Citizen 78998238733209497832631265872334793274932

Citizen 56263648733420979312047132907213901279737

——–

Pre-4.15.20 Rule HJ8945, you would have been afforded understanding and sympathy when the world’s winds blew against you. While it’s true that there are always people worse off, it’s just as true that there are always people better off. In moments of challenge, it’s easier to default to the latter perspective – I’m not as smart as person X, I’m not as healthy as person Y, I’m not as charismatic as person Z, etc. – to make failure palatable. And we, the rest of the world, were okay with this arrangement. Key word there is “were.” Please notice that it is in past tense, for the world’s okayness officially expired with the passage of 4.15.20 Rule HJ8945 and your excuses, however legitimate, will no longer be tolerated.

(more…)

I didn’t catch it at first, but I now realize that something important was left unexplained from our last conversation. You, a man of high self-awareness, contended that your risk-aversion holds you back in matters of love. This didn’t strike me as true since an obvious manifestation of risk-aversion is settling for a “good enough” girl who checks many boxes and provides undeniable aid against loneliness – and you don’t do this. You, in fact, are likely to hear pleas from friends to be “less picky” and other such well-intentioned nonsense that risk-averse individuals utter to risk-lovers. I guess xxxxxxxxx simply had a blind spot in his self-model and risk-aversion isn’t plaguing him.

But that’s too easy a conclusion, right? You have thought about yourself and love a lot, and surely you considered that which I noticed in 60 seconds:

(more…)

if you didn’t have a problem to solve?

Well, for one thing, you would be bored. And given the undesirability of such a state, perhaps the tenor with which we discuss problems should be changed to one of appreciation (for the purpose problems provide) as opposed to wishing the problem would instantly resolve.

The above connotation shift is not a suggestion for intractable problems, for problems that may well never have a solution. In these unfortunate scenarios, there are no longer steps to take, books to read, experiments to run – there is just suffering.

But is your problem actually unsolvable? A temptation exists to label a problem in this fashion to excuse oneself of responsibility. Then again, if one can’t walk away from the problem, the whole suffering thing should dissuade the act of submitting to temptation too easily. Still, a simple test should usually suffice: can a stranger informed of your problem instantly derive actions worth trying? If so, you are far from exhausting possibilities, so dig in and embrace the purpose. If not, well, ughhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.

you changed my mind re: *ghosting*.

the key insight was you yourself taking control of the situation
and deciding that, no matter what, fuck this other person. (though i still wonder a bit how this attitude can exist with a desire for future friendship.)

if you can get to that place, a place no longer filled with wanting, it truly doesn’t matter what the other person does – his/her actions are now irrelevant.

i do think it can be hard to get to that place, especially in the inevitable messiness of a courting process.

but even if you don’t get there, it’s not like you would gain some great insight w/ the non-ghost, w/ the “sorry, this just isn’t right for me.” this is probably the area where i’m most incorrect: i do want other people’s truths about me because i want to close off blindspots and improve if i deem one’s evaluation of me correct, but ain’t nobody gonna really give me that type of truth. instead, you’ll just get a nondescript text response that carries the same value as ghosting.

if you absolutely require others for closure or peace or validation, you will forever be in a state of unrest.

still, i wouldn’t ghost anyone, but i now have a far more accepting attitude toward those that do.

thx!

“I want to give you money. Please let me do so. Hell, I’ll even mail you an envelope with the proper address and postage on it and all you’ll have to do is slip the gift certificate in and drop it in the mail.”

For however great Dan and his crew may be at crafting pizzas, they are quite terrible at business, because even with my desperate plea, Dan’s Pizza refused to let me purchase a gift certificate.

When Dan’s goes out of business,¹ we can safely ignore pandemic-based excuses since we’ll know that horrendous management was the real reason for the Chapter 11.

But that filing remains a future event, so please enjoy the pizza while you still can. And please do so on my dollar. Just shoot me the total and I’ll take it from there.²

If Dan has any good sense left, he’ll try to hire you two the moment you step into his restaurant; anybody who can untotal a totaled car can surely figure out a simple system for collecting money from those who want to give it.

Thanks for the heroic effort getting the Miata safely back on the road.

just not too much.

This is how one can honestly claim, “I don’t like games in dating,” while also being turned off by the far-too-direct suitor who doesn’t “play games.”

Finding the perfect line where one shows enough “want” without coming across as “wanting” is the stuff of magic.

Some guesses as to why such a line exists:

1. For all but the most narcissistic, it’s natural to doubt oneself. Hence, it is nice to hear compliments. However, too many compliments are a bit suspicious: Doesn’t this other person know how flawed I am? Is he/she just lying?
2. There are perks to being a big fish in a small pond. So, it’s common for pleasure to be derived from liking another person slightly less than he/she likes you. There is power in this discrepancy. A too-large gap, though, indicates something in the perception of a shared reality is off and you may be settling for a très tiny fish.
3. We want what we can’t have.
4. Endless attention can be exhausting and downright uncomfortable. Plus, ceaseless unreciprocated attention shows a certain lack of awareness in the suitor, which is an unquestionably unattractive trait.

insofar as it tricks people into thinking they are getting better at talking about that which they’ve buried, that which they think, that which they feel, that which is true.

Of course, being able to speak honestly is a truly vital skill and cannot be placed in the bin of Stuff I Accept I’m Bad At if one hopes to live anything close to his best possible life.

But make no mistake, candor with a stranger (i.e., therapist) is not such a vital skill. It’s something, sure, and there are benefits that may be cultivated in the process. But the same fears of judgment and rejection that usually prevent “speaking one’s mind” are significantly reduced in interactions with strangers. Thus, you aren’t actually getting better at speaking well with people you know, just at speaking well when nothing’s really on the line.

While I don’t yet know you, I declare with great confidence that you will be someone who rebels. Even in your current state of innocence, your daily cries indicate an unwillingness to accept a world that doesn’t exactly conform to your wants and expectations. This proclivity to fight has a chance to be most productive, especially when your mental powers blossom and your frustrations can be directed at matters beyond lactose.

I warn you now, though, that as rebellion becomes increasingly intertwined with your identity – as it will in adolescence – it can turn downright counterproductive if you adopt the “rebel without a cause” posture. And make no mistake, many peers will turn toward RWC because it’s a seductive way to gain status. RWC is also foolishly simple to adopt: be anti-authority. Parents, school, teachers, priests, the system, the man, experts, and whatever else appears to be trusted is necessarily the opponent of RWC. Perhaps you already see the flaws in the philosophy, because while sure, OK, yea, authority need be challenged, one jams himself into an unnecessarily tight box when fully subscribed to a status quo where authority, by virtue solely of its authority, is always wrong. Still, no amount of illogic erases the aura of coolness awarded to outsiders (especially if that outsider has Jesusesque hair, a leather jacket, and ripped jeans), and thus RWC uptake persists – you wouldn’t be crazy to give it a try.

Or maybe instead adopt the rebel path I believe is fundamentally superior to RWC. Instead of anti- being the guiding principle, truth is. That is to say you want to get it right, not be right, and that the surest path to fully understanding the complexities and nuances of any given issue is to fearlessly challenge everything, all while knowing that what you are being told may, indeed, be perfectly correct. In practice, the truth-seeker can seem like RWC. Twenty kids in a classroom all nod their heads in agreement, but, no, not you. Never you. You go 1 vs. 20 + the teacher and sniff out any loopholes, contradictions, and weak assumptions. This requires tremendous skill and self-confidence, attributes a careful observer will appreciate distinguishes you from RWC. As your abilities increase, you’ll notice that this rigorous probing reliably gains something, that there is always a question that reveals more, that large swaths of the population are regurgitating lines and truly have no idea what the hell they are talking about, and that, vitally, truth-seeking doesn’t require you to reach an alternate conclusion, but rather bestows a level of complete understanding that leaves you smarter, more empathetic, more creative, and way more interesting. So yea, you’ll gain prestige similar to RWC adherents, AND you’ll obtain a superior grasp of reality.

There was a time when I worked at a gas station. At that time, “energy drinks” (which will hopefully be extinct by the time you read this) were en vogue. My employer, being a pragmatic capitalist, decided to get in on the gold rush and undercut the prevailing price point with a knock-off version of the high-margin brand name product. Better still, the knock-off version was tastier to 7 out of 10 consumers. Better better still, as an employee of this gas station, I received a hefty discount on all merchandise. So, I did what seemed not-all-that-novel and sold the knock-offs to my football teammates at a price that allowed me to capitalize on the spread created by my employee discount (a.k.a. I profited off my friends). As unreliable as our memories may be, I remember having zero qualms about this. Your father, on the other hand, had maximal qualms once he discovered the scheme. Not only did I genuinely think he was wrong, but I also enjoyed arguing for the sake of arguing, which cast me dangerously close to RWC and the never-admit-defeat attitude it engenders. You should want your mind changed, because you should want to inch closer to truth. That’s hard to appreciate – just look at a country being run by people who never admit the other side may have even a sliver of a point – and I doubt that I did in any real sense during high school.

Your father lives by an ideal that one’s role in friendship is to always be there doing all you can to love, help, and support (never profit, obviously). For as busy as he may be, he’ll drop it all if you call him in need. Many people speak a similar noble ethos, but I’ve found few who actually live by it. After first rebelling against your father’s friendship ethic, he helped me appreciate the error in my ways, and I now try to be one of those elite few adhering to a higher standard in relationships.

So when you fight with your parents just try to remember that it is possible they may be right. In fact, given their collective wisdom, they will offer valuable lessons, I’d venture to guess, a large percentage of the time. Combine this inherited “wisdom” edge with a pure aim on truth and I think you’re set up quite nicely for an extraordinary life. Welcome!

So whenever you think I’m totally spent, I can’t do any more, you are almost certainly incorrect.

much of the inequality discussion is based on a “fixed pie” view of the world: the rich get richer by taking from the poor. It’s zero-sum, and the rich are winning. It should be no mystery then why someone, especially a vulnerable someone, would view immigrants with skepticism: there is a “fixed pie,” and the more people going for a piece means my piece will get smaller – or disappear entirely.