Psychology – Page 12 – Achilles & Aristotle

Down with Nouns…

I enjoyed an entertaining exchange on a favourite point of argument this week: is it better to be constant; or constantly changing?

Almost certainly a bit of both. Nevertheless which you prefer apparently says quite a lot about you. Fox News, ranks this among the ‘Dumbest Research Studies of 2016 (So Far)‘:

“There’s a simple trick to determine liberals from conservatives: Phew, someone’s figured this out. It seems that it’s all just in the words. Conservatives like to use nouns more than liberals. For example, they would tend to call people “optimists” instead of “optimistic” or an “idealist” instead of “idealistic.”

But I thought it was smarter than Fox and sent it to my ‘constant friend’ overseas. He replied:

“Why add an ic to a word when it is redundant? I’m sure there’s another research study there.”

I’m sure there is. But the difference is all the difference in the world…

Instead of being forever trapped as a relentless optimist, an unblinking idealist; a rank pessimist or a brutal realist, I’d rather enjoy moments of them all – depending on the topic, situation or theme.

I’m a liberal when if comes to character; so this week’s Fox News bulletin gives me a new campaign slogan: ‘Down with nouns.’

Life, Psychology, Work

Beaks

In a world that’s often nuts, an appreciation of different beaks has helped me this week; and provoked a good laugh too.

Many of the people and organisations I’ve worked with have been surprisingly similar. People bought into large organisations; everyone also broadly buying the basics of modern day economics.

Most accepted, to one degree or another contemporary management theory (as write it the auto spellchecker just changed ‘theory’ to ‘rhetoric’ which tells its own story…)

So, I realise as a consequence, there were lots of unwritten conventions and beliefs which everyone more or less accepted: efficiency, technology, flatter structures, outsourcing, open plan, command and control hierarchies etc etc.

Not so a university! Theologians, philosophers; proper nailed on Marxists; historians, mathematicians and scientists natural, social and anti-social aplenty – nobody agrees on anything. And nor should they…

As is says in our Royal Charter:

“Staff employed by the College who are directly engaged in teaching and research shall have freedom within the law to question and test received wisdom and to put forward new ideas and controversial or unpopular opinions, without placing themselves in jeopardy of losing their jobs or privileges.”

Academic freedom is priceless; but so are some of the views it protects! So thinking of beaks has helped.

We have people whose entire lives have been dedicated to a particular subject – a bit like the toucan above which has the perfect beak for fruit but isn’t going to get much nectar out of a flower. Similarly the humming bird is poorly equipped for cracking a Brazil nut.

I reckon most successful modern managers are corvids – armed with a big strong versatile beak. I’ve worked with good few black-hearted crows, the odd showy Jay. And me? A magpie, I think – I’ll have a go at most things, especially something shiny and interesting.

So I forgive the hornbills, the falcons, the humming birds and the many other odd beaked specialists I work with. They have been through Darwinian selection at least as harsh as his famous finches.

So why expect them to crack the nuts I can; or expect appreciation for that? We share a habitat but occupy entirely different niches.

To each bird its beak.

Achilles, Life, Odysseus, Psychology, Work

Alcohol or Algorithm?

On an exceptionally relaxing family break (with the in-laws last week) I had an epiphany; floating for the first time in my life in a hot tub…

If I feel like I have no time… if I’m often tired… if work (as Aristotle predicted) is “absorbing and degrading my mind”… and there’s no way out until my middle 50s… what’s the solution?

The solution, requires a lot less C2H6O in it. Yes alcohol is terrific: a mood enhancer, a relaxer, a taker away of social inhibitions – it helps me (in the right circumstances) to be the life and soul of the party; or at least not a party pooper.

But alcohol is also rubbish: a low grade tranquilliser, a duller of the senses and a bringer of a fuzzy mouth and an even fuzzier head. And there’s the alcohol rub – it leaves you doped, dulled and dozy, and at times downright poorly.

I came to me, as I lolled in that hot tub – at this stage in my life and work, I haven’t got enough time to be regularly tranquillised, dulled and fuzzy; still less to be feeling below par.

The opportunity cost of pouring that glass of red or a cheeky prosecco is a welcome numbness; but also a decline in judgement, self-control and useful activity…

I begin to graze the fridge and sweetie cupboard, as my expanding waistline testifies. And since starting my new job I’ve been more and more attracted to the tranquillising effect… and that’s not good.

So the antidote to less time; is to consume less C2H6O.

A weekend into my new regime, more jobs were getting done, more of the things I know are good for me – reading, cooking, washing, learning languages, domestic innovations, getting to bed earlier, exercise, cups of tea, hanging out the washing, sitting in the garden.

This week at work, I have carried all before me, with a combination of good cheer and industriousness. As well a packing in 10 hour days and a stack more exercise.

Not that most of this wouldn’t have got done before; but I’m far less tired, I haven’t eated half a kilo each of cheese and chocolate en route and I just feel better.

And so to the second half of my epiphany – if less alcohol is one good move, on what should I spend the time and energy dividend? I’ve bought a book on Machine Learning and algorithms to see what computer science and coding can offer a modern life…

A life is, after all, just developing our own ever-improving Bayesian algorithm: as we see more, do more and learn more. Assuming we’re not sleeping off a heavy night that is.

But I’ll not be saying no to booze full stop. Oh no!

When there’s a fun to be had; people to enjoy a drink with and a reason to celebrate – bring it on. It’s just the routine quaffing I need to tackle.

Or as my new Machine Learning book suggests:

If Situation = Social|Drink
If Situation = Kitchen|Don’t

The simple question is Alcohol or Algorithm?

If there’s no good reason to be drinking, I’ll be trying not to – so I can have more time for thinking and learning and doing new stuff.

Children, Life, Philosophy, Psychology, Work

Laughter; the best medicine

I’m more a man for observational humour than for jokes; but perhaps the joke has been on me…

British humour tends to the downbeat. Ironic, sarcastic and even cynical – there’s always the risk of us talking everything down. With my new optimistic élan, I’m doing my best to avoid all that.

But if you can’t ‘bitch and moan’, where are the laughs at work? Our place is dead clever, but also dead earnest. I realised the other day I hadn’t laughed all week…

Thank goodness Philosophy Now spurred me into action with their humour edition!

Two strong explanations of humour are the ‘Superiority’ and the ‘Incongruity’ theories.

Anya Steinbeck explains the first:

“The so-called superiority theory is prominent among explanations of humour. In fact, so prominent that it has been championed by philosophical heavyweights such as Plato, Aristotle, Hobbes and Bergson.

Thomas Hobbes’ formulation of the superiority theory is this: “Laughter is nothing else but sudden glory arising from some sudden conception of some eminency in ourselves, by comparison with the infirmity of others, or with our own, formerly.”

If Hobbes is right, humour becomes a tool for making ourselves feel better by thinking of others or our own past selves as inferior. So if Ted is a terrible golfer he can overcome the pain of this truth by making fun of Fred who is an even worse golfer.

Plato believes this kind of humour to be damaging: “Taken generally the ridiculous is a certain kind of evil, specifically a vice.” It counts as a vice because it is symptomatic of a lack of critical self-awareness as we ridicule others.

I would suggest that the two most serious problems with hierarchical jokes are these:

1) Firstly, as Plato says, the aesthetic form of a joke form is just so attractive and appealing that we may not pay enough critical attention to the moral content.

2) Secondly, far from having a dialogue function, jokes can be conversation stoppers. As Theodor Adorno says: “He who has laughter on his side has no need of proof.”

In other words, humour is, next to its wonderful properties, also a great potential tool for manipulation. Dress them up as a joke and you can get away with outrageous statements.

So what of the ‘Incongruity’ theory? The Stanford Dictionary of Philosophy gives us this:

“The first philosopher to use the word incongruous to analyze humor was James Beattie (1779). Our laughter “seems to arise from the view of things incongruous united in the same assemblage.” The cause of humorous laughter is “two or more inconsistent, unsuitable, or incongruous parts or circumstances, considered as united in one complex object or assemblage, as acquiring a sort of mutual relation from the peculiar manner in which the mind takes notice of them.”

Beattie may be right but he’s not exactly got us rolling in the aisles with that description.

And it gets worse… Given his well deserved reputation for seriousness, perhaps not surprising that Kant is stronger on theory than gags…

“In everything that is to excite a lively convulsive laugh there must be something absurd (in which the understanding, therefore, can find no satisfaction).”

“Laughter is an affection arising from the sudden transformation of a strained expectation into nothing. This transformation, which is certainly not enjoyable to the understanding, yet indirectly gives it very active enjoyment for a moment. Therefore its cause must consist in the influence of the representation upon the body, and the reflex effect of this upon the mind.”

Kant illustrates with this story:

“An Indian at the table of an Englishman in Surat, when he saw a bottle of ale opened and all the beer turned into froth and overflowing, testified his great astonishment with many exclamations. When the Englishman asked him, “What is there in this to astonish you so much?” he answered, “I am not at all astonished that it should flow out, but I do wonder how you ever got it in.”

Following that cracker he serves up another:

“The heir of a rich relative wished to arrange for an imposing funeral, but he lamented that he could not properly succeed; ‘for’ (said he) ‘the more money I give my mourners to look sad, the more cheerful they look!’”

Whilst I wouldn’t recommend he gives up his day job, I’m with Kant. When it comes to making people laugh, I like incongruity.

Superiority all too easily leads to the worst type of humour – arrogance, trashing others and talking people down. Now I know what I’m looking for, I realise I’ve seen plenty of ‘superiority’ humour about. It’s not pretty.

Keep it incongruous I say. As my boy did with his little joke in the car this morning; it made me laugh out loud:

“What did one rebel sausage say to the other?”

“May the fork be in you!”

Achilles, Life, Odysseus, Philosophy, Psychology, Work

Rumination

An interesting discovery from ‘Learned optimism‘ is that rumination is the optimist’s worst enemy… Chewing the cud leads to pessimism and inaction.

One thing I’ve learned at work down the years is: ‘if in doubt, do something’.

Armed with this new insight I’m even more sure taking and helping others take action – sometimes any action – is my best defence against mine and their pessimism.

And this reminded me to look up Hannah Arendt the great 20th century philosopher, who I seemed to remember was big on action too…

I was right. Here’s a boiled down extract from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

“For Arendt, action constitutes the highest realization of the vita activa, via three categories which correspond to the three fundamental activities of our being-in-the-world: labor, work, and action.

Labor is judged by its ability to sustain human life, to cater to our biological needs of consumption and reproduction.

Work is judged by its ability to build and maintain a world fit for human use.

Action is judged by its ability to [manifest] the identity of the agent and to actualize our capacity for freedom.

Although Arendt considers the three activities of labor, work and action equally necessary to a complete human life, it is clear from her writings that she takes action to be the ‘differentia specifica’ of human beings.

Action distinguishes [us] from both the life of animals (who are similar to us insofar as they need to labor to sustain and reproduce themselves) and the life of the gods (with whom we share, intermittently, the activity of contemplation).”

Nuff said. I made myself a little flowchart last Sunday to remind me, which still seems on the money…

In the face of setbacks, troubles and ugliness; don’t ruminate – act.

In the presence of success, progress and beauty; act – but don’t forget to contemplate too.

Or another way to look at it, less Theo van Doesburg:

More Franz Marc:

No more chewing the cud.