Presidentinvaalit 2012

Yhtä ripeästi kuin vaalit lähesyvät, yhtä kiperä on ehdokkaan valinta. Pääongelmaksi muodostuu strategian valinta. Joudun nimittäin jaottelemaan ehdokkaat kahdella eri tavalla; ehdokkaat joilla on mahdollisuus menestyä, ja ehdokkaat jotka eivät voi voittaa, sekä ehdokkaat joita kannatan, joihin suhtauden enemmän tai vähemmän neutraalisti, sekä ehdokkaat joiden en todellakaan toivo voittavan. Ensinnäkin, ehdokkaita, jotka eivät voi missään tapauksessa voittaa, ei kannata äänestää. Tähän ryhmään arvioisin kuuluvan: Essayah (koska hän on äärikonservatiivi), Biaudet (RKP:n edustaja tarvitsee erityisen suuren nosteen voidakseen karistaa kieli-vihaajien taakan), Arhimäki (liian marginaalinen), ja Soini sekä Väyrynen (vakaaista kannattajakunnistaan huolimatta molemmilla on vähintään yhtä innokkaat ja kannattajia suuremmat vastustajakunnat).
Kahden viimeisen ehdokkaan kohdalla en kuitenkaan ole riittävän varma, ettei heillä ole mahdollisuuksia. Pelko on että heistä toinen, tai pahimmassa tapauksessa molemmat, selviävät toiselle kierrokselle. Soini ja Väyrynen nimittäin kuuluvat siihen joukkoon jota vastustan, yhdessä Essayahin kanssa. Kaikki he edustavat taaksepäin katsomista, pelonlietsomista, syrjintää ja heikoimpien sortamista. Jokaisella on tämän lisäksi omat erityispaheensa; Väyrysen hävytön systeemillä pelailu omaksi eduksi (Jalasmökki yms.), Essayahin anteeksi antamaton suhtautuminen seksuaalisiin vähemmistöin ja Soinin rotusyrjinnän hyväksyvä asenne. Näiden en halua siis missäin tapauksessa voittavan ja äänestysstrategia on valittava sen mukaisesti. Pitää siis valita kandidaatti joka voisi voittaa Soinin tai Väyrysen toisella kierroksella.
Hyviä kandidaateja on kolme; Haavisto, Biaudet ja jossain määrin myös Arhimäki. Kaksi jäljempää kuuluvat ei-voittaviin kandidaatteihin, joten jäljelle jää Haavisto. Mikäli toisella kierroksella olisi Haavisto-Soini tai Haavisto-Väyrynen, olen varma että Haavisto voittaa. Niinistöä ja Lipposta en erityisemmin vastusta, mutta minusta Lipponen edustaa turhan Kekkosmaista johtamistyyliä ja Niinistö edustaa juuri sellaista politiikkaa joka johtaa eriarvoistumiseen ja hän on sitä kautta osaltaan auttanut Soinin suosion syntyyn.
Mikäli tarkoituksena on luoda yhtenäisyyttä ja onnellisuutta, katsoa eteenpäin ja kehittää Suomea kaikkille paremmaksi, uskon että Haavisto on paras valinta. Ei siksi että hän olisi mielestäni täydellinen tai edes välttämättä paras kandidaatti, vaan siksi että äänestämällä häntä uskon äänelläni olevan eniten positiivista vaikutusta Suomen hyväksi..

Thoreau

I must admit that I've never read Thoreau, but yesterday I heard a quote of him: "Rather than love, than money, than fame, give me truth." Initially, it seems like a noble desire, but upon careful reflection, I must disagree. In most cases of course, I do agree, but there is always that one exception. Finding one is not too difficult; on my deathbed, I would much rather think that everyone loves me then than the truth (whatever it is).
It seems that this applies to everything. Every possible rule there is, there is at least one exception, which is not too difficult to come up with. Even if we can generate a good rule of thumb - always seek the truth - that is not enough for the philosopher. We "must" keep in mind the reason for the rule. There is always that one exception, where the reason for the general rule does not apply, where we are better off ignoring the rule or even doing the opposite.
Personally, my general rule that applies for 99.99% of the cases, if not more, is "strive for happiness". I believe that striving for truth is an important part of striving for happiness, and that that is the reason Thoreau thought that the truth is important. Because most people are most of the time better off and happier when striving for the truth.

(My new-years resolution is, although I don't do new-years resolutions, to find out if my claim about the origins of Thoreau's quote is true.)

Independence day

In Finland, today is the yearly bank holiday known as Independence day. It is a celebration of attaining independence and considered a day of great importance in Finland. My attitude towards the day is, however, twisted.
First of all, I do appreciate the liberties Finns gained through independence and I certainly do appreciate the efforts of all those who have defended those liberties.A society which supports free expression and other basic human rights is important for the happiness and well-being of people, and gaining independence from Russia and maintaining it through WWII were really important achievements. But beyond that, I don't see much value in independence. Let me explain.
My biggest problem is the nationalism that is always associated with independence. Nationalism is always exclusive in nature, as opposed to inclusive. It is always "we" the against the others. Nationalism without the "others" would be meaningless and nationalism by nature thus promotes partisanship and supports conflicts. Moreover, independence in itself is exclusive in nature. "We" are independent of "them". Let them take care of themselves. Insofar as independence increases the amount of people that have access to human rights, then it is positive. But suppose Helsinki would like to become independent from Finland. Does not really make any sense, does it? (Although I can imagine some local politicians who would support the idea.) It would be an arbitrary division of Finland into parts. 
You could argue that separating Finland from Russia is a different case than Helsinki from Finland, since there is a distinct cultural difference between Finland and Russia. The argument falls apart when we realise that there is also a distinct cultural difference between Helsinki, with a city-culture, and most of the rest country, which has a more rural culture. So, the division into states is rather arbitrary. I do think that division of the world into states is useful in our time (that might change sometime though). Having a singular government for the whole world has a great risk of driving the leaders into corruption, which would be very difficult to disband if there are no counter-forces.
When observing the independence day celebrations (in Finland and elsewhere), we observe that a central theme is displaying the national flag and other national symbols. Here, notice the use of the word "national-". By using these symbols we emphasise the nationalistic as well as the exclusive character of the festivities. This is also the reason why right-wing extremists so eagerly embrace national symbols. It is "we" against the "others".
In conclusion, I would much rather celebrate a day of human rights, co-operation, equality, peace and democracy, than a day of independence.

On Accountability 2

In the aftermath of the tsunami in Japan, I again have started to reflect on accountability. This time, I am thinking about the accountability of the general media and not only scientific publications. During my studies, I read two courses of modern physics, which would be in layman's terms nuclear physics. I have repeated this often, but I still contend that only after having studied modern physics did I learn to sufficiently appreciate my ignorance. In other words, only after having studied nuclear physics did I understand that I don't know by far enough to make any sensible statements about nuclear physics. It's just too difficult.

Now, having read plenty of news from Fukushima, I realize that most journalists do not share my appreciation of their own ignorance. The news are filled with statements that are to me obviously flawed, and which scare people that do not spot the flaw. In effect, the main news outlets are doing their best to spread panic and fear.

As horrible as the events in Fukushima are, I believe that we should refrain ourselves from making decisions based on emotion only, instead of facts and evidence based judgement. Spreading fear and panic is in this sense counter-productive. Fears should be considered in decision making, since it has a strong negative effect on the well-being of people, but it should not be taken as an excuse for ignoring facts and evidence.

My conclusion of this is, with respect to news outlets, that news corporations driven by economical motives do not have sufficient incentives to retain accountability. Spreading fear and panic sells newspapers, even if the news would be slightly inaccurate. It seems that this lack of accountability is a common theme in market driven corporations - it is, after all, lack of accountability that caused the nuclear disaster in Fukushima. Likewise, lack of accountability caused the economic crash a few years ago. If thus accept that the capitalistic system is lacking in incentives for accountability, the question that remains is what we should do about it?

To me it seems that the only way to introduce accountability in world economy, is to change the rules of the game somehow. The most obvious choice is regulation. However, I fear that such regulations would be difficult to design and even more difficult to supervise. To be honest, I don't even have an idea where to begin. Personally, I would lay more hope in changing the rules on a different level, by opening things up instead of closing them down. I believe that enforcing transparency, not only to governments, but to privately owned corporations as well, that would be a good start. This would not, however, solve the problem with news outlets.

This is a problem that still eludes me. Especially now that the border between news media and private persons on the Internet has diffused, it will be difficult to enforce accountability. For traditional newspapers, it perhaps would have been possible to enforce a law that demands that facts should be double-checked. But with bloggers such rules become meaningless.

Right at this moment, I had an idea! What about a scientific validation service for news outlets? A service, that would employ scientific experts to validate the plausibility of claims made in a news story? Hmm. Have to think about that more.

On Accountability

A word that I have come to stumble on with increasing frequency is "accountability". It is with pleasure I have seen its rise, not only because it often involves bringing justice, which is inherently good, but because it demonstrates a rise awareness of systemic relationships. Let me explain why.

A recent topic in Finland has been the quality of food. Many in the general public have bemoaned the low quality. The producers respond that their offerings match the demand, so the general public is to blame. In effect, both parties are pointing fingers at the opposite side.
Personally, I happen to agree with both sides. The quality of many products is shamefully low, but a depressingly large portion of people are primarily interested in the price, not quality. The public cries for accountability, but producers cannot commit economical suicide by raising quality without obtaining something in return.
A systemic analysis of the situation would probably most naturally begin by observing the incentives the producers have to improve the quality and the incentives the public has to buy good quality food. For the low-income people, there are no incentives. You eat what you can afford. This fact alone enforces the status quo. There is an obvious demand for cheap food and the producers main incentive is to meet the demand.
Here the cry for accountability is effectively a demand for a feedback system. Without going into how the accountability should be implemented, for which I do not have any clue, I would like to emphasise the importance of a feedback system. The demand and supply relationship is, in a narrow sense, a linear relationship, where more demand gives more supply. The demand for accountability, for a feedback mechanism, is essentially a desire to create another connection between supply and demand, that balances or counter-acts the existing relationship.
I find it important to realize that all parties in this equation currently already act in a way that is well-warranted, when observed in isolation. Each participant tries his best to do good in his local surroundings. That the outcome is bad, is not to be blamed on the individuals, but on the design of the system.

Another example is the famous and infamous Wikileaks. I honestly believe that US officials quite earnestly believe that they have been acting in the best interest of the people of USA all along, if not always "the world". From their own isolated perspectives, all their actions seem well-warranted and justified. The fact is, however, that the US has in secret done some horrible things (for a abbreviated list, see http://www.opendemocracy.net/ryan-gallagher/what-has-wikileaks-ever-taught-us-read-on). Although the US government is supposedly held accountable to the people of USA, the flow of information from the government to the public has been too weak. The government has not had any incentive to improve the flow of information, since improving would have made life within the government more difficult. What is needed is an independent party to control the flow of information. Wikileaks is one such independent party, although admittedly it has its faults.

Yet another example of a completely different kind is the scientific peer-review process. To obtain good quality science, we must have a mechanic for assessing the quality. Peer-review is the best mechanism we know of. Usually, peer-review is enforced in scientific publications, where any input must be subjected to examination of independent experts. Only when the experts agree that the input meets scientific standards of quality, is the article accepted for publication.
The standard way of implementing peer-review is anonymous review, where the independent experts are chosen secretly by the editors of the scientific publication and the authors never learn the experts identity. The purpose of this mechanism is to prevent undesirable feedback, that is, enable reviewers to express negative criticism without fear of retaliation. An undesirable side-effect is that the reviewers do not get any feedback for their comments. Again, the system is linear. Information flows only from reviewers to the authors.
An alternative is open review, such as exploited by Wikipedia, where commentary is signed, if not by name, at least by alias. (In on-line communities, an alias can become as valuable as a real-life identity.) In the open review model, a reviewer dare not submit careless criticism, because his own reputation is on the line. Only well-argued criticism can be presented, without a negative impact on ones own reputation.

In each of these cases, the usual level of dialogue is finger pointing, name calling and blaming the opponent for the problems that exist. I find such dialogue un-constructive and distasteful. Yet, the emergence of the word accountability, gives hope that people in positions of power would catch up on a systemic perspective, if not consciously, perhaps at least intuitively. Personally, I have today tried to start a movement within my own field of science toward increased accountability through open review. After all, I do not want to be just another "finger pointer", but I believe it is imperative to act upon what you think is right.

"You didn't want to talk" vs. "I would have liked to talk"

In the middle of an short email, a friend of mine wrote to me "... but you didn't want to talk to me :)" Ouch. My friend had been insulted by my actions. First reaction: guilt. I should've called, sms:ed, sent email - something. Second reaction: I should write or call my friend now, although then it wouldn't be because I wanted to, but because I was told to do so. It wouldn't feel right. Third reaction: Protest. I don't like to be pushed to around, I write when I want to write. You write me if you want to be in contact!

What just happened here? All these feelings blew through me half-consciously in less than 10 seconds.

This is a vicious circle starting right here. Something in it self small but unfortunate happened, and my friend felt neglected. My friend wanted to communicate the feeling of neglect, but not make it too heavy - thus the smiley at the end - although the hurt feelings were obvious. My reaction to it is easy to predict: denial, protest and the feeling of being treated unfairly. And the result, no improvement in the situation, but more hurt feelings.

So, what would be the alternative? Moving the focus from my error, to the desire of my friend. "I would have liked to talk to you." It is a positive feeling. Desire. It is a flattering statement. I would jump on the chance and call my friend immediately, or better yet, go visit my friend.

In this example, both parties have a lot to learn. My negative reactions were totally unnecessary and unwarranted, although understandable. I should learn to faster recognise the vicious circle before it starts. And most importantly, I should learn to take my friends better into account.
In my opinion, my friend would benefit from trying to, instead of confrontative statements, find supportive and constructive approaches. Confrontation is sometimes useful, but most often it is not an effective approach. A constructive nudge can, according to my experience, often be pivotal and highly effective.

Taboos and -ism's

Everyone knows it is a taboo to criticize religions and faith in general. That is precisely why faiths have survived so long, because they say that questioning them is bad manners. If it wouldn't, the inherent implausibility of faith and contradictions of the simplest logic that religions make, would have made the whole phenomenons crumble and disappear.

Interestingly, I recently discovered another taboo that works in the same way, although it is much more mundane. Namely, I noticed that to criticize the idea "hey, let's go for a beer" is a taboo. At least in one of my circles of friends, there is a strong social stigma associated with not-drinking-alcohol. People seem to assume that people, that do not drink at a party or dinner at the local pub, would destroy the mood, that such people are boring people. It seems that drinking is associated with group cohesion in such a way that non-drinking is perceived as a threat to group unity. As if, "If you don't drink you're not one of us."

While I see group cohesion as a positive force for happiness, it also robs us from the freedom of choice, which impacts happiness negatively. The absurdity of the situation is easily revealed by asking "Am I not good enough as myself, but only if I drink?" and "Why is it a problem for you if I don't drink?".

Another aspect is that people encouraging you to drink, with a "C'mon!", implicitly assumes that everyone will have more fun when drunk. Personally, I have lately found that drunken small-talk is just devoid of any real value. In this sense, I feel that people become boring when they get drunk, not the other way around. There are many exceptions to this, though, in the sense that many people that are interesting sober are interesting also when tipsy.

What this leads me to is that group cohesion is a strange animal. A sense of unity with peers is generally a positive force. However, generally all ways of maintaining cohesion can destroy all the positive effects and, worse, bring unhappiness. By design, most tools for maintaining cohesion are exclusive through "You have to be X, or you're not one of us." Here the "you're not one of us" -part is meant to be (and it is) a severe punishment.

This principle seems to apply in all cases where I recognize group cohesion as a strong force, including all theism/religions (infidels should die!), nationalism (you're not patriotic if you oppose, say, the war in Iraq), racism, criminal gangs etc.

The question that then remains is, is group cohesion possible without the negative effects? I would argue "Yes." People united by common goals, aspirations, attitudes or character, will often experience a feeling of unity without need for external maintenance of cohesion. In this perspective, positive group cohesion appears only when the group has a solid and well-founded purpose. Groups with only a weak purpose and weak motivation for unity are the ones who need to punish straying sheep. Positive group cohesion is then also an inclusive phenomenon, where all those whose internal motivation is the same can be included in the group, whereas negative group cohesion is an exclusive phenomenon, where all those who don't fulfil the external requirements are excluded from the group.

In essence, it follows, that the motivations to maintain theism/religions, nationalism, racism and criminal gangs are weak. The sense of inner purpose that these groups carry are so weak, that they must punish dissidents, otherwise the groups would fade away. What I find striking is that so many of these weak groups are known as -ism's. Is there a pattern? Perhaps this is also why many feel that the word atheism so badly represents the phenomenon.

Personally, the lessons I have to learn from this are then:

1. As a tutor, mentor, teacher and employer, I must strive to generate a common internal sense of purpose in my students and employees so strong, that group cohesion emerges.
2. As an atheist, I have to avoid partisan thinking, avoid construction of a them (theists) against us (atheists) -spirit, and openly participate in constructive discussions. By accepting all people as themselves, could prove to be pivotal in opening the minds of people.
3. As a person, I should strive to accept all people as themselves.

Edit: As an afterthought, I just realised one more pattern: In countries where religions are most accepting, most inclusive in their character (and thus follow their own teaching the best), are also countries where religions are fading away. For example, in Scandinavia, there is a very accepting atmosphere overall in the whole society, including religions. There, also churches are very weak. On the other hand, in the US, which is infamous for its exclusionist attitudes (esp. with respect to religions and patriotism), churches go strong.

The Power of Possibilities

During the last year, nothing has changed on the outside, but everything has changed on the inside. Suddenly, I've begun to see possibilities. I could apply for this or that job, I could go skiing, I could train climbing, I could this and that. Objectively, it is a small change. Yes, I suddenly have received some new job opportunities, but objectively it is not much more than what I had before. These options are not likely (as in the competition is/will be hard). But there is hope.

I have regained the feeling that there I have possibilities, which gives me the feeling that I can make choices. While I already knew that the feeling of being able to influence in your life's choices is important for happiness, the forces with which it hits you is awesome. My emotional state has risen from "ok" (50/100), to almost "happy" (80/100).

Prejudice

Last weekend I went with a friend to climb at Tre Cime de Lavarado. Super cool! We had perfect luck with the weather, two days of sun, almost too hot but a bit of rain on Sunday morning. We were really beat up after two long days of climbing, so leaving home at Sunday morning was not such a bad concept after all.

What strikes me about this trip mostly is the attitudes many of my friends had. They thought we were mad to go to Tre Cime. So much loose rock, so crowded, so dangerous, etc. It seemed that every one thought we were bound to end up in trouble. Couldn't have been further away from the truth. Yes, there was some loose rock, but it was always either easy climbing or then there were enough places of good rock that we could place some protection. Yes, there was sometimes a bit of a crowd, but it never bothered me. For the exception of one mountain-guide abseiling behind us, who demonstrated astonishing lack of social skill and a superior level of besserwisser-attitude. But most of the time both days, we felt like we were alone on the mountain. Perfect.

So, the friends who condemned our intention to climb Tre Cime, did not actually know what they were talking about. They just had a preconception of what the trip would be like. It seems to me that somehow people tend to exaggerate their fears of the unknown. People who haven't tried mountain climbing have still heard of some of the dangers of climbing, and think that all climbing is always dangerous. Dangerous situations provide juicy stories and it is easy to generalize that this dangerous situations are commonplace. In my experience, this simply isn't true.

I once was planning a trip through Eastern Europe, including Belarus. People were terrified. Belarus? There's corruption and it's a dictatorship. True, but at least the streets are clean. I was actually more afraid in Ukraine, which was then enjoying its newly acquired democracy, but suffers from petty crime. Belarus, on the other hand, has a strong and brutal police force, whereby petty theft is almost non-existent. So, Belarus is more safe for a casual tourist (as long as you don't get in trouble with the police). It was just that people who haven't been there, knew only the bad stuff, and thought that was the whole story.

It seems to me that people do not realize how little they know. They have heard one thing about something, and they think they know everything.

Syylliset esille

Sain taas muistuttaa itseäni; syyllisten etsiminen on täysin turhaa. Esimerkiksi työssä viihtyminen on vain ja ainoastaan jokaisen oman itsensä vastuulla. Olen viime aikoina syyllistynyt useasti erilaisten tahojen syyttelyyn monesta eri asiasta, mutta se on täysin turhaa. Jos minä en viihdy, on minulla ongelma, ei kenelläkään muulla. On vain minun vastuullani etsiä keinot viihtyvyyden parantamiseen. Yksi keinoista on toki yrittää vaikuttaa muihin, parantamalla organisaatiota tms., mutta suurin työ pitää tehdä ihan vain oman pään sisäpuolella. Viihtyvyys paranee huomattavasti ihan omaa asennetta muokkaamalla.

Konkreettisena esimerkkinä mainittakoon klassinen väittämä "Minä en ole sellainen ihminen joka tekee asiat tavalla X." tai "Minä en vain osaa tehdä asiaa X." Jokainen voi oppia. On vain kyse siitä haluaako oppia tekemään asiat tavalla X. Jos menestyminen on kiinni siitä, tekeekö asiat tavalla X vai ei, niin se on jokaisen oma valinta, haluaako tehdä asiat tavalla X, vai jollain muulla tavalla. Toisin sanoen, jos menestyminen edellyttää asian X tekemistä, kannattaa se asia X tehdä, vaikka itse en olisikaan siinä niin taitava, tai en pitäisikään oikeastaan asian X tekemisestä. Härkää sarvista, jne.

Atheism and classic vocal music

I recently realised that I have a problem that has been disturbing me for quite a while even though I was not concious of this problem. I just had a queer feeling that something was not right.

It is all connected to the fact that I was really excited about singing old music, mostly renaissance and baroque. For anyone who know anything about these genres, also knows that a majority of the music in these genres is sacral in nature. For me, as an atheist, that poses a problem. Let me explain you why.

There are two different parts. Firstly, I do not believe in Jahve, so singing "I love god." is phony. I feel phony. A significant part of singing is the feeling - you have to feel the thing that you are saying. Singing without feeling is a technical executions that has nothing to do with music. I admit that I am unable to feel the feeling "I love god". I did not become a very good singer.

The obvious counter-argument is acting. Actors regularly act feelings that they would not normally feel. So why could I not just act as if I would, in fact, "love god"? Which brings us to the second part. Singing "I love god" in a Christian context is a whole other thing as singing "I love god" in an ancient Viking or Greek context, where god would, respectively, refer to Thor or Zeus. Namely, while Viking and ancient Greek religions have fallen into history, Christianity is (still) alive and kicking. In other words, whether the religions are alive or (practically) dead makes for a big difference, since for the living superstitions, we have to consider our actions in relation to those people who posses that particular faith. We are thus active actors in their faith.

Our active part can be made obvious by an example. Consider a scenario where person A sings "I love god" for a person B. If person A sings it with good level of passion, that is, if he sings it well, then person B can believe that person A actually believes in what he says. Suppose person B is religious, whereby the declaration "I love god" of person A, supports the belief of person B. Yet another person declares that he believes in god, which confirms his belief in god. Thus, when I sing "I love god", I support a superstition that I believe is false. I am actually supporting peoples' delusions. I am cheating them. Swindle is in many other cases an offence punishable by law, but in this case it is only ethically wrong. The responsibility of avoiding this offence remains thus on the conscience of each one of us.

Personally, I would feel quite ok if I would/could just act and that'd be the end of it. However, I have become stuck with this feeling of leading people astray. Simultaneously, I strongly believe that we must follow our own values. Therefore I will no more participate in performances of sacral music.

This result is, from an artistic view point, very unfortunate. Renaissance and baroque music is beautiful! To abstain altogether would keep me from a lot of beautiful music. Still, in a literal sense, all consumption of music has an active role (buying tickets, CDs, scores etc.), which I have been unable to circumvent. Let me know if you have any good counter arguments!

Brights

There's one thing that's been quite a while on my mind and I've been collecting courage to put it here. Lots of my friends know it, but putting it on the web is, still, a different thing. No, I'm not gay, if that's what you think although it might be just as well, but it is socially a similar thing.

However strange as it seems, in our society it is perfectly acceptable to publicly declare faith in any religion, but to state the opposite, "I am an atheist" is a big no-no. It is even considered to be good manners to allow public declarations of faith, after all, it is politically correct, but no such considerations are reserved for the atheist. If you are not publicly stating your faith, then usually most people see no wrong in trying to, for example, persuade that person to come to the church. People are not supposed to talk about atheism since even the option, even the possibility that you do not believe in any supernatural things, undermines the very essence of religions: their faith.

Specifically, imagine the two following scenarios:

1. Person A is a Christian and person B a Muslim. Would you think it is politically correct for person A to ask person B to join the local church? Oh, no! Horrific error! Person B would slap person A on the face.
2. Person A is a again Christin and person B an atheist. Would you think it is politically correct for person A to ask person B to join the local church?

Objectively, the two situations are not at all different. Person A is asking person B to convert. However, in case 1 most people would see it as a terrible social blunder, while in case 2, I believe that most religious people cannot see any wrong in their actions. In case 2 I predict that many religious people can even see themselves as philanthropists, trying to relieve the atheist from his misery into the intellectually fuzzy world of religion.

So the situation is many ways similar to how homosexuals were perceived in the 60ies. It was socially acceptable to try to match homosexuals up with the opposite sex. Until the gay-movement. Today the social position of gays is incredibly much better than in the 60ies. Not perfect, but better. The brights movement tries to achieve the same for the atheists. Since the word atheist has for many people a negative sound to it, someone (check wikipedia) coined the word "brights" to mean people that are sufficiently enlightened (= bright) to abandon superstition. Similarly, those who still cling on to their superstitions, are called "supers". All nice and positive words, that is, trying really hard to be politically correct here.

So here it goes. I am a bright. I am an atheist. I will take it as an intellectual insult if you try to invite me to your church.

I will, in this context, not try to list the reasons why you should not be superstitious. There are many excellent books and speeches available on that already (check out Richard Dawkins, Dan Dennet, Susan Blackmore, etc.) and quoting them wrongly here would do no one no good. The purpose of this article is merely to bring more visibility to the prevalence of atheism and the term brights, as well as, to reach equality between people who have this world-view and those who publicly declare superstitions.



PS. I am fully conscious that I did not write anything original, anything that someone else wouldn't have said before. I just feel that it is important to spread the word, to make the message visible in as many places as possible.

Reorganization

One thing that I keep hearing over and over again is "Do what you love". Especially the Americans seem to love that concept and they seem to have infected the notion to a lot of Europeans, too. Oh what a load of crap! This is a perfect medicine for unhappiness. For example, say you love singing. Go on to the Idols show and demonstrate everyone how wrong you are. You'll end up on the comical section where they play the worst contestants, the infinitely untalented and disgusting singers. Trust me. 10 million people will see that and laugh at you, not with you. Imagine how you would feel after that. Is the word happy anywhere among the top feelings after that? No. Feelings of being disillusioned, feelings of anger, frustration, and failure probably dominate over happiness.

I know I'm playing the devils advocate here, but my point is that everyone are not super-talented. Everyone cannot be pop-stars, astronauts, actors, professional athletes, self-made millionaires, artists or presidents. Everyone cannot reach their dream. That is just not realistic. Still, we have to be happy. So if the only way to become happy is to fulfill your dream, then most people will be unhappy. I hate it when that happens. And it does happen all the time. People are unhappy.

All this even though the solution is simple. Just reorganize the words in your head. Do not say "Do what you love" but "Love what you do". Plain obvious that it is a difficult task. But then who said that success would come easy. Of course it is difficult. Happiness requires effort. Happiness requires constant work.

Realistically, it is easy to say "Love what you do" but how do you get there? First of all, be around people who love what they do, associate yourself with them, be friends with them. Excitement is contagious. When other people get excited about something, let yourself get excited about that thing too. Lot's of people are scared that other people will think they are fools if they get excited about something, if they allow themselves to be influenced by somebody else. Ask yourself, are you afraid that the other people will think you are a happy person? Other people do not want you to be happy, they want people to be just the way they've always been, because it's safer that way. If you change, then perhaps also they would have to change, and that's scary. But if you want to achieve something that you haven't done before, you have to do something that you haven't done before. And that is exactly why you should surround yourself with happy people.

The source of many people's unhappiness is their work. They feel like they are not utilizing their full potential at their current work. So, look for a new job. But meanwhile, while your looking for a new job, try to be happy at your current job. Firstly, look for that person of your colleagues who's most happy - not necessarily funny, but happy. Go to lunch with him/her, get yourself involved in a project with him/her, talk with him/her. Secondly, think about the thing you most like at your job and the thing you most hate about your job. Embrace that thing you most like. Dwell in it. Try to do it better than ever before. And that thing you hate, find one small thing that you can improve on it. Just a tiny bit. Even a small improvement makes you feel like you're in charge. You're deciding what happens with you. The next step, the next improvement is already easier and after a while it becomes a natural part of you and of your job.

I feel like people are looking for a miracle pill, a Sorcerer's stone, a lucky break that makes them happy. But it doesn't go like that. Winning the lottery, your dream job, a new education - none of them will make you happy. You can make yourself happy. I'm not saying that you shouldn't try to get a new job. I'm not saying that you shouldn't try to become a singer. Please do that. But finding happiness is not a lucky break. It's hard mental work. You need to want to be happy. You need to want to change your attitude. You need to change your ways. The desire to change must come from within. No outside solution makes your inside happy. You must be ready to change, brave enough to challenge your own mindset, bold enough to admit that something I'm doing or thinking needs improving. Lastly, you cannot wait until tomorrow. If you postpone it, you will not do it. You need to develop a plan for change starting from now, not in ten minutes, but now. Really. Get a life. Now.

Selfish communication

Recently, I've been pondering on the inherent selfishness of communication. The basic problem is that every time you tell someone something, the reason for telling that something is completely egoistic. You either 1) put on a show, you entertain your companion, or 2) you tell something in order to get your companion to tell you something in a tit for tat manner. In the first case the objective is then that you want to appear favorably in your companions eyes. In other words, in both cases you tell stories in order to get something, information, recognition, favors, or something similar.

That this egoism would be a problem, is an illusion easily solved. After all, is there anything that we do, that does not rise from our egoism? We work for money and to gain recognition. We eat an sleep to satisfy our needs. We love to be loved. Even altruistic actions such as helping the elderly, giving money to charity, loving someone without response, they all give us a good feeling. The reward from a altruistic deed is that we feel good, like a better person. In this sense, communication is no different. It is an egoistic process to gain something we want. If nothing else, we want to feel good.

However, the more interesting problems arise in a more advanced case. Some feel that in communicating with others, especially in light conversation, they are in fact entertaining, putting on a show and at the same time loosing themselves. As if they were not truthful to the others, trying to be something that they, in fact, are not. The simplistic answer would be to say that if the person does not feel comfortable with the communication, he should not communicate. But from personal experience, I know that it is not always that easy. Often, you feel external pressure to be social. For example, your friends ridicule you if you want to go the sleep when everyone else is going to the pub. "Oh come on!" Like choosing to be alone (=choosing not to communicate) would automatically be an inferior choice (hint: it is not!). Again, a simple answer is to insist on doing your own choices and not to surrender to coercion. While that is easier to say than to do, especially without hurting the feelings of your friends, still, this is not the complete answer. I have a faint feeling that there is something about the concept of "putting on a show" that I do not yet fully understand.

Putting on a show implicitly indicates that your are dishonest, acting untruthfully, or that you are faking something. The main problem is then not that you would be dishonest to your audience, they love your show (at least to some extent), but that you are dishonest to yourself. You're doing something that does not match your feelings. Or, perhaps, are your feelings about what you are doing mixed. You gain immediate satisfaction from putting on the show, while simultaneously knowing that it does not provide lasting gratification. I feel like I am approaching the essence of the problem. Perhaps it is the superficial nature of putting up a show that is the problem. Entertainment over a pint of beer does not leave a lasting impression. It just does not feel important. And participating in something less than important is, well, superficial.

What should one then do? Like always, I cannot emphasize enough the importance of awareness. Realizing the reason for the uneasy feeling takes you more than half the way to the solution. Mostly it is a question of braking the habit of putting up a show. Realizing that your at it again, is, like I said, half the solution. The complete solution, however, escapes me.

Desires

After an all-too-long break, I'm here, writing again. I do have a lot of things to write about, but somehow I've gotten out of the habit of writing. Got to get back in there again!

Anyway, recently, I've thought a lot of about desires in the sense of "I want X". Two specific cues got me thinking about this:

1. While visiting a friend, he asked me: "Would you like to have something? Tea, coffee, juice...?" Usually, I don't have strong desires and I would go something like "Yeah, um-h, sure, I don't know, whatever." Some argue that an offer like that is literally an offer and a sign of the hospitality of the host. Therefore I can and should choose whatever I feel like, without consideration of the cost or practicality for the host.
   Personally, I would prefer more a dialog, with an answer like "Sure. What do you recommend?" or "Sure. I'll have what the other's are having." Such answers give the host more room to serve what is practical or especially good.
2. Another friend, a female, stated that she wants that the man takes the initiative, that the man should "make the move" so to speak. In that particular moment, I have to admit that I had no idea whether she implied that I should make a move (which was a tempting thought), or that men in general should make the move. This confusion originates from the fact that she did not give any indication whether she was interested in me or not. While this puts a lot of pressure on the man (me), it is also in contradiction with well-researched facts about human courtship. It is true that it is generally the men who "make the move", but generally "the move" is successful only if the female has first given a sign that she is interested, that she would like the man to make a move.
   

In my mind, these two examples demonstrate problems with stereotypical concepts of desire. I would argue that trying to force out statements of preference (or desire) squeezes out flexibility. When a host asks "Tea, coffee, beer or champagne, perhaps?" merely answering "Champagne", might be impractical if you are the only one drinking and the host has to open a bottle just for you. Or perhaps all the other guests are driving and cannot drink alcohol. "I would feel like champagne, but only if others join me", would state the preference, but gives the host as well as the other guests the option of nudging you to a more practical choice when needed. In this sense, in my opinion, forcing choices, or forcing statements of preference, makes the situation too black and white.

A second argument is that the "I want" attitude is an egoistic one. It excludes social interaction. "I want champagne." Period. Personally I feel that drinking champagne with a friend, let along a female friend, is doubly as pleasant as drinking it alone. Although I really, really like champagne, sometimes I would rather not drink champagne, then drink it alone. In the courtship context, I feel that it is perfectly ok that a man makes the moves in a context where the man and the female do not know each other from before, such as a bar. I would even see that as the preferred way of action. However, if the man and female know each other from before, if they are even friends, then the stakes are higher. To interpret the situation wrong, to make moves when the female is not interested, can incur serious damage to a friendship. An interaction will then probably lead to a more "mutually fulfilling" (pardon the pun) sequence of events. Thus the social interaction often gives a better result than just blurting out your own preference.

The other side of the coin is that persons without definite opinions are often perceived as weak, as if they were incapable of making a choice. Paradoxically, I do agree with this argument as well. Inability to choose is lame. It is a serious handicap. Paralysis before a menu in a restaurant is really annoying for the others in a group. To this problem I would offer a simple trick. Instead of the two opposite alternatives 1. "I choose X" and 2. "I'm unable to choose", I would suggest a third alternative 3. "I do not have a preference". In the original host/guest scenario we could then proceed with

• (Host) "Would you like some tea, coffee or juice?"
• (You) "I don't know", meaning, "I don't have a preference", and then continue "What are the others having?"
• (Host) "We're all drinking tea."
• (You) "I'll have one, too."

Note that, in addition to being practical for the host, this kind of conformity to the group standard will unify the group and build sense of community, instead of "He's the (different) one who drinks coffee."

In a situation where we really do have to make a choice, such as when eating in a restaurant, I would offer the no-preference case two different solutions.

1. Again, interact. For example, ask the waiter "What would you recommend?" if he did not already offer his opinion (they often have something ready). Say, the specials of the day are often something that the restaurant bought in a big quantity, whereby you'd get better quality for a cheaper price. Perfect.
   
2. The advanced technique: If you don't know what you prefer, then all the available options must be more or less of equal preference to you. Therefore, pick one at random. Number 3 is as good a choice as any. I've tried that a lot of times. In all parts of the world, it always works. Easy.