Lucid dreaming.
Realising spiritual development (not religious obviously) isn't the antithesis of technology.
Realising being a dad isn't scary, it's incredible.
Realising that to be an awesome coder doesn't require 30 years of experience, it required perspective and the ability to ignore the 'common' wisdom when needed.
Living in a world of 'magic' by choice, embracing stuff I don't understand, and being blown away by the tech of nature.
Not really an epiphany, but when I started a consistent meditation practice. I've been significantly better about viewing myself objectively without emotions, I'm not as held back by fears or insecurities, and life has become quite a bit more interesting as I've been able to notice the smaller details more.
The book that really got me going was The Way of Zen by Alan Watts. I felt like that was a good introduction for myself (a Westerner who didn't want the religious component of Buddhism).
From there it was pretty much a lot of sitting, breath meditation, and hard work - it's very tempting to chase thoughts that pop-up during meditation, but reminding yourself to let it go and move back to focusing on the breath builds the ability later in "everyday" life to notice you have a poor/misguided thought pattern motivated by ego or emotion and to step back and realize you are not that emotion or thought, it is just something happening, and you're able to let those emotions go much easier and make calmer and more rational decisions. I am in no way an expert of any sort, I'm still figuring out this stuff as well, but it's been significantly beneficial just from the short time I've been practicing.
Honestly the /r/meditation FAQ has some good resources and links there, especially ones relating to mindfulness in plain English (it cuts out the spirituality aspect quite a bit). There is also a course on Coursera called Buddhism and Modern Psychology ( https://www.coursera.org/course/psychbuddhism ) that I was interested, but I have no experience with it. Hopefully this helps in some way :-)
Here is a great talk about it from a doctor withouth any new age babble. He gives very simple advice and even backs up his claims with some research.
The gist of it is:
- For 15 minutes a day sit down and try not to think/observe your body/observe what is going on in your dead
- Do this for 30 days, after that your brain should pick it up and do it more or less automatically
Many things which you consider out of your reach are achievable. And they are not as difficult as they seem. You just have to set goals and start working towards them.
Sat at the piano, aged about 10, when I realised that my experience is one of billions and no more real than any other, and that everything we see around us is only so because we say it is so, and that power only exists in the minds of those who witness it.
also: the "good" feeling is caused by neurotransmitters being released/binding to post-synaptic vesicles in the brain. Thinking about this really helped me overcome some hard times/feelings/emotions
Caveat: This is true only after you get over the initial, minor and yet discouraging hump where exercise is only tiring. Ramping up is key, and don't let anyone dictate how slow / easy you start. Then increase gradually, where how gradual is determined by how much better you think you can do.
I had to start running slower than the slowest part of the couch-to-5k program (a.k.a the most newbie program to get into running) to get my breath and body used to it. Now I can run 5k no problem.
I started by running to the store and buying something (juice, food, whatever). It may not have been the most efficient way to exercise, but it created a Pavlovian feedback mechanism.
How much of human activity is just signalling, posturing, and status jockeying with no purpose I would consider practical. To the point where those behaviours seep into contexts where they're obviously unproductive, like discussions on pseudonymous Internet forums.
Robin Hanson has some extensive descriptions[1] of what I mean, with the crucial insight that "X is not about Y"[2], and that rationalization may be the original, evolutionary purpose of rational thinking rather than its perversion[3]. He even offers remedies[4] if you consider it a problem.
That governments in all forms throughout history have had one purpose only--to keep the population fed. People have an endless capacity to endure abuse from those in power as long as they are kept satiated. The moment the food stops flowing is when revolutions occur, and not a moment before.
I know little about European history, but I would argue that the American War of Independence was more a formality than anything. Britain's influence was already waning and the colonies were mostly self-sufficient at that point. The hand that fed them wasn't Britain, so independence was simply a matter of not letting a third party take money out of your pocket any longer.
My understanding that it wasn't the amount of tax - which was actually quite low, but the fact that they did not (and arguably, could never have) any meaningful representation within the power structures that raised these taxes.
To be more precise, that's not the purpose, that's the means. The purpose is to extract the maximum value out of the livestock. Now, to do that, governments must find the right balance of propaganda, social programs and freedom. It differs for different countries. Western countries are no exception: it's just that people are taught that government serves them, while the opposite is actually true. Government is power and anyone who believes it is there to serve his interest and protect him is a fool.
Not sure if I agree with this. Governments are a necessary outgrowth of agriculture: producing more food than you personally can consume means the population can grow in proportion, which necessitates a mechanism for distribution. The fact that governments can exert power beyond their purpose of food distribution is incidental rather than central to their role.
This post reminds me of popular depictions of the French Revolution. You always see these hungry mobs and callous rich people, "let them eat cake" and all that. In reality though, was that the poor in France had a better standard of living than the centuries before. The true catalyst of the revolution was a bankrupt government being forced to turn to the middle class to bail them out.
Learn to spot and understand the perspective of people who expect to get the whole cake in life - the loser/clueless/sociopath model being of some use here:
I work in customer service for a sub-unit of a large telco. When people run into annying issues, I am kind of at liberty to issue a refund if I want to, sort of to please the customer and make them stay with us.
However most people don't ask for it. So only the ones who take the time to ask for it and write two sentences of why they should receive one get it.
First: You don't get what you don't ask for. the other person might really only want a quarter of the cake, but by asking for more than your "fair share" you open the door to allowing them to give you what you want.
Second: By asking for the whole thing, you have placed yourself in a position of power and privilege. The mere act of asking for more implies that you think you deserve it. Someone mentioned posturing in another comment.
What you're talking about is something like (if not exactly) game theory. I read somewhere (no source sorry) that humans in normals situations DON'T actually behave like that.
They generally come to a mutually satisfactory conclusion, normally kindness (apparently inherent in human society) surfaces quickly.
Intelligence would perhaps suggest it's most efficient not be a dick in the long run.
Don't forget Thoreau's quote that he could learn from everyone. I think the problem is thinking of people in terms of rankings. Some are better at some things than others but that should not translate into being better than others. It's a hard distinction to make because the the latter is shorter and more convenient to grasp.
That realization was a gradual one for me. I tell people that I have a limited amount of Life Force and I don't want to waste it.
The upshot of that is (A) that you can't do "everything" just because you can afford it (B) life is too short to "stick it out" if you really don't like what you are doing.
Books are a perfect example of "B": If you read part of a book and you don't like it, stop/quit and read another instead. It makes no sense to read a "bad" book just because you've been conditioned to "finish what you start". There are just too many other great books you could read if you quit reading the bad one and started reading another one.
This is exactly what I did with programming. I could figure it out and produce something after a great deal of effort, but it exhausted me. Meanwhile, I can hammer out 1000 quality, edited words and barely notice it.
I was contemplating a problem I was having, and thought of a solution that was so perfect that both the problem and solution completely annihilated each other. All that remained was the memory that I had had a problem, and solved it.
I couldn't even remember what the problem had been because it was totally, and completely, solved.
I started to think about what this might mean for finding answers to questions. Perhaps people who have TRULY solved certain problems aren't the ones talking the most about them.
Wow. There are so many levels of interpretation on this. From the unspoken progress of humanity down to the lack of recognition of fellow engineers who keep the show running with no apparent recognition from management.
This also reminds me of the Curse of Knowledge, where people who know something internalize some valuable perspective which makes it difficult for them to empathize with how it must be not to know.
Yes, that seems very similar. It's difficult for someone to understand a point of confusion when their own knowledge is so clear. Perhaps great teachers can pass on knowledge so effectively because they are better able to remember and guide people past the troubles they had when learning.
I've had a couple of memorable epiphanies. The fact that they are programming related probably says something about me but heck, I can't change that.
Epiphany 1: one day I realized that Bresenham's line algorithm wasn't just a way to draw lines. In reality, it linearly interpolates values over a range. Example: get the gradient/color values along a horizontal line from x0,color0 to x1,color1.
Epiphany 2: The 2nd big "aha" moment was when I worked for a machine tool company and someone explained how our ball screws (a big threaded rod that moves a tool or cross slide when you turn it) was "mapped" so we could tell what the error was at each point and thus correct for that error with a resulting greater accuracy. That concept can be applied to all kinds of problems. For example: Instead of making a "perfect" lens at great expense, you can make a "map" of the lens's imperfections and correct the image in software.
- Some people look at the world as a series of things that happen to them. They relish the sympathy and attention they get. Do not befriend these people, they will drain you emotionally, and you might be the next person they accuse of doing them wrong.
- Instead, think of the world as a set of resources provided to you for the purposes of achieving your goals.
Everybody is a victim of their own narrow viewpoint, even (and sometimes especially) people who claim they're open minded.
The tricky part is, when you're talking to someone, to figure out the boundaries of their viewpoint and take that into account when you communicate.
The trickier part is seeing the boundaries of your own viewpoint and forcing them wider. This is hard as your view of the narrowness of your own viewpoint is limited by the narrowness of your own viewpoint.
You can't tell anyone anything that they are not ready to hear.
This affects your ability to influence others and be influenced by others.
The takeaway for you receiving wisdom is to be open to things that you are not yet ready to hear, to remember them and keep them in mind as it may apply to you in the future when you are ready.
If you need to share wisdom, empathise with where the receiver is currently and tell them what they're ready to hear based on where they are today (or will shortly be).
Tons of people will buy stuff for reasons you can't even conceive.
The difference between being poor and having a bright future has a lot to do with knowledge and awareness, more than initial means.
There are heaps of differences between people of different cultures, religions, countries, but there are still very strong common elements you can use as a basis to work together.
Building a solid network and community around you is a big driver for luck, probably more than your own skills.
That Israel has exactly zero interest in peace with the Palestinians. Continued conflict is the perfect excuse for continued oppression and occupation. The insight came as a flash - and now I can't understand why I didn't see it sooner.
123 comments
[ 2.6 ms ] story [ 213 ms ] threadFrom there it was pretty much a lot of sitting, breath meditation, and hard work - it's very tempting to chase thoughts that pop-up during meditation, but reminding yourself to let it go and move back to focusing on the breath builds the ability later in "everyday" life to notice you have a poor/misguided thought pattern motivated by ego or emotion and to step back and realize you are not that emotion or thought, it is just something happening, and you're able to let those emotions go much easier and make calmer and more rational decisions. I am in no way an expert of any sort, I'm still figuring out this stuff as well, but it's been significantly beneficial just from the short time I've been practicing.
Honestly the /r/meditation FAQ has some good resources and links there, especially ones relating to mindfulness in plain English (it cuts out the spirituality aspect quite a bit). There is also a course on Coursera called Buddhism and Modern Psychology ( https://www.coursera.org/course/psychbuddhism ) that I was interested, but I have no experience with it. Hopefully this helps in some way :-)
Here is a great talk about it from a doctor withouth any new age babble. He gives very simple advice and even backs up his claims with some research.
The gist of it is: - For 15 minutes a day sit down and try not to think/observe your body/observe what is going on in your dead - Do this for 30 days, after that your brain should pick it up and do it more or less automatically
This made a huge differenc in my life for sure.
"I think [X], therefore I am [X]" -- whatever you think, and focus your thought and will and desire on is what you create out of yourself.
Human advancement has come mostly from markets and freed up the thinking man.
People aren't interested in facts or the truth, they want the story.
Human change is extremely slow and only happens in iterations.
Poor people pay interest, rich people collect it.
If you put something out there for sale, people will buy it, somehow.
Really? The Soviet Union invested a much larger share of it GDP in military.
I had to start running slower than the slowest part of the couch-to-5k program (a.k.a the most newbie program to get into running) to get my breath and body used to it. Now I can run 5k no problem.
Robin Hanson has some extensive descriptions[1] of what I mean, with the crucial insight that "X is not about Y"[2], and that rationalization may be the original, evolutionary purpose of rational thinking rather than its perversion[3]. He even offers remedies[4] if you consider it a problem.
[1] http://www.overcomingbias.com/tag/signaling
[2] http://www.overcomingbias.com/2008/09/politics-isnt-a.html
[3] http://www.overcomingbias.com/2014/04/reason-stories-both-tu...
[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prediction_market
http://alaindebotton.com/status/
[NB I'm listening to the excellent "Revolutions" podcast at the moment http://www.revolutionspodcast.com/]
My understanding that it wasn't the amount of tax - which was actually quite low, but the fact that they did not (and arguably, could never have) any meaningful representation within the power structures that raised these taxes.
It also doesn't apply 100% of the time. Does anything?
Yes. Either this maxim applies 100% of the time, or there is some other statement that does.
The reasonable person asks for half the cake, the unreasonable person asks for the whole cake.
They compromise and split the difference - the unreasonable person gets three quarters of the cake and the reasonable person gets a quarter.
[I wish I knew the origins of this - I heard it years ago.]
http://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/10/07/the-gervais-principle-o...
However most people don't ask for it. So only the ones who take the time to ask for it and write two sentences of why they should receive one get it.
I have my own, but I'm curious about what people believe is the moral of the story.
If you wish to get what you want, you have to use any means possible. And there is nothing wrong in it.
Actually if you look at it that is how most successful people get successful.
Think of your own good first, even if that's not very helpful to the other guy.
First: You don't get what you don't ask for. the other person might really only want a quarter of the cake, but by asking for more than your "fair share" you open the door to allowing them to give you what you want.
Second: By asking for the whole thing, you have placed yourself in a position of power and privilege. The mere act of asking for more implies that you think you deserve it. Someone mentioned posturing in another comment.
They generally come to a mutually satisfactory conclusion, normally kindness (apparently inherent in human society) surfaces quickly.
Intelligence would perhaps suggest it's most efficient not be a dick in the long run.
Yes, that's exactly what I meant.
The upshot of that is (A) that you can't do "everything" just because you can afford it (B) life is too short to "stick it out" if you really don't like what you are doing.
Books are a perfect example of "B": If you read part of a book and you don't like it, stop/quit and read another instead. It makes no sense to read a "bad" book just because you've been conditioned to "finish what you start". There are just too many other great books you could read if you quit reading the bad one and started reading another one.
You can probably guess where I put my focus.
While your options are wide open at 20 they are far more limited at 40 or 50 simply because you don't have time to start anew.
And, similar to software, your life requires far more maintenance time as it goes on :)
I couldn't even remember what the problem had been because it was totally, and completely, solved.
I started to think about what this might mean for finding answers to questions. Perhaps people who have TRULY solved certain problems aren't the ones talking the most about them.
Epiphany 1: one day I realized that Bresenham's line algorithm wasn't just a way to draw lines. In reality, it linearly interpolates values over a range. Example: get the gradient/color values along a horizontal line from x0,color0 to x1,color1.
Epiphany 2: The 2nd big "aha" moment was when I worked for a machine tool company and someone explained how our ball screws (a big threaded rod that moves a tool or cross slide when you turn it) was "mapped" so we could tell what the error was at each point and thus correct for that error with a resulting greater accuracy. That concept can be applied to all kinds of problems. For example: Instead of making a "perfect" lens at great expense, you can make a "map" of the lens's imperfections and correct the image in software.
Sadly, colors don't blend as easy as coordinates: http://www.stuartdenman.com/improved-color-blending/ ... but in general I agree.
- Some people look at the world as a series of things that happen to them. They relish the sympathy and attention they get. Do not befriend these people, they will drain you emotionally, and you might be the next person they accuse of doing them wrong.
- Instead, think of the world as a set of resources provided to you for the purposes of achieving your goals.
Edit: I see you elaborated on your comment a bit, which makes mine read quite differently. I also agree with you loads more now.
The tricky part is, when you're talking to someone, to figure out the boundaries of their viewpoint and take that into account when you communicate.
The trickier part is seeing the boundaries of your own viewpoint and forcing them wider. This is hard as your view of the narrowness of your own viewpoint is limited by the narrowness of your own viewpoint.
This affects your ability to influence others and be influenced by others.
The takeaway for you receiving wisdom is to be open to things that you are not yet ready to hear, to remember them and keep them in mind as it may apply to you in the future when you are ready.
If you need to share wisdom, empathise with where the receiver is currently and tell them what they're ready to hear based on where they are today (or will shortly be).
Considering this and keeping my mouth shut has saved me many a fruitless argument.
Tons of people will buy stuff for reasons you can't even conceive.
The difference between being poor and having a bright future has a lot to do with knowledge and awareness, more than initial means.
There are heaps of differences between people of different cultures, religions, countries, but there are still very strong common elements you can use as a basis to work together.
Building a solid network and community around you is a big driver for luck, probably more than your own skills.
Either you're getting a much higher rate of return than the rest of us, or you're awfully excited about maybe 5 cents.
Or you're just being hyperbolic.