Neediness

No, this post is not about relationships! At least if you don't classify relationship to material possessions to that category. The thing I do want to talk about is what we hear people often say "I need [insert your preferred material possession here]." For example, I have heard said, "I need a new phone", "I need a new camera", "I need a new job". Shudders.
I find it rather obvious that these people do not actually need the phone/camera/job, but that they want it. To state this is so obvious that it is a platitude. Yet most people say such things. I would think that the thing that so disturbs me is not so much the evident self-righteousness about it, but that it sounds to me like an excuse. There's nothing wrong with wanting a new phone. I bought one just a few days ago, because I wanted one and I love it. But claiming that I need one is just plain wrong. Saying that I need one would have been an excuse for buying it. "I need to stay in touch with my family (who lives abroad)". No. I want to stay in touch with my family, yes. Claiming that I need that phone equates to sucking for support from my friends. When I tell my friends that I need a new phone, I'm longing for reinforcement to my implicit decision to buy one, I'm sucking that support. And it is a trap. I just need my friends to not contradict me, I need them to be supportive, I need them to just talk about the different choices of phones. What I don't want is questioning my needs. Oh no. Questioning my needs would be an attack on me.
So framing the whole phone-question in this "I need it" context, I force them into supporting my implicit decision to buy it. And it is a decision that I have not dared to admit to myself. Otherwise I would not need to suck support for it. I would just say, "I am going to buy a new phone." No, I say "I need a new phone." Feels so much better, doesn't it?

This is the point in a post where I usually turn to the meta-level. What generic message can we learn from this? (Note for advanced users: Observe the meta-meta-level commentary here!) I have for a long time already been unable to decide whether I support or not this type of word-games. Yes, on the short term I believe that opposing the word "need" would transform attitudes of a lot of people to the better. But the real question is, does it have a lasting effect? Has the banning of the word "nigger" changed the attitudes of people to towards people of different ethnic backgrounds? (Observe here the laborious avoidance of mentioning any other specific ethnic groups). Banning the n-word certainly did bring awareness of the problems to a lot of people, but on the other hand, that certainly did not eradicate the problem. The connotation was transferred to the word "black", which is now also banned. Only when the assigned preferred politically correct term became too-long-to-use-in-any-practical-sentence, "of african american origins", did the ethnic  group loose a simple way for name-calling and was thus moved to safety.

This comparison between two n-words is probably a tad too grand and far-fetched. But what is then my opinion on the word "need"? Like always, my answer is awareness. (It has become a bit too much of a standard answer, hasn't it? But still..) If I could somehow raise awareness of the problem with the word "need" (and here, note how this blog-post is self-referential), I do accept that the word is not used in a strict sense. The lives of people are not depending on acquiring new phones and saying that they need phones does also not imply this. The logically strict interpretation "I need a new phone" = "I need a phone to survive", is just not what people mean. Despite the danger of paternalism, I do appreciate peoples need (!) for short-cuts, to use simple language instead of logically strictly correct expressions. And this does not disturb me, as long as it is not used to trick me to support their own fallacies.

Non-event feedback loops

I recently read an interesting blog-article about Non-event feedback loops in the context of mountaneering and avalanche safety. The concept is so important that it deserves a note here as well. As an example of such feedback loops consider a train-track which is close to your home. On your way to the supermarket, you can either cross the tracks or walk a longer way over a bridge. You have always crossed the track and because nothing ever happened, you don't think twice about it. Right? Boom.

It is not especially about trains, but it could be about traffic safety, or sharp knives, chemicals and electrical appliances in a family with small kids, or snow safety in the mountains.

It is strange how easily we become used to our habits. You look twice and listen carefully before crossing the train-tracks the first time. After a week checking your iPhone while running to the supermarket seems more important than the approaching train.

Simultaneously, habits release our attention to other tasks and allow us for getting more things done. So there is a benefit of some habits. The trick is to know when they are useful.

My one-size-fits-all solution is awareness. Crossing the train track is every time a choice. It is a decision that you should be aware of. You should also be aware of the factors influencing your choice. If you have always gone to the supermarket at 6pm, but today go at 7pm, perhaps the train schedules are different. Perhaps you have seen a construction work on the train tracks a few kilometers away which would change the way trains are routed.

What I am personally interested in is not actually the big things, like crossing the train tracks, but little, everyday habits, like the choice of taking a shower in the morning or the evening? I always take a shower in the morning, because it wakes me up and my hair is a mess after sleeping. But I also do sports usually in the evening and a shower after wards is, well, kind-of necessary. I have also always used to eat a good dinner in the evening, because I have always been hungry in the evening. Until one day I notice that I actually wasn't hungry in the evening, hadn't been hungry in the evening for years, and had gained a few extra kilos because I ate too much.

The thing I am thus advocating is a sensitivity, an awareness, to the little choices, like:

• I have always kept my keys in my right front pocket
• I have always eaten mysli for breakfast
• I always took this route to the office

Perhaps what you have always done is perfect, perhaps it is not, but you don't know it until you become aware of that choice.

"The right one" and "happiness"

Being single, I have had plenty of opportunities to think about relationships in encounters with (single) ladies. A common desire among singles is to "find the right one". I'm sure we've all heard so many stories from people in relationships that "they just knew that it was right", "he/she is my soul friend", etc. that these images have in our minds has become a per-requisite for a relationship; it has to be perfect, otherwise it's not worth it. I must myself admit that I have in the past argued that I'm a person who sets high goals, I'm used to reaching pretty high standards and relationships are among the most important parts of life, so why should I compromise in my goals when it comes to relationships?
Now I have come to the insight that the requirement of perfection is here the step where I find a problem. In any other field of life it is commonly understood that a requirement of perfection will not lead to anything good. It is just a too high requirement, will therefore never be reached and because perfectionists still expect perfection, the failure to meet expectations leads to unhappiness. Relationships are supposed to be happy things, so what is going on here then? Still, could I look someone in the eyes and think/say "you're not perfect, but good enough?". Probably not.
Another perspective is to think about the way people communicate about relationships. Think about the social dynamic of the following setting; you sit in café with a few friends, when one of the tells about his new girlfriend, and how he "just knows that she's the right one". Now imagine the same story such that the new girlfriend is present as well. Especially in the latter context the story has a immediate effect on (and purpose for) the relationship as public declaration of commitment. Because the feedback effect is so direct, I would see it as foolish to take the statement on face value. Naturally it must be a slightly polished, better-than-real view that people give to their partnerships, because publicly advertising the opposite would have a detrimental effect on the relationship. "She's ok, I think I'll stay with her for a while.."
Quite recently, however, I came up with an alternative approach that seems pretty hard to beat. Instead of searching for perfection, I would argue that we should search for happiness. When I meet a potential partner, the right question is not "is she the right one?", but rather "would I be happy with her?". Somehow re-framing the question in this way takes, for me, the pressure out of the equation. Asking the "right one" question, seems to elevate the question to an everything or nothing level, while for happiness, a relationship is important, but certainly not the only component. Looking someone in the eyes and saying/thinking "I could be happy with you for the rest of my life" seems like a much easier thing to say than "the right one". At the same time, I don't see it as a lesser thing, or that it would somehow equate to selling-out, to accept lower standards, if you will. Being happy with you for the rest of my life, is no small thing. It is indeed spectacular. And since it includes many things outside the relationship, it is perhaps even a bigger thing then just finding the "right one".

At then end, a small disclaimer is necessary. I have stated the objective as "would I be happy for the rest of my life?", with an emphasis on the first person, me. Relationships always involve more than just one person, so some might argue that the right question would be "would we be happy...". However, on one hand, I can take responsibility of only myself, so including a partner in this question would include something that I don't have much control over and thus useless. On the other hand, if I had a partner who is not really happy in our relationship, then I could hardly be happy either, right? So choosing this egocentric approach is not really so egocentric after all, but only emphasizes the fact that I am alone responsible for my own happiness.

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.)