Notes

About this column:

Ideas, observations and notes mostly to (& for) self.

Line-up Squeeze: Remarkable how often this happens: you approach the cashier at a store or café with only one customer ahead of you. This should be quick & easy, yes? But no. Just then, something ridiculously time-consuming goes down between the customer at the front and the cashier — such as an unnecessarily complicated transaction, a tough return, a mistake in the charge that needs fixing, or simply an exchange of obliviously lengthy social niceties, accompanied by details and meaningless stories. Meanwhile the line of people behind you lengthens, putting you in the squeeze behind slow poke.

In many of these cases I suspect the hold-up is, at its essence, about attention. When one inconveniences several other people, it’s impossible for the victims to not be focussed on the causer. For attention-junkies, good attention is equivalent to bad. They’ll take what they can get. And then keep searching for their next hit. ♦ 12.12.2011

Drama Creation: I’ve always felt that drama-creators ply their particular trade partially because they have the capacity to deal with drama and so like a muscle itching for exercise, they cause situations they can then contend with as psychological sustenance. To keep the machine lubricated (use it or lose it).

But creating petty social problems also serves another useful side effect in a complicated world: distraction. Pre-occupying oneself with unnecesary fluff means avoiding having to contend with life’s bigger, heavier problems. ♦ 12.12.2011

Seek to Get Lost:Ironic to think of life as a quest, or a process of active, conscious seeking (e.g. the metaphor of the holy grail, finding the truth, finding oneself), when so much genuine contentment can be drawn from doing the opposite: getting lost in something. ♦ 11.12.2011

Can’t Get Enough Attention:I’m sitting in one of the two big comfy leather chairs at Starbuck in Edgemont Village. The other comfy chair has just been occupied by someone hungry for attention. So I’m dealing with conspicuous drink slurping and cross-legged foot-wagging directly in my field of vision.

I’ve heard the phrase, “You can’t get enough of what you didn’t really want in the first place” applied to addicts. So upon gratification, do attention-seekers immediately chase their next hit? A hypothesis I do not with to test out at the moment. ♦ 08.12.2011

Harass & Bother:Alain de Botton tweets:

“A lot of what one achieves comes down to just how many people above one can muster the courage to harrass and bother.”

Harassing and bothering only requires courage if one actually posesses self-awareness or the ability to care about the inconvenience they are causing. Without those annoying self-inflicted obstacles, pursuing what one wants is merely a matter acting directly. Like a dog.

In many cases there is little external reward for sentience. ♦ 08.12.2011

Status Rules: Much of children’s “play,” after you peel off the layers of the mechanics of their activity, is, at its essence, actually a competitive system of setting and disputing the rules of their game — usually to favourably suit their own place in the game or to yield a more favourable ruling on their most recent move.

Here’s the thing: we adults are as equally as engaged in exactly the same system of rule definition, just at a broader scale: not about the exact location of the sideline in street football, but about social status.

The “self” in each of us measures status based on a scorecard of status rules. And it’s my rules versus your rules. From the generally accepted typical symbols (twitter follower count, brand of laptop, phone, dress, car, manner of speech, job title) to the anti-symbol symbols like those that a hipster advertising his obscure taste, to the anti-everything occupy hippie holding a sign fighting for airtime on the local news — it’s all bling of one kind or another — meaning social indicators announcing to the world who we are.

It’s the self-identitification game: “this is who I am”. And just like children bickering over whether that shot that bounced off the tree was a goal or not, each is claiming that their chosen value system is the definitive set of rules that everyone should be playing by. ♦ 03.12.2011

Lose Your “Self”: Actor Thandie Newton’s TED presentation entitled “Embracing Otherness, Embracing Myself.” Profound & powerful.

We each have a self, but I don’t think that we’re born with one. You know how newborn babies believe they’re part of everything; they’re not separate. Well that fundamental sense of oneness is lost on us very quickly. It’s like that initial stage is over — oneness: infancy, unformed, primitive. It’s no longer valid or real. What is real is separateness. And at some point in early babyhood, the idea of self starts to form. Our little portion of oneness is given a name, is told all kinds of things about itself. And these details, opinions and ideas become facts, which go towards building ourselves, our identity. And that self becomes the vehicle for navigating our social world. But the self is a projection based on other people’s projections. Is it who we really are? Or who we really want to be, or should be?

How far is the distance between your “self” and yourself? ♦ 03.12.2011

Highly Leveraged:Say that someone is highly emotionally or financially invested in a decision they’ve made in the past. At the time of that decision they may have acted out of desire, greed or desperation, but whatever the case, they are now stuck in. You could say they are highly leveraged. And in this highly leveraged state, people are highly irrational. They become seized by the need to just make it work. They get tunnel-vision, focussed solely on justifying their previous investment despite the realities of their current position. I’d categorize this as a kind of panic in which the brain downshifts grasping for quick and easily accessible fixes, intentionally ignoring or cutting out broad chunks of reality.

It’s impossible to speak rationally to people in this compromised mental state. Attempts to open their eyes to reality will be shut down, often with intensity. They will only be open to information that supports their previous bad decision and will cut out the contrary.

Architects face this with clients who are over-extended and are banking on the best possible scenario (quick permit approval, low construction costs, optimal layout, over-idealistic program fully satisfied). And they need this ever-lengthening succession of best-case scenarios to come to fruition. They really, really need it to work out. And will become blind to issues of guidelines, or building code or the cost of flip-flopping on choices. Just make it work. But as professionals, architects are obligated to provide rational advice, often times, sobering advice about the realities of their project. Which does no service to the architect — being rational is perceived by the highly leveraged as negativity. I once heard a life coach say that in their business one learns very quickly, if you want to keep your clients, tell them what they want to hear — which most times is not what’s best for them. Providing feel-good mis-advice is an unethical luxury of the non-professional. ♦ 23.11.2011

Red Card:So a professional athlete calls an opposing player a name that you’d commonly hear on an elementary school playground. Boom. Explosion. It becomes an electric issue: magnifying glass, interviews, public apologies. The media chews it up, and interest groups jump in pointing fingers.

I question the depth of genuineness of the indignation of those crying foul. Everyone’s got hot-button infractions that we love to point out. We might even be hyper-aware of those issues so that when we spot them we have an excuse to unleash. Mine is apostrophe abuse. But is the real deep-down intent of blowing the whistle, pointing the finger and raising the red card really about the infraction — or is it about broadcasting one’s own identity, a statement about ourselves? I’d say that real drive behind the hyper-reactive alarm and fervour of those crying foul is actually the attention drawn to themselves and selling their purity or generosity or compassion, or sensitivity, or progressiveness, or altruism more than it is genuine concern for the presumed offended party. “Look how big I am being offended on behalf of other people. I’m so sensitive, see?”

Aside: leaping to the conclusion that folks would be offended by a single juvenile word doesn’t say much for the presumed level of fortitude or resilience of the group whose defence is being rushed to. But it does say something about the reactive mouthpiece. And that is — at the heart of it — their point. ♦ 13.11.2011

Social Feedback:The (involuntary & subconscious) social status comparison and feedback cycle never stops. Something inside needs to know where we rank relative to others. The wild success of Facebook can be attributed to its efficiency in gratifying one’s need for immediate status feedback information. ♦ 08.09.2011

Shallowness:In times of increased cultural shallowness, we will tend towards advertising and defining ourselves by metrics that are easily and quickly grasped by others, e.g. # of Twitter followers. This lends further legitimacy and acceptability to that metric which then further increases shallowness. ♦ 08.09.2011

Not a World of Men:From “Glengarry Glen Ross,” character Richard Roma (played by Al Pacino) remarks on order-taking sales office manager Williamson’s lack of guts: “I swear…it’s not a world of men… it’s not a world of men, [...] it’s a world of clock watchers, bureaucrats, officeholders…”

Observing modern life, I find myself repeating this line all the time. ♦ 08.09.2011

Testing: The pattern works like this:

Something new is introduced into an environment — it could be anything: a poker hand, an ad, a Jerry McGuire style inter-office memo, an idea, a new person, a new leader, a new challenger, a change to the status quo, a new policy, a quiet person at a meeting who finally speaks up, a request for a raise, a new product or brand, a new exercise regime you impose on your body, quitting a bad habit, a guy introducing himself to a woman he’s attracted to, or a power play in a relationship of any kind.

The default reaction will then be to challenge the new entity and test it to ascertain the seriousness and strength behind it. Is it real or is it a bluff? Is it bark or bite? Is this thing for real or is it merely a temporary disruption? This information must be gained first hand. We do not merely take somebody’s word for it. We put it through the trials ourselves. And the more of a threat to the status quo the new entity is, the tougher the trials we will impose.

In human relationships the process of testing is subconscious and automatic. And extremely tricky. The purpose of the test is to attempt to find weakness, to tease out the bluff. And it happens so fast and sometimes so subtly that it doesn’t reach consciousness. ♦ 22.08.2011

We’re All Put to the Test:“We’re all put to the test. But it never comes in the form or at the point we would prefer.” —Charles Morse (character), “The Edge”, David Mamet

I’m interested in the nature of tests and challenges we all face. It strikes me that most are tests of courage, and pass or fail, we will be faced with that same test again. Over and over. (Mine tend to be those with only moments to react; definitely not in the form I would prefer, but custom-made to challenge a natural deliberator.) ♦ 14.08.2011

Control:“If you change the rules on what controls you, you will change the rules on what you can control.” — Brilliant line from Guy Ritchie’s “Revolver” ♦ 14.08.2011

Ambivalent:Up until about a year ago, I thought that the meaning of “ambivalent” was a state of not giving a damn one way or another. When I learned the real meaning, I remarked on it to a friend who knows me quite well and he says, No! I said, Yeah I know now that it actually means having contradictory feelings about an issue. But I’ve always used it in the sense of “indifferent”, like just not caring or even noticing. He says, That’s so you. Because you’re never ambivalent about anything. ♦ 06.08.2011

Pick Your Battles:Those who initiate impromptu contrarian debate in social situations (i.e. in front of an audience) have a single objective: to advance their own social status.

If you are comfortable with your own resolve on an issue, sustaining the discussion or engaging in the verbal volleyball only legitimizes the challenger’s neediness — whether it’s a need for validation of their opinion, or for the spotlight or to suck up your time or much worse, to draw others into their drama, it’s about them. ♦ 06.08.2011

Selective:I’m a selective shopper in the attention economy. ♦ 06.08.2011

Catching Her Thief: Great dialogue from “To Catch A Thief.” Grace Kelly and Cary Grant banter it out while cruising the Riviera coastline in a 1953 Sunbeam Alpine convertible. Kelly plays the husband-hunting Frances, Cary, the suave ex-jewel thief who’s not taking the bait.

Frances: I’ve been waiting all day for you to mention that kiss I gave you last night.

John: You know, back home in Oregon we’d call you a headstrong girl.

Frances: Where in Oregon, the Rogue River? Read more →

Eagleman: Conflict in the Brain: David Eagleman, from his Wired article entitled “The Human Brain Runs On Conflict” :

When someone offers you chocolate cake, you are presented with a dilemma: some parts of your brain have evolved to crave sugar, while others care about potential consequences, such as a bulging belly. Part of you wants the cake and part of you tries to muster the will to refuse it. The final vote of your inner parliament determines which party controls your reaction. Because of these internal multitudes, biological creatures are conflicted, a term that could not be sensibly applied to an entity controlled by a single program. Your car cannot be conflicted about which way to turn: it has one steering wheel commanded by one driver, and it follows directions without complaint. Brains, on the other hand, can be of two minds, and often many more. There are several little sets of hands on the steering wheel of our behaviour.

The article is about the progress of artificial intelligence. The beauty of evolution is that its principles, competition and opposing forces apply at every level that we look at things, even, or rather especially within ourselves. ♦ 03.06.2011

Virtual Persona:How much more meta can the culture get when online persona takes precedence over real life? A gaggle of attractive young women prefers to get dressed up, done up and made up to spend an evening out on the town taking “spontaneous” party self-shot pics over actually genuinely interacting with each other or anyone else — and in the process putting on an amusingly ridiculous performance to real people actually present. But who cares how you come off in person, right? Because as everybody knows, the true value of human character is measured by the volume of party-esque super-sassy, flirty-liscious shots in your FB. ♦ 03.06.2011

Can’t Watch:File this under annoyances: dogs in television commercials that cover their eyes with their paws. ♦ 20.05.2011

I’m Sorry, But…:Prefacing a criticism with “I’m sorry, but…” is condescending and presumptuous. It presumes that the forthcoming criticism will actually cause harm. Which, I think telegraphs a bloated sense of self-importance and delusional sense of influence over the listener — as if the criticism is the true voice of authority. It’s really just one person’s opinion. ♦ 19.05.2011

Truth:It’s more important that others’ impression of me be accurate than be positive. And I don’t mind if the impression is negative if it is based on reality. But crossing the line even slightly, it bothers me incredibly if the impression, good or bad, is based on inaccuracy.

The culture is hypersensitive to judgment — the commonly heard phrase, “I don’t judge,” means precisely the opposite — judgement, assessing, calibrating others happens subconsciously and we’re doing it increasingly superficially. And we all know this. So why are we trying so hard to sell the lie that we aren’t judging? ♦ 17.05.2011

Kind of Blue:The bartendress was sporting a visible bruise on her upper thigh. Or perhaps it was a tattoo. Actually would prefer bruise. ♦ 17.05.2011

Sticky Fixation:From a 2009: Jad Abumrad interviews Charles Fernyhough, writer and developmental psychologist at Durham University in this WNYC Radiolab podcast about understanding how an infant perceives the world.

Charles Fernyhough:

In those first couple of months, the visual system is controlled by the subcortical regions — and they’re kind of the old bits of the brain — the cortex is the new, evolutionary speaking, the relatively new part of the brain that surrounds the whole thing. And there’s a switch between one kind of control system, the sub-cortical system, and the cortical system, but as the handover happens… there’s a kind of struggle for power and the subcortical regions which were controlling vision do not immediately want to cede power to the cortical regions, so the baby temporarily loses control of where he or she is looking because of this struggle for power.

Scientists call this “sticky fixation.” And it’s where a baby will just keep staring at you — it’s as if the baby just can’t take its eyes off you. It’s quite a well-documented phenomenon.

A struggle for power within the brain, a common theme, both biologically and psychologically. ♦ 10.05.2011

Humblebrag:Two points about humblebrags:
1. The humblebrag is an interesting example of the broader point that everything runs on opposing forces because it is an instance of conflict within the psyche: the internal desire to self promote and publicize one’s status versus the conscious awareness of how poorly a blatant brag would be perceived by the outside world. The result of the duel is a weak compromise: feigned humility appended to a brag. (Example).

2. I love the beautifully elegant and minimalist understated efficiency of the point made by the Humblebrag twitter account which simply retweets found humblebrags. Like a documentary of hidden camera footage capturing dozens of instances of people stealing pennies from a public fountain when no one is looking, the evidence speaks for itself. No narration or further commentary is required. The humblebrag is an amusing phenomenon on its own, but brutally indicting of a certain consistent pattern of human nature when viewed in volume, relentlessly one after another. ♦ 09.05.2011

Blocked:So I’m sitting and waiting for a haircut today at Guido’s Barbershop on Lonsdale. And Banaz is doing this toddler’s hair and this kid is bawling his eyes out. Not that he had good reason to be upset — Banaz is the best hair cutter around. But the kid didn’t see it that way and was making quite a racket. What a baby. Anyhow, so finally after having all the tears off wiped off his face and a lollipop stuffed in his mouth, he calmed down and his dad pays and finally shuffled the whole sorry act to the door. A bunch of goodbyes etc.

So I stand up, I’ve got my chest out and I’m making way over to Banaz’s throne with this great line ready to announce to the room. A rare moment of public comedy for me. The line was, “You’re not going to make me cry are you?” But just as I deliver it, the dad is telling the kid to say bye-ye! Again. Ugh. So another flurry of goodbyes and thank yous. So my line was buried amongst some long since unnecessary prolonged meaningless chatter. Nobody heard it. The moment was lost. Banaz turns to me and says, “Pardon?” ♦ 06.05.2011

New Yorker: Not Like This:Lost an immense amount of respect for the New Yorker this week by their posting a particular article behind a Facebook “Like” wall.

This article is available on Facebook for a limited time. You must like The New Yorker to read the full text.

I’m embarrassed for the New Yorker. They’ve just lost a whole bunch of cool in exchange for some demographic data by revealing that they give a damn about demographic data. The New Yorker should be WAY above being concerned about being liked. ♦ 13.04.2011

In a Stasis of Tension: An appropriate analogy for the conflicted position of the ego is that of the crow that has descended on a stray piece of sidewalk food, but can’t yet risk chomping on it. The hungry crow is driven to go for the prize, but knows that the second it dips its head, it is vulnerable to attack. So it remains in a stasis of tension standing guard waiting for that perfect moment.

A tough existence to be driven by the pursuit of indulgence while managing outside perception. Kind of like the desire to post the news of some new purchase of yours to Twitter so everyone knows how cool you are while simultaneously avoiding coming off like an approval-seeking bragging ass. ♦ 10.04.2011

Netflix Impatience:A little late to the Netflix game. Signed up about a week ago. First impression is that, though I am still in my free trial first month, because the flat monthly rate system removes consequences from any particular bad movie choice, I am more liberal in movie watching selection. I’ll give certain movies, that I probably previously wouldn’t have, a shot; perhaps a picture that feels a bit like a risk in comparison to that sure-thing alternative that’s just a click away. And if it turns out that my risk pick is not working out, well fine. I click “Back to Browsing.” Nothing lost but a few moments.

A few moments being the key words. I would think that though users may sample a broader spectrum of movies, they may also become less forgiving of any movie with a weak opening. It’s just too easy to click “Back to Browsing.” The net effect will be constant with the general our culture’s increase reliance on surface. ♦ 01.04.2011

Sidewalk Zen:I can’t remember how long it took me to figure out the trick to walking the crowded sidewalks of Osaka without bumping into any of the other 16 million people in the region. ( I lived in Japan for 365 days in ’93/’94.) But I can tell you that the solution did not come naturally. Read more →

Damaged Angel:When I was eleven I used to love this pretty song with a sad lyric called “Angel in Blue” by the J. Geils Band (listen). Despite my youth, I was actually fully aware that the tune is about the singer’s soft spot for a heavy-hearted stripper — and that after meeting her, he realizes that girl’s got some issues. Heavy issues. What I didn’t understand back in 1981 was what those issues were or why she was so sad. Read more →

Best Ever: Worst Ever:A few years ago, I used to regularly read a certain guy’s blog. He was, and presumably still is, a bit of a gadget nerd and he’d consistently describe every new device purchase of his as “the best [insert gadget type] ever.” Sometimes, more emphatically, with periods: “Best. [Gadget]. Ever.” I have to admit some temporary impact from reading those words. Read more →

Thank Me Later:Try this: Go to Starbucks and order a short latte with sexy foam and crème brûlée sprinkles. Yes, I realize that Starbucks is what it is and is not the destination for amazing coffee, but this particular drink is more of a subtle dessert slash personal indulgence than a coffee drink, and it also happens to skirt many of the problems associated with Starbucks. Id est: requesting “sexy foam” means the barista will actually have to pay attention to the quality of foam. That would be the carefully produced micro-foam that a cappuccino is supposed to naturally be made with without having to ask for it. The short drink assures a less-diluted espresso to milk ratio and the crème brûlée sprinkles are the universe’s answer to one of those days when everybody you interact with insists on being condescending to you. ♦ 18.01.2011

Mieux Milieux?:Why is it that whenever I meet someone who’s either lived in, or spent time in Montreal, the first thing they talk about is how much better the night scene is there in contrast to Vancouver. Especially in Summer. Hot people, late nights, everything super, hyper cool. It’s like a script. And everyone’s running variations on the same lines culminating in the same point: Montreal, cool; Vancouver, not… based primarily on the night scene. Of all the things. ♦ 11.01.2011

A Player, or Nothing:Exactly why are folks so disappointed with the evolution of the Gordon Gekko character as depicted in “Money never Sleeps”? I suspect that the reason lies deeper than the mere unsatisfying sensation of an itch that didn’t get fully scratched. Read more →

Pride:The surgeon was humming and harring momentarily over the type of stitching he was going to use. So I said, “If it matters, I’m not really too concerned about scarring.” He replied, “well, I am. It doesn’t reflect on you. It reflects on me.” ♦ 08.01.2011

Scratch:So I’m having some minor surgery on the back of my hand the other day. I’m lying there on my back on the table with my arm out on an extension and the surgeon tells me he’s about to give me the local anaesthesia. Ok, fine. And I feel the pin prick and at the same time another sensation. A familiar sensation but unusual for this setting. What is that? It’s not the needle. I can feel the needle over there. This is happening about an inch away from the needle. Then I realized he’s scratching my thumb as a distraction from the pricking. Well it worked. At first. Until you realize that your thumb is being scratched. Then it’s all you can think about. Until the pricking got more aggressive. You see, it started slow, you know, two or three mini pin points, followed shortly thereafter by rapid fire stabbing. Oh. That’s weird. So verdict on the scratching? Still in deliberation. A fleeting distraction from being stabbed, but adding more weird to an already weird situation. ♦ 08.01.2011

Going with the flow:I love the space between the lines: toasting champagne in celebration is classy. Doing Jell-o body shots is not. But both can be described as “having a drink.”

Unrelated: the other night some dude in a suit I’ve never met says to me, “Has anyone ever told you that you have great flow?” I turn around and say, “flow?” He says, “Yeah, hair.” Well, huh. ♦ 20.12.2010

The Alibi Principle: Betty Crocker’s Egg:You’ll recall the anecdote of Betty Crocker and the egg from the Century of the Self. Here’s a refresh transcript:

Dichter‘s breakthrough came with a focus group study he did for Betty Crocker foods. Like many food manufacturers in the early fifties they had invented a new range of instant convenience foods. But although consumers had told market researchers they would welcome the idea in fact they were refusing to buy them. The worst problem was the Betty Crocker cake mix. Dichter did a series of focus groups where housewives free associated about the cake mix. He concluded they felt unconscious guilt about the new image created of ease and convenience.

Bill Schlackman, Psychologist and employee of Ernest Dichter: “In other words he had understood that the barrier to the consumption of the product was housewives’ feeling of guilt about using it. They basically on one hand wanted to make it easier for themselves but they felt guilty about it. So what you’ve got to do in those circumstances is remove the barrier, the barrier being guilt. And the way you do that is you give the housewife a greater sense of participation. And how do you do that? By adding an egg. As simple as that.”

Dichter told Betty Crocker to put an instruction on the packet that the housewife should add an egg. It would be an unconscious symbol he said, of the housewife mixing in her own eggs as a gift to her husband and so would lessen the guilt. Betty Crocker did it, and the sales soared.

Ernest Dichter said that the trick to persuasion is to remove the barrier in order to permit the unconscious inner self to get what it wants. In this case Schlackman suggests that the barrier preventing the sale of cake mix is the inner guilt of the early 50′s American housewife.

I don’t believe that inner guilt is the primary barrier to purchasing the cake mix. A stronger behaviour deterrent is external perception — in this case, that kitchen corner-cutting will reflect poorly on the housewife’s perceived level of genuine care for her family. If cooking from scratch is symbolic for maternal care; cooking from a mix therefore, the opposite.

Reasonable doubt

The egg is the solution because it is the alibi that, if necessary, can be used to justify convenience baking to potential disapprovers. The requirement to mix in an egg is the key that makes the cake mix baking process bear sufficient resemblance to baking from scratch. The egg functions then as sufficient plausible deniability, permitting the housewife enjoy the convenience of the mix while simultaneously leaving her free from any negative perception.

“I read it for the articles.”

The most effective alibis are those that not only deflect negative perception, but actually actually make us come off as noble, admirable, virtuous, and unselfish. ♦ 06.11.2010