Posts Tagged ‘Culture’
Righteous indignation
Tags: Culture, Lifestyle Experiment, Psychology
For some, there seems to be a default response when having felt treated wrong: righteous indignation.
The problem is, it never works. Anger is never a way that gets others to call down, consider your arguments and change their opinions. What really is happening is that the emotional temperature is now raised on the other side as well.
What if we decide that righteous indignation is simply not an option, much like such other outdated attitude much like cannibalism.
We all have to deal with a lack of fairness in the world, and we all should organize ourselves far more and be far more proactive in creating a world that works for us, instead of one that is handed down from above by governments and corporations. But the short burst that simply leads to anger is proven not to work, and instead labels US as the jerk.
Tags: Culture, Lifestyle Experiment, Psychology
Is televised news still news?
Tags: 1964, CNN, Crossfire, Culture, Daily Show, Fox, Free Market, John Stewart, Marshall McLuhan, McDonalds, Neil Postman, News, Politics, Ted Turner, TV
The medium is the message
This famous phrase was first introduced in Marshall McLuhan’s book Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man.
In it, Marshall argues that the medium influences how the message is received.
A basic example is a light bulb: although it does not contain a message, it is a medium that has profoundly changed our society. It makes it easy to create spaces during nighttime that allow for social interaction that would otherwise be prohibited by darkness.
In as much that the medium of the light bulb changes society, so does the medium of television. The content might at first glance appear to be the same as that of newspapers, but the very fact that it is delivered via the medium of television alters the content significantly. For instance, on TV, the news cannot be reread, but it goes much further than that.
Each medium has its own specific limitations and requirements
Neil Postman takes smoke signals as an example in his book ‘Amusing Ourselves to Death‘:
Puffs of smoke are insufficiently complex to express ideas on the nature of existence (or other philosophical concepts), and even if they were not, a Cherokee philosopher would run short of either wood or blankets long before he reached his second axiom. You cannot use smoke to do philosophy. It’s form excludes the content.
In the same way that smoke signals find it problematic to communicate philosophical ideas, television finds it quite the task to transmit information such as news. Inevitably, the content is altered by the medium, either by omission or alteration.
Why? Well, television starts with huge overheads: an expensive studio, broadcasting system, network of journalists around the world all equipped with expensive recording devices make the business of television news very expensive. To make things worse, TV is mostly paid for by advertisers, meaning that the TV station needs to attract a large enough viewership to attract these advertisers. This requires TV to appeal to the largest possible denominator. That means that TV has a bias built in towards entertainment, the best way to please a large cross section of the population. But making news entertaining also means making it more accessible, less complex and as a result less serious, less rational, less relevant and less coherent. Even worse, in order to keep viewers loyal, their personal ideologies and emotions are analyzed, and the debate is centered on raising the emotional temperature to give a sense of peril, urgency, indignation and instill a need to ‘follow the situation’.
Israel, Lebanon and Armageddon?
In August 2006, the news media covered the conflict between Israel and Lebanon. CNN’s graphic alternated between “Armageddon?” and “Apocalypse now?” and feature a story by Paula Zahn discussing a website that assigns a numerical value to the likelihood that we might be facing Armageddon a any given day.
Fox News interviewed a Priest as part of its “Armageddon” feature. The interviewer posed his question to the priest as followed:
I get so many conversations, on the street too, that this is imminent. When people say this is imminent, what are we talking about, a year? Six months? Nostradamus says August of 2006. But is it 18 years from now? What is it, father?
A clear example of news choosing the sensational over the even remotely factual.
On Good Morning America, Robin Roberts interviewed a Christian guest who felt it apt, in light of the Lebanon / Israel conflict, to advise:
There’s no alternative, you either accept Jesus or you’re going to go through terrible times.
Robin Roberts response was:
That’s why mom always says you’d better get right. You’d better get right in these times we’re living in.
Unbiased, factual reporting is near death in America.
In dark times, people often succumb to doomsday stories and need believe in something supernatural in the face of their despair. That is why in war times, churches are packed. But these aren’t dark times. In fact, we currently live in the most peaceful period in human history, the only problem is, if you watch the news, you’d think the world is going through one of its biggest calamities in human history…
And all that because the medium doesn’t attract high viewer numbers when it leads people to think, but instead needs people to feel, hence they tap into their fears, hopes and believes, no matter how false. And news degrades correspondently.
Simply ‘being’ versus being responsible
Is any of this particularly bad?
Of course not. Now that we know the limits and bias of the medium, we can regard it as such.
But here is a problem that constantly rears its head in societies: in defending the parts, we forget their relationship with the whole. Stakeholders, marketers, lawyers etc. will tell you that television in itself cannot be blamed for the poor distribution of news. In as much that McDonalds cannot be blamed for the state of physical health of a nation. But if the nation predominantly ate McDonalds meals, it would pretty soon overwhelm the health care system and lead to earlier deaths. In other words, if McDonalds becomes a prominent source of food for the nation, it needs to be viewed through that lens, not just on the merits of being a single food company.
And that’s where we are with television news: it has become the predominant medium to deliver news to the people. The recent rise of blogs has not really changed this, blogs came at the expense of newspapers, not television. And blogs have their own limitations.
We know that to create a healthy and effective democracy, we need to create platforms for open discussion of important issues in a way that is rational, coherent and serious enough to look at a problem from a 360 degree angle. Every situation and every solution has its price, and we need to be aware of the trade-offs in order to make rational decisions that benefit society.
But such a discussion takes time, can be tedious and as a result, is a poor format for television, with its need to entertain.
Television instead relies on emotive sound bites, accompanied by flashy graphics and sensational video footage and story segments short enough to be interrupted by sponsored messages.
This excludes thoughtful news, as thinking doesn’t entertain much, and shifts the focus to feeling, which is a great tool to offer entertainment.
The real cost of business
Again, the problem isn’t television, but the role it has taken in our society as the main vehicle of information and the public discourse that flows from it. When television stations defend their news programs on the basis that you can’t attack the medium because of its abuse just as much as you can’t attack McDonalds because some people eat themselves to death, that defense seems disingenuous and a false attempt to shut someone up with false logic. What is criticized is not the medium, but the role it has come to play, whether it wanted to or not.
We criticise the effect on society and ask for a responsible acknowledgement of this fact, in order to help society to stay healthy. When the CEO defends the medium, he is essentially burying his head in the sand, never a responsible or rational strategy, despite the fact that from the point of view of the head, no danger can be spotted! His argument is essentially the same as arguing that fire is a medium in itself, and that its discovery should not be held responsible for the evolution of mankind. We cannot ignore the relationship between the medium, its usage and the eventual effects on society.
To take the McDonalds example again. In a free market system, the cost of the burger is decided by the parts of the sum + profit. Overheads, materials and profit incentive. However, no-one looks at the costs of eating the burger itself. Equal as to smoking cigarettes, there is a health cost associated with eating burgers, that might translate in medical costs. Shouldn’t society calculate this cost in, via Tax, into the purchase price? The more you eat or smoke, the more you contribute to the potential health costs that would result from your behavior. Otherwise, how will we compensate or even account for this cost?
Should television news not be held responsible for their claims to be news, and be asked to contribute? If you claim you inform the population, should you not be held responsible to inform the nation? Should it not be held responsible for its real effect on society instead of being allowed to hide behind the maxim that it is not their product, but the abuse that is at fault?
John Stewart questions the media machine live on crossfire
October 15 2004. John Stewart appears on Crossfire, a discussion show that supposedly represents both left- and right-wing views on political issues. Paul Begala and Tucker Carlson had no idea how their show would be dismantled, live, on air. John Stewart immediately goes on the attack, seizing his opportunity to make a point about the limits of media but more so the falsehood of its representation of itself, exposing the show as a vapid, partisan punditry vehicle that tries to pass itself as a serious discussion show.
John’s main charge to the hosts of Crossfire was
You have a responsibility to the public discourse, and you fail miserably.
The question implied in this statement is: should the concept of serious news and show business not be easily distinguishable between each other? The hosts of the show seemed incapable of understanding that their entertainment show shouldn’t masquerade itself as a topical news show.
In other words, if you call yourself a debate show, you have the duty to debate and explore the issue rationally from all angles. You cannot instead create an entertainment show that exploits the controversy of the issue to create strong feelings in the viewers that make the show entertaining. Because that doesn’t educate, it doesn’t solve anything. All it does is give the viewer the illusion of debate, of being informed, while in reality he is just as unwise about the issues afterward than beforehand, but can perhaps pretend to be more informed…
And it is this provision of the illusion of consuming news that is the most hurtful to America. Because it kills the need for further inspection. It creates a docile nation in danger of not thinking outside of the box, outside of the information that is offered, outside of their emotions or their comfort zone.
That is why John Stewart remarks:
We need the help of the media [...] and they’re hurting us
The reaction of the hosts is quite revealing as well. One tries to defend the format by defining heated partisan exchanges as ‘debate’, while the other host tries to put John back in his role as a comedian, instructing him to be funny and expressing disappointment at his humorlessness. Ironically, he confirms by these very statements that the show is ‘a stage’, a theater where each is invited to play his or her assigned role.
The interview had a lasting effect on Crossfire, and CNN President Jonathan Klein cited John Stewart when he announced cancelling the show:
I think he made a good point about the noise level of these types of shows, which does nothing to illuminate the issues of the day
Can television save itself from itself?
Considering the huge overheads, the need to make money, money predominantly coming from advertisers who demand high viewing numbers and the statistical reality that high viewing numbers can only be achieved by offering entertainment, can television news ever succeed at being real news?
John Stewart seems to think so. That is why he appeared on Crossfire and advocates for reform in television. So does Ted Turner, the founder of CNN who is highly critical of the channels new direction.
This author is left to wonder…
Controlling the message
Recent deregulation has permitted centralization of media power: only six mega-corporations (Disney, Viacom, Time Warner, News Corp, Bertelsmann and General Electric) own more than 90% of all all news channels (including newspapers, magazines, internet, film, radio, television and cable media).
This raises the question: can the news still work as the voice of the people, with a news media increasingly driven by the bottom line and pressure by ideologically driven media moguls?
Tags: 1964, CNN, Crossfire, Culture, Daily Show, Fox, Free Market, John Stewart, Marshall McLuhan, McDonalds, Neil Postman, News, Politics, Ted Turner, TV
Square one: a happy place
Tags: Culture, Don Quixote, English language, Lifestyle Experiment, Loss, Psychology, Winning
We feel bad when we have to tell someone that the project isn’t going anywhere and that we will have to go back to square one.
Why do we dread this phrase, or this stage in life and work? What would the alternative be? To march headstrong forward in a direction that has no hope?
Our culture has cultivated the message of winning. But sometimes we get blinded by the idea of winning – no-one can win all the time. Losing isn’t bad – it is part of the process. Admitting that you are lost and returning to square one can be the most productive thing you can do that day. The alternative is becoming a modern day Don Quixote, fighting phantoms and winning illusionary battles…
So Square One isn’t such a bad place after all, nor should we dread returning there…
Tags: Culture, Don Quixote, English language, Lifestyle Experiment, Loss, Psychology, Winning
Living the strenuous live
Tags: 65, Agrippina, America, American Presidents, Ancient Rome, Apology, Culture, Emperor Nero, Heroism, History, Lifestyle Experiment, Literature, Lucius Seneca, Philosophy, Psychology, Socarates, Theodore Roosevelt
I wish to preach, not the doctrine of ignoble ease, but the doctrine of the strenuous life, the life of toil and effort, of labor and strife; to preach that highest form of success which comes, not to the man who desires mere easy peace, but to the man who does not shrink from danger, from hardship, or from bitter toil, and who out of these wins the splendid ultimate triumph. – Theodore Roosevelt
Why do we look up to great men, why do we read the great books? Ultimately, as the Greek Philosopher Epictetus said, we do this to answer the question: ‘how to live our lives’?
How to live our lives?
Rome 65 AD – 4 miles outside of Rome, in an elaborate, lush estate, Lucius Seneca, 69 years old, notes that he is about as old as his hero, Socrates, when he was forced to drink a cup of poison to ‘atone’ for his ideals. And here, today, Seneca also faces the prospects of his own death because he refuses to abandon his ideals.
Seneca is probably the most famous man at this point, after Nero, the Emperor. Seneca has lived a life of power, glory and immense achievement and had worked himself up to become the second most powerful man in the Roman Empire.
Yet today, he waits, stoically, at his home, for his death to arrive in the form of Nero’s soldiers.
A quick history to put things into context
In these days, Rome stretches from the shores of Britain to today’s Iraq, from the North Sea to the Saharan deserts. Rome has brought prosperity and peace across most of the know world, united under one language, one currency and one law.
Seneca was born in 4AD, in Cordoba, Spain, in a wealthy, influential family. Seneca was sent off to study in history and became a student of Stoicism. He was thought in the market places of Greece, by professors who gave their lessons from a porch, as was the habit of the day.
Seneca came back to Rome, and became a famous writer. He wrote a series of tragedies and was part of the revolutionizing of the Roman literary tradition. Tragedies were rewritten and updated for Roman sensibilities. Shakespeare borrowed a lot from their innovations, although he did not know it. You can see the influence of the Roman writers of Seneca’s time in Shakespeare’s melodramatic endings, murders on stage and even the inclusion of ghosts as main characters. Because of his importance to the revitalization of Roman literature, Seneca won great fame.
This at a time when the political landscape of Rome had experienced great changes: Julius Caesar had recreated the Rome as a dictatorship, and his heir to the throne, Augustus Caesar had decided that the only way to insure Rome’s prosperity and strength was to create a dynasty. Augustus saw to it that all his imperial powers were passed to his son, Tiberius.
It pretty soon became clear that once you give power to a dictator, it is hard to lose it again. The Roman people, at least those in power, were smitten with all the rights and power they had gained without having to be responsible for any of them.
However, Tiberius turned out to be a cruel despot, suspicious and greedy. His heirs to the throne, Caligula and Claudius were truly wicked despots.
Claudius ruled Rome as an evil bureaucrat: jealous, suspicious, lending his ear to informants with their own agenda, the Roman people suffered under the emotional up and downs of their emperor.
It was in this court that Seneca became part of public life, at 45 years of age. He found himself quickly outwitted by the intrigues at court and was forced into exile on Corsica.
Seneca was returned to Rome by Agrippina, wife of Claudius and master intrigant. She had been born with a lust for power and tried to gain her power through influence over Claudius. She managed to have Claudius divorce his wife and marry her. They had a son, Nero, which she wanted to be the new emperor, although that place was reserved for Claudius’ first son, Britannicus.
Seneca felt that Britannicus would be a bad emperor for Rome and aligned himself with Agrippina, in an effort to get Nero placed as the next emperor of Rome.
Here a truly downwards slope starts: It was decided that Britannicus was to be poisoned. But Britannicus, aware of the intrigue at the court was a suspicious man (it isn’t paranoia if they are really out to get you) and had all his food tasted by others. Agrippina devised a clever gambit. She brought Britannicus an apple and cut it in half. She proceeded with eating one half, and Britannicus, satisfied, ate the other. He didn’t kno that Agrippina had laced the half of the knife facing Britannicus with poison. Britannicus died, officially of stomach indigestion.
Claudius was also in Agrippina’s sights, and was served poisoned mushrooms. Claudius struggled for his life, but didn’t appear to be dying. Agrippina quickly gathered her wits, dipped a feather in poison and stuck it in his throat, telling bystanders she was trying to open his airways to help Claudius breath better.
Seneca was aware of all these plots. But after a life of intrigue at the court, he had decided that the goal justified the means: one has to accept the lesser evils to achieve the greater good. Why Seneca believed that aligning himself with power-hungry murderers might somehow benefit the Roman Empire is unclear, but we do know that Seneca had a hunger for power himself, having once tasted its glory and then felt the bitterness of losing it in exile.
Still, Seneca told himself that he had aligned himself with the powers of good, and that somehow this intrigue was necessary to put himself and his allies in a position where they could rule Rome and steer it in the right direction.
Nero was young and inexperienced. He lacked statesmanship, and recognizing this, Seneca wrote the speech to be delivered in the Senate that was to confirm him as the next emperor. Today, this seems to us as no big deal, all great leaders have their speeches written for them, but in that day, all emperors wrote their own speeches. And even today, great leaders still direct the spirit and content of their speeches.
All the betrayal at court, all the murders seemed to pay off . Under the rule of Nero, with Agrippina and Seneca tucking at the cords behind the scenes, a golden age settled over Rome: the informers who had lead a series of anonymous accusations were put behind bars, lowering the emotional temperature and division within Roman public life, courts were again held in public, the economy was put in order, a strong foreign policy improved Rome’s standing in the world and an the empire was administered in a more effective, more transparent manner. For 5 years, Rome thrived and all the dirty deeds had somehow whitewashed the political life of Rome.
But young Nero began to rebel more and more against the influence of his mother. Nero had his own ideas, and felt he had a greater destiny than being an emperor, he felt he was also an artist. He felt constrained by the duties of office. He was frustrated by the power sharing with his mother, that went as far as having to share his portrait with that of his mother on the Roman coins. He decided that he had to break free. And the only template for such a move he knew from his youth, and perhaps the only real option left to him, was to kill his mother. Freud would have a field day with this one.
Nero, after another bitter quarrel with his mother, invited her over to a makeup dinner and at the end of it, offered her a yacht as a present. The yacht was especially designed to collapse when it exited the bay. And so it did, but Agrippina managed to swim away, even escaping the murderous attempts of the sailors who tried to beat her on the head before she could escape. Nero, gripped in fear about this turn of events, sent loyal soldiers to her home to finish the job. When the soldiers arrived, Agrippina put her hands on her stomach and said: “Here, strike my womb, for it is my son that is killing me.” The soldiers ‘obliged’.
With his mother out of the way, Seneca was summoned to write a speech for Nero, to explain the death of Agrippina to the Roman people.
And so Seneca was the speech writer, advisor and spin master to the court of Nero. Seneca took on this task with dread. After all, by doing his job, he became more and more a liability to Nero, being the keeper of all Nero’s guilty secrets.
Seneca, at the age of 66, asked for permission to retire and was granted this but asked to always stay near…
What is good, what is evil?
Sometimes we find with men who have achieved great power and fame, that their mind closes off to the alternative lives they could have lead, instead, coming to justify the course they have taken as the righteous one, one of difficult decisions, agonizing trade-offs that somehow created the virtuous world we live in today. That path was more or less closed off to Seneca, who had placed himself in great peril due to the choices he had made in his life.
We also often see that rich, influential people become to question their legacy in the zenith of their lives, and become champions for social change, immersing themselves in moral lecturing, charitable causes and what more. They abandon the naked strive for power and instead start to use their influence to create a ‘better’ world for all, to somehow come at peace with their legacy.
Perhaps these forces drove Seneca on his dangerous path.
Seneca, a disillusioned old man, having achieved wealth, power and fame, became to pounder his life and wrote his thoughts down in a series of dialogues. He invoked the memories of the young man he once was, full of ideals.
Seneca judged his life as an error in believing in situational justice: that the world is only a place of trade-offs and that sometimes wrong deeds should be carried out for the greater good. Instead, Seneca started to believe in ‘absolute justice’. That some things are wrong in all circumstances.
How Seneca developed his philosophy
He started with God. Does God exist, he asks himself? Yes, is his resounding answer, and he offers the world, the immaculate beauty of the order of nature, the consistency of the universe as proof. To Seneca, how else could this vast world follow its orderly existence, if not guided by the invisible hand of God?
His next question was: is God ‘good’. Again, the answer is a resounding yes. How could he not be, having created all this beauty and wonder?
And if God is good, than why does evil exist in sickness, loss and injustice? Confronted with this age old question, compounded when one believes that the Gods aren’t fickle, but fundamentally good, Seneca expresses his belief that God has created the universe as a test to mankind. Adversity is God’s lessons, to teach us like a good father about right or wrong. We cannot fully be human nor achieve our potential if we aren’t truly tested to the core.
Borrowed from Socrates’ apology
This idea was borrowed from Socrates’ apology. When Socrates spoke to his accusers who demanded his death sentence. he stated in his address that he did not hate his accusers, that he accepted their actions as being part of a universe that puts him to the test, as a necessary stage in his life.
Socrates went on to explain that all he had ever control over was his own mind. Hate would destroy this power. Socrates argued that if he were to make the mistake of trying to invoke ‘a greater truth’ where his accusers were absolutely wrong and he was absolutely right, he would fall in a mental ‘trap’, because it would ultimately divorce himself from the reality of his own being. All he could be was himself, and the only way to stay in touch with himself was not to judge, but to carry on being who he was, in the face of adversity, in the face of his own death. The true test was not about the nature of the world, about seeing right or wrong, but about remaining firmly who he was, even in the face of the absolute price. This was the test of (the) God(s), Seneca argued.
The philosophical implications
Seneca moved to a philosophy where he is ultimately responsible for his thoughts and actions. He does not blame Nero for his situation, because Seneca states that everything he does, everything he is, everything he thinks belongs only to him, and the situation he finds himself in is presented by God. His reactions are not and never could be governed by the actions of another, no matter how wicked, because he is the only master of his soul, the only person that can give it direction. It would be wrong to blame circumstances for how Seneca has lived his life, because nobody can force him what to think.
Seneca believes that as long as he does not return evil with evil, then he will not be conquered.
He also believed that no person truly suffers evil: evil, adversity, is simply a test, to help us become ourselves, our highest ideal. Without it we would be impotent to achieve our potential. The only evil that we can inflict on ourselves is that of abandoning ourselves. All the rest are milestones on our road.
On to the end
Nero, worried about Seneca’s state of mind and the potential consequences of his writings, sent his soldiers to order Seneca’s suicide. It was a rather protracted affair that I will not describe here, suffice to say that Seneca eventually, after numerous suicide attempts, drank hemlock, and finally died.

A life of absolute responsibility
A mantra you hear often today is ‘If I don’t do it, somebody else will’ or ‘I am just doing my job.’ According to Seneca, saying this does not only surrender all control over the little difference you can make in this world, it also means surrendering control and responsibility for your own actions. Seneca would argue that losing your job because you acted according to your own convictions is not hardship: it is simply answering with the potential of your full being to ‘God’s test’ (in the terms of Seneca). Not taking full responsibility of your actions, and instead rationalizing ambiguous actions by arguing that it wouldn’t make a difference, because ‘if I don’t do it, somebody else is sure to do it’ is relinquishing the only control you really have: that over your own actions. This, argues Seneca, is the only evil that can truly befall a man.
Why we surrender responsibility as a society
Of course, we live in more practical, more secular times. Idealism has often been replaced by collective goal setting and metrics within corporations and societies. It is ironic that in a time people believe more than ever in the power and existence of the individual, more individuals believe their own small existence has little capacity for making difference. Our highest value is not to change the world, but to be happy, to take care of the small nucleus that is our family – we have, as individuals, somehow given up control over our societies and the forces that drive it, whether it is corporate, religious, political or any other earthly force. Sure we vote, sure we try to do the best job we can, but somehow we are no longer responsible for the overall result, all those little compromises we made, all the judgments we make without adequately informing ourselves first, all the votes we cast without having educating about the issues, none of these contribute to the overall result. Somehow, individuals today live in a world where they believe they can have their cake and eat it too, somehow aligned with the forces of good while others are mysteriously to blame for the current state of the world.
Of course, I express things rather black and white, but upping the contrast on the issues can sometimes reveal the inconsistencies that somehow slip between the cracks.
The only way to be fully human
But Seneca’s prescription for a good life is simply this: to never absolve ourselves of responsibility. It is not wrong to compromise because compromise is an essential tool in creating consensus and direction. Seneca offers two addendums to compromise: once you compromise, you cannot say the situation made you do so. No, you saw the situation, and made a conscious decision to act or not to act, and you own that decision. And you cannot divorce yourself from the result, even if you are only partially responsible for it or had no power over it at this point. You nevertheless remain in relation with your environment, and always responsible for how it is. He beckons us not to see our limited power as a reason to absolve ourselves of responsibility for the overall result, but to see our limited power as a clear call to action, a call to work harder to make a difference.
And Seneca also offers the ideas that there are some absolute wrongs and absolute rights. That if you conspire with murderers to help them to the throne, can you expect less then murder from the throne? To not tell ourselves fairy tales that if a creature is one day today it might be different tomorrow. Instead we should take the long view, and help the right powers to take hold in society over a longer period of time, instead of going for the quick fix and helping the wrong powers achieve position with the wrong actions – as if somehow, once in position, they would magically change…
Seneca in our own time
Of course, when one centers his debate on the nature of God and why God created the universe the way it is you are bound to get in a sticky argument, exactly because anyone can pretty well make up his answer whether God exists or not and what exactly God’s intentions might have been.
But stripped from the more numinous arguments, Seneca’s observations hold one important truth for our time:
If we don’t take responsibility for the world, we cannot blame the world for what it is today. No matter how small, we are all cogs inside a giant machine, and we perpetuate it, no matter how small, through our own actions. We can play the game, but then we should own the problem. Or we can instead choose to stand up for our ideals, and then we have to work tirelessly to become an answer to the problem. But the idea that we are somehow not connected, somehow have no bearing on the end result, that is simply not a true idea.
Theodore Roosevelt and the practical application of Seneca in our time
In the last analysis a healthy state can exist only when the men and women who make it up lead clean, vigorous, healthy lives; when the children are so trained that they shall endeavor, not to shirk difficulties, but to overcome them; not to seek ease, but to know how to wrest triumph from toil and risk.- Theodore Roosevelt
Theo Roosevelt inspired America with a powerful call to action, telling each individual that action, not inaction is what will make America strong. Not to shirk responsibility, but to take more of it, and to lead ‘clean, vigorous, healthy lives’, both spiritually and physically.
In the age of consumerism, we often see our role as simply being a cog in a giant machine, but Roosevelt says we are more than that:
No country can long endure if its foundations are not laid deep in the material prosperity which comes from thrift, from business energy and enterprise, from hard, unsparing effort in the fields of industrial activity; but neither was any nation ever yet truly great if it relied upon material prosperity alone.
[…]
A mere life of ease is not in the end a very satisfactory life, and, above all, it is a life which ultimately unfits those who follow it for serious work in the world. – Theodore Roosevelt
In our next entry we’ll speak about Theodore’s practical solutions for our time, and how he envisioned individuals could take ownership of today’s problems, through living the strenuous life:
I wish to preach, not the doctrine of ignoble ease, but the doctrine of the strenuous life, the life of toil and effort, of labor and strife; to preach that highest form of success which comes, not to the man who desires mere easy peace, but to the man who does not shrink from danger, from hardship, or from bitter toil, and who out of these wins the splendid ultimate triumph. – Theodore Roosevelt
Tags: 65, Agrippina, America, American Presidents, Ancient Rome, Apology, Culture, Emperor Nero, Heroism, History, Lifestyle Experiment, Literature, Lucius Seneca, Philosophy, Psychology, Socarates, Theodore Roosevelt
The quirky world of “manspaces”
Tags: Culture, Lifestyle Experiment, Psychology, Ted Talks, Video
Sam Martin shares photos of a quirky world hobby that’s trending with the XY set: the “manspace.” (They’re custom-built hangouts where a man can claim a bit of his own territory to work, relax, be himself.) Grab a cold one and enjoy.
(If you cannot see the video, click here.)
Tags: Culture, Lifestyle Experiment, Psychology, Ted Talks, Video
The value of negative thinking
Tags: Culture, Lifestyle Experiment, Psychology
Studies have clearly shown that people who feel effective and empowered tend to perform better. The reason why: because they tackle the new challenge with a ‘can do’ (=positive) mindset and as a result are more creative and energetic when dealing with the problem.
So if positive thinking is such a powerful force, why do so many people think negative? What could they hope to achieve?
Well, the truth is, we don’t always confront a challenge feeling effective and empowered. Perhaps we’ve been battered by events, bad luck or things simply got away from us. So we confront the world with a sense of vulnerability, a sense of our own very real ability to fail.
Here’s the trick: no matter what happened a minute or a day before the challenge presented itself, the challenge is an isolated incident, unaffected by past events. Our effectiveness to deal with it therefore isn’t at all compromised by the challenge (we either CAN or CANNOT overcome it) but rather by our own inner state at the moment of the challenge.
Negative thinking at the moment of the challenge is a natural event. When the caveman saw yellow and black stripes in the bushes, he or she naturally feared the object might be a tiger. In its evaluation whether it was a match for the tiger or not, the caveman couldn’t be faulted for negative thoughts – flight is the right response.
Fear an negative thoughts are our friend: they aim to prevent us from entering in a harmful situation. The real trick is to separate our realistic negative thoughts from the ones that we have because of the context we have created for ourselves, such as a feeling of ‘not being strong enough’; ‘deserving something better right now’ or wanting to sooth an existential pain by simply blaming the world for being too difficult. Our reasons for being passive and avoiding facing pertinent challenges are endless.
When we recognize our negative thoughts as being void of realism, as wanting to label ourselves or the challenge in terms that are purely subjective, terms that either sell us short or compound the challenge, that’s when we have to fight like lions. Because at that moment, it is not the challenge that might beat us, it is that we might beat ourselves.
Real negative thoughts keep us safe. They tell us when to flee and when to preserve our strength for another day.
False negative thoughts make us avoid the challenges that we need to grow. Instead, we shrink in our ability to overcome life’s demands. As we shrink, smaller challenges become harder to conquer.
The power of positive thinking is relative to the challenge. Some challenges we can win, some we can’t. But positive thinking is invaluable when it comes to evaluating ourselves: who we are, how much we can change and how strong we are.
In that respect, positive thinking is always related to action: how far did you push yourself? It is useless to judge ourselves for every short coming we have right now: we can’t change a thing about that. But we can change where we’ll be in a year. That’s the test and also the endless opportunity. To challenge ourselves for more growth. Every sin can be forgiven at an instant: the moment a real change affects the person, so the wrong can never happen again.
That is why positive thinking is hard, because it requires constant action to grow. But it is worth it…
Tags: Culture, Lifestyle Experiment, Psychology
An iron will could lead to depression
Tags: America, Culture, Depression, Psychology, Winning
“Where there is a will, there is a way”. Cultures that promote determination surely are spreading a positive message, but to phrase the message with the lack of nuance that is inherit to the famous saying could lead many astray. As with all things in life, a healthy attitude towards our challenges requires a more subtle attitude.
Randolph Nesse hypothesizes that, just as physical pain stops us from repeating experiences that could hurt us, emotional pain tries to dissuade us from continued emotionally harmful experiences, in particular, pursuing unreachable goals. He argues that low mood is part of a mechanism acquired through our evolution that robs us from energy when we repeatedly fail. In this period of low motivation energy is saved and new goals can be found. If this mechanism does not function properly, though, severe depression can be the consequence.
Dr. Nesse believes that persistence is a reason for the exceptional level of clinical depression in America – the country has the highest depression rate in the world. “Persistence is part of the American way of life,” he says, “People here are often driven to pursue overly ambitious goals, which can lead to depression.”
There is nothing wrong with persistence, as long as it is a persistent effort to find a reachable goal. Perhaps the saying should be rephrased to say: “Where there is a positive will, one could find a plausible way to a successful venture through trial and error.” But who would ever quote a phrase like that?
Tags: America, Culture, Depression, Psychology, Winning


