--- In morelife@yahoogroups.com, Paul Wakfer <paul@...> wrote:
>
> On 03/06/2009 06:50 PM, Steve C. Floyd Jr. wrote:
> > As an observation related to my composing of this message, I note that I
> > am now sitting down to develop my reply to this message after several
> > days has passed during which I have not done so. Now that I have not
> > read the content of this message in several days, I notice that many
> > of the things I had typed do not accurately communicate what I had
> > initially wanted them to. I think Paul recently brought this idea up
> > to Olafur in a private message as a recommendation of how one might
> > proofread one's own writings. The method Paul described was that when
> > one takes a break from writing a message and comes back to it after
> > some time, one will interpret the initial message much like a person
> > who has never read it.
> >
> > This enables the author to be an effective editor of hir
> > own work, and in my case with this message, I find this to be true.
> > However, it is also true that the amount of time required between
> > writing periods may delay the message (as it has done for this message).
> >
>
> Meta
> Actually, since the above comment was *about* the message and composing
> it, it should have been enclosed in Meta tags. Then my reply comment
> below would have been placed within within those Meta tags. And this
> Meta comment would have been in another set of Meta tags inside the
> other. As it is, because this is a comment *about* that portion of the
> message, I have placed it in Meta tags.

I did not realize that a Meta tag should be used when commenting about
the nature of composition of a message. Since this comment is directly
related to your Meta comment above, I have placed it here, within your
Meta tag. I will keep this Meta tag in mind and try to use it the next
time I have such a comment.

> /Meta
>
> And I have been delayed with this reply because of wiki website work.
>
> >
> >> Re: Subjectivity of preferences, happiness, and evaluating habits
> >>
> >> On 02/20/2009 09:37 AM, Steve C. Floyd Jr. wrote:
> >>
> >>> The following is a comment from Kitty to me in a private email
> >>> regarding the evaluation of a purchase made by someone else.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> When I do think of another's expenditures that I would not make, I
> >>>> often then give a few minutes to consider why that person has made
> >>>> that purchase (or made that choice if it does not apply directly to
> >>>> a purchased item) - what is s/he deriving from it? There are many
> >>>> possibilities when one doesn't know the other person well and the
> >>>> better hir characteristics are known, the more likely one or two of
> >>>> the numerous possibilities selected are the actual case.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>> Good point Kitty. I have been trying recently to emphasize the
> >>> subjectivity that is inherent in decisions, values, preferences, and
> >>> choices of activities for enjoyment. I think for the past few years I
> >>> have tried to discover "the one right way" of behaving, from an
> >>> objective perspective. However, it is becoming increasingly evident to
> >>> me that one's previous positive experiences are a large cause of what
> >>> makes things enjoyable in the present.
> >>>
> >> This is entirely reasonable. It is a normal aspect of learning through
> >> experience present in all animals. However, humans have mental faculties
> >> that enable them to analyze any experience in terms of both its short
> >> and long range aspects, including analyzing just why it is "felt" to
> >> be a positive experience. After such analysis, if one sees that the
> >> experience (and the emotion about it) is *not* beneficial because the
> >> events of the experience are actually *not* going to optimally increase
> >> one's lifetime happiness, then the emotional reaction to that kind of
> >> experience needs to be modified accordingly (the emotion is not
> >> consistent with one's rationally held analysis of one's life and
> >> therefore is actually harmful to continue having - because it distorts
> >> rational decision making).
> >>
> >>
> >>> At the same time, I understand
> >>> that new, positive experiences related to "better" habits can be
> >>> nurtured. This is a cause of some recent frustration for me: which
> >>> subjective preferences are "bad" and which are "good"? That is, which
> >>> preferences or behaviors should be replaced with different ones? When
> >>> one determines that a behavior needs replacing, one must ask: "with
> >>> what do I replace it ?"
> >>>
> >> There are several things here.
> >> A subjective preference is not the same thing as an emotional response
> >> to some experience (set of events). A subjective preference should be
> >> the rational result of your analysis of the contribution to your
> >> lifetime happiness of "whatever" it is that you are preferencing.
> >>
> > I am still having difficulty distinguishing between preferences and
> > emotional responses. In the way I was thinking of them prior to your
> > reply, I had confused the two ideas. I thought that subjective
> > preferences were based on prior experiences which have a positive or
> > negative aspect to them. In other words, I was thinking of subjective
> > preferences as emotional responses that have yet to be analyzed and
> > rationalized that come from past experiences associated with that
> > behavior/action/situation.
>
> Your statement is *almost* correct. Most certainly initial preferences
> (all preferences are subjective!) come from past experiences. And the
> learning experiences during one's development directly cause all one's
> initial preferences. Besides some contribution from one's genetic
> makeup, there is simply no other source for those preferences. However,
> I think that it is important to clearly distinguish between an emotion
> (a conscious result of wholly *subconscious* "evaluations") and a
> preference (a conscious choice and action).

I now understand the important distinction between emotional responses
and preferences. The difference that stood out to me was the fact that
emotional responses are *subconscious evaluations* and preferences are
*conscious choices*. This now makes sense to me, and I agree.

> >> Once that analysis and decision is done and the "whatever" is found
> >> to contribute to increasing your lifetime happiness, you should
> >> automatically begin to have positive emotions in proportion to such
> >> contribution, whenever that "whatever" occurs.
> >
> > The skill of evaluating my preferences and the effect of each on my
> > lifetime happiness is something that I am trying to develop further. For
> > example, there are certain types of musics, or specific songs, that will
> > predictably change my mood to a certain positive state (i.e. relaxed
> > or happy). Only recently have I began to make a connection between the
> > changes in my level of happiness and the activities I participate in.
> > Well, of course it would be difficult to *ignore* the effect of
> > activities on one's mood, but it is relatively recently that I have made
> > an effort to pay special attention to these connections so that I can
> > better understand them and actively seek out those happiness-increasing
> > activities.
>
> Such "noticing" is, of course the necessary first step prior to making
> connections and understanding, so it is good that you are increasing
> your ability to introspectively notice your states of mind and their
> possible meanings.
>
> [I have done a lot of this noticing in the past couple of years and
> comparing them to emotional levels I experienced in the years prior to
> about 2005. I think it took about 4.5 years with Paul to come to
> understand myself much better than ever before so the most marked
> upward change in my *overall* happiness state has been from about that
> point. And I fairly often note to myself how different my general mood
> is from what it was prior to the beginning of 2000. I don't remember
> doing this kind of "inventory" consciously during the years of my
> previous relationships, but I can easily look back and recall my mood,
> which was most very one I would now loosely term a low-level anxiety. **Kitty]

Kitty, it is encouraging to hear that you recall a relatively recent
improvement in your ability to notice your emotional state and
possible causes for it. I admit that, when writing this message, I
felt a bit as though I might be one of only a few people who
experienced this.

> > What I describe next may sound strange to some readers. However, I
> > think that many young people may be experiencing this same situation,
> > so I wanted to discuss it here so that others may relate to it. I know
> > of at least one person around my age who has told me she has developed
> > very similar habits with regard to how she considers her state of
> > happiness. One problem I think I am struggling with is that I repeatedly
> > ignore, or fail to recognize, the effect of some experiences on my
> > happiness. I think I have developed this problem from incorporating the
> > idea of "biting the bullet". This phrase might be described as "doing
> > the activities one is taught 'should' be done, regardless of whether
> > the activities contribute positively to one's happiness". Through much
> > of my life so far I have participated in the activities that I learned
> > "should" be done, such as getting a college degree. Which activities
> > *should* be done was determined by people other than myself, such as
> > parents and family. I think that when I was younger (from the ages of
> > 10-20), I wanted to be a "good" son to my parents, and thus performed
> > those activities that would make them proud of me. Because some of
> > these activities were not very enjoyable to me, I learned to ignore my
> > state of happiness with regard to a given activity, so I could complete
> > the project successfully without my negative thoughts of the task
> > interfering with my performance.
>
> There is always a limit to which one can ignore the negatives of a task
> and still effectively accomplish it and most minds will not allow such
> inconsistencies with reality to continue without some negative effects
> on health and longevity. This is because such "ignoring" means that one
> is incorrectly evaluating the total effect on one's lifetime happiness.
>
> > One example of this is when one works
> > at a job one does not particularly enjoy, but does so because s/he has
> > few alternatives. From working at a series of projects with this
> > perspective, I had learned to think "I must finish the current activity,
> > regardless of my feelings for it". I know now that this way of thinking
> > and acting is irrational and harmful, and I am making progress in
> > changing it.
>
> Excellent!
>
> >> With respect to experiences to which you have positive emotions and
> >> after analysis you now have a much lower subjective preference, what you
> >> then need do is to modify your emotional response to that experience
> >> so that it is proportional to that new subject preference. I have in
> >> previous messages gone over how such emotional "modification" is
> >> accomplished (similar to changing a habit).
> >>
> > Right. I agree with the above. I discuss this more below, but first I
> > will define and give examples of my thoughts about my "neutral
> > preferences". I define "neutral preference" as a disposition toward an
> > action or adopting/preferring some aspect of reality that is "neutral"
> > with regard to one's lifetime happiness. Some examples of a neutral
> > preference (for me) are: my preference for having facial hair, my
> > preference for maintaining a shaved head, and my preference for certain
> > video games as a form of mental stimulation.
>
> In thinking of these as "neutral", you are guilty of the logical fallacy
> of isolation of a choice or action from *all* of its surrounding harms
> and benefits (similar to the broken window fallacy made famous by
> Bastiat and elucidated superbly by Henry Hazlitt in his book "Economics
> in One Lesson").

I remember reading Hazlitt's account of this.

> In fact, a rational preference choice or action can
> never be actually neutral (in the sense of neither increasing nor
> decreasing one's lifetime happiness) since there is always some choice that
> one at least evaluates will cause one's lifetime happiness to not
> decrease.

If I'm understanding the above correctly, you saying that "a rational
preference choice or action can never be neutral because there is
always some other action or choice that would be more effective in
increasing one's lifetime happiness". Is this correct? In other words,
there is always an opportunity cost in choosing one action or behavior
preference?

> In thoughtfully considering my previous statement it is
> imperative to remember that lifetime happiness is *not* the happiness up
> to this point or even the happiness up to right after your next action.
> Rather it is the estimated happiness that will be obtained for the
> entire time of your life into the indefinite future (which, since you
> cannot change the past, is actually the same as the accumulated total
> happiness over the rest of your life).

I think I understand this concept well. Although it *is* sometimes
difficult for me to put the effects of decisions into such a
far-reaching context. I *do* frequently try, though.

> > All three of the above examples I periodically re-evaluate with regard
> > to my lifetime happiness. My frustration is that each of these
> > preferences of mine have positive and negative aspects to them,
>
> I have news for you. *Every* choice and action has both positive and
> negative aspects to it, even if the negative is only that the time taken
> to evaluate and do it cannot be spent evaluating other choices and
> taking other actions. I face that dilemma every day. I have so many
> things that I want to do, but only have time to do some of them.

Yes, I face this everyday and it is frustrating to me that I sometimes
spend too much time *evaluating* my choices and too little time
*doing* anything.

> I
> constantly wish that I could duplicate myself dozens of times over in
> order to be able to have all my goals accomplished.

It is often that I also feel like this. In fact, I was just doing some
thinking about this last night, trying to put my time limitations into
perspective, so I can better adjust to the fact that I have such
limitations.

> > which causes me to be ambivalent regarding my preference for them. For
> > example, I prefer the look of my face having facial hair, compared to
> > not having facial hair. However, I know that many people do not like
> > facial hair, and many employers insist on employees not having facial
> > hair. So I ask myself if the negative preferencing I will experience
> > outweighs my enjoyment of having facial hair.
>
> This is the wrong approach. Negative preferencing by others says far
> more about them than it does about you. It can be used by you as a great
> tool for your own preferencing actions regarding the degree to which you
> want to relate to others. Do you really want to work for someone or
> associate much with someone who has that view of what your appearance
> ought to be?

This is a good point. No, I do not want to work for, or associate
with, someone who has the view that they should control my appearance.
However, in my experience, *many* employers have this requirement of
conforming to what they call a "dress code", which includes both the
clothes one wears and the facial hair one maintains. I see two
opposing points on this subject. First, I have found it difficult to
find employment while having facial hair. Since employment has been
the best way by which to provide me with my needs, I have felt that I
have little choice but to conform to their demands regarding my
appearance. OTOH, it is true that *not all* employers (and more
narrowly, not even every employer looking for people with skills that
I possess), require such alterations to my appearance. So, by
conforming to the appearance requirements of some employers, I was
actually supporting their effort to dictate my appearance (and the
appearance of others). If I had more actively sought-out an employer
that did not have such appearance requirements, I would be supporting
*them* by providing *them* with my skills and services, rather than
the employer who required a change to my appearance. However, it
almost certainly would have been more difficult for me to find
employment, had I not compromised on my appearance.

> > Both of these positive and negative aspects are small, since this
> > preference is not critical to my life happiness.
>
> It could be so critical if it prevented you from being able to interact
> sufficiently with others that you could not gain the necessities of
> life.

I have been concerned with this, regarding facial hair, as I discuss
above.

> And this is merely with regard to others simply refusing to deal
> with you. It says nothing about the possibility of others actually
> perpetrating physical harm because of some trait that you have or action
> that you take that is of no physical harm to anyone else (as happens
> all the time in less socially advanced countries).

Yes, this is a frightening thought, but I understand it to be true.

> > But I do periodically re-evaluate this cost/benefit
> > situation *and it is this re-evaluation* that is frustrating. It is
> > frustrating because I think doing so is a nonsensical waste of my time.
> > I don't know why I can't just confidently conclude: "this is my
> > preference. There is no harm being done to me for having this
> > preference, and I enjoy this preference," and proceed to enjoy it,
> > without periodically re-evaluating it. I have also come to think that I
> > place too much value on the opinions others hold regarding these neutral
> > preferences. If I essentially concluded: "I don't care what others
> > think", then I would not re-evaluate these seemingly neutral
> > preferences. However, what other people think about me is an important
> > aspect of life which affects my happiness. I will continue to think
> > about this.
>
> What you are missing is that the importance of what others think about
> you should be directly proportional to your overall evaluation of the
> benefit to your lifetime happiness of interactions with them.

Your statement above makes sense to me, and I agree. However, I had
never put others' opinions about me in such a long-term perspective. I
think if I did this, I would, in general, not be so concerned with the
opinions of others, since I would realize what little effect most
peoples' opinions about me will have on my lifetime happiness.

> It is
> only rational to highly value the opinions (subjective evaluations) of
> those for whom you have an overall high value for the purpose of
> interaction. Generally this is because the thoughts and evaluations of
> those people will generally be more logical and more compatible to
> your own subjective preferences than are the evaluations of the
> others.
> (Note: I have made this evaluation of others here only relate to their
> benefit to you for the purposes of interaction, precisely because you
> were specifically discussing the reactions to you of others with whom
> you are relating. This is quite different than one's evaluation of the
> statements of someone knowledgeable with whom one does not relate.)

I acknowledge the distinction.

> So it is not correct to go from great caring about the opinions of
> others to not caring at all.

Right, one should evaluate the *degree* to which one should care about
the opinion of another. This sounds correct.

> In the end, the degree of caring for
> others and their opinions about your actions are both integral parts
> of the evaluation of the contribution of that action toward your
> lifetime happiness. However, it is also important to use all actions
> and all reactions of others towards you as tools by which to
> continually reevaluate your measure of their worth to you.
>
> > Some of my frustration is that not all preferences are highly positive
> > or highly negative. Some of them are relatively neutral with respect to
> > my long-term happiness. However, I think I tend to re-evaluate these
> > preferences that are neutral with regard to my happiness, and this
> > re-evaluation is cumbersome. I think I do this because when a preference
> > is neutral I find it difficult to conclude: "it is neutral, and
> > therefore does not matter, so I no longer need to evaluate it". I think
> > I need to learn to just *accept* these neutral preferences and
> > confidently conclude that they *are* in-fact, neutral, and I can spend
> > my time thinking about other things.
>
> It is clear now that by "neutral" you actually mean that taking an
> action or not taking it will make little difference to your total
> lifetime happiness.

Correct. This is what I meant.

> Again what I think that you are missing is that
> most of life's actions are actually of that form. The lives of most
> people consist of a majority of actions each of which contribute a
> small amount to their lifetime happiness (only minimally more than
> some alternate action) and a very few actions that either increase or
> decrease their lifetime happiness a great deal.

I hadn't thought of this, previous to your pointing it out.

> But you are correct
> that it is not time well spent (ie not conducive to your lifetime
> happiness) to dwell on actions that can only possibly have a minor
> effect on your lifetime happiness. My approach to such minor things
> (most actions) is to make them into habits that I only occasionally
> reconsider - generally when something brings it to my attention.

This seems like an effective way to reduce the amount of time required
by such small decisions.

> >> There is no need to always have something with which to replace a
> >> "whatever" that you decide is not as valuable as you formerly thought
> >> (or more correctly, "emoted") it was. Rather you can simply spend more
> >> time on "whatevers" that you already know you value highly and enjoy.
> >>
> >>> Furthermore, I have been frustrated in my attempts to make a distinction
> >>> between those preferences of mine that I derive enjoyment from that are
> >>> not harmful or destructive, with those that are harmful or destructive.
> >>> An easy way by which to make the distinction is to evaluate the
> >>> long-term implications of holding each preference. If the long-term
> >>> outcome of an attachment to a preference is negative, then one must do
> >>> one's best to eliminate that preference.
> >>>
> >> If it is negative, yes. But often one "whatever" is merely less
> >> beneficial than another "whatever", rather than being actually
> >> destructive/harmful.
> >>
> >> [In regards to food that is highly pleasurable tasting but is of
> >> little nutritious value, one need not entirely eliminate that food
> >> from one's intake, never partaking of it again. There are many
> >> desert-type foods of which I and Paul take a small amount on the
> >> infrequent occasions that we eat out. Since they are so rarely eaten,
> >> I can enjoy a bit then - the chocolate volcano cake (small amount) was
> >> one this past Thursday when we ate out on Paul's 71st birthday.
> >>
> >> For many of those we saw at the restaurant, it is clear that their
> >> eating practices are mostly harmful. **Kitty]
> >
> > Good point Kitty. I think it is wise to keep a longer-term perspective
> > on the "treat foods" that one only occasionally eats. One can eat these
> > "treat foods", which have high pleasure and low nutritious value, and
> > still be very healthy. It is the *frequency* with which one eats these
> > foods that determines whether eating them is unhealthy.
>
> Agreed, of course :)
>
> [It is probably more the combination of frequency *and* amount of the
> intake of low nutritional value food that can be detrimental to one's
> overall health. A *very* small amount of such food taken frequently
> (eg. every other day) will likely be of less harm (if any at all) than
> a generous serving (pig-out) once a month. The "trick" I need to keep
> in mind for myself is not to let those "very small" amounts get larger
> and more often. ;>) **Kitty]
>
> >>> One example of this is my habit of,
> >>> and preference for, lifting weights. I have regularly lifted weights
> >>> for most of my life. Doing so makes me feel good, physiologically.
> >>> For me, it has the effects of reducing stress, improving sleep,
> >>> increasing motivation for other activities, and some others.
> >>>
> >> These last benefits are related to the physical exercise and
> >> accomplishment aspects of lifting weights, and are all highly valuable
> >> results that you need to continue gaining. What you need to ask
> >> therefore, is "Is lifting weights the best overall way to gain such
> >> results?" - "Might there not be some other activities that will cause
> >> the same results and be beneficial in other ways also, or not have some
> >> of the detrimental effects of lifting weights?" You might ask yourself:
> >> "what am I doing with my mind while I am lifting weights?" - "Is that a
> >> valuable mental activity?" Perhaps you find lifting weights to be very
> >> mentally relaxing and good time for reflection and analysis of problems
> >> that you have been working on - as I do when taking a relaxing shower -
> >> at which I definitely take more time than I need in order get clean -
> >> which results in the negative effects of extra usage of my time, costs
> >> of water and electricity, but wrt which I long ago decided are
> >> worthwhile expenditures - ie the long showers give me a net gain of
> >> lifetime happiness. The result of this is that I do not think of the
> >> negatives of the longer showers, but only enjoy the whole in degree to
> >> the net sum of benefit.
> >
> > The above analysis is a good example of how one might analyze a given
> > preference for an activity, and I find the example useful. Your
> > comparison of the positive and negative aspects of long-duration showers
> > is one that looks familiar to me, as I have analyzed some behaviors of
> > my own in this same way. This leads me to think that it is not my
> > ability to reason effectively, but my lack of confidence in my
> > conclusions, that cause me to re-evaluate these behaviors too often. If
> > this is true, then I have a confidence problem, which fits with other
> > characteristics I have identified about myself.
>
> This is not something to be highly concerned about at your age. One
> generally gains more confidence about one's evaluations as one gets
> older and finds them to work out to one's benefit - after learning
> better just how to effectively introspect and really determine whether
> or not one has actually benefited.

This is very encouraging to read. I have been especially concerned
about my lack of confidence in some of my conclusions. However, when I
evaluated this lack of confidence, I concluded that I really have no
reason to be confident, since there are still (for me) so many aspects
to consider. Your explanation makes sense, in that, as I accumulate
more experience in evaluating whether I have benefited, my confidence
in estimating my future benefit from some action will grow.

> [And for me, I didn't learn how to have high confidence in myself (in
> areas outside of a narrow range of work expertise) until after being
> and "studying" with Paul for a few years. In fact, I think we were
> both "studying" during the first 5 years in slightly different areas
> areas of human interaction - and in actuality we continue to study
> this aspect of reality all the time.

I am very interested to know how you and Paul got into the habit of
"studying" together. When I consider the activities for which I'd like
to have a partner, *studying* is one of the activities that is
foremost in my mind. I enjoy learning about, contemplating, and
discussing reality, and one can only perform the latter if there is
someone to discuss ideas *with* (much like we are doing in this
forum). I think it's wonderful that Paul and Kitty each have a "study"
partner. Most of the people I meet in my daily interactions don't
think that "studying" is an enjoyable activity at all - which is
depressing.

> The various readings I've done in the past 8 years have been extremely
> helpful in improving my introspection and communication - some of the
> books/articles were a reread but many of them were new to me, most of
> which I've shared in various posts. **Kitty]
>
> > This is a little discouraging to me, as I know I have struggled with
> > this issue for a long time. However, one must identify a personality
> > issue properly before one can effectively and efficiently improve it.
>
> Absolutely. And having done so and "owned" it (to use Nathaniel
> Branden's great term), you are already past the most difficult part of
> the process.
>
> >>> In the past I have often
> >>> lifted weights with "lifting buddies", and our experience together
> >>> were enjoyable. Even now, when I lift weights alone, I often recall
> >>> these fond experiences of lifting weights with others.
> >>>
> >> Have you analyzed just *why* those experiences were "enjoyable" and
> >> whether there were valid reasons for them being enjoyable, in light of
> >> your new thinking? If you now find that the reasons for enjoyment were
> >> *not* valid, then you must logically quit thinking of them with
> >> enjoyment. There can be events in your past that you remember enjoying
> >> (the memory is still there and certainly should be, otherwise you are
> >> evading), but when you think of them now, it is with the thought of
> >> "what a stupid thing to do and to enjoy". I think likely everyone
> >> (at least every self-honest person) has such memories.
> >
> > This is a great question to ask Paul. I have considered this question
> > in regard to my positive weight lifting experiences with my lifting
> > buddies, and I concluded that I enjoyed the camaraderie and the fact
> > that others shared my goal of improving one's body composition and
> > overall health. I have also considered that this last may be a positive
> > aspect to me because I feel mostly alone in my dedicated effort to
> > constantly improve myself and my life.
>
> Well even though I and Kitty are rarely physically near you, you need
> no longer consider that you are alone, since we are with you in our
> thoughts and our encouragements whenever you need us.

Reading the above line compelled me to smile quite happily. I
appreciate your encouragement. :)

> I can say that
> unequivocally, precisely because I know that your sense of responsibility
> will not allow you to abuse our time (ie. seek to gain more of our time
> than value that you return for it).

Right. I frequently consider value-for-value with regard to your (or
anyone's) time.

> Still I can certainly understand that you need some one or others with
> whom you can associate more directly and regularly. I certainly could
> not be and would not be functioning as I am without having found Kitty
> and having her physically with me most of the time.

I had thought this to be the case: that the constant, physical
presence of a certain person could make a large difference in my
happiness. I'm glad to hear that you have experienced this, which
helps to support my hypothesis. Note, I understand it is not simply
the other person's physical presence that brings benefit, but also the
fact that hir physical presence enables easier communication and a
wider range of activities that can be done together, relative to the
lack of hir physical presence.

> [I will concur on this point of enormous value of close human friendship.

I have been trying to discover why I get a bit depressed and feel
relatively unmotivated for a period of a day or two about once per
month. After having considered vitamin deficiencies (i.e. vitamin D
supplementation), lack of exercise, and some other possible causes, I
think that my lack of close friendship may be a large part of the cause.

> My level of productive output is far greater since joining with Paul
> than in the years prior. I think that it is essential for optimizing
> one's lifetime happiness that a person have at least one relationship
> with another human that has foundational values in common as well as
> numerous other interests (lesser values); it may not include
> romantic (sexual) emotions but these may be almost an "automatic"
> consequence of the breadth and depth of the values that each finds in
> the other. **Kitty]

The above really is wonderful to read, as it illustrates what I have
to look forward to, should I find the right person for me.

> > So I think I found my social
> > weightlifting experiences encouraging that people other than myself
> > have a desire to grow and improve. My weightlifting buddies and I also
> > learned a lot from one another about weight lifting, health, and
> > exercise physiology, as each of us were interested in improving
> > different aspects of our bodies. So we had the opportunity to share our
> > knowledge with one another - an activity I found enjoyable. However,
> > my goals for "muscle-development" are now much lower than theirs, as I
> > think I am at a satisfactory level in this regard. This means that I
> > do not require the amount of weight, or the number of weightlifting
> > sessions per week, to reach my goals, as they do. Therefore, I have
> > spent a greatly decreased amount of time with my weightlifting buddies
> > in the last six months, since our once-shared goals have mostly diverged.
>
> I see the above as all entirely reasonable. My expression for this is
> that you had a "tiny perfect" relationship with these individuals for a
> beneficial period of time that has now ended.

Yes, I agree.

> What you need now is to
> find one or more other groups of people with whom to have such tiny
> perfect relationships.

After reading the above, I think about the relationship I have with
two women from my Organic Chemistry 2 class. I have studied with the
two of them throughout this semester, and found it enjoyable at first.
However, I found that most of the time I spent with them was
unproductive with regard to studying the material. Instead, we would
often talk about other topics, some I found to be a waste of my time
(like the color one girl painted her toenails), while others were more
interesting (such as the difficulty in discovering what type of skills
one would enjoy to make a living).

> For example we have such relationships with our
> dance/music friends, but with most of them nothing beyond that. And with
> Jack (who is the only poster to this group who is "local" to us) we do
> not have a dance/music relationship but have several others of a deeper
> nature. Tiny perfect relationships are what you have with store clerks
> whom you get to know from frequenting certain stores and from others
> with whom your daily activities brings you into contact. I do not go
> so far as to call any of them "buddies" (I think associates would be a
> better term or even simply friends) ,

I thought you had previously discouraged the use of the word "friends"
for those with which one has a limited relationship with. I agreed
with this idea.

> I have had few buddies in my
> lifetime and only one or two best buddies - none of the latter except
> Kitty have ever remained in that status.

I have always thought of the word "buddy" as the casual term for
friend. It defines someone who is not a deep friend, but is also not
simply an "acquaintance". Merriam-Webster seems to indicate both
definitions (yours and mine):

1 a: companion , partner b: friend
2: fellow —used especially in informal address

> [I would very much like to see more of our dance friends - a couple of
> whom I know are members of MoreLife Yahoo but have never posted...-
> deepen their understanding of the philosophical issues underlying
> their frequently expressed dissatisfaction with current society. Most
> are well aware that SelfSIP.org exists, but I do not think that very
> many of them have even perused it, let alone studied it. So until they
> do and begin having serious discussions with us (as does one
> individual in person at most of the desert dance events) on the
> principles that make up that website and MoreLife, we remain in a
> tiny-perfect relationship.
>
> And as for retaining deep friendships over time, I think that those
> that I and Paul have made in the past few years - yours being one of
> the few - have happened almost certainly *because* of the philosophical
> foundational basis that we have developed.

Yes, I am very interested in the ideas, and I have found use for them
(by being convinced of their accuracy) as I continuously modify my
perception of reality. And the more I become convinced of the accuracy
of these ideas with respect to reality, the more active I become in
trying to influence others in considering such ideas. When trying to
discuss ideas of importance to one's existence (i.e. happiness,
value-for-value), I frequently get the impression that many people are
a type of "zombie" - aimlessly roaming about their lives, applying no
serious thought to their existence and living only to enjoy the next
escapist activity ("escapist" is a great way to describe it - Kitty
uses the word below).

> Such a basis is something
> that is missing currently in most relationships between people,

Yes! I have also found this to be the case. It seems that nearly every
person I interact with during my daily activities (and nearly everyone
previously in my life) lacks a rational, philosophical basis for their
existence. Rarely do I ever find a person who seems to have considered
the meaning or purpose of their existence, let alone a person who
thinks in the same ways as I do. It is difficult to have a close
relationship with someone if they do not think about their life to the
same degree, or in the same ways, as I do.

> but
> then for the very large numbers of people who never think beyond the
> escapist activity for after work or the weekend, the longer term
> friendships they maintain do not go very deep either. **Kitty]

Agreed. And I think it quite possible that it is largely because the
friendships they maintain have no philosophical basis, as you
describe.

I wonder if many organized religions (I'm thinking of Christianity)
serve this purpose for many people - providing a philosophical basis
around which people interpret their lives and give meaning to their
relationships.

> >> [There is another way to consider memories that elicit pleasant
> >> thoughts about those previous times that include people for whom you
> >> now have little in common as a result of your changed views on what is
> >> important to you. As an example, I have personally found this to be
> >> the case for numerous people, including ones to whom I am biologically
> >> related. I still have very pleasant memories from many years ago, but
> >> I have no desire to interact with these individuals now based on their
> >> later - and even in some cases fairly recent - demonstrations of
> >> values that are diametrically opposed to mine. One individual has even
> >> clearly expressed a wish that I be harmed, but I still have many fond
> >> memories of him that cover about 23 years. In contrast, I spend
> >> virtually no time wishing that he, as well as the others, were
> >> different since that is a waste of my time. **Kitty]
> >
> > I think it is an excellent conclusion you have come to - that it is a
> > waste of your time to wish that these people were different. There are a
> > couple people in my life whom I occasionally think about, and I think it
> > is a waste of my time to do so. Again, I have a difficult time holding a
> > firm conclusion about these people, and sometimes contact them to see
> > how they are doing or to influence them.
>
> You might instead realize that if they really had changed/improved, then
> they would contact you (as long as you have made yourself publicly
> available), and *that* is why it is a waste of your time.

This *is* a good point: if a person had really changed "for the
better", they would be motivated to contact me again. OTOH ("on the
other hand", for those unfamiliar with this acronym), I think there
are some people who are interested in changing/improving, but need
encouragement to do so. These are the types of people I am inclined to
want to "check-up on". On the contrary, I know of some people who have
convinced me that they are *unwilling* to change/improve, and these
people I make no effort to contact.

> This is my
> approach to my sister and my daughter both of whom totally severed
> relations with me about 8 years ago.
>
> [Ah, yes. Then there is the relationship with my son Andy (who goes by
> the name Andrew, although it is actually Edward Andreas), and also
> with his father and my former husband, Ed. Sometime in the future I
> will have a Kitty Reflects entry that addresses this situation, which
> is one where both those individuals have severed relations with me. **Kitty]

I am interested in reading about this Kitty Reflects entry that you
describe above. I often wonder if *I* will be the one to sever
relations with most of my family, or *them*. I don't know if it is
necessary for me to formally "sever" relations with my family.
Instead, I would simply not interact with them. I think this would be
the best thing to do with most people, since there is always the
possibility that they will change, at which point I would *want* to
speak with them again. But, if I had stopped initiating interaction
with a person because I decided that hir characteristics did not
benefit me, then I would wait for *them* to initiate interaction with
me, as it may be an indication that they've changed (similar to the
discussion on this above).

> > Perhaps a better behavior would
> > be to: when I have this desire to ask about them, I should instead
> > decide to make an effort to meet someone new instead. This would enable
> > me to get to know someone new and possibly interesting, rather than
> > continuing to interact with the same people that have repeatedly
> > disappointed me in the past. This seems like a healthy habit with regard
> > to reducing the amount of time wasted on disappointing people, while
> > increasing the frequency with which I meet new people - both positive
> > changes for me.
>
> Absolutely correct.
>
> >> [However, I also have
> >> hundreds of photos (almost all neatly in albums) and dozens of hours
> >> on video tape that I can - if I want to spend the time - view for my
> >> own pleasure or show to others. **Kitty]
> >>
> >>> However, our
> >>> previous discussions on the topic of building muscle and strength
> >>> has made me question my preference for lifting weights.
> >>>
> >> Lifting weights may be of more value to the elderly to oppose sarcopenia
> >> and reduction of bone density/strength, but I do not see it to be of as
> >> good health/longevity value for younger people as are many other kinds
> >> of exercise. In addition, I cannot see why pure physical grunt work is
> >> as enjoyable as applying the same physical labor to something inherently
> >> useful in its accomplishment.
> >
> > I have thought about your paragraph above quite a bit in the last few
> > days. I have concluded that I lift weights to provide me with a more
> > systematic protocol for maintaining my strength.
>
> By why do you want to maintain this strength to a greater degree than
> would naturally happen from the activities mentioned below?

I think that if I maintain my strength to a level slightly *above* the
point my current activities require, I would be less likely to have
accidents (i.e. falling off my bike, which I ride frequently). Having
a level of strength that is slightly higher than what is required for
daily living would make me safer than being at a level that was lower
than what is required. Should I be at a level of strength that is
lower, or even with, what is required for my daily activities, I think
I would often struggle with activities, which may put me at risk of
harm.

OTOH, it may be that, if I must struggle a little with some daily
activities, I would benefit from the increased exertion required to
execute those activities (should I have an overall lower level of
strength). I didn't think of this before you asked.

> > I do take many
> > opportunities to do something useful with my labor, such as chopping
> > wood for my parents' wood burner when I lived with them to contribute to
> > the household, as well as riding my bike to class instead of driving.
> > However, from my understanding of the many muscle groups and ranges of
> > motion in the body, I would be neglecting many of them if I only engaged
> > in "useful" physical labor. For example, I have noticed that my hip
> > flexors are quite weak, and I can not hold my leg straight out in front
> > of me for very long before my hip flexors become very fatigued. I
> > understand hip flexors to be important for posture and for avoiding
> > falls, so I want to correct this.
>
> You are "putting the cart before the horse".

Perhaps I am. However, WRT some muscle groups, I understood that a
level of strength that is greater than the minimum necessary will
lower the risk of accidental injury.

> If you do maintain your
> good posture, then those muscles necessary to do so will automatically
> be maintained sufficiently to do so.
>
> [All that would be needed in addition, is some stretching activities.
> The subject of "natural" vs "artificial" exercise is one for another
> post (beyond what I say further below) if you or someone else wish to
> pursue it. **Kitty]
>
> > However, I don't think my current
> > bike-riding will help very much with this weakness.
>
> What weakness? Do you have bad posture? Do you fall easily?

I was referring to my hip flexors. However, after considering this
more, I think I may simply have the impression that I should be
stronger than I need to be. Taking the time and effort to maintain
this greater level of strength than is required is just a waste of my
time.

> > So my weight lifting protocol is to target those muscle groups that
> > I don't normally use (which is many of them).
>
> So what?

From my understanding, muscle mass and strength decline with age and
non-use. Those muscles that decline in strength the quickest are those
that are used the least. To prevent having problems with any muscle
group that I do not normally use, I thought it would be prudent to
design an exercise routine that would target the muscle groups that I
rarely use. Besides my bike riding, I currently exercise a very narrow
range of muscle groups (just some standing and sitting at the lab I
work in). Because of this limited variation in the muscle groups I
use, I thought I should make an effort to maintain the muscles I don't
use, in case I wish to use them in the future, or in the event that I
do not use those muscle groups for a long period of time.

> Unless you are planning on major changes to the muscular
> activities that you require to accomplish the goals of your life, then
> why do you need to prepare muscles for such tasks?

I am not sure which muscles I will need for the tasks in my future, so
I thought a generally high level of strength would keep me prepared
for anything.

> Any healthy young
> person will automatically exercise the muscles needed in hir daily
> activities to the extent to which such exercise is needed to accomplish
> such activities. Hell, even at the ages of me and Kitty, we do not do
> any special exercises to prepare our muscles for the strenuous dancing
> that we do

I thought I saw pictures of Paul lifting weights on Morelife.org.

> (Kitty describes her exception to this below). It happens
> automatically through the activity. The secret is to have sufficiently
> repetitive activity of the kinds that you want to do, rather than be a
> once a month warrior. For us it appears that weekly high energy
> dancing is sufficient. For myself I have always been able to keep in
> excellent physical shape without exercise and then respond well to
> strenuous work. Of course, I do walk around the house a bit (and even
> dance occasionally), perform property/house maintenance tasks (3.5
> acres in AZ), walk in the yard and take the steps two at a time
> whenever I come up from the (AZ) basement.

It does sound as though you get adequate exercise that includes work
for various muscle groups. I had the impression that my normal
activities excluded certain muscle groups. However, I'm beginning to
think that my non-use of these muscles is not such a big deal,
especially considering that I expect to be involved in many, many
home-improvement projects in the next few months, which will give me
the opportunity to use a variety of muscle groups. I may continue to
do such a workout routine as I described, but perhaps I would only do
it once per month (i.e. a fraction of the time I have in the past), as
this may be sufficient to maintain a useful level of strength.

I also just realized that I may be overcompensating with regard to the
prevention of sarcopenia. This could be especially true in my case,
since I have previously spent a large amount of time and effort
developing muscle mass. So, while it is true that I can expect to lose
muscle mass as I grow older (regenerative medicine notwithstanding),
at this point, I start this "decline" process from a higher level of
muscular development. Because of this, it may be that I need to invest
*less* time in muscle maintenance than a person who has attained much
less muscle mass at the same age.

> [My daily "artificial" exercise is mentioned near the very bottom of
> our Mental/Physical Activities page -
> http://morelife.org/personal/physacts.html

I tried several times to find the link above. I finally found what I
think you were referring to (and what I was referring to when I stated
that I saw Paul lifting weights). Here is the link:
morelife.org/personal/health/physacts.html. Note that it appears you
forgot the "health" subfolder after the "personal" subfolder.

> This is done upon arising
> before starting the day because I can easily remember to do them by
> making it a part of my day. The purpose is as I've said on that page -
> to keep my abdominal muscles particularly strong so as to protect my
> lower back that was abused during my early nursing career days (and
> with which I did continue to have problems up to the early 2000s when
> I received treatments from an excellent chiropractor in Toronto, and
> began these daily morning exercises).
>
> My daily routine is much like Paul describes for himself. I take every
> opportunity to move horizontally and vertically. I've changed entirely
> my way of thinking from one in which a person tries to economize
> movement to one in which every movement is viewed as natural exercise.
> I sit only when the activity requires it - transporting myself in the
> car (or as a passenger when Paul is driving), much of our eating time,
> working on the computer, and reading before going to sleep are the big
> 4 I can think of. All the rest of the time I stand with as much
> horizontal and vertical movement included as is appropriate for the
> location. And at dancing events (special and regular) I get in lots of
> both (it is rare that either of us ever sit at a dance event). Also
> when the music being played at home is conducive to dancing, I take
> the opportunity during my frequent breaks from the computer.

I think I would benefit from taking frequent breaks from the computer
(where I spend most of my time reading and writing). I'll keep this in
mind.

> And I too take the basement steps upward 2 at a time ;>) - except when
> I'm carrying something heavy. **Kitty]
>
> > I want to clarify my weight lifting protocol for this discussion, since
> > the term "weight-lifting" can be associated with many degrees of
> > intensity. I currently lift weights for about 20 minutes, three times
> > per week. During those sessions I do exercises involving my body weight
> > (push-up derivatives, sit-ups), and some other exercises with 15 or 30
> > lbs in each hand, depending on the exercise. I do not have a goal of
> > lifting an enormous amount of weight, which can be very stressful on the
> > immune system and joints. Instead, during my workouts I try to
> > systematically "challenge" those muscle groups which are otherwise
> > neglected by my daily activities. Some important areas to me are my
> > shoulders (I had a shoulder injury due to a fall several years ago, and
> > the resistance training helps), my lower back (which hurt in the past
> > due to my sitting at a computer hunched-over for long hours - resistance
> > training has improved this also),
>
> These last two are reasonable (similar to Kitty's exception above) if
> you still have weaknesses/problems related to those areas.

I have noticed that these problems have gone away with continued
weightlifting. I notice that if I do not lift weights for several
weeks I begin to feel lower back pain again.

> However, I
> want to mention that I too had lower back problems in my late 20's but
> with use of better posture, particularly when lifting boxes or other
> heavy objects during normal activities this totally want away and I have
> had no sign of such problems for over 30 years now. In addition, since
> meeting Kitty, and being reminded by her to stand up straighter
> (something that I did not think would accomplish much because of my
> natural "bird neck" - comes out more towards the front of my body), I
> have been amazed to find that that also can be largely corrected. Of
> course it also helps that life with Kitty has so greatly enhanced my
> self-esteem and confidence that I very naturally go around feeling
> straight and tall rather than slumped and depressed.

Again, it's wonderful to read how another person can have such a
positive effect on one's life (and posture *smiles*).

> > and my upper back (I had never
> > developed this area very much while previously weight-training, and I
> > think it is important to have well-developed back muscles to support the
> > spine).
>
> Again (as above) simply standing straight and supporting your spine will
> automatically cause such muscles to be sufficiently developed. I think
> that what you are missing here is that the human body is a wonderfully
> self-organized and self-ordered system that will totally look after
> itself if not abused and given the right nutrition.

Again, perhaps you are correct and I am overestimating the amount of
time and effort I need to put towards muscle development.

> > I am happy with my current weight-lifting protocol, as I don't think it
> > stresses my body very much due to the lower-weight compared to what I
> > previously used (I once bench-pressed 300 lbs - excessive, I know),
> > doesn't take up very much time, and it exercises those muscles that,
> > with time, tend to be neglected and result in injuries.
> >
> >> The trick is to find useful physical labor in this day of so many
> >> labor saving devices and a general trend toward reducing physical
> >> labor for productive purposes. However, that is why I and Kitty always
> >> eschew taking the easy way to do many things as long as we can afford
> >> the time. For example I use hand saws for most of what I saw as long
> >> as there is no necessity to get a very straight cut.
> >
> > Yes this is a good trick. On the rare occasion that someone helps me
> > with my house projects, I often get asked why I choose to use a hand-saw
> > for 2x4's instead of using the electric circular saw. I'm surprised to
> > see most people eschew such an opportunity to get a little extra
> > exercise and accomplish something by doing it.
>
> [I haven't yet gotten to creating that page of photos showing all the
> wood cutting and splitting we did at the cottage this past October.
> (I'm just now organizing the page showing the downing of 3 large dead
> trees.) But the vast majority of it was done by us manually - great
> exercise! **Kitty]

Yes! And I assume you'll be using the wood you gathered, which is great.

> >> When I "make" the water every few days (25 gallons of water after
> >> reverse osmosis treatment), I always have to carry out the pails of
> >> effluent water (slightly higher concentration of impurities than from
> >> the tap - totaling about 100 gallons - 10 -10 gallon pails) one in
> >> each hand and water the fir trees with them. (This is in addition to
> >> their regular drip irrigation.) As I do, I lift each up with one arm
> >> to get my other hand underneath it in order to pour it. That gives me
> >> a little natural weight carrying and lifting activity.
> >
> > I think this is a great practice. I try to do something similar when I
> > buy groceries. I only shop every few weeks to "stock up", so when I do,
> > I usually get a fair number of things. When carrying them into the house
> > I try to get them all in one trip, which can get quite heavy. But I
> > think having both hands full of grocery bags is good exercise for one's
> > arms and shoulders. However, I don't do this when I purchase eggs
> > *laughs*. I had an accident doing this with eggs once and I'd rather
> > avoid it in the future.
>
> Yup. Often on the way to the car from the store (we only use a cart on
> those rare occasions when we have bought more than we can physically
> manage to carry) , I will lift each bag in my hands up and down as I
> walk along (ignoring the stares of any onlookers, of course - usually
> all pushing carts).

This sounds like a healthy practice.

> [It's a rare occasion in grocery stores in Arizona that we use a
> wheeled cart, but rather make use of a hand basket. In Ontario,
> however, because we only shop every 2 weeks, a wheel cart is a
> necessity in the 1 of the 2 large grocery stores in Bancroft. And then
> we most often use our backpacks and walk between the 2 health food
> stores, and smaller errand stops in Bancroft itself.

I have considered using a backpack for produce, especially once the
weather is nicer out and it is comfortable to ride to a nearby produce
market. I have considered getting most of my food from this market,
but it is a little far to ride when it is freezing out.

> It's been an
> annoyance that one of the 2 large grocery stores (Price Chopper) is
> built on the northern outskirts of the town and is not at all a
> reasonable walk from the center of town containing No-Frills, bank,
> the health food stores, my hairdresser, post office, etc.
> Interestingly, many other people must think the same because the
> traffic at Price Chopper is always much less than at No-Frills. **Kitty]
>
> >> When coming back from the basement, I only go up the 14 steps one at a
> >> time if I am carrying something heavy and/or awkward, otherwise I go 2
> >> at a time. Unfortunately with most of the buildings being only one
> >> floor, Arizona presents little opportunity for taking stairs instead
> >> of elevators and escalators - although there are certainly lots of
> >> rocky hills to climb.
> >>
> >> When in the supermarket I generally use a hand basket instead of a
> >> cart, and it is also faster to get around through the aisles that way.
> >> I and Kitty also always carry our groceries in cloth bags that we
> >> bring into the market (to save on plastic bag waste - and sometimes to
> >> get a reward for doing so), back to the car, which in turn is parked
> >> at the far end of the parking lot (again, unless we are in a hurry).
> >>
> >> [We've gotten into the habit of looking at the need to make an extra
> >> walking trip (down to the basement, or in a store looking for
> >> something, or back out to the mailbox, etc) as "opportunities", rather
> >> than a nuisance. **Kitty]
> >
> > This seems like a good perspective to have about a brief, physical
> > errand. Currently I try to minimize my *time spent* on these types of
> > errands, as I think I get enough cardiovascular exercise by riding my
> > bike to class four times per week. But for someone who gets relatively
> > little exercise this is a healthy way to look at such an opportunity.
>
> [This is the concept of "natural" vs "artificial" exercise. One need
> only stop and think about physical activity by the regular Jane/Joe
> 100 years ago. If coupled with nutritious eating, restful sleep and
> reasonable practices of cleanliness, they were in decent physical
> condition. The idea of stopping productive activity to purposefully do
> "exercise" would have been bizarre.

Yes, I imagine that doing so would seem bizarre to people at the time.

> All the activities each of them
> did each day provided a wide array of opportunities for all their
> muscles used to perform the tasks that were part of their
> responsibilities. Children grew up participating in these same
> activities and developed those muscles that were needed. Boys
> naturally have more upper body strength, but I'm sure that plenty of
> girls and women in rural areas chopped wood and performed other
> strength-requiring tasks at times when the "men" were unavailable.
>
> It was the idea of being wealthy enough to hire someone else to do the
> work and eventually to purchase "labor-saving" devices that has
> contributed greatly to the demise of natural exercise. So now large
> numbers of people pay money (often large amounts) to health clubs to
> have a place where they can move weights (owned by the club)
> vertically and horizontally and move their entire body in various ways
> - all for the purpose of using muscles they do not use in their
> regular daily activities. **Kitty]

All of the above is true. It is interesting to think about, and a bit
ironic by the way you describe the situation. Labor saving devices
were invented that enabled many people to reduce the amount of time
they spend on daily exercise. Due to this, the average amount of daily
exercise performed by many people decreased enough to warrant going
out of the way to perform extra exercise. In this way, many labor
saving devices could be seen as silly, since this "saved labor" may
need to be replaced by other exercise to maintain optimal health. This
replacement exercise also requires time, so no real saving of time by
use of many time-saving devices occurs.

> >> [Even our manual garage door is an opportunity for me
> >> to weight lift - Paul does most of the driving here in AZ and I get
> >> the door honors ;>) The heavy double door had an automatic opener that
> >> was not working when Paul started living here half a year at a time,
> >> but neither of us has had any interest in seeing if it can be fixed
> >> and even less in replacing it.
> >> I think far too many people fail to make opportunities for physical
> >> activity in their regular daily lives, and spend money to let a
> >> fitness club, they hope, make them fit.... **Kitty]
> >
> > I emphatically agree with your very last comment Kitty. Nearly everyone
> > I interact with at the university think it is strange that I ride my
> > bike to school. They say it's strange because it's winter and can get
> > quite cold. Some of these people pay for gym memberships and make
> > frequent trips out of their way to get exercise. However, some of these
> > same people could ride their bike to class without undue risk of harm
> > and perhaps save money on a gym membership, and additionally save the
> > time they would otherwise spend driving to and from the gym. I'm really
> > happy with my decision to ride my bike to work/class (both at the
> > university). I get approx. 2 hours of bike-riding per week, spend an
> > average of approx. $60/year on gasoline, and save time by riding my bike
> > (compared to driving). It was a great decision for me to do this.
>
> With you driving so little and the cost of insurance being not
> sufficiently related to the miles driven, would it not be actually
> cheaper for you to rent a car for those rare times that you use one?

I have seriously considered this possibility. I have already changed
my insurance coverage to the minimum possible, and emphasized to my
insurer that I wanted a rate to reflect the amount I drive. They have
a use-category called "recreational driver". I explained that this
would be appropriate for me, since I ride my bike to school and work.
Groceries are a bit more difficult to obtain without the car, and I
pay a higher cost at the produce market nearby. However, I also save
money by not having the car.

> But
> I suppose this would not be true, particularly with the time and delay
> necessary to rent a car, if you are making many, many very small trips.

Yes, and additionally, I would need to transport myself to the place
where the rental car is located.

> I have known people who lived in a downtown area of a large city
> (Toronto) and wisely did not own a car, but rented one when they wanted
> to take trips outside the city. The only reason that I have never done
> this is because I have always needed a car either for my work or for
> frequent trips outside the city.

I am very happy with my situation, being able to ride to school and
work on my bike. I infrequently take trips outside of the city.

> [And vehicle parking in a large North American eastern city can also
> be a real hassle and big expense. **Kitty]

Parking at the University I work and go to school at costs over $100
per semester. I thought this was totally outrageous, and started
riding my bike instead. I made it through my first winter, and have
been riding at least 3 days per week since August 2008, so I'm happy
with myself for sticking with it. Lower car maintenance and gasoline
costs are nice too.

> >>> This change of
> >>> habits, behavior, or disposition toward a preference has been difficult
> >>> for me. It is less difficult when the negative consequences of a
> >>> preference are obvious to me (such as being fat). However, when
> >>> evaluating some preferences, I find that it is difficult to clearly
> >>> determine the net, long-term outcome, such as with lifting weights. I
> >>> know I very much enjoy lifting weights.
> >>>
> >> But have you fully analyzed the rationality of all the reasons why you
> >> "enjoy lifting weights", rather than merely the possible long term harm
> >> of having unnecessary muscle (which I agree is not black and white)?
> >
> > I appreciate your bringing up this important question to me. I think I
> > have given the subject a thorough enough evaluation to justify my
> > current level of weight lifting frequency and intensity.
> >
> > There is one other possible positive aspect of weightlifting that helps
> > me to justify to myself my current weight lifting protocol. I also have
> > a hypothesis that weight lifting while restricting calories (which is
> > what I do) will improve autophagic proteolysis and protein recycling.
>
> Not any more than any other activity which requires energy. It is a pure
> calorie balance situation and the source from which the energy can come.
> See the current thread "vigorous exercise followed by single meal" for
> details.

I have read this, and I agree that protein recycling is partly a
function of energy requirement. However, I understand weight lifting
to have a higher protein requirement than aerobic exercise.
Additionally, I understand the act of weight lifting to increase
protein requirement for muscle repair *after* exercise, and hence,
would be more effective at enhancing protein recycling than aerobic
exercise alone.

> > I found one article that found that, after a fasted weight lifting
> > session, protein synthesis was greater than protein degradation. From my
> > limited understanding of protein balance, this would require the body to
> > use its current sources of nitrogen and amino acids to have a positive
> > protein synthesis value in the fasted state.
>
> Yes, but not any source of nitrogen that is not in the form of an amino
> acid, since the body cannot build amino acids from scratch. And the
> amino acids are only needed for protein building - not for
> gluconeogenesis for energy production.

Hmm, I did not know this is the way it works. I still have plenty of
biochemistry reading to do!

> > And since there is no
> > exogenous source of amino acids (subjects exercised while fasted and
> > remained so for some time after the exercise), endogenous protein must
> > have been recycled (i.e. proteolysis and recycling) to achieve a
> > positive protein synthesis value.
>
> The muscle cells are the body's major place for protein storage (just
> as fat cells are for storage of triacylglycerols) and will largely be
> tapped for amino acids required for protein building during fasting.

> The value of exercising during fasting is that this also increases the
> push to build muscle protein and thus puts pressure on the system to
> get the necessary amino acids from elsewhere.

Right. And if anaerobic weight lifting causes an even greater push to
obtain amino acids from elsewhere (as I described above and I
understand it does), then my hypothesis that weight lifting
(especially while fasting) is of even greater benefit with regard to
protein recycling.

> Which unfortunately can
> be from other non-exercised muscles, so I guess perhaps that is a good
> reason to exercise all muscles groups when you do exercise particularly
> when fasting.

Agreed.

> [I like to use my entire body when dancing and this is why I find the
> (occasional) interludes in trance and house music very conducive to my
> style. I make use of those periods to stretch in all directions, and
> this is one reason why I do not enjoy being crowded in when dancing.
> And of course when the tempo is up, I really move - as anyone who has
> seen me can verify ;>) **Kitty]

Yes, I need to develop the habit of using all of my muscle groups,
especially in activities such as stretching in all directions, as you
describe. I have been trying to make a habit of taking breaks
approximately every hour while at the computer to stand, stretch,
relax my eyes, and lean in all directions for a few minutes. I have
found this "stretching break" to be refreshing.

> > I have not studied this hypothesis as much as I'd like, but I have seen
> > some evidence that it may be true. I am currently working toward a
> > better understanding of biochemistry, so I can better evaluate evidence
> > related to hypotheses such as this one. If anyone would like to study it
> > further and report it here I would appreciate it. I have spent some time
> > trying to find the article and finally found one that sounds familiar (I
> > have not read it in a while). Here is the link to the Pubmed abstract:
> > http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9252485
>
> The problem with amino acid balance measurements is that they cannot
> determine which areas of the body the protein is coming from and going
> to. This would need extremely complex measurements of all muscle
> strengths and even then would be lacking in other axes of the body for
> which the protein content cannot be measured.

This is a good point you mention about non-exercised muscles being a
possible source of amino acids for the exercised ones. I didn't think
this was the way one's body works WRT protein metabolism.

> > Additionally, I understand that exercise, especially weight-lifting and
> > other anaerobic exercise, strongly enhances insulin sensitivity and
> > glucose disposal.
>
> Do you currently have low insulin sensitivity, high fasting blood
> glucose with particularly high post-prandial spikes and a high HbA1C
> measurement?

To my knowledge, no, to all of the above. My fasting blood glucose is
fairly low (83mg/dL), and I think my insulin sensitivity is high (my
fasted insulin is low). I don't know about HbA1C, as I haven't had it
measured yet.

> If so, then lifting weights would benefit you. If not, then
> at your age, you do not need to lift weights for this purpose. Remember
> that none of the CR experiments show any increase in longevity with
> weight lifting,

I didn't know there were CR experiments that included weightlifting or
other resistance exercise. I thought it would be difficult to get mice
to lift dumbells (*smiles*) so I never looked for such experiments.
Perhaps there are ways to test such a hypothesis. I read about one
study that tested muscle protein synthesis rate by attaching a weight
to one of the two wings of a bird and compared the muscle mass and
strength of each wing after a duration. The mass of small weight
attached to the single wing was increased over time.

> and only those on very mild CR show any advantage to
> exercise beyond that normal in any healthy active individual in addition
> to the CR.

Yes, you could be right. I will continue to consider this.

> > I have read several articles that specifically
> > advocated strength training as a treatment for type 2 diabetics to
> > improve insulin sensitivity. This is another benefit I see for
> > maintaining a strength-training protocol.
>
> Are you a type 2 diabetic with low insulin sensitivity?
> If it ain't broke, don't fix it!

*Laughs*. Yes, you have a point. I assumed that higher insulin
sensitivity is better, and that these same protocols to treat insulin
sensitivity will also help to *maintain* insulin sensitivity.

> (which is very different than
> preventing it from getting broke, but the methods for the two are not
> necessarily the same).

With regard to weight lifting and exercise preventing insulin
insensitivity, my understanding is that its prevention and treatment
methods are the same (at least with regard to weight lifting and
exercise).

> <Snipped some text not needing a response.>
>
> >>> It brings me happiness. However, does
> >>> the long-term negative consequences associated with weight-lifting
> >>> out-weigh the happiness I derive from it over my lifetime? The
> >>> answer to this is difficult for me to decide upon.
> >>>
> >> As long as you are certain that the happiness you derive from any
> >> activity is fully reasonable, then you should not totally eliminate
> >> it unless it is very clearly of major harm. OTOH, I cannot see how
> >> it would be possible to rationally continue to enjoy something that
> >> is harmful.
> >
> > Right, I agree. I think Nathaniel Branden explained this well in the
> > books of his I have read so far. The idea I got from him was that
> > continuing to enjoy (or participate) in something that is clearly
> > harmful harms one's self-esteem - and for good reason. One some level of
> > consciousness, one is aware that one's behavior is self-destructive, and
> > is good reason to be disappointed in one's behavior, and essentially, in
> > one's self.
>
> Yes. In the end it is the self-contradiction that is destructive - which
> is a point that I made above.
>
> [This addresses part of the reason why self-esteem must be
> self-acquired/earned - it cannot be given to someone. Parents *can*
> stiffle it in younger children (and unfortunately many do) but older
> children and adults must acquire it for themselves. Others can be
> sought for their assistance in understanding how to do this, but the
> individual *must* acquire hir own self-esteem. So statements by
> teachers and schools about ensuring that a child have self-esteem are
> muddled in lack of understanding of the concept itself. **Kitty]

Yes, it is clear that one must develop one's self-esteem for
themselves. To say that "teachers and schools must ensure" the
development of self-esteem may not make sense. However, it could mean
that teachers and schools should understand self-esteem and its
development, and encourage children to think about themselves in a way
that is conducive to the development of self-esteem. I think this
would be appropriate, but I estimate many teachers and schools far
fall short of this goal.

> <snipped more text not needing a response>
> >
> >> [It is quite reasonable to get pleasure from encouragement and praise,
> >> but reasonably encouragement and praise should mean little from those
> >> one has little respect for (just as negative criticism from someone
> >> for whom you have no respect means little). **Kitty]
> >
> > I have found this to be true, and is generally the perspective that I have.
>
> But this is something that I went over again above, since your remarks
> there suggested that you really do not fully understand or have not
> fully adopted that approach.

I think I have not fully adopted the approach, and it is something
that I frequently think about and work on. Perhaps this would have
been clearer if I had written "I have found this to be true, and I
generally apply this perspective, although sometimes I fail to do so".

> [Maybe that is why Max/Steve wrote "generally"...he appears to
> recognize that he has not fully integrated the concept. **Kitty]

This is right, Kitty.

> >> [In contrast, the praise
> >> and encouragement will mean far more from someone highly valued (as
> >> will also any negative expressions from such a person be more
> >> hurtful). So if you want to retain this type of pleasure, I suggest
> >> cultivating and/or increasing friendships with those you admire and
> >> in beneficial activities that you both/all enjoy. **Kitty]
> >
> > That is good advice. My current organic chemistry professor did to me
> > recently in class. First, I usually answer his in-class questions
> > correctly. However, I skipped class twice in the last two weeks and he
> > came to the lab I work in and asked me (playfully) if I was dropping his
> > course. I told him no, and that I was studying independently. The next
> > class session I answered some relatively difficult questions and he said
> > to me in front of the class: "Okay, Steve, you are the only one who is
> > allowed to skip my class". *laughs in enjoyment*. That felt good, even
> > more so because I know I worked to earn the praise.
>
> Good!
>
> [Here's a demonstration of the *earning* of self-esteem to which I
> referred above. **Kitty]
>
> >> [Paul and I are praise/encouragement sources for each other. **Kitty]
> >
> > This praise from other individuals whom I admire and respect is
> > something that does not come frequently for me, mostly because there
> > aren't many people regularly involved in my life whom I respect. So
> > that's great that you and Paul are a source of praise and encouragement
> > for one another.
>
> We also get little praise from others about things that are really most
> important to us (mainly only related to dancing abilities relative to
> our ages), except from one another.
> However, you now have the addition of us from whom to get praise and
> encouragement and vice versa (which is a major purpose for having good
> friends).

True. I'm very glad to have you as friends, and to be a friend to each
of you.

> >> [We do enjoy the praise we
> >> get from others when we dance, an activity that we have evaluated as
> >> being truly beneficial, partly because it has so many facets to it,
> >> and we certainly enjoy the praise more from a good DJ and/or other
> >> good dancers than from those who simply stand on the sidelines. **Kitty]
> >
> > Yes, I'd bet many DJs have seen quite a few dancers, so to receive
> > praise might be more pleasurable, given the DJs assumed experience.
> >
> >> [In your case, Steve, from what I read, you are motivated to do a
> >> thorough assessment. Based on your reported actions, I think you will
> >> be successful in making the choice that will best optimize your
> >> lifetime happiness. **Kitty]
> >
> > Thanks for the encouragement Kitty *warm smiles*. I read your
> > encouragement at an ironic time -- just after I was lamenting above
> > how there are very few people in my life from whom I would enjoy
> > encouragement. So the timing was excellent *big laughs*.
>
> [I could say this about my "previous life" too. Outside of my
> employment work and its aspects, there was only 1 person with whom I
> could discuss most of the highly important areas of life including of
> course philosophy - my former husband's regular comment was "What's to
> discuss? It's obvious."

I estimate that that kind of outlook about life made for shallow
conversation.

> So life since Dec 1999 has been an enormous
> pleasant change. **Kitty]
>
> >>> I have been trying to evaluate
> >>> all of my preferences and behaviors in this manner and have begun to
> >>> feel ambivalent about nearly everything I enjoy. Most habits have
> >>> positive and negative aspects related to each of them.
> >>>
> >> Sometimes the negative effects can be reduced or eliminated entirely by
> >> practicing moderation in the activity. However, there are many activities,
> >> particularly mental ones, that have no negative aspects other than the
> >> use of your limited amount of time. I think that you need to develop
> >> many more enjoyable mental activities and only do physical ones to the
> >> extent necessary to stay healthy - which is actually very little once
> >> you are on a CR and fasting protein cycling diet.
> >
> > I think your suggestion above is accurate and useful for me. I do find
> > that I feel physically well nearly every day, and am ill very
> > infrequently, which indicates that I am in good health. However, I do
> > find that I get "bored" fairly often - when I'm not busy with
> > schoolwork. I think this boredom is a function of the limited number
> > of mental activities I engage in - just what you noted above.
>
> Frankly, any such notion of "boredom" is something that I have *never*
> experienced (except when in a restricted situation not of my own
> choosing), so I do not have much understanding of what your problem is.
> In fact, your statement causes me some irritation because I can think
> of no better mental stimulation than reading and attempting to
> understand the material on the SelfSIP website, which action and the
> ensuing questions and discussions would, in addition, be the best
> possible return of value that you, as a friend, could do for me.

Good point. I have deeply considered your above comments about boredom
in the past several days, and I have discovered some important ideas.

First, after evaluating whether I was really experiencing "boredom", I
realized that what I had called "boredom" above was actually my
indecisiveness in choosing an activity (which I discussed in earlier
comments in this message). That is, I had called "boredom", my state
of "not knowing what to do with myself", even though I knew there were
many things I *wanted* to do.

Second, I realized that perhaps I have developed the habit of enjoying
the feeling of being "entertained", without my effort. That is,
throughout my life I, my acquaintances and family, have often
participated in (or more appropriately, "surrendered to") activities
such as watching movies, television, or playing video games. The form
of entertainment that I often engaged in is video games. This form of
entertainment grew into a habit, an activity I would engage in at the
end of the day, usually in the last hour or two of being awake, as I
was becoming sleepy.

While I think there are a number of positive effects I benefit from my
previous playing of video games, in the past I have clearly spent too
much time playing them. I have made a strong effort in changing this
habit in the past several years, and especially in the past year. I
recognize video games to be enjoyable to me, and they can be
mentally-stimulating, relaxing, or motivating. But recently I have
noticed that I too often play them for their entertainment value -
their ability to stimulate my mind without my effort. I realized this
and decided that it was not the way I wanted to live my life - being
one of those "zombies" I mentioned above.

So I think part of my admission of being bored is related to my
slipping back into this bad habit of having the desire to be
entertained. Instead, I am beginning to find ways by which to feel
rewarded and happy while being productive. The main way by which I
feel rewarded by being productive is that, by being productive, I am
working to improve my life - an effort that I am proud of and that
brings me happiness.

Furthermore, after recognizing the above about myself, I have found it
very apparent that the great majority of people I am acquainted with
to have what I call an "entertainment addiction". This might be
similar to what Kitty describes as frequent engagement in "escapist
activities". It is very disturbing to me how apparently little time
nearly all of my acquaintances spend on studying, self-improvement,
and productive work, and instead participate in some of the most
meaningless, random, and even foolish activities. When I observe such
behavior in others, it illustrates to me the huge disparity between my
philosophies and those of my acquaintances. At first, this disparity
is very depressing to me. However, I understand that not all people
are like the majority of those I am currently acquainted with, and
also, that I am not acquainted with very many people. So, I will
continue searching for others with philosophies similar to my own,
while appreciating my current relationships with those I respect.

> [Henry Hazlitt's book "Thinking as a Science" is particularly great in
> the chapter where he discusses the idea of simply doing purposeful
> thinking and the value that can provide. The fact that so few people
> actually do it these days is not surprising since the common
> distractions of reading material and computers abound. But this has
> definitely been to the detriment of acquiring the ability to develop
> and hone one's own thinking skills so that s/he can, in part, better
> assess and, if determined warranted, can assimilate what s/he does
> read and hear. In addition, by being able to *really* think, one can
> originate ideas that others have missed by just not noticing existing
> relationships. **Kitty]

Sounds like a good book. I have tried to look for it on Audible.com
and did not find it. I will have to look for it at the UT and Toledo libraries.

> >>> One positive
> >>> aspect that must be weighed against the negative aspects of a
> >>> given habit is the enjoyment derived from that habit.
> >>>
> >> Absolutely true. But in the end your emotional response to the activity
> >> must become an integrated whole habit, rather than fragmented into
> >> negative and positive aspects depending on your thoughts. Perhaps you
> >> are still at the stage of constantly fragmented thoughts about the
> >> activity rather than having fully reprogrammed your emotions to become
> >> the subconscious and automatic *net results* of these thoughts.
> >
> > This describes exactly how I feel about many of my habits: that I have
> > not yet fully reprogrammed my emotions to be the automatic net result of
> > my thoughts about a given habit. There are some habits I have concluded
> > that I enjoy, and emotionally appreciate them when I engage in them. One
> > example is my enjoyment of ground flax seed, which I have a few
> > tablespoons per day of.
>
> Just be careful that either it is fresh when you buy it and then
> stored in the refrigerator or, best, you keep the seeds in the
> refrigerator and you only grind it when needed.

I keep them in a sealed container and only grind them when needed.
Once ground, I keep them in a container in the refrigerator.

> > But, my special enjoyment of flax seed is the
> > aroma. I remember when I first started losing weight when I was 210 lbs
> > I decided that flax seed would be helpful in getting healthy fatty
> > acids, and fiber to keep me feeling fuller. I remember smelling the
> > ground flax, and the aroma was strange to me, as I had never eaten it
> > before. I was a little wary of eating it at first, since it was foreign
> > to me. But at the time I decided that I would lose the excess weight,
> > even if I had to "resort" to eating things that were foreign to me. Now,
> > the smell of flax seed reminds me of my previous determination to change
> > my habits, and that I have maintained those healthier habits. Knowing
> > this, and that flax is quite healthy, makes my eating flax enjoyable
> > to me in several ways.
>
> That's an excellent approach. We have the same for several things. There
> can be many reasons to enjoy things and interestingly enough those other
> reasons can even enhance the taste over time. This is the way that an
> integrated, non-contradictory body and mind work together.

I see what you mean, by mind and body working together. It *does* feel
good.

> --Paul
>
> >> [Reprogramming one's emotions is not quickly done, but rather can take
> >> many months. And even then there will likely be times years later that
> >> a "reminder" pleasurable emotion will occur with an activity or person
> >> that has been determined to be rationally negative. (Many former
> >> smokers and heavy alcohol drinkers report this to be the case.) **Kitty]
> >
> > I also occasionally experience this related to eating too-large of
> > portions of treats.
>
> [Me too ;>) **Kitty]

*Laughs*. That's good to know I'm not the only one who makes a great
effort and still struggles with this. Although, I hope your indulging
in treats is not to the point it is detrimental to your long-term
health (as I hope mine are also not).

--Max Peto / Steve Floyd

> >> But if
> >> one is mostly consistent in hir values (no one is 100% consistent),
> >> and they have a foundation of principles valid for reality, then hir
> >> emotions and ideas/values will quickly come back into accord. **Kitty]
> >
> > ---
> > Max Peto / Steve Floyd