Judgmental Repercussions

This one's courtesy of a discussion by Ted which sparked an internal dialogue in the old noodle. The question is simple: Why would anyone want to constantly renew themselves? I thought that the best way to live was to make the most appropriate decisions. For that, it's crucial to learn, manage, and assimilate vast amounts of information. That's why I thought it's best to emphasize the importance of estimating probabilities at the beginning of my book. The idea is that a person can never really know anything for sure. So many things about reality are inherently unknowable. Isn't that why fringe theorists and physicists are always arguing about us living in a computer simulation, or why conventional rules of logic and matter melt away at the quantum level?

But the purpose of the brain is to make decisions. The right decisions can guide one's action and increase the chances of favorable results. Problems start to arise when we come into the very real world of action. At the end of the day, action is the prerequisite of all progress. There's no use mulling over the best course of action, when it actually harms true progress through indecision. In order to act, one needs to make assumptions. Only when a certain level of agreement is reached about any situation, can a decision be reached and acted upon. During the course of execution, one cannot afford to constanly rethink and question their base assumptions without the risk of unraveing the whole thing.

The question then is not whether one should think or not, it's to which degree should we renew ourselves and why? Most people know who they are. They know what they're good at and what works for them. They have certain base assumptions about the value of any number of things that determine their level of interests and attration. If I have a terrible history with reading that goes back to childhood, it's safe to assume that I'm not a reader. If I've never gotten involved in a physical altercation, I'm not a fighter, if I've never been able to play instruments, I'm not a musician. The ones that can do those things are the people with talent. God decides a person's talent at birth, and these deterministic attributes dictate your life.

In the aforementioned video released by Ted, a man shares a neurological study that was done on nuns and catholic preists that donated their bodies to science. they found that even though many of the people clearly suffered from demetia, their daily activities seemed to have kept the symptoms at bay. They concluded that renewing the mind and constantly developing new skills keeps a person neurologically healthy, although from what I could tell by hearing this guy, it could've been a number of other things like social connection, a state of flow, and constant engagement that kept these people healthy. The man who was speaking about this study said that in his experience, there's an ideal state between achievement and frustration where growth and good health are found in abundance.

To which the host wittingly replied that, "Well, seems to me that if you're always between achievement and frustration, then you're always flustered and never achieveing." the audience rather enjoyed that bit, but it did kind of undermine the supposed message. to me, his achievement-frustration scale reminded me of the boredom-challenge-paralysis states that correlate to the easy-medium-hard difficulties in gaming. Essentially, if any task is too easy, it feels boring, if it's too hard, it breeds intense anxiety and dread. The golden spot to actual enjoyment, engagement, and entertainment lies in that state of challenge. Incidentally, that is also the ideal place for growth and learning. At the end of the day, life is not a construction project for most people. It's better to be lived and enjoyed along with a healthy mix of suffering and overcoming difficulties. 

Only a person can know and decide for themselves where they lie and where they wish to go. Still, it's nice to have an informed perspective. If judgment is the end of understanding, then what are the repercussions of being judgemental? Consider that a person has different areas in their life. There are the mental, physical, emotional, social, spiritual, and economic domains to consider, broadly speaking. Most of those domains are quite personal, two of them are not. Being too understanding can be more harmful in some, while in others, being too judgemental is far more destructive. Meanwhile, all of them seem to demand a certain degree of consistent action in order to yield the most beneficial results. 

Reading, saving, keeping in touch with friends, praying, contemplating, and working out are activities that must constantly be engaged with. The question of judgment and understanding comes in when we look at the quality of those activities. Reading is awesome, but if you've read over thirty self-help books without anything to show for it, then perhaps you should take a break. Socializing is crucial in order to nurture meaningful connections, but the depth and impact of any connection matter more than its mere existence. I could have a million followers on my professional food Instagram account, but if I don't really care much about the content, then the followers will always make me feel alienated. On the other hand, if I have even five followers on my pop culture appreciation Twitch channel where I make impromptu rants about my favorite movies, games, animes, and TV shows, I would never truly feel alone.

Nowhere is this more apparent than in the case of the spiritual. The greatest forms of violence, horrors, kindness, and acts of charity have been inspired by religious beliefs. Spirituality and storytelling have always been the foundation for the sense of meaning and purpose in all our lives. That's why people feel so strongly about it. If I make every single decision with a perspective of attaining heaven and removing hell, then the successful tyrant is essentially an existential threat. In fact, it's quite safe to say that some of our world's greatest modern-day problems are of a spiritual nature. You can divorce spirituality from religion and religion from politics, but you can't divorce spirituality from human existence. 

In the realm of the spiritual, everything is vague and shapeless. This is the realm of self-fulfilling prophecies where the observer affects the results of an experiment. It's the home to the most ineffable, intimate, and personal of truths that lay the foundation of all truths. One can observe the intensity of difference between people who believe in god, ones who don't, and those who can't say one way or another. The faithless ones are always burdened by the immense weight of their existence, faithful ones walk about with a certain bounce in their steps, while the agnostics have an air of curiosity and indecision about them. It's important to note that these are simply states of being, and their qualitative value depends on the need of the hour. 

There are times in life when one has to work and be industrious. They might be low on resources necessary to ensure their survival and attain a sense of security. In those times it's probably best to be faithful, for if you never know the results of your actions, it's better to hope for the best. At other times, one has to consider their choices and make the best decision possible. In those cases "God helps those that help themselves." is the best answer. Then there are those rare moments of discussions and interactions, when groups of people come together with the aim of seeking truths. This is often where a lot of connection happens. In these times, perhaps an agnostic attitude might create a fruitful environment for discussion. 

It seems to me that judgment boils down to a question of intellectual atrophy or fitness. Keeping an eye on your learning-unlearning faculties allows a tremendous amount of freedom. Then there is the issue of the actual limitations of living without them. To what degree is a human self-evolutionary? Will a person succeed over time regardless of the efforts they take to reevaluate themselves? What becomes of the fundamentally rigid of all? Seems to me like most people suffer from having too many options in the first place. Committing to certain things for extended periods of time is the only way to get the most benefits from them. In fact, the greatest values come from a deep intimacy developed over many decades. 

While it might be difficult to adhere to a course of action without believing in it, I don't think those two things necessarily go hand in hand. Of course, you need to believe what you're doing is valuable, but there also has to be some room for doubt. Realistically, that's what it looks like to me. I think the most important part will be the recognition of what's long-term for you. Every activity has various threshold barriers to it. There's the initial high of the learning curve and then a humbling period embodied by the dunning-Kruger effect. I guess I really admire the people who can be extremely rigid and actually stick to one thing forever. They might miss out on so much of life, but they might find pieces of it right in their backyard. Meanwhile, the perpetual nomad sees overarching connections that say the same thing from a wider lens. 

Not everyone has to become an expert, but if a person lives long enough, they are bound to become something or the other. A jack of all trades is the master of none, but often times better than the master of one. How did this simple saying stand the test of time while being adopted by so many different groups of people? An expert can be relied upon for a very specific set of things with immense authority. These domains are like tight clusters that exist in the bubble. Meanwhile, an experienced person has seen many different shades of the sky and can serve as bridge to and from these tight clusters. If a person's worth is determined by the impact they have on other, while the expert's worth is crutial at critical junctures, the jack is always there to help.

Overall, this might make the jack seem more valuable from a statistical perspective, since they have a more balanced and diverse portfolio. But the expert may just as well come in a pinch and dilver us from a massive crisis. It's high risk and high reward. Less worth overtime, but worthwhile in the end. Either way, there might also be many experts that never land for as long as they live. It seems to me that no matter your current batallion it doesn't hurt to keep an open mind. The closed off ones are often born into their tight clusers and die in them. The world might come to them in small doses, and they likely choose to dismiss it, or they can capitalize on it. Either way, if their environments suit them, there's no real harm in standing your ground. 

The point is that until you give something new a chance, you never really know what it is, and hence your judgment is often far from the truth. That is the real danger of judgment. Because of the confirmation bais, a rigid person might never change, and the same things can get old and heavy. That's why the explorer is so alive and vibrant. But even the greatest supertramp ends up seeing things that start to feel like home. Perhaps that's what was wrong with Anthony Bourdain. Constantly on the move, the man had a feeling of family all over the world. Every new connection felt like an twin flame, but they would all disappear the next day. Tons of love and connection, but not place to hitch your ride at the end of the day.

The main emotion behind this article was the fact that so many people who've never prayed have all these notions about the act. They constantly see devout believers all around them, and with each crossing of the paths, their mind scrambles to make sense of the act. Being in charge of decision-making it cannot allow contradictory evidence in front of its eyes remain undeciphered. They find study after study to make sense of things, but until the moment they truly bow down on thier knees and look to something bigger then themselves, they will never really understand what it means to pray. Similarly, the biggest danger when it comes to judging is applying qualitative labels on things you do not truly understand. It closes you off to things you aren't familair with, and makes sure it stays that way. 

Practically, we all have to make these decisions. We cannot choose to invest time and energy into every person we meet. We can't chase down every opportunity, nor accomidate every emotions. These deceisons end up shaping who we become. At the same time, it's important to be aware of your ignorance. Just because a person chose to reject a person doesn't mean they are inherently worthless. That's the final point of balance to strive for. It's essential to be ruthless in the pursuit of something you truly believe in, but in the quiet and personal moments, acknowledge that there was much more left undone. It's also worthwhile to accomodate time for earnest exploration. For you never knwo what you're missing otherwise.