Technology Evolves Rapidly, Human Nature Does Not

If I look at what’s happened just with blogging and RSS feeds alone since 1999, the technological improvements have been both very rapid and very beneficial.

But when it comes to human nature things haven’t changed since the dawn of recorded history. There are no conferences you can attend to speed to pace of evolving human nature. If there was such a conference I’d pay $1000 to attend. I worry that attendance would be sparse. A conference on how to make money via blogging, on the other hand, as you know,would be much more popular.

Please note there are no ads on this site and it is not currently my objective to make money off of this site. I do hope ultimately there is a revenue model for TVbythenumbers.com (don’t bother going to the site, it’s not live yet) which I co-founded.

There are many aspects to human nature, and one of them is that in bits and pieces we love some vicarious drama. We also, quite naturally sometimes love to get a laugh at the expense of other’s misfortune. The German word for this is Schadenfreude and while I didn’t get as much of the Schadenfruede genetics as my brother Steve, like anyone else, I’m not immune.

A couple of examples. Last Tuesday I walked from the Marina over to 24 Willie Mays Plaza to see Barry Bonds hit #756 (it was an exciting, emotional and exceptional 10 minutes or so). It’s over a 4 mile walk and I walked it through Fisherman’s Wharf and then around the Embarcadero. It’s not the shortest path, but it’s gorgeous and there are no traffic lights on the Embarcadero so other than the tourists in Fisherman’s Wharf, there’s nothing to slow you down.

As I walked through the Wharf I saw about 60 people congregated on Jefferson St. and looked over to see what the heck they were checking out. It was that staple of the Wharf, “The Bush Man”. He’s been there for years and his shtick is that he hides behind a few branches he carries around with him and then jumps out from behind them scaring the bejeezus out of unsuspecting passersby. The crowd of 60 or so that had amassed was enjoying it.

Schadenfreude.

Via my friend Mike Raneri’s real-life social engineering (it didn’t happen on Facebook if you can believe it) he’d actually wound up scoring the 2 tickets in front of our seats for the game where Bonds hit #756 so four of us got to enjoy it which was really nice. I sat in front of Raneri, who as it turned out had been dropping peanut shells on the top of my baseball cap for about 20 minutes. He was amused, as were the other two. As a younger man, this might have really irked me, but I am not a young man. I thought it was funny too and was OK with the others (including some of the other 42,000, I’m sure) having a laugh at my expense. C’mon, it’s not like he was putting the shells in my beer!

All the attention on Paris and Lindsay is of a similar nature. This weekend, the Web 2.0 crowd had its own little version of this with The Winer-Calacanis Slapfest involving Dave Winer and Jason Calacanis.

I wrote about this, and Jason posted some of that on his site and between that and a frenzy of people searching for “Calacanis Winer Gnomedex” I had about a 600% increase in traffic. Of course that’s easy because this site has no traffic, but typically Saturday’s are the slowest day and I had record traffic.

It’s no different than my friends being amused with the peanut shells on my cap or the crowd of people gathered to watch “The Bush Man” scare people by jumping out from behind is branches. I accept that’s the way it is, though this acceptance has been a long time coming. My preference would be that more people would want to read about whether capitalism is self-destructive and how to lose 80 pounds and keep it off. But the way human nature works, we’re more interested in Paris, Lindsay, Jason, Dave and The Bush Man.

Another part of human nature is that if you “attack”, people tend to fight back. I wasn’t at the Gnomedex conference and didn’t see the full context of how Dave heckled Jason. But I saw what Dave wrote on his blog and even if he’d not heckled Jason at the conference, Jason would certainly have responded similarly. For Dave to not realize that calling Jason a spammer would be viewed as an attack, at least by Jason is to have complete disregard for how human nature really works, and also completely ignores cause and effect. I’m sure Dave doesn’t view his write-ups on Friday and Saturday as any kind of attack on Jason. But, they were. The odds of Jason having a response were predictably 100%!

When Jason (somewhat surprisingly to me) received a lot of support via the blogs, Dave somehow felt victimized. Steven Hodson called Dave pissy in a post at winextra.com and Dave responded to him with a comment that Steven was being disrespectful and was somewhat aghast at the response. In this instance, Dave, like billions of others before him sometimes have been, is in denial. I’m not really sure that’s a bad thing either, though I think Dave would be a better friend to himself with a little self-examination on the matter.

The world will move on either way.

We Lie to Ourselves..but Why?

What we say: Pew: Consumers Tired of Celeb Scandals

What we actually do: Lindsay, Britney Boost Entertainment-News-Magazine Ratings

Please excuse me for being the kind of person who is more prone to believe in what we as a people actually do rather than what we say. What I am trying to decide between is whether:

1. by lying to ourselves as we do we are really, really holding ourselves back from progressing or

2. if lying to ourselves in this way actually saves us from extinction. I worry that the truth may make people more prone to killing themselves and others...

Is Capitalism Self-Destructive: Part II

I had dinner with a couple of friends/former colleagues last night. One of them has a 2 year old son and at some point we got around to how kids have their own calendars (for scheduling purposes) in Outlook, how kids are doing more and more, getting their cell phones earlier and earlier. The view of the world from San Francisco’s Marina district is not necessarily an accurate indicator of national trends – and the fact that our dinner was in Cole Valley probably really didn’t change the dynamic a whole lot. But it seems more than ever things are very competitive for children.

I mostly attributed this both to the real Darwinism (it’s natural to compete) and Social Darwinism. But my friend Bob pushed back. He didn’t really believe those things really produce happiness or a high quality of life. Bob S. is actually very interested in the concept of self-actualization and he doesn’t see (at least right now while his son is 2) the “checklist” approach as the way to go -- the throw the spaghetti on the wall and see what sticks: music, sports, , getting into the best school (even pre-school can be very competitive here) just so your kid can be competitive, that’s not the way Bob wants it to go with his child.

But like many people I know, Bob isn’t just interested in it from his and his son’s perspective, but interested in broader change.

The current system we live in is not motivated and can not easily be motivated towards broad change (see Newton's First Law of Motion -- inertia). But it's not just the physics of it, which make change hard enough, it's the capitalism.

Of almost anyone I know (there are a few exceptions, but only a few really) I’m the least qualified person to opine on how to achieve self-actualization. However, that particular circumstance makes me extremely qualified to opine on what self-actualization is not.

Capitalism, today, right now, capitalizes on “fear”. I’m not above doing that myself sometimes. I mean it wouldn’t bug me at all if Roger Goodell was scared as heck that I am right and decided to cut me a check for $3.8 million dollars. I could live with myself OK if that happened.

But I know a thing or two about fear and I can connect the dots to self-actualization. If you’re afraid of stuff that doesn’t really pose you any threat, you’re not self-actualized. If you’re not afraid of stuff that actually does pose you a threat (but you don’t even really consciously consider the threat), you are not self-actualized. If you have both? You’re even further away from self-actualization.

But Capitalism – our brand of capitalism, it seems to need way, way, way more than a handful of people who are afraid of many things which do not really pose a threat. In fact, capitalism mostly seems to thrive off of making sure that a great many people are afraid. Afraid not to have a nice car, afraid not to be consumed with looking as beautiful as they possibly can.

It sends mixed messages on the other side too – where people should be scared but aren’t. You remember that Budweiser commercial where they say: “Everyone who drinks Budweiser won’t become an alcoholic – but for the % of you who do? Oh man that’s going to SUCK for you!”

I don’t remember it either.

I don’t see where the groundswell of motivation to change this is going to come from. Bob can (and I’m sure will) teach his son about these things, about how to ignore the fear-based marketing, or the marketing that is dishonest about the actual threat. Bob can model what he values with his son, and hope he turns out to be a well –rounded, well-adjusted adult with a real shot at being happy and thriving regardless of where his passion may be.

But I do not believe we can hope for a self-actualized society in this system because the system needs an awful lot of people who aren’t self-actualized to thrive.

I’m still not sure whether capitalism is self-destructive, but I’m sure it’s no easy road to self-actualization for the masses.

Schadenfreude Part 1: Is Capitalism Self-Destructive Behavior?

Robert D. Seidman © June 3, 2007

I like to get an idea about what a person is passionate about. Usually just in talking to a person that comes out over time. In the case of my brother, whom I've known all my life, he has at least 3 passions:

1. Quotations – he loves a good quote
   
2. Food – he loves food like a normal person, but he does have it in him to be a food critic/restaurant reviewer. His attention to detail and subtleties around the eating experience is very high, and something that gives him pleasure
   
3. Schadenfreude
   

I think there are still internet opportunities to get his ideas around food into the world. Quotations has been well done all over and isn't worth approaching. But where my brother could be king of the internet is with Schadenfreude. Schadenfreude is basically the notion that you're not actually happy unless someone else is at least a little bit miserable.

How this usually manifests with my brother is… Well, if it's 75 and sunny in San Francisco with no wind. Me? I'm just delighted because it's gorgeous. Not so with my brother. If it's 75 and sunny with no wind, that's just kind of another day UNLESS it also happened to be 17 degrees with 11" of snow or 95 degrees with 98% humidity back in Washington, DC where most of his colleagues are. If we have good weather and they have bad weather, that's a good, good, day for my brother, it's like he's aroused or something.

I do think there is an opportunity internet wise to aggregate all the stories of people's happiness through other's misfortune. I think there's a market for such a site.

As with most things, things are on a continuum and Schadenfreude isn't any different. My brother is just at the higher end of the range compared to me, but I think everyone, myself included participates in this at least sometimes in some ways.

--

I have spent the last four years in a careful examination of self-destructive behavior, in this case, my own. This examination did actually produce LESS self-destructive behavior, but that was indeed the goal of the exercise. But the examination on an individual level got me wondering, what about self-destructive behavior when it's in an organism, like a company, or even a society. Further, can the process I used on an individual basis be reworked as a process for multi-organism groups (companies, societies, etc).

You see examples of self-destructive behavior in corporations all the time. And I think it's harder for corporations to deal with because if you manifest self-destructive behavior as an individual everything about "cause and effect" does indeed make sense if you have the strength to look at it. But in a group, self-destructive behavior it's not as easy to see even if you have the strength to deal with the truth.

I was happily in what probably would've been about a 2 year process to figure out how to deal with self-destructive behavior at a bigger level when I got sidetracked by a good friend of mine, who raised the question that I no doubt would have had to come to grips with, but it probably would've been a year from now when I was ready for it. The question he raised is this: is capitalism self-destructive behavior?

I am having an issue with both the question and the person who raised the question to me. My friend is one of the more successful people I know. He's a CIO at a fortune 500 company and one of the most optimistic, decent people I've ever met. It seems like less than 2 years ago we went on a 5 mile walk in Los Angeles (I know, nobody walks in LA, but it's not REALLY true…they just walk for exercise, not for transportation) where the bulk of the conversation centered on his belief that progress and growth can be perpetual. I wasn't so sure, but he was.

So, now I have to deal with the question AND with, "Wow, he must've gotten kind of cynical in the last 2 years to throw that question out!"

-

This is part one in a long series. It's still going to take me a while to process it, but one of the things I'm particularly good at is "thinking out loud", so here it goes.

The first premise – separate from any judgment of whether it's good or bad is this: capitalism will capitalize on almost everything. One of the biggest tools of capitalism is MANIPULATION.

Here, I also am not passing judgment on the term "manipulation", I'm smart enough, and aware enough and secure enough to know that sometimes, beyond any shadow of a doubt, we LIKE manipulation. Sometimes we'll even pay for it.

For example, when you shell out $10 for a movie, you want to be manipulated into thinking you got your $10 worth. You want to be manipulated into feeling entertained. Hollywood is expert at this. From visuals, to pacing, to music – it's all aimed at manipulating your emotions and leaving you feeling entertained.

We're all GOOD with this sort of manipulation.

And there are many, many people just like me who are ok with this, and even embrace it. But there's SOME manipulation that's just not OK with me and I have figured it out on my own over time. Nobody taught me, there was no class in school, but judging from looking around at the rest of the world, perhaps there should have been. So let's get to examples that are not OK.

1. There are news organizations that use music during their news broadcasts that effectively is the same music that is in the videogame SOCOM (a military shoot 'em up involving Navy SEALS). In the videogame I'm ALL good with having my emotions manipulated. I paid the $50-$60 for the game for that very reason. But with NEWS? No, that's not OK. Don't let your NEWS manipulate your emotions. That turns the news into a movie or a videogame and the news should be something else.
   
2. Any situation where they want my money and my money is more valuable to them than their product is to me.
   
3. Any situation aimed at DELIBERATELY TRYING TO MAKE ME FEEL BAD in an effort to get my money
   

I don't know if I can come up with an example of #1 other than some of the FOX/ABC television and radio broadcasts, but #2 & #3, we're surrounded by this sort of manipulation. And that's where the Schadenfreude did wind up saving my butt.

I listen to radio at night before going to bed. The commercials go something like this:

1. You're poor and your life sucks (buy Gold!)
   
2. You're bald and your life sucks (buy our snake oil that DOES NOT WORK, but the fantasy that it might will be worth the money!! – and hey, if they attached some type of $100 million dollar lottery to it, the fantasy thing might work in their favor)
   
3. Your colon is busted but you KNOW you're too scared and cheap to see a doctor, so buy our special beverage to fix your colon or your life will suck
   
4. You smoke, are fat, an alcoholic, or in some other way out of control, and since you don't really want to work at being a better person (which is in fact why your life sucks) buy our magic pill to distract you from why your life sucks!
   
5. Your penis is small or just doesn't work nearly as well as it should, and OH MAN YOUR LIFE REALLY SUCKS!
   

The penis thing saved my ass because of the Schadenfreude. As it happens, I am bald, and four years ago, I was an obese smoker. I'm not now, but back in those days when I was being pummeled by these commercials, it was the "your penis makes your life SUCK" commercials that allowed me to fall asleep at night. Nothing else much was going right, but my penis wasn't small and really, when you got right down to it, it may be the only part of me that worked EXACTLY like it should.

And I got a lot of Schadenfreude out of that. Because I could (and did) think, "I may be a fat, bald chain smoker, but I don't have it as bad as THOSE POOR FOOLS!" This thought gave me hope, and the strength to carry on and the ability to fall asleep some nights. I'm thankful for the Schadenfreude.

I do wish I'd bought that gold 4 years ago though.

In closing, it's a far lesser deal to me, but my colon is fine too. In the meanwhile I'd ask you to use your own brain to consider the examples of manipulation and the advertising examples of the specific manipulation designed to make people feel bad, and ask yourself, is it self-destructive. What do you think?

Why I S*ck at Daytrading

Someone wrote with, “You’re writing again, does that mean you sucked at Daytrading?”

Wow. See, I’m used to ASKING those sorts of questions, not answering them.

For all practical purposes that is exactly what it means.

I do suck at daytrading and for a specific reason. I like being smarter than the herd. In most ways, in most things, usually (not always, there are many, many people in my own zip code who are way smarter than I am) I am ahead of the herd. I’m 44 and haven’t worked at all in the last 5 years and live in one of the most desirable zip codes in the world. From this perspective I am smarter than the herd.

But that isn’t how the stock market works: NOT for daytraders. For investors, sure, there is some value, often high, in being able to outthink the herd on a longer-term basis. However, on a daily basis, in that point of time, the herd ALWAYS wins. So from a daytrader perspective I’d disband with just about every tool provided to me and simply go with: FOLLOW THE HERD. You won’t ALWAYS be right, but you’ll be right SO MUCH MORE than 50% of the time that you’ll be way, way happier than I was trying to bet AGAINST the herd.