Note: Once again this message has become split into two quite separate
issues. I have therefore responded separately to these. This is the first
such response.

On 01/07/2009 11:30 PM, David Thomas Jackemeyer wrote:
>
> --- In morelife@yahoogroups.com, Paul Wakfer <paul@...> wrote:
> >
> > On 12/31/2008 11:21 AM, David Thomas Jackemeyer wrote:
> > > Hi Morelife community,
> > >
> > > I confess, I have been lurking (read, as a twist on the
> > > pronunciation: looking) at the messages since summer concluded,
> > > hoping, wishing, trying to write a response -- joshing, because I
> > > purposefully chose not to respond as I've been focusing most of my
> > > attention on developing a knack for science, especially that of my
> > > body.
> >
> > It took me many decades to learn that my happiness and overall
> > productivity are higher when I do not forsake things that I really
> > *would like* to be doing, because of some misguided idea of what I
> > really *ought" to be doing. I think that you have not learned that yet.
>
> You suggest that I am not striking a good balance between practicing
> what I like to do and what I ought to do.
>

When I use an expression like the above, "I think that ..." it should
not be taken to mean that I am positive, but rather that I think that
there is a reasonable possibility. It appears that it would be better if
I more explicitly state my degree of uncertainty by changing the words
to something like "I think that perhaps...". But, yes, I was suggesting
that perhaps you have not yet learned that getting more immediate
benefits from quickly rewarding activities each day is necessary in
order to persevere at activities that will only result in a net positive
benefit after a much longer time. One should never do anything merely
because one "ought to" do it. In fact, the whole idea of "ought" is out
of place in the context of rational thinking and evaluating. One simply
performs any given activity because one's best estimate is that doing so
will optimally increase one's lifetime happiness. So if "ought" is ever
used, then that is all that it should ever mean, and since "ought" has
so much emotional and cultural baggage associated with it, I am
beginning to think that the word should be completely abandoned. I
personally feel sad about that decision, because "what could be and ought
to be" was a favorite expression of Ayn Rand, and particularly one
which meant a lot to me in decades past. What makes the word "ought" no
longer tenable is that its meaning, and particularly its content (those
things that one ought to do or that ought to be done), depend so
strongly on individual opinions and assessments.


> I have witnessed others (you and Kitty, e.g.) enjoy both the
> processes and outcomes inherent with the scientific method, so I
> would like to also gain such reward. I realize that doing so can
> also lead to indirect rewards such as improved ability to predict,
> wisdom regarding creative problem solving, and an accumulation of
> useful knowledge. I want to get on that path as quickly as possible.

What you have missed above (and the most important aspect for me) is the
pure enjoyment that one can get from thinking, analyzing, creating and
actually effecting a practical solution. Often the method and practice
of the process, far from being an odious task whose only benefit is the
result, is more enjoyable than the result obtained. I think that perhaps
you also do not realize that the so-called "scientific method" is merely
a portion of rational analysis and logical thought applied to the
physical world.

[This is a good point at which to mention the availability, after many
years out of print, of Henry Hazlitt's fantastic book, _Thinking as a
Science_. I only recently learned that it was published in paperback
in 2005; the copy we have is one Paul acquired back in the late 1970s.
Hazlitt wrote this book in 1916 - 93 years ago, when he was but 21
years old! (The 1969 edition received scant changes as Hazlitt
explains in his forward, which I hope is retained in this new 2005
edition. Instead he wrote a fairly short epilogue for those items
that he would have done differently if he were writing on the subject
for the first time, or it could be considered an addendum.) It was
really done as a way of teaching himself how to be an effective
thinker. The wisdom (as well as errors) from some of his
contemporaries and predecessors, his own observations and methods are
fascinating for their keen discernment and are not outdated by recent
neuroscience findings and are ones I found to be presented in a most
interesting and helpful manner.

How to think in an analytical evaluative manner is something that very
few people learn in their youth and large numbers never learn, to any
significant degree. It is an area of study not included in grade
schools and high schools. And educators beyond that level assume that
their students have learned how to think or they would not be there.
Too often a student finds understanding complex subjects highly
difficult because s/he does not know how to *really* think. The first
two chapters of Hazlitt's book are an excellent non-technical
description of what thinking is and how it is most effectively used.
(Several times I found myself amazed at the depth of understanding
coming from someone only 21 years old.)

It is clear to me that going through the process of discovery and
practice that Hazlitt explains in this, his first book, went a very long
way towards enabling him to later understand and explain economics as
skillfully as he did in numerous articles and several books - writings
that are timeless in their assessment of common ideas and actions that
fall under the classification of economics for their consequences.

Hazlitt's books at mises.org -
http://www.mises.org/store/Hazlitt-Collection-C37.aspx
Hazlitt's books at Amazon.com - http://tinyurl.com/73vqe7

**Kitty]

> An example involving a physical-psychological phenomenon: I have
> never enjoyed drawing blood, even for a small sample used for
> determining my blood content and their respective concentrations. I
> would like to respond differently, more focused on the benefits
> (rather than the sickening feeling of being sucked dry) and less
> likely to steer away from opportunities to learn more about my body.

I think it is unlikely that *anyone* actually enjoys the direct process
of having blood taken from hir body. It is slightly painful (as is any
puncture wound), but that should be all the harm that you
physiologically receive. It the phlebotomist is competent, then that
should be the only negative of the process. Any "sickening feeling of
being sucked dry" is merely your own emotional (psychological) baggage
(it is a very tiny amount of your total blood, so the whole idea of
being "sucked dry" is simply nonsense) which you can and would best work
to eliminate. As with any other irrational emotion, you work to
reprogram yourself so that it no longer occurs. You do this by first
having at your mind's edge, all the positive reasons why getting blood
drawn is beneficial to you and even the benefits of the process itself
(enjoying the interesting mechanics of it: the competence of your body
pumping out the blood to fill the tubes, the competent work of the
phlebotomist and the technically neat way that such a blood draw can be
accomplished, the friendly chatting with hir, particularly if s/he is
someone who you see regularly, the way your own competent body
quickly seals and heals the puncture). So as soon as this "sickening
feeling" occurs you tell yourself what an idiot you are to feel this
way, you strongly squelch and deny the feeling (effectively tell it to
"get lost and do not bother me any more"), you then concentrate on all the
short and long range positives of the procedure and its end results. If
you keep doing this, then in time the emotion will be eradicated and you
will be *free* of it (similar to the way your immune system rids your
body of a pathogen - an inconsistent emotion is a pathogen of the mind).
Actually, I have been through all this before in past posts on the
subject of changing emotional habits, so I am surprised that you did not
realize that those posts about other emotions and emotions in general
apply to this one also. You must sometime get to the point where you
fully understand that your emotions do not come out of nowhere and are
not in control of you, but rather they are products of your values and
rational thoughts and are totally under your control with respect to
making them consistent with those values and thoughts.

[I was a person who for many years dreaded venipunctures and even
fingersticks - to the point that I actually felt faint when they took
place. (Having been a nurse for 16 years didn't change this.) I knew
that this was a psychological reaction but also knew no way to really
get rid of the awful emotional reaction/physiological sensations that
occurred. I went through the process because I was well aware of the
importance and physical benefit to me; I just tried to not look or
even think about it and hope that I wouldn't pass out.

It wasn't too long after joining Paul that the periodic fingersticks
for fasting blood glucose started - he'd been doing it for years. I
couldn't bring myself to prick my own finger but let Paul do it to me
- while I was lying in bed because the first couple times I felt
faint. With explanation by Paul as to how to take control of these
(and other) emotions (and Paul has improved his explanation since
then), I began to do just that. Within a couple weeks I was sticking
myself with the automatic gadget without any sickening fear. (Changing
the lancet at the first indication that it's beginning to get dull -
it then starts to hurt - makes a big difference.)

I still don't watch the phlebotomist do the actual draw on me - though
I don't mind watching Paul get stuck and had little problem doing
numerous venipunctures on others for starting infusions when I was a
nurse. But I no longer get faint, even when the phlebotomist is not
the very best and misses my excellent veins.

I know from personal experience that ridding oneself of these
pathogenic emotional responses (as Paul has newly named them) can be
done - this experience above is just one where I've succeeded. Maybe
some others on the group will share their experiences. **Kitty]


> Instead of comfortably avoiding blood drawings, I ought to seek them,
> possibly even participate in training to learn to safely and
> effectively draw from myself.

Any puncture to the body is a chance for infection and should never be
done intentionally unless there is a good overall benefit from its
occurrence. With respect to doing it to yourself, while it would always
be beneficial to learn such a technique, and you could perhaps draw
your own blood from a leg vein, it would be both difficult and possibly
error prone (harmful to yourself) to draw blood from your own arm
(injecting a fluid is far easier than drawing/removing blood).

> With the right schedule and attitude, I think I could eventually lean
> toward drawing blood rather than avoiding it.

You will never do so without conscious action to eliminate your
irrational negative emotions (not to say that negative emotions are
always irrational or that positive ones are always rational) about it
and replace them with positive ones. You will never succeed for very
long at any attempt to act counter to your emotions. Rather you will
only succeed in such action if you eliminate the negative emotion and
replace it with a positive one. Put another way, you cannot for long
make yourself do anything that you do not feel good about, and it is
folly to try, because the ultimate result will only be a feeling of
failure and a resultant loss of self-esteem.

> The same with being more scientific, both on a daily basis as well as
> during times of acute concentration: I think I can eventually lean
> toward this mindset rather than shrugging it off repeatedly for an
> easier path,

While the phrase next below is certainly true, you will not succeed at
"being more scientific" until you enumerate and identify your negative
emotions about it, analyze them and determine that they are not
consistent with your consciously held values and then act to replace
them with positive emotions in the manner described above for blood draw
negativity.

> and I think the quicker I advance in that direction, the
> better.
>
> > WRT a "knack for science", there is a major difference between gaining
> > scientific knowledge and understanding the scientific method as
> > opposed to actually enjoying the practice of some science. And note
> > that no one practices any large part of the sciences (at least not t
> > one time), but rather practices in an extremely narrow area of some
> > science - this is particularly true for the experimental sciences.
> > Furthermore, not everyone does or needs to have a "knack for science".
> > Instead what is necessary in order to be effective in dealing with
> > reality is adequate knowledge about the findings of those who do have
> > a "knack for science" and about the logical methodology behind how
> > such findings are determined. The latter is both necessary in order
> > to evaluate for oneself the validity of the claimed findings, and to
> > apply to one's investigation of any aspect of reality.
>
> I agree that one does not need to practice in an area of science in
> order to evaluate for oneself the validity of claims. I suspect you
> agree then that some, if not many of the skills developed by
> practicing the scientific method are also developed outside of
> science-based inquiry, and further, that some of those non-specific-
> to-science skills may be useful to enable scientists to improve their
> processes.

I think that perhaps you think it is a fact that knowledge of and
practice of some area of science is automatically also a practice of the
scientific method. If so I want to make it clear that this is totally
false. While it is true that no one has really understood a science nor
can they hope to achieve much of any real value from experimenting in an
area of science unless they also have a good understanding of the
scientific method, there are many so-called scientists (far too many)
who are precisely in that category of not achieving much of any real
value because they do not understand the basis of what they are trying
to do. Once again I want to emphasize that the so-called scientific
method is merely the method of sound analysis and logical reasoning
applied to reality. Yes, there are some specific formal procedures for
certain sciences, but very few such procedures are applicable in the
same way to all areas of science. Only the general principles of
analysis and logic are applicable everywhere.

> My assessment of my overall success is that I do not attempt many
> difficult ventures, thus do not provide myself many opportunities to
> succeed (or fail).

I think that perhaps this is because you have never learned to enjoy the
mental process of studying, analyzing and achieving the solution of a
problem, rather than merely the end result of that mental effort. One
has to enjoy the means and methods of any action rather than merely the
results or else one will not be able to persevere at it for long and one
will never achieve any great competence at it.

[Much of this lack may come from the way learning is approached in
schools - the vast majority of them and the teachers employed do not
encourage real learning and understanding but merely the successful
passing of tests for scoring purposes. However, an individual has the
capability of correcting this deficiency once s/he comes to realize or
even suspect that it is there. **Kitty]


> My assessment of my scientific skill set is that
> I am grossly lacking in integrity to scientific thought and that I
> could certainly improve by learning and practicing skills that I am
> currently studying.

I think that perhaps you need first to learn to enjoy thinking for its
own sake, regardless of the end result. For this I think you need to
return to your childhood, where you apparently never learned this mental
enjoyment, and do rather simply mental problems that give you immediate
enjoyment from accomplishment and the clear illustration of the efficacy
of your mind. One type of such that I sometimes use as a mental
diversion from longer term activities, and which I find particularly
relaxing before going to sleep, is to play logical computer games such
as sudoku, free cell and spider. These are excellent for helping to
quickly gain the enjoyment of mental efficacy.

> I want to "get cranking" in this area to bring
> it up to speed, to round myself a bit w/ the skills of a scientist,
> which I predict will both enhance my confidence WRT difficult
> ventures and widen my view (as well as deepen my interest) regarding
> serious problems that I could solve.

This is all good and important, but it appears to me that you do not yet
know how to enjoy thinking at all (and that is why you are not much good
at it). You must first learn to enjoy simple thinking activities before
you attempt more complex ones. Taking an online course in logic and
doing all the exercises would both help this and give you more
experience with logic.

META: I had never before heard the expression "get cranking", but having
googled it, I find that it is a variant of the more common expression
"get cracking" ("more common" being derived from the number of examples
of each shown by Google).

> Even though I could (and sometimes, but not often do) comfortably
> ignore these self-assessments by failing to get started in the
> morning, and instead decide "to hell with it all" which is currently
> my default reaction when overwhelmingly depressed, I prefer to remind
> myself in the morning of what I ought to do because I predict these
> activities will lead to much improved happiness for me, and
> indirectly, those with whom I choose to engage.

After lengthy observation, I have come to the conclusion that your
problems are deeper and more fundamental. With respect to the enjoyment
of using your mind for logical, purposeful, rational activity you are
still at the crawling stage. Unless and until you learn to enjoy such
mental activity (even to find it exciting and thrilling - as Kitty said
to me the other day over my enormous enjoyment at successfully making a
very difficult programming change to the wiki software on which I am
working (needing to learn linux shell commands, PHP programming and
mySQL database commands as well as understanding the general structure
of the wiki software), it felt as good as a great orgasm - actually very
different, but overall better in many ways since it was more promotional
to my self-esteem and feeling of efficacy wrt to reality.

--Paul

[The old saying, "All work and no play will make Jack a dull boy" came
to mind. It is a mistake to very severely reduce short term pleasures,
especially those one finds particularly enjoyable in doing, as part of
one's efforts to gain longer term benefits. Such a reduction will have
the same effects as do crash diets for those who love the taste of
food. For me and Paul, dancing energetically to melodic house, trance
and especially eurodance music is just great. We really enjoy being
skillful and improvisational to these types of music; our only
disappointment is the low frequency of the really high energy
offerings from the first two genres in clubs and the absence entirely
in AZ of the last. (There's still a bit in the Toronto area from what
I learn online but there is nothing of any of our favored genres in
rural Ontario where we are 6 months of the year.) But occasional
events of high energy trance are super (Aura in Tempe by Overmindworks
is up next on Saturday 1/24/09 - highly recommended!) And most
Wednesdays we get some good higher energy house at Switch Wednesdays
in Scottsdale after an almost guaranteed high energy 30 to 45min dance
workout at Karamba in Phoenix. (Oops! I got carried away here about
the dance/music environment.)

Now energetic dancing is not everyone's fare - though I can't imagine
why not ;>) - but plenty of other physical activities can provide
someone with much enjoyment. Having at least one physical activity
that is engaged in at least once weekly is highly recommended for the
pure enjoyment experience. And the physiological health aspects are
there too of course. Lots of people simply enjoy the feel of the air
against their body when they run or ride a bicycle. Maybe it's the
pleasurable sensation of the water gliding over the body when swimming
or diving into water. Maybe it's the pleasure associated with
succeeding to reach the top of a hill and gazing out on the view
below. Maybe it is one of the many martial arts. Perhaps it's
participating in a pair or group sport - tennis, soccer, basketball,
volleyball, etc.

The same also applies to stimulating mental activities which provide
one with enjoyment after a relatively short time (as Paul has
described above). Also there are those which require a combination of
mental and physical skills coordinated together (actually best of
all).

The pleasure associated with using one's body (extremities and mind)
skillfully alone, or in voluntary activities with others, is always
beneficial. Such an activity must be maintained even while one
attempts to work toward longer term goals and it can not be avoided if
one wants to maximize hir lifetime happiness. **Kitty]