Damn it Feels Good to be a Gangsta

[zbigi]

@Ego countries like Russia have none of the safety net of the Nordics, but people self-medicate there plenty - just with booze, not with medicine. Also, US in the early twenty century had zero safety net, and also had a wave of alcoholism. Hell, even currently, there's rampant drug abuse in the US, and mostly among population whose basics needs are _not_ guaranteed. It looks like the self-medication might not be a consequence of the safety provided by welfare state, but of modern civilization in general.

[loutfard]

Places in the developing world with much greater actual risks usually have much lower rates of psychotropic use, despite the fact that generics are available, often OTC, very inexpensively.

I've read up a bit about this subject area and not kept good notes. Which is stupid because I can't seem to find my source to show you. I'm pretty sure it was not on this forum. But I digress...

I remember reading research on the average individual happiness/country human development index ratio. This turns out to be insanely high for many slightly below WEIRD human countries and much lower for many WEIRD countries, to the point of the average individual happiness scores themselves sometimes being higher in some slightly below WEIRD countries.

I speculate this might be about happiness stemming from social capital. In slightly less material abundance, more people might have more opportunities to use social capital, while in more affluent societies, the default action more often is to just buy the solution with the financial cost less of a hurdle.

[Jean]

My impression is that there are and were enough different countries to be able find one that "demonstrates" any world view one can have.

[7Wannabe5]

Based on my own brief research project into my Daily Happiness Levels as an extremely pale (scant half tone above ginger) human with genetic heritage from only a variety of Northern tribes who has always lived near or above latitude 42 moderately cloudy zone, a good deal of the WEIRD anomalies have to do with sunlight exposure. We're relatively wealthy because we had to cut down all the trees just to stay warm, so then we had to start using coal, so then we invented steam powered machines . We're still not extremely happy (absent adjustment), because we live in relatively dark, cold, urban environments. A lot of the psychotropic drug use is making up for lack of direct exposure to morning sunlight. So, for example, if it is January in Michigan, you have to bundle yourself up enough to stay warm at -10 wind chill, but then do something outside long enough that the skin that you have left exposed and your eyeballs register that you have left the cave to forage for some apples or hunt a rabbit.

Also, cultures in which females are in office buildings during majority of daylight hours have the lowest levels of sexual activity, which also tends towards reducing happiness levels absent supplementation. Of course, I may be projecting a bit of causation into this correlation based on the effect of being locked during most daylight hours in an office building on my own sex drive and/or the sort of fun most Michiganders get up to on winter vacay in Florida. However, I would still suggest that if a heterosexual couple is attempting FIRE together, the happiness maximizing solution would be to first free the female from employment that forces her to be inside a building during morning hours, so she can instead spend that time walking in nature or meditating on a beach. This will tend towards raising her happiness level and sex drive towards the likely higher level of her male partner, and the increased sexual activity will boost his happiness level, etc. etc. domino effect.

[Jin+Guice]

Loving the discussion y’all. I’m mardi grasing pretty hard over here, will post a fuller response later (also have a blog post about the structure of interpreting Maslow that I’ll interject in response to @Ego’s 1st post).

I think that Maslow + vMeme has a lot of explanatory power for the state of the world right now. Kind if like a container for what we’re talking about.

I think the biggest 3 problems modernity faces (taking this from Hanzi) are 1) alienation; 2) economic inequality and 3) environmental destruction.

I think a lot of drug use and other forms of self-destructive behavior (like over indulgence in something that meets a basic need like food) are self-medicating for these things.

Re: lack of sunlight: I think we’ve cut off a lot of our sensory and emotional perceptions to survive and thrive in the modern world.

Re: WEIRD: recently read the “WEIRDest People” book thanks to a rec from @theanimal. Highly recommend! My understanding is that most of the world is petty WEIRD at this point?

[delay]

The highlights of modernism aren't iphones and cars. The highlights are abundant food and physical safety. So much food that we are literally throwing it out and so much safety that we are willing to pay for entertainment that scares us.

Well said Jin+Guice! The world is safer than ever but people are also more scared than ever. Perhaps there's a relation!

The closest experiment would be the Scandinavian welfare states, where people effectively no longer have to worry about these things. The murder rate is very low, health care is completely outsourced/covered, and becoming homeless only happens if the rent money available from the state for the asking is used on drugs instead. In terms of measures for "higher expression" like e.g. patents/person, scientific papers published, innovation, quality of life, self-reported happiness, vacations taken, lifestyles changed, etc. these areas rank the highest in the world.

Speaking from The Netherlands, you can spend your state rent money on drugs, but if you do, you will not become homeless. A trustee will be appointed who controls your bank account and will ensure your rent takes priority. An astonishing 266,000 Dutch have a trustee assigned and no access to their own bank account.

It's still possible to be homeless. There are people living in tents in the park nearby. This is because accepting "state rent money" means accepting manual labor, like cleaning the streets, maintaining public green, and so on. Our city fired all its park workers and the parks are now maintained by people on benefits. And prisoners, who are also forced to work.

It's kind of crazy, but the happiest humans I've seen were kids in slums in India.

[7Wannabe5]

The average American has made no new friends in the last 5 years. Just read this factoid and thought it applied here. I wonder at what level a new acquaintance tips over to new friend? I know you are supposed to have 5 people you can call at midnight and/or be one of their key holders, but I would place "friend' someplace in between "midnight-call key-holding intimacy/trust" and "acquaintance." Theoretically, you can maintain up to 150 friendships, but that seems like too many IRL. Although, I suppose it could be the basis for a Social Capital Challenge.

[zbigi]

Perhaps this less-than-true-friend is someone you wouldn't mind spending an entire weekend with? If that's too much, then you're not that close.
However, in cases when you have a common interest, this test fails, as you both can just spend the weekend on that interest and the friend candidate becomes fungible, as long as he's not actively annoying.

[7Wannabe5]

@zbigi:

"Spending an entire weekend with..." seems like a high or hard-to-imagine hurdle for me, because I was married with kids by age 23, so constant demands would have precluded this possibility for most of my adult life. I mean, I would have to at least have the excuse of some sort of road trip or out-of-town event and prepared casseroles with reheating instructions. I mean, I did have some single female friends while I was married, but it never occurred to me that maybe I could just tell my husband I was spending the weekend just hanging out at Jill's house, and I certainly wouldn't have been doing that with my single male friends. And when you are part of a couple that is friends with other couples or singles, it can become a bit more squidgy in ways that might not be entirely clear until you break up.

One of the good things about practicing solo polyamory is that my social energy isn't totally sucked into coupledom, and I can more easily do things as part of a couple or on my own or with-a-friend-who-is-not-also-a-partner or with my FOO/adult kids etc. Since, I have lived with a partner for most of my adult life, I would likely define friendship more on pattern of interaction and level or intimacy of conversation. Mom-friends are also kind of a squidgy category, because more based on the needs of kids, but also more towards what we generally mean by "community." For example, I have already been practically hounded to join the community of humans who help teach and care for the low-income pre-school age children in my new location, and there is a certain level or form of warm comradery that is initiated as soon as the two of you sit down to enjoy a beverage break after finally successfully getting 15 3 year old's half of whom are not fluent in English down for nap time. Kind of the equivalent of building something like a deck or a driveway with a man.

Anyways, this is kind of striking me now, because I ended my sexual relationship with my "ex" yesterday (again), but he told me to keep the key to his house. It generally seems like my particular practice of polyamory results in the acquisition/maintenance of many key-level friends rather than a never-ending buffet of frolicking and rollicking (sigh.) Generally, I would say that the way you become key-level friends with somebody in the U.S. Midwest would be that you help them take care of some of their people and you help them build/make something.

[white belt]

However, I would still suggest that if a heterosexual couple is attempting FIRE together, the happiness maximizing solution would be to first free the female from employment that forces her to be inside a building during morning hours, so she can instead spend that time walking in nature or meditating on a beach. This will tend towards raising her happiness level and sex drive towards the likely higher level of her male partner, and the increased sexual activity will boost his happiness level, etc. etc. domino effect.

This is an interesting thought but me thinks it's unlikely that most FIRE couples would attempt to implement such a thing. I'm not sure what level of post-post-post feminist perspective is required to convince your female partner who is otherwise well-employed due to the fact that white collar office jobs pay more. If anything, it seems like a nonstarter with women more often being more educated and possessing higher paying jobs than their male partners. It seems the trend is more that FIRE couples divorce after reaching FIRE, perhaps realizing that the increase in happiness due to newfound freedom doesn't offset the fact that they have to spend the rest of their lives with that partner? I wonder if the FIRE divorce rate is lower or higher compared to general population when controlled for things like socioeconomic class.

ETA: After re-reading your quote, I see you specifically say morning hours. So clearly the first order of business (if on EST or CST zone) is to have female work for a company on the west coast to allow for the later start time, freeing up morning hours for outdoor time.

[7Wannabe5]

I'm not sure what level of post-post-post feminist perspective is required to convince your female partner who is otherwise well-employed due to the fact that white collar office jobs pay more.

Well, I was being a bit tongue in cheek with that suggestion, but it is based on something I initially read many years ago in a book by theoretically Level Turquoise guru, David Deida. So, that would be post-post-feminist.

Your man may be moved to cherish you and protect you in a certain way, not because you are weak, but because you are radiant, precious and beautiful to him. He knows when you have to go out and compete in the masculine-dominated business world, you will have to dampen your radiance and take up the sword, to some extent. He may want to relieve you of this obligation. On the other hand, you might really enjoy and excel at business. It's and individual matter. You and your man will have to learn your unique ways of gifting each other.

You may be equally happy and able to take up the sword and compete in the world of hardball business as you are able to be fully relaxed, radiant and open in love and sensual ecstasy.

But the fact is, as a culture, we have denied the feminine, and many women live a life compromised by masculine economic pressures in a masculine business world. Taking on so much masculine energy stresses their body, breath, and emotions. They experience a sense of emptiness and anxiety. Due to holding excess masculine energy in their bodies , and protecting or hiding their feminine energy by neuromuscularly "armoring" themselves, many women may eventually experience symptoms of physical disease, especially in the more feminine parts of the body.

David Deida- "It's a Guy Thing" An Owner's Manual for Women."

I think this is only half woo-woo B.S. Based on my own chuckling-to-self experiments in allowing myself to be financially supported towards greater relaxed availability as pillow princess, the problem that eventually results is due to the fact that testosterone is responsible for sex drive in both men and women. IOW, Deida is suggesting that too much stress renders women too anxious and guarded to relax into sexual receptivity, but he isn't reflecting on the fact that women can also become too under-stimulated, bored, and suffocated to feel sexual spark. Of course, he is a man of my generation, so quite likely you young folk have it figured out a bit better. One work-around is to consider how "receptive" you generally would respond if you had a bit of a bummer of a day and your female partner came home from work in a very up mood, declaring, "I got that promotion! Let's fuck!" IOW, how much "assertive clit energy" can you handle? (Whereas, what Deida is addressing above would be more like "turbulent vaginal energy." and this is also what is being addressed in the "It's the Nail" video about male/female miscommunication.)

[Jin+Guice]

Which begs the question, Is it possible for a need to be so fully satisfied that the over-satisfaction inhibits something important, something necessary to cope with higher level challenges?

i don't think a need can be "oversatisifed." What I think happens is we lose the internal mechanism that determines satiation. As certain non-physiological needs are unmet, we numb those, instead attempting to meet them with what we have in abundance, stuff, food and psychoactive substances.

There is also the issue of having access to things like too much sitting around or too much cake. However, I'm not sure a person who is fully satisfied at all levels of the hierarchy is going to indulge in that much sitting around or that much cake. I don't think our body is fully equipped to deal with cake, but I also think the levels of over-indulgence we see all around us are a response to emotional and bodily responses that don't make sense more than they are over access to physiological resources.

Low level threats produce heightened awareness. Is that heightened awareness necessary to strive higher? Did modernism so thoroughly satisfy base levels for some people so much so that they never learned to calibrate responses to lower level threats. Is the ability to produce an appropriate, calibrated response a necessary skill for higher levels?

I think the issue with fear is that we are equipped to handle immediate fear which we have agency over, but instead we face mostly non-immediate fear we have no agency over. If we see something that threatens our food supply on hand, fight/ flight kicks in and we react. Moreover, this is a situation where our direct action effects outcome. If we rely on distant farmers and global markets for our food, disruption to these mechanisms threatens us, yet we can't directly observe threats to them and we our powerless to do anything about them.

I think the ability to produce appropriate calibrated responses to fear is hugely important for actualization, but I don't think the issue is too much satisfaction. I think it's constant fear triggers that don't make sense, as well as real and imagined existential threats that we lack control over.

In other words, can a world that fully outsourced the satisfaction of physiological and safety needs produce human beings with the skills necessary to reach higher levels?

Maslow is a product of the modernist world. I theorize that in a less complicated world, actualization is much easier, as our impulses make more sense. In other words, Maslow's hierarchy is only necessary in a world where our needs have become obscured from us.

To answer your question directly, yes I think it is possible to reach higher levels in a world where physiological needs are outsourced, it is just harder.

need for psychotropics is a pretty good indication that someone is unable to accurately calibrate their psychological response to the real world. We WEIRDos have also been far more sheltered from real hardship than our non-WEIRD countrymen, who experience far higher actual risks, yet use psychotropics at much lower rates.

I don't think hardship for hardship's sake or threat for threat's sake is necessary. Modernist residents face plenty of physical threats everyday (cars, violence from other people...), but we end up numbing our responses to these since we experience them safely over and over again without incurring physical harm. I think it's the numbing as well as alienation that is the problem and psychotropic drug use and "oversatisfaction" are what we use to alleviate suffering that doesn't make sense.

I think there is a kernel of truth in that people who endure risks that are more in your face have paradoxically less psychological problems, but that's because these risks make sense, not only to the mind but also to the heart and body.

[Ego]

I don't think hardship for hardship's sake or threat for threat's sake is necessary.

I think there is a kernel of truth in that people who endure risks that are more in your face have paradoxically less psychological problems, but that's because these risks make sense, not only to the mind but also to the heart and body.

I often find it useful to look at the challenges of the modern world through the lens of the hygiene hypothesis where childhood exposure to a variety of microorganisms educates the immune system to produce appropriate defensive responses throughout life. A lack of exposure produces an uncalibrated system which in turn produces inappropriate responses. Overreaction or underreaction. Both can be deadly.

With Maslow, facing and overcoming challenges at each level fosters the personal growth necessary to progress to the next level. If lower level needs are satisfied for someone to such an extent that they never experience the challenges themselves, they fail to learn how to calibrate responses for themselves.

An autoimmune response from the perspective of Maslow's lower levels might emerge as a survivalist mentality, as hoarding, as out of control anxiety or as obsessive-compulsive behaviors. At higher levels, misdirected attacks might look like self-sabotage or hyper self-criticism. A person could reject meaningful relationships (love/belonging) out of fear of vulnerability or excessively devalue their achievements (esteem). This would prevent them from moving up the pyramid toward self-actualization.

In other words, (HH) immune dysregulation and (Maslow) psychological dysregulation from lack of adequately experiencing lower level threats.

[white belt]

I think this is only half woo-woo B.S. Based on my own chuckling-to-self experiments in allowing myself to be financially supported towards greater relaxed availability as pillow princess, the problem that eventually results is due to the fact that testosterone is responsible for sex drive in both men and women. IOW, Deida is suggesting that too much stress renders women too anxious and guarded to relax into sexual receptivity, but he isn't reflecting on the fact that women can also become too under-stimulated, bored, and suffocated to feel sexual spark. Of course, he is a man of my generation, so quite likely you young folk have it figured out a bit better.

Research has also shown that the sound of a sports car boosts testosterone in men and women. Driving a fast car boosts testosterone for men. Low Vitamin D levels are also known to suppress testosterone production in humans. Therefore, a suggestion following similar logic would be for a man to buy a convertible sports car so that he can drive around with his woman relaxing in here feminine energy in the passenger seat. Top down means more sunlight and more vitamin D. Bonus points if they drive together to the gym to do resistance training. I'm sure you can get a similar effect with a motorcycle but probably not so much with a tandem bicycle or walking. Of course this probably isn't the eco-friendly or frugal answer.

[Jin+Guice]

@Ego:

I think this analogy is applicable though I think we are focusing on different sides. On one side are risks we aren't experiencing. On the other side are risks we are experiencing but that are difficult to process by our emotions and body.

I haven't given much thought to the absence of risks until now, although I am loosely trying to provide an alternative to the theory that we are all a bunch of wimps now that the modernist world has made things so easy. My alternative is that we now face a bunch of risks we are ill-equipped to calibrate for rather than a bunch of risks we are prepared to calibrate for. Using a miscalibrated system over and over again only strengthens those miscalibrations.

I see how not having the right risks to calibrate to would also effect this process (like the hygiene example); however, I'm not sure what the risks we aren't facing are? What do you think are the risks we don't face that are miscalibrating the system?

[Ego]

I see how not having the right risks to calibrate to would also effect this process (like the hygiene example); however, I'm not sure what the risks we aren't facing are? What do you think are the risks we don't face that are miscalibrating the system?

Maybe "challenges" or "exposures" are better descriptors than "risks".

At one end of the spectrum, an overly anxious adult could result from extreme bullying, or, at the other end, an overprotective parent could shelter a child such that they become an overly anxious adult. Extreme anxiety is a good example of a miscalibrated response that holds people back.

The self-harm and self-sabotage we see (everywhere?) are perfect examples of miscalibrated responses. People certainly self-sabotage because of past harm or trauma, but they can also do so out of fear or lack of self esteem.

I don't want to imply that I consider myself near the top of any pyramid, but I believe the ability to see the world from other peoples perspective (theory of mind) is a crucial life skill. This is a requirement for someone who wants to approach the top of Maslow's levels. Those with no siblings or few childhood friends measure much lower theory-of-mind scores than those with many siblings and/or many friends. Interaction allows kids to practice interpreting the mental states of others. Later in life, being good at TOM helps people achieve the higher level goals that require cooperation.

The world is changing fast and, I believe, the changes - by and large - produce those who have fewer skills needed to advance up the ladder.

[7Wannabe5]

Developing theory of mind through social interaction also requires that the interactions include those with significantly different perspectives. Somebody living in an isolated village with their many siblings and cousins can easily grow up believing that since everybody holds X,Y, and Z to be true and righteous, then X, Y, and Z must be true and righteous. The sole bookworm in this village, sorting through the post-apocalyptic ruins of the local library may develop a much more complex theory of mind by reading histories, novels, and scientific works that provide more varying perspectives.

Also, theory of mind is not just related to some ability to interpret the mental state of others. It applies to the general ability to form abstractions. For example, a young child is not developmentally ready to learn basic math until/unless they can comprehend that when they are looking at the green side of a card held up between us, I am looking at the red side of the card. Solving a social/political problem within a small clique, "Should I invite Mary, Sue, and Alice to my slumber party?" requires the same level of abstraction as solving a canoe problem which is also roughly equivalent to the ability to solve for two variables in algebra.

However, I agree that social problems are key, because almost certainly the field in which our species primarily evolved its intelligence, and that is why we find it odd or off-putting when we observe some with otherwise high IQ applying brute force to social problems. It is our instinct to believe that there is something "missing" in such a human.

[Jin+Guice]

@Ego:

It took me a minute to figure out a response. I'm working with a specific model with specific definitions.

I'm looking at actualization where actualization is defined as knowing what you want to do at all times or lack of internal conflict. Under my model we actualize when we have all of our needs met. This should be easy under the riches of modernity, yet we observe that it isn't. Why? The other piece of my model is undigested experience. These are things that misalign (miscalibrate) internal systems so that our needs are either invisible to us or perceived to be difficult to meet. One thing that may have been unclear: if something causes an internal system to miscalibriate it is, by defintion (because I am the definition maker), undigested experience.

Now let's define what you're talking about (let me know if you disagree with my definition). Let's call it adversity. Adversity is experiencing something challenging.

How does adversity interact with this model?

I think we agree that signs of misalignment include emotional disorders (depression, anxiety, etc...) and increased drug use to treat these disorders. In my model these are symptoms of undigested experience. How does adversity interact with undigested experience?

I think too much adversity can cause undigested experience (possibly from bullying, to use your example). I also think too little adversity can cause undigested experience (possibly from sheltering, which I interpret to mean an attempt to stop someone from experiencing certain "negative" emotions).

How does adversity interact with needs in this model?

According to this model, when all needs are met, a person actualizes. The only reason that meeting needs and actions don't align (for an autonomous person) is undigested experience. So on the surface a person doesn't need to experience adversity to get their needs met.

A quick example: air. Breathing air with oxygen is freely available to most of us. We don't need to experience drowning, strangulation, lack of oxygeniated air or some other "air adversity" to meet this need, learn a lesson and move onto the next one in the hierarchy. The air system calibrates without adversity.

However, some needs do require adversity. The emotional system requires some "emotional adversity" or experiencing challenging emotions to calibrate. If someone attempts to stop a person from experiencing negative emotions, this causes the emotional system to miscalibrate, which is an undigested experience.

However, I don't think expending a great deal of effort is necessary to meet needs. What modernity does is expend a great deal of effort to cause undigested experience and then tell us it takes a great deal of effort to digest that experience (the second half may be true, but it only comes into play because of the first half). Emotionally coddling a child takes a great deal of effort. Modeling emotionally mature behavior takes less effort (unless the person trying to model it has undigested experience because it was never modeled for them...)

[7Wannabe5]

Do you believe that humans in the primitive situations in which our species evolved had enough of a sense of self to self-actualize? I'm kind of confused by your theory, because I don't think humans in primitive situations did have enough options or complexity at their disposal to self-actualize. Like at a minimum it requires the ability to compare and contrast two different complex cultures and maybe another complex entity such as an eco-system, because you need somewhere else to go when you differentiate self from society. As in, "I am not just of the Land of the River God, and I am not just of the Tribe of the Land of the River God, I am..."

It is only because most of us Moderns are encompassed by our complex, urban, societies from birth that Nature or Primitivism is a place from which we can gain perspective on our culture as a culture in which "The Gods Must Be Crazy!" And it is only from a series of these sort of perspective shifts or widenings that we gather the options that allow us to self-actualize, because now we can see ourselves in a 3 way mirror.

[Jin+Guice]

@7w5: Yes! Thank you for asking me the exact question I want to be asked.

First, I want to ask everyone (including myself) to resist the urge to label a social vMeme where most people actualize as "better" than a social vMeme where most people don't.

Second, to answer the question asked I need to invoke the vMeme version of the pre/trans fallacy, which is mistaking a differentiated and integrated state for a non-differentiated and integrated state.

Direct answer: I don't think that people in primitive situations (Animistic or Archaic value meme) can self-actualize. I agree this is because they don't have a strong enough sense of self to differentiate.

However, I think barring some form of brain damage, all primitive people actualize (and likely transcend, but I have no theory of or definition for transcendence yet). This is precisely because they have not yet differentiated enough to form more complex societies to move to the next value meme. I think the differentiation that allows us to form more complex societies is also what separates us from automatically actualizing.

To be clear, I don't think that primitive people are cognizant of some primitive form of Maslow's Hierarchy and consciously climbing through the levels of the hierarchy. I think they exist in an environment where actualization is an automatic state.

In a society where participation is mandatory for survival and unquestioned by all participants, you don't need to strive to find community and acceptance. In a society where everyone is economically equal and does the same kinds of work, it's hard to have status anxiety. I don't think that primitive people wake up with anxiety about what they "should" be doing. I don't think their societies suffer the three great problems of modernity, which are alienation, economic inequality and environmental destruction. I also think that failure of most people to actualize is a problem experienced in the modern vMeme not experienced in the archaic or animistic vMemes.

These societies are not problem free. They don't have anxiety about choosing the right option because not only do they not have options, they are not differentiated enough to understand these options exist. It's more like they've got 99 problems, but actualization isn't one.