the pack—and children are much more complex than dogs..

Children can be damaged as much or more by a lack of incisive attention as they are by abuse, mental or physical… Children are damaged when their “mercifully” inattentive parents fail to make them sharp and observant and awake and leave them, instead, in an unconscious and undifferentiated state. Children are damaged when those charged with their care, afraid of any conflict or upset, no longer dare to correct them, and leave them without guidance

Parental interventions that make children happy clearly can and should be used to shape behaviour. The same goes for husbands, wives, co-workers and parents. Skinner, however… noted that use of reward was very difficult: the observer had to attend patiently until the target spontaneously manifested the desired behaviour, and then reinforce… He also had to starve his animals down to three-quarters of their normal body weight before they would become interested enough in food reward to truly pay attention.

Parents who refuse to adopt the responsibility for disciplining their children think they can just opt out of the conflict necessary for proper child-rearing. They avoid being the bad guy (in the short term). But they do not at all rescue or protect their children from fear and pain.

Quite the contrary: the judgmental and uncaring broader social world will mete out conflict and punishment far greater than that which would have been delivered by an awake parent. You can discipline your children, or you can turn that responsibility over to the harsh, uncaring judgmental world—and the motivation for the latter decision should never be confused with love.

Here’s a straightforward initial idea: rules should not be multiplied beyond necessity. Alternatively stated, bad laws drive out respect for good laws…So, don’t encumber children… with too many rules… Limit the rules. Then, figure out what to do when one of them gets broken… [Use minimum viable force.]…

The penalties for misbehavior (of the sort that could have been effectively halted in childhood) become increasingly severe as children get older—and it is disproportionately those who remain unsocialized effectively by age four who end up punished explicitly by society in their later youth and early adulthood.

Here’s a third: parents should come in pairs. Raising young children is demanding and exhausting. Because of this, it’s easy for a parent to make a mistake. Insomnia, hunger, the aftermath of an argument, a hangover, a bad day at work—any of these things singly can make a person unreasonable, while in combination they can produce someone dangerous. Under such circumstances, it is necessary to have someone else around, to observe, and step in, and discuss…

I am not saying we should be mean to single mothers, many of whom struggle impossibly and courageously—and a proportion of whom have had to escape, singly, from a brutal relationship—but that doesn’t mean we should pretend that all family forms are equally viable. They’re not. Period.

Here’s a fourth principle, one that is more particularly psychological: parents should understand their own capacity to be harsh, vengeful, arrogant, resentful, angry and deceitful. Very few people set out, consciously, to do a terrible job as father or mother, but bad parenting happens all the time…

Ten minutes after a pair of all-too-nice-and-patient parents have failed to prevent a public tantrum at the local supermarket, they will pay their toddler back with the cold shoulder when he runs up, excited, to show mom and dad his newest accomplishment…

Resentment breeds the desire for vengeance. Fewer spontaneous offers of love will be offered, with more rationalizations for their absence. Fewer opportunities for the personal development of the child will be sought out. A subtle turning away will begin. And this is only the beginning of the road to total familial warfare, conducted mostly in the underworld, underneath the false façade of normality and love.

Rule 6: Set Your House In Perfect Order Before You Criticize the World

[stories of people who grew up/lived in terrible situations and turned their own life around]

What he meant was this: people who experience evil may certainly desire to perpetuate it, to pay it forward. But it is also possible to learn good by experiencing evil. A bullied boy can mimic his tormentors. But he can also learn from his own abuse that it is wrong to push people around and make their lives miserable…

Many, perhaps even most, of the adults who abuse children were abused themselves as children. However, the majority of people who were abused as children do not abuse their own children.

When the hurricane hit New Orleans, and the town sank under the waves, was that a natural disaster? The Dutch prepare their dikes for the worst storm in ten thousand years. Had New Orleans followed that example, no tragedy would have occurred.

>It’s not that no one knew. The Flood Control Act of 1965 mandated improvements in the levee system… The system was to be completed by 1978. Forty years later, only 60 percent of the work had been done. Willful blindness and corruption took the city down.

A hurricane is an act of God. But failure to prepare, when the necessity for preparation is well known—that’s sin. That’s failure to hit the mark. And the wages of sin is death (Romans 6:23).

The ancient Jews always blamed themselves when things fell apart. They acted as if God’s goodness—the goodness of reality—was axiomatic, and took responsibility for their own failure. That’s insanely responsible. But the alternative is to judge reality as insufficient, to criticize Being itself, and to sink into resentment and the desire for revenge.

Start to stop doing what you know to be wrong. Start stopping today. Don’t waste time questioning how you know that what you’re doing is wrong, if you are certain that it is. Inopportune questioning can confuse, without enlightening, as well as deflecting you from action.

You can know that something is wrong or right without knowing why. Your entire Being can tell you something that you can neither explain nor articulate… So, simply stop, when you apprehend, however dimly, that you should stop. Stop acting in that particular, despicable manner. Stop saying those things that make you weak and ashamed. Say only those things that make you strong. Do only those things that you could speak of with honour.

You can use your own standards of judgment. You can rely on yourself for guidance. You don’t have to adhere to some external, arbitrary code of behaviour (although you should not overlook the guidelines of your culture. Life is short, and you don’t have time to figure everything out on your own. The wisdom of the past was hard-earned, and your dead ancestors may have something useful to tell you).

Don’t blame capitalism, the radical left, or the iniquity of your enemies. Don’t reorganize the state until you have ordered your own experience. Have some humility. If you cannot bring peace to your household, how dare you try to rule a city?

[After doing this for a while] You will then begin to discover new, more subtle things that you are doing wrong. Stop doing those, too. After some months and years of diligent effort, your life will become simpler and less complicated. Your judgment will improve… You will become stronger and less bitter… You will stop making your life unnecessarily difficult. You will then be left with the inevitable bare tragedies of life, but they will no longer be compounded with bitterness and deceit.

Rule 7: Pursue what is meaningful (not what is expedient)

Long ago, in the dim mists of time, we began to realize that reality was structured as if it could ​be bargained with. We learned that behaving properly now, in the present—regulating our impulses, considering the plight of others—could bring rewards in the future, in a time and place that did not yet exist…

Doing so was indistinguishable from organizing society: the discovery of the causal relationship between our efforts today and the quality of tomorrow motivated the social contract—the organization that enables today’s work to be stored, reliably (mostly in the form of promises from others)…

The realization that pleasure could be usefully forestalled dawned on us with great difficulty… And, to complicate the matter, such delay only becomes useful when civilization has stabilized itself enough to guarantee the existence of the delayed reward, in the future. If everything you save will be destroyed or, worse, stolen, there is no point in saving.

To share does not mean to give away something you value, and get nothing back. That is instead only what every child who refuses to share fears it means. To share means, properly, to initiate the process of trade…

It is better to have something than nothing. It’s better yet to share generously the something you have. It’s even better than that, however, to become widely known for generous sharing. That’s something that lasts. That’s something that’s reliable.

And, at this point of abstraction, we can observe how the groundwork for the conceptions reliable, honest and generous has been laid. The basis for an articulated morality has been put in place. The productive, truthful sharer is the prototype for the good citizen, and the good man. We can see in this manner how from the simple notion that “leftovers are a good idea” the highest moral principles might emerge.

Sometimes things do not go well. That seems to have much to do with the terrible nature of the world, with its plagues and famines and tyrannies and betrayals. But here’s the rub: sometimes, when things are not going well, it’s not the world that’s the cause. The cause is instead that which is currently most valued, subjectively and personally.

Why? Because the world is revealed, to an indeterminate degree, through the template of your values… If the world you are seeing is not the world you want, therefore, it’s time to examine your values. It’s time to rid yourself of your current presuppositions. It’s time to let go. It might even be time to sacrifice what you love best, so that you can become who you might become, instead of staying who you are.

The book is like half this sort of theological symbolism and I’m probably misrepresenting the book by not having it in my quotes more, so here ya go

Christ is forever He who determines to take personal responsibility for the full depth of human depravity. It means that Christ is eternally He who is willing to confront and deeply consider and risk the temptations posed by the most malevolent elements of human nature. It means that Christ is always he who is willing to confront evil—consciously, fully and voluntarily—in the form that dwelt simultaneously within Him and in the world….

Satan embodies the refusal of sacrifice; he is arrogance, incarnate; spite, deceit, and cruel, conscious malevolence. He is pure hatred of Man, God and Being. He will not humble himself, even when he knows full well that he should. Furthermore, he knows exactly what he is doing, obsessed with the desire for destruction, and does it deliberately, thoughtfully and completely.

It has to be him, therefore—the very archetype of Evil—who confronts and tempts Christ, the archetype of Good. It must be him who offers to the Savior of Mankind, under the most trying of conditions, what all men most ardently desire…

Christ does not casually order or even dare ask God to intervene on his behalf. He refuses to dispense with His responsibility for the events of His own life. He refuses to demand that God prove His presence. He refuses, as well, to solve the problems of mortal vulnerability in a merely personal manner—by compelling God to save Him—because that would not solve the problem for everyone else and for all time. There is also the echo of the rejection of the comforts of insanity in this forgone temptation.

Carl Jung hypothesized that the European mind found itself motivated to develop the cognitive technologies of science—to investigate the material world—after implicitly concluding that Christianity, with its laser-like emphasis on spiritual salvation, had failed to sufficiently address the problem of suffering in the here-and-now. This realization became unbearably acute in the three or four centuries before the Renaissance….

This is not to say that Christianity, even in its incompletely realized form, was a failure. Quite the contrary: Christianity achieved the well-nigh impossible. The Christian doctrine elevated the individual soul, placing slave and master and commoner and nobleman alike on the same metaphysical footing, rendering them equal before God and the law…

It is in fact nothing short of a miracle (and we should keep this fact firmly before our eyes) that the hierarchical slave-based societies of our ancestors reorganized themselves, under the sway of an ethical/religious revelation, such that the ownership and absolute domination of another person came to be viewed as wrong

This is not to say that Christianity was without its problems. But it is more appropriate to note that they were the sort of problems that emerge only after an entirely different set of more serious problems has been solved.

The society produced by Christianity was far less barbaric than the pagan—even the Roman—ones it replaced. Christian society] objected to infanticide, to prostitution, and to the principle that might means right. It insisted that women were as valuable as men (even though we are still working out how to manifest that insistence politically). It demanded that even a society’s enemies be regarded as human. Finally, it separated church from state, so that all-too-human emperors could no longer claim the veneration due to gods.

All of this was asking the impossible: but it happened. As the Christian revolution progressed, however, the impossible problems it had solved disappeared from view. That’s what happens to problems that are solved…even the fact that such problems had ever existed disappeared from view. Then and only then could the problems that remained, less amenable to quick solution by Christian doctrine, come to occupy a central place in the consciousness of the West—come to motivate, for example, the development of science, aimed at resolving the corporeal, material suffering that was still all-too-painfully extant within successfully Christianized societies.

The fact that automobiles pollute only becomes a problem of sufficient magnitude to attract public attention when the far worse problems that the internal combustion engine solves has vanished from view. People stricken with poverty don’t care about carbon dioxide. It’s not precisely that CO2 levels are irrelevant. It’s that they’re irrelevant when you’re working yourself to death, starving, scraping a bare living from the stony, unyielding, thorn-and-thistle-infested ground. It’s that they’re irrelevant until after the tractor is invented and hundreds of millions stop starving.

Rule 8: Tell the truth, or at least don’t lie

You can use words to manipulate the world into delivering what you want. This is what it means to “act politically.” This is spin. It’s the specialty of unscrupulous marketers, salesmen, advertisers, pickup artists, slogan-possessed utopians and psychopaths. It’s the speech people engage in when they attempt to influence and manipulate others.. It’s what everyone does when they want something, and decide to falsify themselves to please and flatter. .

To conduct life like this is to become possessed by some ill-formed desire, and then to craft speech and action in a manner that appears likely, rationally, to bring about that end. Typical calculated ends might include “to impose my ideological beliefs,” “to prove that I am (or was) right,” “to appear competent,” “to ratchet myself up the dominance hierarchy,” “to avoid responsibility”…. “to ensure that everyone likes me,” “to garner the benefits of martyrdom,” “to justify my cynicism,” “to rationalize my antisocial outlook,” … “to capitalize on my vulnerability,” “to always appear as the sainted one,”…

These are all examples of what… psychologist Alfred Adler, called “life-lies.” Someone living a life-lie is attempting to manipulate reality with perception, thought and action, so that only some narrowly desired and pre-defined outcome is allowed to exist. A life lived in this manner is based, consciously or unconsciously, on two premises. The first is that current knowledge is sufficient to define what is good, unquestioningly, far into the future. The second is that reality would be unbearable if left to its own devices

The faculty of rationality inclines dangerously to pride: all I know is all that needs to be known. Pride falls in love with its own creations, and tries to make them absolute. I have seen people define their utopia and then bend their lives into knots trying to make it reality. A left-leaning student adopts a trendy, anti-authority stance and spends the next twenty years working resentfully to topple the windmills of his imagination.

An eighteen-year-old decides, arbitrarily, that she wants to retire at fifty-two. She works for three decades to make that happen, failing to notice that she made that decision when she was little more than a child. What did she know about her fifty-two-year-old self, when still a teenager? Even now, many years later, she has only the vaguest, lowest-resolution idea of her post-work Eden. She refuses to notice. What did her life mean, if that initial goal was wrong?…

A naively formulated goal transmutes, with time, into the sinister form of the life-lie. One forty-something client told me his vision, formulated by his younger self: “I see myself retired, sitting on a tropical beach, drinking margaritas in the sunshine.” That’s not a plan. That’s a travel poster. ..

This kind of oversimplification and falsification is particularly typical of ideologues. They adopt a single axiom: government is bad, immigration is bad, capitalism is bad, patriarchy is bad. Then they filter and screen their experiences and insist ever more narrowly that everything can be explained by that axiom. They believe, narcissistically, underneath all that bad theory, that the world could be put right, if only they held the controls.

Consider the person who insists that everything is right in her life. She avoids conflict, and smiles, and does what she is asked to do. She finds a niche and hides in it… She has become nothing but a slave, a tool for others to exploit. She does not get what she wants, or needs, because doing so would mean speaking her mind. So, there is nothing of value in her existence to counter-balance life’s troubles. And that makes her sick…

It might be the noisy troublemakers who disappear, first, when the institution you serve falters and shrinks. But it’s the invisible who will be sacrificed next. Someone hiding is not someone vital. Vitality requires original contribution. Hiding also does not save the conforming and conventional from disease, insanity, death and taxes. And hiding from others also means suppressing and hiding the potentialities of the unrealized self.

To tell the truth is to bring the most habitable reality into Being. Truth builds edifices that can stand a thousand years. Truth feeds and clothes the poor, and makes nations wealthy and safe. Truth reduces the terrible complexity of a man to the simplicity of his word, so that he can become a partner, rather than an enemy…

Truth will not come in the guise of opinions shared by others, as the truth is neither a collection of slogans nor an ideology. It will instead be personal. Your truth is something only you can tell, based as it is on the unique circumstances of your life. Apprehend your personal truth. Communicate it carefully, in an articulate manner, to yourself and others. This will ensure your security and your life more abundantly now, while you inhabit the structure of your current beliefs. This will ensure the benevolence of the future, diverging as it might from the certainties of the past…

If your life is not what it could be, try telling the truth. If you cling desperately to an ideology, or wallow in nihilism, try telling the truth. If you feel weak and rejected, and desperate, and confused, try telling the truth. In Paradise, everyone speaks the truth. That is what makes it Paradise. Tell the truth. Or, at least, don’t lie

Rule 9: Assume That The Person You Are Listening To Knows Something That You Don’t

People like [client] are the reason that the many forms of psychotherapy currently practised all work. People can be so confused that their psyches will be ordered and their lives improved by the adoption of any reasonably orderly system of interpretation. This is the bringing together of the disparate elements of their lives in a disciplined manner—any disciplined manner.

So, if you have come apart at the seams (or if you never have been together at all) you can restructure your life on Freudian, Jungian, Adlerian, Rogerian or behavioural principles. At least then you make sense. At least then you’re coherent. At least then you might be good for something, if not good yet for everything. You can’t fix a car with an axe, but you can cut down a tree. That’s still something.

When people think, they simulate the world, and plan how to act in it. If they do a good job of simulating, they can figure out what stupid things they shouldn’t do. Then they can not do them. Then they don’t have to suffer the consequences. That’s the purpose of thinking…

Only human beings do this. That’s how brilliant we are. We make little avatars of ourselves. We place those avatars in fictional worlds. Then we watch what happens. If our avatar thrives, then we act like he does, in the real world. Then we thrive (we hope). If our avatar fails, we don’t go there, if we have any sense. We let him die in the fictional world, so that we don’t have to really die in the present…

People think they think, but it’s not true. It’s mostly self-criticism that passes for thinking. True thinking is rare—just like true listening. Thinking is listening to yourself. It’s difficult. To think, you have to be at least two people at the same time. Then you have to let those people disagree. Thinking is an internal dialogue between two or more different views of the world.

But something new and radical is still almost always wrong. You need good, even great, reasons to ignore or defy general, public opinion. That’s your culture. It’s a mighty oak. You perch on one of its branches. If the branch breaks, it’s a long way down—farther, perhaps, than you think.

If you’re reading this book, there’s a strong probability that you’re a privileged person. You can read. You have time to read. You’re perched high in the clouds. It took untold generations to get you where you are. A little gratitude might be in order. If you’re going to insist on bending the world to your way, you better have your reasons….

If you’re in a rut, at least you know that other people have travelled that path. Out of the rut is too often off the road. And in the desert that awaits off the road there are highwaymen and monsters. So speaks wisdom.

People organize their brains with conversation. If they don’t have anyone to tell their story to, they lose their minds. Like hoarders, they cannot unclutter themselves. The input of the community is required for the integrity of the individual psyche. To put it another way: It takes a village to organize a mind. Much of what we consider healthy mental function is the result of our ability to use the reactions of others to keep our complex selves functional. We outsource the problem of our sanity…

A conversation of mutual exploration has a topic, generally complex, of genuine interest to the participants. Everyone participating is trying to solve a problem, instead of insisting on the a priori validity of their own positions. All are acting on the premise that they have something to learn. This kind of conversation constitutes active philosophy, the highest form of thought, and the best preparation for proper living…

The conversation of mutual exploration… requires people who have decided that the unknown makes a better friend than the known. You already know what you know, after all—and, unless your life is perfect, what you know is not enough. You remain threatened by disease, and self-deception, and unhappiness, and malevolence, and betrayal, and corruption, and pain, and limitation. You are subject to all these things, in the final analysis, because you are just too ignorant to protect yourself… your current knowledge has neither made you perfect nor kept you safe. So, it is insufficient, by definition—radically, fatally insufficient….

To have this kind of conversation, it is necessary to respect the personal experience of your conversational partners. You must assume that they have reached careful, thoughtful, genuine conclusions (and, perhaps, they must have done the work that justifies this assumption). You must believe that if they shared their conclusions with you, you could bypass at least some of the pain of personally learning the same things (as learning from the experience of others can be quicker and much less dangerous)…

You tell the speaker these things, directly. Then they have the same effect on him. In this manner, you both move towards somewhere newer and broader and better. You both change, as you let your old presuppositions die… You are where you should be, with one foot in order, and the other tentatively extended into chaos and the unknown.












On Emotions I Don’t Endorse

Epistemic Status: I’m bored at the airport, and this is what’s been rattling around my mind.

Disclaimer: I am not trying to say that an emotional state can be “rational” or “irrational”. #allfeelingsarevalid . But for example, if someone changes the channel and you get filled with a seething, burning hatred, you probably consider that an outsized reaction. Ditto if someone cancels a date and you break down in immense sorrow. So these can all be considered emotions I don’t endorse.

Outward Emotional Displays

This category doesn’t fit as well with the others, as these are times when my body shows just the physical display of emotion without the internal experience (e.g. smiling when you aren’t feeling happy). By this I don’t mean faking emotion, as it isn’t under my conscious control.

There is really only one way in which I experience this effect, and it may or may not involve illicit substances (which I don’t use for reasons you will soon understand). Examples include: laughing at a tv show while thinking it was stupid and boring and not feeling at all amused. Also, being told that I look like I’m really enjoying myself and my answer being “No, I am actually really frustrated and annoyed right now, because my face is smiling, and I can’t make it stop.”


Felt Emotions

That Was Ages Ago!

Sometimes I notice myself experiencing a negative emotion and I don’t know why. I’ll trace it back and realize that it is usually a residual feeling of something that happened hours before. Maybe something annoying or bad happened. Particularly if it was my fault, I feel negatively for a very long time. (I suppose it makes sense for your brain to dwell on things that it did wrong so it’s less likely to happen again). Occasionally I am anxious about something in the future, where the anxiety isn’t actually helping me accomplish anything.

In either case, I first notice myself feeling the negative affect, before realizing what’s causing it, and figuring it out does NOT make the feeling go away.

I Recognize My Own Irrationality

These are times when you are in the throes of a strong emotion, while realizing that this isn’t a “rational” emotion to have (see above disclaimer). An example:

I was arguing with a partner, and was extremely angry, while recognizing that I didn’t endorse my own anger. I told my partner “Yes, I recognize that I shouldn’t be angry right now, but I am!”

Amusingly, he thought that me recognizing this meant that the problem was solved and I could instantly stop being angry. Of course, in reality, I had to wait for my emotions to run their course and let all the adrenaline or whatever is the angry-neurotransmitter clear out before we could calmly have whatever discussion we were having.

I am at the point where I can recognize when I’m not necesarily acting in a way I’d endorse given an outside view, and the best solution I’ve come up with is to get an outside opinion on whether I am over reacting, but of course that requires there being people whose opinions you trust at least as strongly as your own. When I am angry, I might trust an average friend or even acquaintance over my own current point of view.

Mirror Neurons Are A Thing

An example: I think weddings are silly. But there are a bunch of people getting emotional and crying and therefore my brain decides I must get emotional and cry.

Mirror neurons are strong.




In Which I Attempt to Reconcile Relationship Anarchy with Relationship Needs

(Written without editing, and I didn’t re-read before posting, so…)

I consider myself a relationship anarchist, which in short means that I don’t want to force a relationship into a pre-set box. I want relationships to be what they are, while acknowledging various options and ways they can go. I have romantic relationships that don’t involve sex. I have friendships that do. I’ll cuddle with just about anyone I know and trust.

That said, I spend most of my dating efforts filtering out people who don’t want the sort of relationship I want.

What’s with that?

I think you can be RA, and still have specific things that you either absolutely do or don’t  want. Maybe you just aren’t interested in romantic relationships with same-gender people. Maybe you only want to date same-gender people. Maybe you really need to have a power exchange dynamic. Maybe that sounds like the worst thing in the world.

Being RA doesn’t mean that you can’t have preferences about your relationships.

I think where it gets confusing is that my preferences for capital-R Relationships do lean more towards the traditional relationship escalator, although I am fine stopping on a lower step.

I’m reminded on a Facebook thread recently (sorry for lack of attribution, I don’t remember where it was) where people were discussing a problem with Air BnB. Some guests were obviously not used to any sort of co-housing/roomie situation, and so would expect absolute silence and cleanliness. But if you explicitly mention “Hey, four of us live here, so there might occasionally be dishes out or noise”, then people assume you must be a crazy party house, even if you are a super quiet and clean group that just wants to make sure that guest’s expectations aren’t that you are a hotel with maid service.

If I say “Hey folks, I am looking for actual capital-R Relationships, and assume we will be seeing each other a minimum of once a week, and expect you to put in at least 40% of the effort towards scheduling dates, etc” (I’ll initiate, but I’m not at all willing to chase down and badger guys (it’s never girls with this problem) to put me on their calendar), then the assumption is that I’m a clingy, needy, crazy-lady, even though I would consider myself a pretty far outlier of openness and independence. Also, then my inbox would be filled with guys complaining about my standards and arguing that I should totally make an exception for them, but at least they’d be easier to filter out 😛

If I say that I am non-monogamous and a relationship anarchist, then people assume that I must be interested in casual threesomes, and FWB, etc. This is exacerbated by the fact that (gender politics aside) there are WAY MORE men looking for casual relationships than there are women. So as a woman that is more open than most, I get flooded with men who are out of town all the time, over committed (trying to see more people than the can reasonably manage), working at startups, etc, and who are looking for a “relationship” where you see each other occasionally, as time permits, hopefully with minimal effort on their part.

This is further exacerbated by being in NYC where nothing is serious until you live together. Too many shiny things competing for everyone’s attention. The fucking coastals make me feel like I’m insane for thinking that any sort of actual Relationship requires a minimum of once a week. (Sorry, but I REALLY dislike coastal dating patterns. That said, I have also considered the possibility that the female-heavy NYC gender ratio has effectively pushed me out of the Relationship market, while leaving me in the “fine for casual relationships” category.)

In Ohio, I was more okay with the occasional casual relationship, because it wasn’t the only thing people were ever offering me (in fact, it was pretty rare). I’d still turn it down way more often than not, though. By Ohio standards, I’m pretty much as far out into crazy non-monogamy land as you get before you get to hookups and casual sex, and that is so obviously a different set of things that you don’t really interact with those people. They’re on different websites, and meeting at different places, etc.

In Portland I was de facto monogamous. Contrary to popular belief, RA doesn’t mean explicitly casual. It just means the relationship goes to wherever it goes. We still would have been fine with our partners going out and developing relationships with other people (I couldn’t be happy in a relationship where that wasn’t the case), but in practice I went on zero dates outside of my wonderful partner and didn’t really feel a desire to. I assume if I had stayed in Portland and we had stayed together that we would have eventually started also seeing other people. That person is now in the Most Adorable Relationship In The World, and I would have wanted that to happen.


Erica’s Weird Ways of Filtering For R-Relationships That Apparently Don’t Work

  • Nope to gross age ranges (self-explanatory)
  • Take away points for looking too put-together in their photos. Expensive clothes and hair, professional photo…. that person is probably casually dating around (also, I just don’t want to date someone who spends more on his outfit than I earn in a week). Yes to the guy in the hoodie or t-shirt, with a regular (but nice) photo. Some dressed up photos are fine, but if they’re all that way then high-maintenance and superficial.
  • Extra point to people who are new to the city and haven’t yet been corrupted by Coastal Dating Patterns. (note: there aren’t actually any points 😛 )
  • Extra point to guys where their SMV (sorry for being gross) is lowered by things I don’t give a fuck about. Don’t make a lot of money at your non-profit? Totally irrelevant to me, I don’t want you to buy me shit anyways. Short? Fuck, I love short guys! Have weird-ass geeky hobbies? Well, so do I!
  • Take away a half point for guys who live with their partners. I’m theoretically fine with this, but in NYC it usually translates to “all my R-Relationship slot(s) are full, and I’m just looking for casual relationships on the side”. I still give these guys a chance though, if everything else is fine (actually have a date with one on Saturday)
  • I answered enough questions about it that “More Romantic” is my fourth biggest personality bar thing
  • I went ahead and recently added the following to my profile. It runs the risk of coming off as needy (and thus attracting guys who want to date needy girls), but we’ll see what happens: “I used to have Relationship Anarchy mentioned, but found that people focused more on the “anarchy” than the “relationship” portion of that. So if you could describe what you’re looking for using words like “casual” and “fun”, please move along.”


In Which a Facebook Comment Becomes A Post

Epistemic Status: Interesting model I’ve been tossing about for a while and too lazy to write down. Brienne was looking for blog ideas, and I realized that the comment I left was, while not well-written, complete enough to share.

When someone talks about a person being “good”there seems to be two separate ideas they could be referring to, which often get conflated. Let’s call them System 1 and System 2 morality. System 2 morality is when you are given a large formalized issue and have time to think about it. Examples include Effective Altruism or political issues (eg abortion).

System 1 morality is the day to day interactions that generally consist either of following politeness heuristics or running models of other people in your head. By “politeness” I don’t necessarily mean saying “please” and “thank you”, but more important and basic things. For example, if you’re dropping off an item at your friend’s house and are running two hours late, you should text to let them know.

In Parfit’s Hitchhiker, System 1 moralists pay the driver because that’s the not-asshole thing to do. System 2 moralists invent Timeless Decision Theory. You want lots of System 2 moralists to exist in the world. You want lots of System 1 moralists to exist in your social circles.

Rationalists are often very good at System 2, but not so great at System 1. A problem arises IMO when they decide to drop politeness heuristics for “tell culture” WITHOUT particular skill or care for running models of other people. How this plays out for me is that I’m constantly needing to either set new boundaries (which should be obvious to anyone running even a shitty model), or be okay with my boundaries always being broken. Usually the transgressions are so obvious that I don’t think I have to say anything until it’s already been transgressed. (Like, I shouldn’t have to say “btw, if you happen to be running two hours late you should text me so that I know that.”)

The level of explicitness for each possible boundary is draining. For example, let’s say I have a fancy coffee table and someone puts a cold drink on it without a coaster. No big deal. I ask them to use a coaster to protect the table and they agree. But if one minute later they put their muddy boots on that same table, this is a failure on their part. Likewise, no one wants to list out every potential failure mode. “Don’t wake me if I’m sleeping, especially if I have work the next day. Don’t publicly share my private information. Leave a respectable tip, even if you’re never coming back to the restaurant” And so on.

In Which I Ramble About Something That Is Completely Obvious In Retrospect (that you should like the things you do)

[CW: Introspection, Boo Rationality!, Bad Writing]

Re: Bad Writing- This is totally “Sophie Rambles at Her Computer”, NOT “Sophie Crafts a Well-Reasoned/Amusing Blog Post”. I should probably just make this an official “bad writing” blog, because I never get around to writing or finishing anything that I try to make well-reasoned or amusing, and I’d rather have a rambly bad writing blog that I actually post to than a good writing blog that I ignore.

I noticed a while back that my notion of “Events I Should Go To” did not align with the reality of “Event I Actually Enjoyed While I Was There.” Particularly, I found myself continuing to sphexishly go to NYC LW meetups even though I never ended up enjoying myself while I was there. It was like some part of me refused to change the idea of “This is A Thing I Enjoy”, even though that belief was formed in a completely different environment. So I committed myself to a rule of Not Going to Rationality Events in NY, Except Solstice. After some thought, I think it makes since to generalize this rule to something like:

Notice how much you are actually enjoying an activity while you are participating in it. Make an effort to go more frequently to the activities you enjoy, and to avoid those you do not enjoy. Exceptions can be made for activities that are advancing some goal besides enjoyment.


-SCA events: Here is somewhere I’m always happy to be. Particularly A&S Nights at the Solar, and schola/class-focused events. I have a high motivation to go to these, but they can require a bit of planning/prep work such as getting rides, packing, etc.

-Blues: I always enjoy myself a whole lot when I go blues dancing. Unfortunately I have very low motivation to attend. It’s very active when I want to be lazy, I don’t know people there, and I haven’t made specific plans with anyone to be there. Which all means that when Friday night rolls around, my feeling is that I’d rather stay home and veg, than go out and expend a lot of energy.

Note: I’ve noticed about myself before that it’s really hard to motivate myself to do any last-minute plans. If I precommit to something in advance (for example, by making plans with someone), it forces me to go and I can end up enjoying myself. But if I’m already home, or planning to go home, if someone asks “Do you want to….”, my answer is inevitably “No.”

-Going to new places/ Trying new things: Of course, I don’t ALWAYS end up enjoying whatever new thing I’ve tried Math Museum and Tenement Museum= YES, but live music event with blaring speakers= NO), but I find that my life feels fuller and more enjoyable when I explore the city’s attractions or try something new.

-Talking with my roomies: I always have better conversations when I’m hanging out and talking with my roommates than when I try to go to rationality events. Realizing this made it really easy to decide not to go to LW events, because I can get my “interesting conversation” quota filled here, in the comfort of my own home.

-Cleaning/Organizing/Accomplishing Things: Really high initiation costs on these activities, but once I get going, I really enjoy myself. 🙂

Do Not Enjoy:

-Rationality Events in NYC: My reasons are completely different from those posited by Slate Star about the Bay Area group. Briefly, instead of having a small group of committed people who come all the time you have a large group where everyone goes a couple times and so a) most the people are beginners who are at their first or second meetup, and b) it’s not a close-knit group. It’s not just the rationality community. It’s a generic Why-I-Hate-NYC thing. It’s also such a big city, that instead of having a diverse group, you get a bunch of clones, because there are 100s of people exactly like Standard Model. Also, too many people show up to actually have a conversation that everyone can participate in (when Cbus got above 10ish people, we started using a discussion method, where you held up 1 or 2 fingers if you had something you wanted to say, and we would keep track of who got to talk next so you didn’t have to keep your finger up, and it worked really well). So pretty much, instead of getting to participate in an interesting discussion, I get to passively listen to Intro Rationality 101. And then eventually people start talking about math and programming. And it’s a very Not Diverse group of people who are very much Not Like Me. And I end up sitting there thinking how long I have to wait til it’s no longer impolite to leave.

-Alcohol: I don’t drink a lot, but even a small amount of alcohol (less than one drink worth) can sometimes trigger a multi-day headache. I don’t know what exactly the combo is that leads to headaches (Is it a specfic type of alcohol? Is it how hydrated I am? Am I imagining a causal factor that’s not actually there? It’s DEFINITELY not the amount!). I’m not willing to go teetotaler for the rest of my life, but it is something I should be more cognizant about.

Sunday Assembly is on the list of things I only moderately enjoy, but that I very much want to succeed, and so I’ll continue to go. There are some things I really support there, and I think the community is more community-ish.

In Which My OKC Test Has Boring Results But I Write About it Anyways to Avoid Publication Bias

There was an article making its way around my friends’ Facebook feeds about how a woman replied to unasked-for compliments on OKC with some sort of affirmative statement like “Yes, I know.” The men responded by taking back the compliment. However the article didn’t at all mention the rates of negative responses, and instead just highlighted a few negative ones. So I offered to do something similar on my OKC and post about it afterwards.

I turned out to have a pretty boring result, but in the case for publishing boring results to avoid publication (bloggation?) bias, here goes:

There was a lot of discussion about how polite it is to acknowledge a compliment with some sort of “I know” statement, so instead of going that route, I decided to reply to the first five guys in my inbox that I came across that were definite NOs with:

   “Thanks for the message, but I’m not interested.”

It’s not super-polite, but it’s not super-rude. And a lot of guys rant about how horrible it is that women don’t even respond with a “No, thank you” to their messages, so I figured it would be a good thing to test.

The Responses:
(Sorry, you’re not getting screen shots cuz I’m lazy and blacking out ID info takes time :P)

1. The annoyingest response was from a guy in his mid-40s whose age range includes women in their 20s, but NOT women the same age as him:

   “Thanks for the message, but in all honesty, no message would have been preferable to this frosty response. Good luck.”

2. The nicest response was surprisingly from a “dom” whose handle contained the word “Master” and wanted me to come stay with him at his farm in the middle-of-nowhere (Note that I don’t at all mention any D/s stuff in my profile):

   “Thank you for your response.

3. From a guy who messaged me from France, and sure does cuss a lot (in a rather condescending way) for how badly he Englishes:

   “Ok no problem. Cya”

4. Nothing hugely wrong with this guy, but pretty skewed age range and seems to be looking more towards looks:

   “Hmmm most people wouldn’t even respond….but thanks? Lol”

5. No response from obvious PUA/ Game guy

So there you go. No problem with any of the responses. Probable selection effect that I have a very intellectual and self-assured profile (aka “snobby”) so a decent amount of assholes filter themselves out. I still get my share of douchebags, but in this sample of n=5, all was well.

I’ll try to post something more interesting next time 😛