So, it’s been raining hard lately. If I wear a raincoat can I make the rain stop?
But that’s what happens when people think they can address their issues through worry, guilt, and anxiety. Nothing you do can make problems disappear except to action. Worry, guilt, and anxiety immobilize. Furthermore, to meet the challenges better one must have one’s wits together. An brain in the grip of emotion is not logical.
You can choose to wear anything you want as none will change the weather anyway. But though you may not stop the rain by wearing a raincoat, you sure have more option than with a suit. You can choose what is “appropriate” or “comfortable”. It’s the same with thoughts.
The question then is: “Is my current thought more comfortable? Am I happier with it? Does it allow me to see the bigger picture?” If “yes”, then that’s the appropriate thought to adopt.
I can think, for example, of a situation where a guy gets dumped by his girlfriend. The employee can either accept that judgment as truth, then pity himself like we’ve seen happen to some of our friends. Or, he can replay that memory but replacing the girlfriend’s voice with a Chipmunk voice. As I said, you can think anything you want. I bet the Chipmunk voice can be funny, which puts our friend in a more calm position where he might see that the girlfriend may just be emotional, or possibly insane.
Strong negative emotions can cause tunnel vision. This prepares us to channel our resources to meet a threat. When you get leg cramps while swimming in the sea, when your tire bursts while driving, or when you’re held up by an armed robber you will not want to be distracted from taking right action.
But most daily threats are not like that. Yet when like our friend you get dumped, your world can get dark sometimes for days. I’ve heard of at least one case of suicide. A calm thought, however, will remove tunnel vision. You will see the bigger picture, you will see the facts. You can take more productive action.
Calm thoughts also allow you to ignore fears, like whether or decisions are going to work out, or fear of “hurting”.
For example, I tell my younger friends “If your girlfriend dumps you, I mean dumps you, just tell her ‘OK, I wish you the best,’ and move on. To my older friends dumped by their equally old girlfriends, I say “It gets harder for them to replace you than it is for you to replace them. Move on.” Some of the best decisions can also be the harshest. But a reason and common sense allow you to make that call with confidence. And you’re not stuck with overthinking and paralysis.
How do you get into a calmer state of mind? Recognize that you’re under the grip of an emotion; name that emotion, experiencing it fully. I would even say enjoy it. Two things happen. First, naming an emotion is rational, and rationality and emotion cannot occupy the mind at the same time for long. Second, emotions are tiring: even a strong one will have to subside, about 2.5 min on the average, before going back on line.
For more chronic cases of worry, anxiety, guilt, fear, depression, and others, the practice of mindfulness and meditation bring many benefits.
Some people object that mindfulness and meditation are a form of escapism or surrender. Not necessarily. From the above, we see that they are ways to get back control. I like to imagine how the samurai do it.
Before a battle samurai would strategize and plan. But at the point of fighting they think about…nothing. They certainly don’t think that their opponents will come running to them with their tails between their legs. They don’t think about winning, losing, living, or dying. They don’t expect anything, and they accept everything. They only think about aiming and firing and swinging the sword. They only think of their job, not the outcome. They win? Fine. They lose? Fine. Things take longer than expected? Fine.
One of the 8 virtues of the samurai is “Yu”, bravery and courage, revealed by decisive action. Talking about courage, thinking about courage, but not doing it — that is not courage. Once you perceive what is right, do it, without hesitation.
“Those who hesitated at the moment of trial, who did not act with clarity and determination when the moments of crisis were upon them, deserved the limitations to which their fears committed them.”
Robert Ludlum, author
We prefer to wear certain clothes under certain weather conditions, we also may be comfortable with certain thought patterns. Some are naturally impulsive, some naturally neurotic. But the actual thought at the moment of crisis has to be appropriate, not “preferred”. I agree that the ability to lay down a preference in favor of something more appropriate is trained. Some people never get beyond their childhood patterns because they lack training or they don’t learn from experience.
And authenticity in this context is not a virtue.
Sometimes, it is. It may be good to have pessimists in one’s TEAM. Good for you, good for them. They bring you down to earth, you bring them to where they are functional. It may be good to have all kinds of people on your team AS LONG AS THEY CONTRIBUTE MORE THAN THEY TAKE AWAY. Freeloaders contribute nothing. Constant complainers and gossips create more damage that what they put in. Have nothing to do with them.
Interestingly, psychopathic personalities may be quite useful. They don’t care about how people feel or what they say about them; and so they can make tough calls that the rest of us are too scared or sensitive to make. There is a cost to dealing with psychotics, and sometimes the cost may be too much, but as long as the benefits significantly outweigh these costs, fine.
By your fruits you will know them.
Understand that everyone is acting mainly, even always, for their own self interest. Even when they go emotional, seem to act psychotic, or dump you — this ONE THING is common to all of us. Personally, I have made better calls assuming self-interest more than any other motive. Even when I ask people to be generous, I always emphasize it’s good for them. And that is true.
We’re all defective, we all have our tendencies. Fine. We’re not our thoughts, but our actions.
Conversation is a rare skill. Debate, which is what a true conversation is, is best enjoyed by partners who can contribute significantly. This does not mean they have to be able to talk a lot — in fact, listening is far more important — but they have to have knowledge and thinking skills, the ability to follow the flow from another’s perspective, control over emotions, and a sense of humor.
These “talents” are not easy to gauge. But sometimes, a conversation partner might be found in a new acquaintance. One way to bring such a one into conversation is the FORD technique.
The F.O.R.D. model is a chit-chat technique that provides a starting point for engaging in meaningful conversations by focusing on four main topics: Family, Occupation, Recreation, and Dreams. Each category represents a different aspect of a person’s life, offering a range of topics to discuss. Here are examples of questions under each heading:
Family:
Do you have any siblings?
How did you and your partner meet?
What are some of your favorite family traditions?
Tell me about your hometown and your family there.
Do you have any interesting family stories or anecdotes to share?
Occupation:
What do you do for a living?
How did you get started in your profession?
What do you enjoy most about your job?
Are there any current projects or challenges you’re working on?
What are your career goals or aspirations?
Recreation:
What do you like to do in your free time?
Are there any hobbies or activities you’re passionate about?
Have you traveled anywhere interesting recently?
Do you play any sports or participate in any recreational activities?
Have you read any good books or seen any interesting movies lately?
Dreams:
What are some of your long-term goals or aspirations?
If you could travel anywhere in the world, where would you go?
What is something you’ve always wanted to learn or achieve?
Do you have any dreams or ambitions that you’re currently pursuing?
How do you envision your ideal future?
These questions are just starting points. It is important to actively listen to the other person’s responses and follow-up with additional questions to keep the chit chat flowing. The F.O.R.D. model provides a structure that helps explore different areas of a person’s life, opening up topics that can be debated in a friendly and enjoyable manner.
If a casual dialogue does not lead to that, fine. Perhaps later on, perhaps never. Still, a chit chat or dialogue, whatever one might want to call an exchange that is not strictly a conversation, can establish rapport, trust, materials for future exchanges, and overall, a good time.
This is an essay on work. I will stress only parts of it. Work as Service, Work as Failure, and then we end with a Parable. It’s a very short talk, so stay awake.
The first part was inspired by a talk given by Dr. Paul Dumol years ago, where he talked about how words we use shape how we work. The word hanap-buhay highlights income. Trabajo, Spanish actually, highlights tedium. And the word gawain highlights activity. Altogether, in the filipino language work means a tedious activity that earns income. Figure out for yourself the implications of that.
But what do the Japanese use? They use the word shigoto. Literally, shigoto means a service done to others. The concept is profoundly spiritual. Hence, Japanese are proud if their work contributes to someone else’s, and ashamed if it doesn’t. You are familiar with that photo of a Japanese train conductor bowing deeply to passengers to apologize because the train was 2 minutes late. It matters little what the work is: Japanese street sweepers love their craft as executives do. This mentality has been changing, with the lifting of lifetime employment and the prevalence of hikikomori — young Japanese who refuse to work — but the basic value is still shigoto. And we still see it in the high quality of Japanese products.
Now, for the second part, Work as Failure.
Failure is really two things. First, failure in the mind. You expected your career to be wonderful, but it’s not. You expected rapid promotion, you’re still stuck. You’re tired, harassed. You’re afraid of making mistakes. You made a big mistake. Now everyone thinks you’re incompetent. You wanna quit.
So far, so good.
Then you quit. Ah, now you REALLY failed. That’s failure in act.
We all fail in the mind sometimes. You think a guy like Elon Musk is mostly positive? Even the best of us feel down, stupid, discouraged, we feel like imposters, and we can feel this hundreds of times a day.
But what makes some people great is that they stand up and deliver regardless of how they feel. Great work is rare not because genius is rare, but because relentlessness is rare.
So then your thoughts don’t define you; only your actions do. And action is the key to changing thought. So, guys, be relentless. Do what you have to do in spite your dark thoughts, your blunders, and the chaos in your world. Be relentless when the only thing you have left is relentlessness.
These verses were nailed on a ship’s mast:
If you can force your heart and nerve and sinew To serve their turn long after they are gone, And so hold on when there is nothing in you Except the Will which says to them: ‘Hold on!’
If you can fill the unforgiving minute With sixty seconds’ worth of distance run, Yours is the world and everything that’s in it, And—what’s more—you’ll be a Man, my son!
Rudyard Kipling (1865-1936), “If”
If you don’t download this poem that I just cited One of the best to be penned by Rudyard Kipling You’re screwed.
Once upon a time in Florence there lived an old sculptor and his young apprentice. Their days were filled with a sacred rhythm of rituals, a dance between man and marble, chisel and hammer. Even if they were sleepy, dawn always saw them preparing their blocks, examining each for hidden faults and grains, followed by the sharpening of their tools, a process as meticulous as the act of carving itself.
The studio was littered with remnants of their toil. Discarded blocks with flawed faces and malformed limbs lay strewn. But the sculptor taught his student that mistakes were stepping stones on the path of mastery, showing the way by not being the way.
One day, after months of labor and a myriad of shattered blocks, a beautiful statue stood in the corner of the studio. It was the statue of a horse, his face radiant with divine grace, his mane flowing like a gentle river. The student sighed in admiration, “Master, it’s beautiful. Our work is complete.”
The old sculptor, a smile on his face, nodded, his gaze shifting from the statue to his apprentice and back to the shards scattered across the floor. “Yes, it’s beautiful,” he agreed, “but it is not the only work that’s complete.”
The student, confused, looked at his master. Who, understanding, elaborated, “We may have made this statue, yes, but it’s just an echo of our journey, not the destination.”
“Look at these discarded blocks,” sweeping his gaze across the littered floor. “Each is a moment we learned, an occasion we improved, a time we grew. See that one there? Remember I forced you to make it because you were so discouraged? See how it turned out? These discarded prototypes are the building blocks of who we are now.”
The student looked again at the littered workspace. And felt the beginnings of mastery.
“Every time we strike the hammer and chisel, we make a choice. Choices carve a habit. Habit, a virtue. Virtue, a character. Character, a destiny. The greatest work of art that comes out of this studio,” the sculptor said, “is our soul.”
A Beautiful Mind is a 2001 American biographical drama film based on the life of the renowned mathematician John Nash (1928-2015).
The film begins with Nash (Russell Crowe) as a graduate student at Princeton University. He is eccentric but brilliant, and he develops a revolutionary economic theory, earning him an appointment at MIT with devoted students and a caring, beautiful wife, Alicia (Jennifer Connelly).
However, Nash begins to suffer from paranoid schizophrenia. He believes he is being followed and that there’s a conspiracy against him. These delusions affect his work, his personal life, and his relationship with Alicia, leading to his involuntary commitment to a psychiatric facility.
Nash struggles with his mental health condition, the challenges it presents to his career and family life, and the side effects of the antipsychotic medication he takes.
Later, he learns to deal with his illness. Instead of taking his medication, which causes severe side effects and impacts his intellectual capacity, he decides to ignore his hallucinations. Alicia supports him in this difficult process.
In his later years, Nash is teaching again and is recognized for his contributions to game theory. He is awarded the Nobel Prize in Economics in 1994. He is able to live a fulfilling life, demonstrating resilience and the power of the human spirit.
The movie also got me thinking about game theory and its applications in life.
Game theory is a mathematical framework for understanding and analyzing situations in which the outcome of a decision depends on the decisions made by all “players” involved. It provides a formal approach to studying interactions among agents: individuals, groups, even nations.
Game theory was developed by Nash, economist Oskar Morgenstern (1902-1977), and mathematician John von Neumann (1903-1957). Nash in particular renowned for the Nash equilibrium, a fundamental concept in non-cooperative games. We describe that later.
The basic principles of game theory include four elements:
Rationality: It is assumed that each player in the game is rational, i.e., they will always make decisions that maximize their own payoff.
Strategic Behavior: Players consider the reactions of other players before making decisions. This principle reflects the interconnected decision-making nature of game theory.
Payoff Maximization: Each player, being rational, seeks to maximize their own payoff.
Equilibrium: This is the state of the game where no player can improve their payoff by unilaterally changing their own strategy. The most common equilibrium concept is the Nash equilibrium.
We’re in a Nash Equilibrium if, knowing your strategy, I have no incentive to change mine, and vice versa. Everyone is doing the best they can given what others are doing.
Here’s a simple example. Two friends, Anne and Bob, want to meet up but cannot decide whether at the Coffee Shop or at the Park. They cannot communicate directly with each other at the moment.
Their preferences are as follows:
Alice prefers the Coffee Shop, but would rather meet Bob at the Park than be alone at the Coffee Shop.
Bob prefers the Park, but would rather meet Alice at the Coffee Shop than be alone at the Park.
There are two Nash Equilibriums here: either they both go to the Coffee Shop or both go to the Park. Let’s examine:
If Alice goes to the Coffee Shop, Bob will get more satisfaction joining her at the Coffee Shop than going to the Park alone. Similarly, if Bob decides to go to the Coffee Shop, Alice gets more satisfaction by joining him at the Coffee Shop than going to the Park alone. So, both at the Coffee Shop is a Nash Equilibrium.
Similarly, both at the Park is also a Nash Equilibrium following the same logic.
Given the strategy of the other, neither Alice nor Bob can improve their satisfaction by unilaterally changing their own strategy. They achieve the highest satisfaction when their decisions align, either at the Coffee Shop or the Park.
Here’s an example from the business world.
Suppose we have two companies, Firm A and Firm B, that sell a very similar product. Each firm can choose either a High Price ($100) or a Low Price ($80) for their product.
If both firms set a high price, they both maintain reasonable sales and enjoy high profits. If one firm sets a low price while the other sets a high price, the firm with the low price will get more customers and higher profits. If both firms set a low price, they both have high sales volumes but lower profits due to the reduced price.
In this case, the Nash Equilibrium is for both Firm A and Firm B to set a Low Price.
Here’s why: If Firm B chooses a High Price, Firm A will do better by choosing a Low Price because of volume. If Firm B chooses a Low Price, Firm A still does better by choosing a Low Price. Similarly, no matter what Firm A does, Firm B always does better by choosing a Low Price. So, both firms choosing a Low Price is the Nash Equilibrium.
This result is a common theme in game theory and economics known as the race to the bottom. Even though both firms would make higher profits by maintaining high prices, competition leads them both to lower their prices to avoid losing customers to the other. Each firm’s best response to the other firm’s strategy leads to a less optimal outcome (lower profits) for both.
Applications of game theory go way beyond coffee and companies.
Optimizing Resource Allocation: Game theory can help in allocating resources efficiently in various scenarios, such as distributing tasks among workers or dividing a radio spectrum among telecom providers.
Resolving Conflicts and Negotiation: Game theory can provide insight into how to negotiate effectively in business, international relations, or even personal scenarios.
Improving Decision Making: In situations with multiple decision-makers, like a board of directors, game theory can improve decision-making processes by predicting the possible actions of each member.
Understanding Market Dynamics: Game theory can help businesses understand how competitors might react to a new product launch, a price change, or a marketing campaign, enabling them to anticipate and plan accordingly.
Managing Public Goods and Tragedy of the Commons: Game theory can help in understanding how to manage public goods (like parks, clean air) and avoid overuse or misuse, known as the tragedy of the commons.
In a simple way, here is how to use game theory, in 4 steps:
1. Define the game. 2. Analyze the game and the strategies. 3. Find the equilibrium. 4. Interpret the result.
These two examples are about communications.
A Persuasion Game:
In a persuasion game, one party (the sender) has private information, and they can send a message to influence the actions of another party (the receiver).
Consider a used car seller (sender) and a potential buyer (receiver). The seller has more information about the car’s condition (good or bad). The seller sends a message about the car’s condition, and based on this message, the buyer decides whether to buy or not.
To solve this problem using game theory:
Define the Game: Players are the seller and the buyer. The seller can send a message stating the car is in good or bad condition. The buyer can choose to buy or not buy.
Analyze the Game: The best strategy for the seller is always to say the car is in good condition to maximize the selling price. Knowing this, the buyer will discount the seller’s message.
Find the Equilibrium: In this case, a potential equilibrium could be that the seller always claims the car is in good condition, and the buyer always takes this into account when deciding whether to buy and at what price.
Interpret the Result: The buyer must weigh the potential risk of the seller’s misrepresentation against the potential benefit of a good deal.
A Coordination Game:
In a coordination game, multiple parties need to choose their actions in the absence of communication, hoping their choices will align.
Consider two friends who lose each other in a crowded festival and decide to meet without specifying where. They know each other’s favorite band is playing soon, so they could both independently decide to go there in hopes of finding each other.
To solve this problem using game theory:
Define the Game: Players are the two friends. Both have two strategies: go to the favorite band’s concert or go to a random location.
Analyze the Game: Both friends would prefer to meet up at the concert (a higher payoff), but if one thinks the other won’t go to the concert, they might choose a random location.
Find the Equilibrium: In this case, there are multiple equilibria. Both friends could end up at the concert (coordinated) or at different locations (uncoordinated).
Interpret the Result: The friends must reveal each other’s preferences; this will help them coordinate their actions without direct communication.
I was in such a situation in college; we had no cell phones then. Me and a friend were supposed to meet up with other friends in a small town, but we did not find them there because of a miscommunication. But knowing that some of the guys in the other group regularly heard weekday mass we thought we might meet them at church first thing in the morning. So, me and my friend went to the fire station close to the town church and spent the night sleeping on small benches. The next day, we met the other guys at church.
An important distinction in game theory is between finite and infinite games.
Finite games are those that have a definite ending point. They involve a known, set number of players, and each player has a limited set of possible strategies. A common example of a finite game is chess, where each player has a finite set of possible moves, and the game ends once a certain condition (checkmate, stalemate, or agreement between the players) is met.
On the other hand, infinite games do not have a definitive ending point. These games can continue indefinitely, as they don’t have a pre-determined number of rounds or moves. The strategies that players can employ in these games can also be limitless. An example of an infinite game could be the game of life itself, where individuals (the players) continually interact with one another without a clearly defined end point.
The process of determining equilibrium in these two types of games can differ significantly.
Finite Games
Finite games have a known, finite number of players, strategies, and outcomes. They also have a clear endpoint. Examples include board games like chess, or the three examples above. In these games, Nash Equilibrium is a common solution to predict the outcome.
In simple games, Nash Equilibriums can often be found through iterative elimination of dominated strategies – strategies that are worse than some other strategy no matter what the other players do. In more complex games, finding a Nash Equilibrium may involve a more complex mathematical process or use computer algorithms.
Infinite Games:
Infinite games, on the other hand, have an indefinite or infinite time horizon. They don’t necessarily have a clear endpoint. An ongoing business rivalry, for instance, could be modeled as an infinite game. Solution concepts like the Nash Equilibrium can still be used, but often we have to analyze the game from many potential endpoints and work backward to the present.
A key difference in determining equilibrium in these two types of games lies in the consideration of time and the potential for future play. In finite games, players do not need to consider future interactions beyond the defined endpoint of the game. In contrast, in infinite games, players need to consider the potential for future interactions and the implications of their current choices on future outcomes.
What happens when two people in the game of life do not see it in the same way?
Consider two people, Frank and Indy. Both are starting their careers in the same field. They’re competitive and see each other as rivals. Frank views life as a finite game, while Indy views it as an infinite game.
Frank’s Perspective (Life as a Finite Game):
Frank thinks that success in life is about winning and losing. He believes the goal is to climb the corporate ladder faster than anyone else, earn the highest salary, and retire early. Frank is always looking for immediate opportunities for promotion and increases in salary. His strategy often involves attempting to outperform his colleagues, including Indy, even if it means withholding crucial information or taking credit for others’ work.
Indy’s Perspective (Life as an Infinite Game):
Indy sees his career as a journey with no definitive end. He values growth, relationships, and long-term success. Indy works hard and aims to do well, but also believes in the importance of helping others and fostering good relationships. He shares his knowledge with his colleagues, helps them when they struggle, and collaborates on projects to create the best results for his team and company.
The Outcome:
In the short run, Frank’s approach yields positive results. He gets promoted quickly and his pay rises rises faster due to his aggressive strategy. But in the long run, his colleagues resent him. Frank has a reputation for being difficult to work with, and people are less inclined to support him when he needs it. He hits a ceiling.
Indy, on the other hand, builds strong professional relationships. He becomes known as a team player, reliable, helpful, contributes significantly to the success of the team and company. Over time, he advances in his career. His progression is not just defined by title or salary, but by the respect he earns, the network he builds, and the positive impact he makes.
Over time, it becomes clear that Indy’s strategy is winning the “infinite game.” While he might not always “win” in the traditional sense (promotion or pay raise), he enjoys a successful, fulfilling career marked by steady growth, respect from colleagues, and a supportive professional network inside and outside the company. He eventually breaks through the ceiling that has blocked Frank, and retires leaving behind a much bigger legacy of disciples.
Viewing life as an infinite game changes one’s strategy and can lead to a different kind of “winning”.
In conclusion, recognizing whether you are dealing with a finite or an infinite game in any specific situation can help you understand the rules of the game, shape your strategy, and determine your approach to your interactions with other players. Correctly identifying these variables leads you to “win”.
I asked my students in Ethics this semester to write a short story on the theme “You may escape the law, you may escape the ethics committee, but you can’t escape your conscience.”
1. Sin is a terrible thing. From the young scientist who fabricated the results of a drug test that killed people, to the guy who patched organ parts in a demented attempt to recreate his daughter, sin is all the more ugly because it is chosen. On the other side, one must choose to repair it, then one might finally be set at peace. Otherwise, conscience will scream. Not a few wrote about the suicide of the protagonists.
2. We think we are kings and queens. But, in fact, there are limits. Look at any playground: if you don’t follow the rules no one will play with you. You can twist those rules, play your own game, but in the end you will have to apologize or the other kids won’t play.
3. Principles are better guides than rules. Legally, one can obtain a patent if the person one stole the idea from has no proof he was the originator. Laws define actions and circumstances, but cannot possibly define all the combinations. But the spirit of the law is based on principles of fairness. Conscience judges on principle, and punishes the actor with remorse. An actor might prefer to have his PhD rescinded than to bear the screams of his conscience.
4. Sometimes one will meet a situation that will challenge one’s sense of right and wrong. Maybe one is faced with imminent death and must administer an untested compound at risk. Often, lesser risks are more dangerous because they are easier to run. But then, being based on unethical principles, progressively worse decisions can be made down the line as they were not nipped at the bud. Guarding the conscience is a life’s work.
5. It is wise not to drown the screams of conscience. People on the right side of it recognize the signs of emotion and reason, then muster the courage to bite the pill. Nonetheless, the struggle is real:
• Strong emotions like rage, and strong feelings like agony can trump reason, and the deed may be hard to repair. But some people are able to choose the most uncomfortable outcomes, like the loss of a PhD, in exchange for the knowledge of having done the right thing.
• Often, as with job promotions, the desperate need to be right and to advance blinds one to seeing the immediate consequences of, say, fabricating a photo that someone might not even notice. Of course, we know someone eventually does.
• And then there’s simple cowardice in the face of peer pressure — “what will my boss say if I have no results to show while everyone else does?”
What can one do to stay ethical?
Always, heed the call of conscience, which is harder to ignore the more terrible the sin was. But that voice can be drowned out if our infractions are minor, and that leads to a vicious spiral. But we will hear it. When we do, let’s listen. Conscience can be wrong, its reasoning may be misplaced. But at least by lending it our ear we don’t take the first step in a deadly spiral.
Beware rationalization. This is easy for adults, because by habit we find a reason for doing any thing, even if we have to invent that reason. But you must ask: what do you base your ethical rules on? Do you base them on relativism, i.e., right is what I make it? The most insidious of these rationalization is, I think, relativism. Without a sense of an objective basis for right and wrong, there is no point to even discuss ethics.
Do you base them in law, i.e., if it’s not forbidden it’s allowed? Do you base them on a sense of duty? Do you base them on the nature of the act, or its consequences, on its lack of perfection? Do you base them, heaven forbid, on superstition?
Do you think that the ends justify the means? That pleasure is more important if immediate rather than delayed? Is it enough to look impressive rather than go through the effort of being impressive?
And then, what are your intentions? And how do the circumstances make the sin worse or less bad?
These considerations suggest that ethics should be a part of the curriculum and rigorously discussed and debated.
We will at some point ask the students to make sacrifices. I was moved when one student said “Sir, in this case I think I would rather sacrifice short term credit for long term trust.” I told her she just summarized the whole of ethics class.
The more effective sacrifices will not be in big things. They would be in the little challenges, which represent daily exercises rather than tournament competitions. Most of these small challenges will be anonymous, in areas where we would be ashamed if we were seen. Small challenges are often also in areas where we are afraid, and thus fail to do good when it is clearly in our power to do so.
Finally, it is good to confess our evil deeds. And on the flipside, to forgive. The consequences may be painful even if temporary. But still, the punishment will be a something in a sea of infinite somethings that took place in our past, present, and future.
We got this.
We do wrong. But, I think there’s no better peace than knowing we have been able to right our wrongs.
I have a friend who is going through a personal family crisis. And he is stressed because his work is suffering. My advice: Pare, what you’re going through is a something in a sea of somethings. This, too, shall pass. You got this.
To think that this whole few years for him were not really what he thought they were, but that’s fine. The solution to his stress is not to fight to become the excellent professional he claims he wants to be. Rather, admit to the fact that he’s winning at being average. My advice is: don’t feel bad about that, pare, because we’re paid to work, not to be excellent. If we had to be paid for excellence, 80% of us would be fired right now. Admit instead that your “excellence” goal, the one you truly want to be great in, what’s taking a good part of your time, and what you’re doing well is to be a good father to your son.
You got this.
To be a good dad. I know this is what occupies his mind, because it’s what we often talk about. Since the recent troubles in his wife, his son has become even more intensely his main concern. I’ve met the guy. He’s about to enter college. Very bright, alert. He’ll grow up to be a lady’s man. And I agree that my friend should do what he can to give his son all the encouragement possible. Or else some bad girl will snag him, and that’ll be the start of a horror story.
It’s, well, it’s a fact that my friend only realized that he wasn’t happy with his marriage. All 20 plus years, not happy, because of a verbally abusive and entitled wife. Things just got into a head this year, and the couple had to separate. How’s that for a bummer, to spend 20 years trying to be a good husband, a good father, and a good professional, and all this time, without really admitting it, the main goal was to protect a young man? My friend is actually quite brilliant and does good work. But he also has his heart in the right place. The office has been a way to pay the bills. The wife has been more or less a lost case.
He just has to admit that although he doesn’t like it, he has actually been winning at what he does. He’s winning at being average. He’s wired to win: what he really has in his heart is what his mind and body will carry out. By admitting that professional excellence was second place, and that this lie deceived him, and instead admitting that his first place was elsewhere, I think he has actually become happier.
The background is a combination of fear of rejection, and inflated expectation. People are successful at what they do not so much because they were sure they would succeed, but because they kept trying until they got it. Now, how can one keep trying if one did not have the will for it?
Funny: if you admit you’re winning at being average, are you really winning? I say, yes, especially if you’re also winning in a more important game.
Now, having admitted that in reality he’s really pursuing a goal different from what appears on his CV, he will now set his sights a little lower. He will still deliver the expected, but it wouldn’t stress him, knowing that now he has the time for his son. Of course, I advised him not to publicize this truth.
But in reality, people won’t care one way or another. They may say they do, only because such knowledge was useful to them or to their vanity. They might feel good that there’s someone like my friend who is in a worse personal situation than they. Morbid. Other than that, People Don’t Care.
And why should he care what they say? He’s not asking for their opinion. If he wanted their opinion and feedback he would ask for it. Right now, the only feedback that’s really going to help him will come from professional counselors, or from disinterested friends like myself.
“All happy families are alike; each unhappy family is unhappy in its own way.”
Leo Tolstoy, in Anna Karenina
This is the first line in Anna Karenina, a novel by the great Russian author Leo Tolstoy (1828-1910). What many have called the Anna Karenina principle gets its name from this line. The principle states that a defect in one factor dooms the entire thing to failure.
I don’t exactly agree. If the Anna Karenina principle were to apply to all families, very few would be happy families. From what I see, however, families go through good times and bad times. This is true for rich or poor families. The external pressures on the family can change their moods, but they can’t really bring these families down, short of forcibly separating children and parents.
What can bring a family down must come from the inside. I think that a decision to quit, to decide we are no longer going to try to “solve this thing together” can indeed bring a family down. What can inspire a family to stay together? I know at least one:
“The family that prays together stays together.”
Fr. Patrick Peyton (1909-1992)
I don’t suppose anyone would say that the House of Nazareth was like the House of Herod. Herod’s house was rich, they had all the good food, and they had parties all the time. St Joseph’s house did not have floor tiles, they had to get their water from down the block, and they couldn’t afford much from a carpenter’s salary. Yet St. Joseph’s house was the happiest house in history. Because it was the model on earth of the Trinity in Heaven.
Briefly, what do I mean that St. Joseph’s house was a model of the Trinity? Three things.
First, there’s Fatherhood: Got the Father. Second, there’s Filiation: God the Son. And third, there’s Love: God the Holy Spirit. The Father generated the Son from all eternity, and their Love for each Other is so perfect it is a Third Person who also proceeded from the Father and Son from all eternity. In Nazareth, St. Joseph was father, who loved Mary, and of their love came Jesus. Although not generated in a biological sense, Jesus is indeed the son of Mary and Joseph because their love, those three, is the love of a family.
That love is what’s essential; everything else is accidental. The poverty of the House of Nazareth was accidental, of little importance beside their love.
The recent and unprecedented canonization by Pope Francis of a husband and wife, Louis (1823-1894) and Zélie Martin (1831-1877), the parents of Saint Thérèse, in October 2015 has stirred a great interest in another extraordinary family.
Saint Thérèse (1873-1897), a Doctor of the Church, wrote in her classic spiritual biography, Story of a Soul, how important her family life was in setting the foundation for her spiritual life. She grew up in a close family, where the deep love of parents and children for God, neighbor, and each other was the very heart of their home and family life.
This family of saints, who lived in the late 1800s and early 1900s, might appear from their quaint photographs to have lived a relatively serene and smooth path to sainthood, untarnished by modern problems. But, a recent biography “A Family of Saints” by Joseph Piat, shows the reality is quite the opposite. They suffered from the loss of four children, the failure of a family business, and the death of Zélie, at forty-five, to breast cancer.
The secret to their happiness then is the secret to our happiness now–unfailing love made possible by boundless faith in God. All the challenges the Martins faced, great and small, were met with a profound trust in Divine Providence.
What can we learn from these families that are useful for all our different situations?
Married life is everything as complicated as running a business, but there are no college degrees to train one for it. Our own friends have talked about what they’ve done: EduChild and Beyond I Do, successful platforms where husbands and wives learn from other couples using case studies. I was moved by that anecdote about two participants, a husband and a wife, separated, who attended an out-of-town session in two cars and left it in one. They have since rebuilt their family.
Our younger friends have also started the LEAP (life experience action planning) project, a platform for young people at the beginning of their professional careers. It’s a good way for bringing young men and young women who share the same values, particular about starting families. Even if LEAP don’t marry each other, they certainly get lessons that set them on the right track early.
One thing we can say about these platforms is that yes, they’re doing a good job, and if one has time to join them as a mentor, that would be a great use of one’s time and talent. Who knows, perhaps without you realizing it, your insights could save someone’s marriage. You can also find lasting friends there, which is another very important support. More than anything, the participants learn from friendship, which allows support beyond the sessions.
Similar activities are organized in many places and in many cities. Couples for Christ and Ligaya ng Panginoon. They have been around since the 1980’s and have acquired much experience and prestige. My parents were members, and many of my childhood friends were children from other Couples for Christ.
Another kind of support are the family get-togethers that are organized between neighbors. I think this practice was more common in the past because I remember my parents’ friends coming over and we going to their place. People just spent a good time together.
I think this contact with other families not only gives us good ideas but also trains children and parents alike in SERVICE. You have to prepare the food. You also have to dress up, which teaches you the value of dressing up as a form of charity. You have to share your toys, grudgingly at first, and then you find out it’s so much more fun when toys are shared. When we got older and had cars of our own, our parents would ask us shuttle relatives around. We never stopped our family get togethers during the pandemic, just lessened them. I think we have to fight a bit more to keep these practices alive in these days of condominiums and social media.
I think it is as important to see, not just hear. So, one effective platform is the gender-specific seminar. Talks and workshops are staple. But I think that the physical arrangements — the tasteful and home-like decors and furnishings, and the great food, for example — leave something in the soul, something seen. In interviews, I learned that people get at least as much good vibes from these physicals as from the talks and workshops. Somehow ambience fosters great camaraderie, which is why face-to-face seminars will always be superior to online ones.
God has given couples special graces to carry out their mission. Those graces are very powerful, sometimes they will amaze you. Sometimes couples and children will perform miracles. Count on those graces. This becomes so much easier and natural to do when you pray. God listens to these prayers, and grants solutions tailored to the situation and the talents of the people in various homes.
Which brings us back to Anna Karenina, and modify it: happy families make it work in various ways.
A very powerful consultant in this matter is St. Joseph himself. More and more families are appointing St. Joseph as Patron of their house. “St Joseph, Head of the House of Nazareth, and Patron of the Universal Church, I appoint you Patron of my own house.”
If the reader is competent, he can turn the knowledge in that narrative into something he can use in life or as a starting point for further work. In other words, turn knowledge into learning.
However, learning is marred by many pitfalls. A common one is pedantry.
What is a pedant? The friend who corrects every fact as you speak is a pedant. The party guest who details the fuel consumption and all the humps and traffic lights he had to go through, instead of simply saying he drove an Altis to the party, is a pedant. Pedantry is to speak with more precision than is required by the purpose.
Because of this obsession with precision, pedants have found an ally in the natural sciences. Indeed, pedantry is rampant there. Most of us scientists are more concerned about how we describe our work than about saying something useful. I’m a pedant when I talk to non-biologists as if they were biologists. When I do that, and I do in fact, I’m really thinking more about how awesome I am.
The problem is, we do sound awesome. And so everyone else wants to imitate us. The result is linguistic fuzz.
Take this example: “”Indeed, it should be assiduously noted that the quantity of dihydrogen monoxide utilized in the experiment was precisely measured to the microgram, utilizing a volumetric apparatus calibrated in accordance with the International System of Units, ensuring the utmost accuracy and precluding the possibility of even the most infinitesimal deviation from the intended quantity.”
The writer could just have said he measured the mass of water using a weighing scale.
Here’s an example from the fine arts.
“For me the challenge of painting lies implicit with the act, to penetrate inherited conceptual deposits and attempt the possible impingement of spirit, the personal image remains the enduring command of conscience.”
Do we even understand that? But, wow, pare: penetrate, deposits, impingement, image, command. By the way, that’s how you can tell someone graduated from a university.
More examples; here’s a list of 3 pairs. One member of the pair is the title of an article from the natural sciences, and the other an actual book in popular psychology.
1. Reaction of aldehydes with monosubstituted malonic acids. 2. The happiness hypothesis.
1. Ion-forming equilibria of triarylmethyl chlorides in liquid sulfur dioxide. 2. Psycho-cybernetics: how to program your mind for success.
1. Ultrasonic propagation in liquid ammonia and in liquid ammonia solutions of sodium, lithium, sodium bromide, and sodium iodide. 2. Neurolinguistic programming: a systematic approach to change.
To be clear, I’m not against the content of neurolinguistic programming or NLP, nor do I deny that happiness can have a neurological component. I’m just being careful about the unnecessarily arcane way they are sometimes presented.
Why am I being careful? Obviously, because fuzz is boring. And it’s unintelligible. And, a subject half-learned made to sound fully learned and then applied to solve real problems? A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.
Last week I chatted with my high school best friend, Gil. He took a 3 month course in NLP because he wanted to help people with mental issues. No doubt, NLP works very well. But, to grow one’s clientele hahanapan ka pa rin ng license to practice psychology. He’s now taking a master’s degree from a university and plans to get his PRC license in 2025.
Gil works hard. But for the lazy, the approach is, if you can’t dazzle them with your brilliance, baffle them with your bullshit.
And so, the marriage between pedantry and science has made it so easy to look sophisticated. The result? A massive barrage of bullshit.
To compete, creators sell you their content as being at least as valuable as anyone else’s. To convince you that joy is important they will not just call it joy, but “the happiness hypothesis“, or “the happiness equation“, or “happiness: lessons from a new science“. One book for the price of three. An idea that sounds scientific is as good as any idea that is also scientific, right?
Wrong. All knowledge is not equal. What you SAW does not have the same truth value as what it MEANT. The jump from knowledge to learning starts with data, goes through judgement, reaches a conclusion. There’s a technique to read science, one for history, for poetry, for fiction, for psychology. A 3-month seminar on NLP is a far different animal from a 3-year masters program in psychology.
But, experts, if they snub anything outside their field, must face another problem: to think that their technique is THE technique, they turn a method into a doctrine. Hence, Dawkins proved God doesn’t exist using Darwinian evolution, while Descartes proved the opposite using mathematics. Marx turned economic analysis into the doctrine of communism, and Malthus turned exponential equations into a doctrine of population control, that the Chinese Communist Party in 1979 turned into the One Child Policy, a disaster they’re unable to reverse.
The market is swamped with books, also false teachings, memes, fake news, clickbait, conspiracy theories. How can we navigate this tsunami of knowledge in a way that gets us safely to port? Two ways.
1. Talk less, say more. Learned men have dug deep enough to hit the aquifer that connects all truth, allowing much to be left unsaid in conversation. You only need a few very sharp tools to quickly reach that aquifer. Choosing good books was easier when publication was expensive and so only the best got printed. I mean even Das Kapital,The Interpretation of Dreams, and Madame Bovary are great books, and useful if it’s clear to you why and how to read them. With modern syllabi, fewer and fewer people now read the same books; good conversation is becoming more and more rare, although we can still safely quote from the Apocalypse. Anyway, consult, study, and test your tools.
2. Read only books that have stood the test of time. Jean Guitton, Catholic philosopher, suggests to prefer books that are still talked about at 3 years old, better 30 years, best 300 years. He says to read only those books that make you gasp “I would love to have written this myself.” Guitton is not against quantity itself, but against uncritical and disorganized consumption. To counter this, he suggests a method of comparative study. As an example let’s say you read Les Miserables. How to read it according to Guitton? Three steps: Choose, distinguish, contradict.
Step one, choose: you’ve already chosen a good book; now, in one sentence what is this book about? what does each chapter say? What is not said that could have been said?
Step two, distinguish: How does this book compare and contrast with other books of Victor Hugo, with other authors? Why this choice of detail and not this other?
Step three, contradict: What facts, what assumptions did these authors get wrong? How do we resolve the dispute?
Now, how the hell am I supposed to read 52 books a year if I followed this method? But who said you have to read cover to cover? Or in one direction, front to back? And who said that 52 books is even a good idea?
You know, as you master these skills you’ll see the true superpower of a learned man lies in the quality of his questions. Mama Mary is not recorded as having read a single book. Yet after she asked, “How can this be since I know not man?,” the Word was made flesh.
To conclude. We teach the way we learn. If we consume BS then we vomit BS. But, if we read judiciously, then like a mother pelican, pie pellicane, we will regurgitate healthy food.
One of the little practices that impressed me big time when I lived in France was to experience how the French conversed. At first it wasn’t a very pleasant experience because many of them had the annoying practice of sometimes finishing your sentences. Until I realized it was something common to other people as well, me included. I realized, though, that the practice was really a consequence of them really thinking with you.
I learned that conversation is cultivated, valued, and trained by French society and specifically by its educational system, which is heavy on logic (math) and language (literature and philosophy), two indispensables when one must converse well. Cafes aren’t just the cafe au lait and croissant. Ideas are bounced around, critiqued, improved. Out of these cafes came the philosophies of Descartes, Sartre, Camus. Out of them came at least one revolution.
True conversation is, briefly, a debate enjoyed among friends. It is not reportage, the act of conveying news and facts, which happens to be confused with conversation by many other people.
I realized that the art has unwritten rules (finishing another’s sentences was not one of them, just a consequence of these rules). These help to guarantee that friendly debate stayed friendly, even if intense and emotional. I try to distill these rules here.
Aim to enjoy dissecting ideas, for the betterment of all. Apart from logic and language, one has to have knowledge. The genius of the French educational system is that nearly everyone reads the same books, the same authors, covering a vast array of fields from history to literature to current events. A society that didn’t have a canon as the French do, is forced to talk about movies, and hopefully progress from there. One also has to know how to tell jokes and make witty remarks, which served to cool emotions down and reassure one’s “opponents” that you’re actually with them.
Conversation is personally and professionally fruitful. Here are some reasons why:
Conversation builds relationships. Conversation allows us to connect with others beyond the level of facts and into the level of feelings and ideas. Sharing such intimate thoughts fosters trust and builds bonds — why else would I share?
We learn as we share: Conversation provides an opportunity to put ideas through the crucible. We learn there are different perspectives. We see alternative ways to think. How we think is pointed out to us, and sometimes we are surprised. We learn diverse opinions cannot all be equally good. A key skill is listening, which isn’t just about absorbing information, but thinking, feeling, and perceiving in another’s shoes. Finish each others’ sentences is, in fact, practical camaraderie.
Conversation trains and disciplines the emotions: Conversations can be very emotional, yet the French manage to still remain friends. We say they “don’t take it personally”, but I think they actually do — but from a position of strength. First of all, they have confidence in their skills, and they expect that others will be as well. It’s not a question of proving who is better. Conversations help us come to grips with our emotions.
We learn to negotiate and to resolve conflicts: Office meetings are not conversations because they are not leisure activities. But similar rules apply. I’ve seen intense meetings where people fight, and then enjoy coffee together afterwards.
Networking and professional growth: Conversation is essential for networking and career development. Skill in conversation is valued in French professional circles, for obvious reasons. And, again, it’s not about proving your superiority but your ability to contribute.
Influence and leadership: Conversational skills are crucial for those in leadership roles. Good conversationalists have the ability to inspire, motivate, and influence others through their communication. They can articulate their vision, engage in persuasive conversations, and effectively convey their ideas and goals, thereby inspiring their team members and achieving desired outcomes.
While conversations can vary in nature and style, there are certain rules, qualities, and skills that contribute to being a good conversationalist. Here are some:
Listen actively: Pay attention, maintain eye contact, and show genuine interest in what they have to say. Stand in someone else’s shoes as they speak, before returning to your own shoes, but this time a “better” person.
Show respect and courtesy: Treat others with respect and courtesy. Conversationalists value diverse opinions. Avoid interrupting or dominating the conversation, and allow each person to express their thoughts and ideas freely. Avoid judgment and maintain a positive and open-minded attitude.
Show empathy and understanding: Many people pay lip service to empathy, when they should admit that empathizing can result in internal conflict. Welcome this conflict. You don’t have to adopt and agree, merely understand, and if you experience internal conflict then it means your effort to stand in another’s shoes was serious.
Communicate clearly: Express your ideas clearly, use appropriate language and tone, and avoid excessive jargon or complex terminology that might confuse the listener. Be mindful of non-verbal cues such as body language and facial expressions. Do not make all your premises explicit when you argue. Leaving things unsaid and yet be understood, that’s a mark of an intellectual. The opposite is pedantry.
Ask thoughtful questions: Show you are curious and genuinely interested in the other person’s perspective. Use questions to explore topics further and encourage the other person to share more. Learn techniques in asking questions.
Contribute: Strike a balance between talking and listening, allowing for a dynamic and engaging exchange. And do it from a position of strength. For example, my French friends expected an Asian like myself to be thoroughly Asian in my “presentation”, to not try to be French. I had to restudy my own Asian history books as a result!
Adapt: Conversations can take unexpected turns, and good conversationalists are flexible, adaptable, and have a sense of humor. Be open to changing topics, and balance this against changing too much too quickly.
Be curious and eager to learn, like a child: Cultivate a broad range of knowledge about various subjects. This doesn’t mean you have to be an expert in all but your field. Stay informed about current events, and have diverse interests. If you did not grow up in a society with a canon of readings, at least make the effort to watch and listen to what others are consuming if you want to converse with people outside your professional circle. I found that the best approach is simply to cultivate a long friendship with people from these circles, specifically the Toastmasters, as you will all reach some kind of canon substitute over time.
Unfortunately, bad conversations abound. They are marked by a lack of genuine interest, failure to listen (many people think only about what they are about to say), pedantry (they say every darn detail of every darn thing), talk about themselves, talk too long, ask irrelevant questions. A common defect is to flit and float from one topic to another, which I suspect is initiated by people who do not have the discipline to control their emotions, or do not have the knowledge or interest to contribute to a topic. Many who fail are insecure and compensate by trying to prove they are superior; when others disagree, they take offense. They take things personally, but from a position of weakness. A few do not have the emotional quotient to understand non-verbal cues, and therefore do not see that others are no longer enjoying their time with them. Finally, some people simply exude negative energy, always complaining, always ranting, always talking ill of other people — or simply talking about other people.
Conversation is a skill that takes practice. Seek debate resources, add humor and friendliness, and you’ll have conversation.
jaylazzo 
