neurology of transcendance

How does focusing on a perception of transpersonal experience affect the human brain?  Many members of society want a vocabulary to talk about them and claim their benefits, but the terms used are imprecise and lacking in scientific accuracy.  Maslow's famous hierarchy of needs from his 1943 paper "A Theory of Human Motivation" placed such peak experiences of self-actualization at the top of his pyramid.  Carl Sagan spoke eloquently of the inspiring nature of the cosmos, and "Einsteinian" religious sentiments are referenced by Dawkins frequently (he has also said that pantheism is "sexed up" atheism).  More recently than that there has been talk about the "New Mysterium" in philosophical circles.  I'll make a naive attempt to define what I mean. 

Satisficing: the cure for analysis paralysis

I have a great family, a house, and I am part of a socially stabilizing effort assisting in the development of humankind toward a deeper understanding and appreciation for life.  No one person does this alone.  And yet, I have a problem.  Lack of motivation?  Obsessive-compulsive?  Instant gratification impulsiveness? Inability to defer gratification to a later date?  No.  Perfectionism?  Indecisiveness?  Closer.  As Dan Ariely puts it, "When we are choosing between two or more very similar options, we tend NOT to take into account the consequences of not deciding."  In other sources, this situation is cleverly termed "analysis paralysis".  My almost compulsive over analysis of some ideas came to my attention in a post dated 11 May 2010.  (The following portion of this entry will borrow heavily from the most popular online reference, Wikipedia, paraphrasing liberally.)

Analysis paralysis describes the situation where a decision is treated as over-complicated, with too many detailed options; when a person seeks an optimal or "perfect" solution upfront, and fears making any decision which could lead to erroneous results.  In the end a choice is never made, despite the alternative of trying something and changing if a major problem arises. In this example the opportunity cost of decision analysis exceeds the benefits that could be gained by enacting some decision.

Herbert Simon (who researched cognitive psychology, politics, sociology, and computer science, among other fields) defined two cognitive styles: maximizers who try to make an optimal decision, and satisficers who simply try to find a solution that is "good enough". Maximizers tend to take longer making decisions due to the need to maximize performance across all variables and make tradeoffs carefully; and some suggest they also tend to more often regret their decisions. 

Simon coined the word satisfice in 1956. He pointed out that human beings lack the cognitive resources to maximize.  A more realistic approach to rationality takes into account these limitations, this is called bounded rationality.  Bounded rationality is the notion that in decision making, rationality of individuals is limited by:

• the information they have (we usually do not know the relevant probabilities of outcomes), 
• the cognitive limitations of their minds (we can rarely evaluate all outcomes with sufficient precision and our memories are weak and unreliable), and 
• the finite amount of time they have to make decisions. 

(Thus ends my liberal paraphrasing of Wikipedia.)

So what can I conclude from all this?  Well, a rational person who adopts a realistic perspective is a satisficer; someone who recognizes that this kind of decisiveness is in the long run a more optimal solution than indecisiveness despite the initial appearance that it is a poor decision making strategy.  (This reflects Tim Pychyl's anti-procrastination mantra "just get started.")  Satisficers take an evolutionary approach to optimization, where some "accidental" solution is used so long as it works, and competing solutions are naturally selected such that the best ones are used and less optimal solutions either change or are no longer used.  And in the final analysis, who is to say that an optimal solution exists (Zhuangzi had much to say on this subject)?  Each solution has advantages and disadvantages, once the apparently worst options are removed, what remains may be qualitatively indistinguishable.  Satisficers, and the process of evolution, both have no definite goal, or even a clear direction (in a sense).  Perfectionists and maximizers do have a goal: making the optimal decision, and they insist on knowing what that is before they take any action.  That is their weakness and eventual downfall. 

Tags: decision making, indecisiveness, irrational delay, deferred gratification, analysis paralysis, satisficing, bounded rationality

The Dawkins experience

I arrived at Davis Concert Hall with my dad a full 15 minutes early, but I already knew it was going to be packed.  Cars were streaming onto campus and lines of people were converging upon the concert hall.  When we arrived at the doors we heard someone announce that the Hall was full and no more people were allowed to enter, however it would be webcast live in Greuning room 208.  We debated for a minute the value of attending a webcast, and decided to go.  The room filled to overflowing within five minutes, a second room across the hallway was opened as well.  For almost half an hour after the lecture started the overflow audience sat in frustration as we could only see the video of the lecture - the audio wasn't working.  As our last hope that the audio would be fixed faded, we left and headed back to Davis Concert Hall.  After deciding it would be too long to wait around until the lecture and Q&A session afterward ended to get Dawkins signature on our book, we left.  Thankfully on our way out we were told the media lab downstairs in the library had working video and audio for the webcast.  Having missed at least the first half hour of the lecture, we greatly enjoyed watching the second half, webcast in full fidelity.  Lots of good content, with some good natured humor intermixed!  When I get the chance, I will have to download and view the first half hour of the lecture I missed.  The Q&A took up the full hour allocated and afterwards I went to the book signing.  The line snaked almost entirely around the perimeter of the large lobby area outside of the Concert Hall.  The attendance and overflow for this lecture was the greatest I have ever personally seen at UAF, and has to have been one of the most successful lectures ever on campus.  Dawkins waived all his fees, including travel, hotel, and meals.  He is a very impressive speaker and critical thinker, and a truly inspirational figure, whether in person or via live webcast.  On the heels of his appearance at the Amazing! Meeting 8, I hope his time here in Fairbanks was an enjoyable experience.  I also hope the showing at his lecture did something to dispel the poor reputation Alaskans have gained in the global community, thanks in no small part to some of the politicians we have elected.  When he signed the copy of The God Delusion I have been reading, I thanked him and asked him to send my regards to PZ, and was given a warm smile of recognition in return. 

Abraham Maslow

Abraham Masolow is perhaps most famous for his Hierarchy of Needs, but he seems to have talked much more about the qualities of a "self actualizing" person (see personality psychology).  In the second edition of his book Motivation and Personality he describes about fifteen different characteristics.  While I cannot weigh the relative importance of each, the characteristic of "problem centering" (pg. 159-160) caught my attention.  Recently I was concerned with how I can help others, convinced that compassion and the work of assisting others is a worthy "higher calling" to which I find myself repeatedly drawn, and in the service of which I continue to struggle.  So this passage held a lot of meaning for me:

Our subjects are in general strongly focused on problems outside themselves. In current terminology they are problem-centered rather than ego centered. They generally are not problems for themselves, and are not generally much concerned about themselves, i.e., as contrasted with the ordinary introspectiveness that one finds in insecure people. These individuals customarily have some mission in life, some task to fulfill, some problem outside of themselves which enlists much of their energies.

This is not necessarily a task that they would prefer or choose for themselves; it may be a task that they feel is their responsibility, duty, or obligation. This is why we use the phrase "a task that they must do" rather than the phrase "a task that they want to do." In general these tasks are nonpersonal or "unselfish", concerned rather with the good of mankind in general, or of a nation in general or of a few individuals in the subject's family.

existential angst, part III

The absolute freedom and responsibility we have is so pervasive it encompasses even the power to end our own lives.  And though we have so much freedom, we do not have anything essential or fixed within our nature to guide our choices (hedonistic desire alone is no longer sufficient).  If only we did!  This is the feeling of existential angst, a basic human condition.  In death alone, leaving all that one was behind, is one released from freedom, responsibility, and its attendant anxiety.  Hence, the greatest source of fear also becomes a fearful temptation that the imagination fantasizes in when the burden of responsibility overwhelms any rewards life presents.  Is this a method the mind uses to cope with stress?  I would postulate that, operating under the principle of enantiodromia, it does have a cathartic effect.  (To be sure, and mercifully so, for the uncompromised individual whose judgment is sound, and in light of the beauty and richness of continually unfolding human experience and the companionship of others, numerous other temporary and perfectly acceptable solutions are considered before taking any such permanent and irreversible action.  Robert Service presented another perspective as well.)

But what is the purpose of cathartic self-sacrifice when it may be more effective yet to reflect on the impermanent nature of life?  Nothing lives very long, really.  It is saddest of all for me to realize that my own children will grow up tomorrow, mature, and die as surely as do all other things.  As will my parents, my wife, and as will I.  I could try to realize this eventual fate as intimately today as it will be tomorrow to live an "authentic life".  From what may be regarded as the most appropriate of all perspectives, in a flash I am born, live, and die.  What freedom and responsibility I have now, is over in an instant.  And that instant is where I am right now.

---

Discontent
I have written before about dukkha, the Pali word for unsatisfactoriness, the condition of life identified by the Buddha. I had thought it was something to be prevented, an "avoidance goal" in effect. But as a basic condition, it really isn't something to be avoided or approached, it just is. In such a world the best that can be done really is to walk a middle path between extremes, keeping in mind a profound understanding of the pervasive quality of dukkha.

existential angst, part II

The example provided by Haufniensis (Kierkegaard), and often cited online, to explain the concept of existential angst is from his book The Concept of Anxiety: 

"Anxiety may be compared with dizziness.  He whose eye happens to look down into the yawning abyss becomes dizzy.  But what is the reason for this?  It is just as much in his own eye as in the abyss, for suppose he had not looked down.  Hence anxiety is the dizziness of freedom…"
- Kierkegaard, Søren (1980), The Concept of Anxiety, Princeton University Press, page 61

This selection alone says little about “the lure of vertigo” or how “the eye which looks down into the abyss both fears and desires it”.  (An earlier English translation of the book contains the word “precipice” in this section.)  The metaphor of “the fall” is rich, and John M. Hoberman in his essay "Kierkegaard on Vertigo" explores it very well.  After reading his essay I learned that Sartre adopted Kierkegaard’s example and gave it a slightly different meaning, the one that I, and most other people with a casual interest in philosophy, associate with it. 

"First we must acknowledge that Kierkegaard is right; anguish is distinguished from fear in that fear is fear of beings in the world whereas anguish is anguish before myself.  Vertigo is anguish to the extent that I am afraid of not falling over the precipice, but of throwing myself over.  A situation provokes fear if there is a possibility of my life being changed from without; my being provokes anguish to the extent that I distrust myself and my own reactions in that situation." 
- Sartre "Being and Nothingness" trans. pub. 1966 pg. 65 or 2001 pg. 29

Hoberman comments on this selection in his essay, further illuminating it:

"Sartre's primary interest is to show the fact of human freedom and the flight from freedom, the nostalgia of the for-itself for the condition of the in-itslf (a nonhuman stasis).  The temptation, as Kierkegaard points out in the second journal entry on vertigo, is to construe a pressure that comes from within as one that comes from without.  To avoid anguish and vertigo, says Sartre, it is necessary "that I apprehend in myself a strict psychological determinism."  Kierkegaard is far less interested both in the illusion that such a determinism represents and in the attendant wish to reify oneself.  It is not Kierkegaard but Sartre, with his affinity for images of petrification, whose gaze is transfixed by the Biblical "heart of stone."

This is exactly the meaning I took from the description of existential angst I read that was attributed to Kierkegaard, a description that may owe more to Sartre’s reworking of it (though that attribution seems largely absent online).  So it was very refreshing to find a citation I could locate within a work which confirmed my understanding of the concept.  It is hard to tell if Hoberman takes a dim view of Sartre here, though his language seems to suggest so.  But I agree with Sartre about the flight from freedom to a “in-itself” condition being a common human desire.  What else is this but existential angst?  I understand the desire to “apprehend in myself a strict psychological determinism” to avoid feeling that same existential angst.  (Religions address this desire, but inappropriately I believe.)  And I can see how imagining throwing myself over the precipice would be a quite effective way of reacting to the uneasy feeling of vertigo, the symbolic representation of existential angst.  Sartre seems to have certainly understood the need to grapple with these powerful internal feelings in a creative way. 

For an evaluation of Sartre's debt to Kierkegaard, see William McBride's "Sartre's Debts to Kierkegaard: A Partial Reckoning," in "Kierkegaard in Post/Modernity" ed. Martin Matustik and Merold Westphal 1995 pp. 18-42 [I have only seen this reference, but not read it.]

existential angst

The mere fact that one has the possibility and freedom to do something, even the most terrifying of possibilities, can trigger immense feelings of dread. Take for example the experience one has when standing on a cliff where one not only fears falling off it, but also dreads the possibility of throwing oneself off.  “I could throw myself off the cliff and nothing would stop me.  That thought is so terrifying that I wish it were not even possible.”  But the metaphor is more consoling than terrifying.  With nothing to hold me back, I have the freedom, the responsibility, to choose my own destiny.  I am always standing on the edge of a cliff gazing into the abyss.  I could end it all with just one step.  Or not.  The “cure” for existential anxiety, the terrifying feeling of absolute freedom, is found by facing it in its ultimate form – the freedom to choose between life and death.  Then we must make the choice to take responsibility for our own destiny and stop looking for external sources to compel us to act in one way or another.  Existential anxiety will never leave, it is a basic human condition.  And what better way to acknowledge it than this powerful metaphor.  You're always standing on the edge of a cliff, the freedom is terrifying.  But the terror brings with it a focused concentration and immediacy of experience that is lost if you recoil from it.

There is an odd mental process that can go on here, where someone is so afraid of one thing that they will do the opposite, even though they are fearful of that as well.  "If I throw myself over, then I don't have to worry about falling off."  That would release one from absolute freedom into the hands of fate.  The choice made is not responsible, but the burden of making it has been lifted and the desire for a predetermined destiny has been fulfilled.  For some, a bad future that is known is preferable to a future of free choices and individual responsibility. 

how to implement goals

When it comes to achieving goals, it has been long recognized that simply having goals isn't enough, though it is a start. One way of trying to make goals a reality is expressed with the acronym SMART. According to this approach goals should be: Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Realistic, and Trackable (but you'll find other substitutions for these words as well). I have tried to use this with some of my clients, with mixed results.

I recently came across another method that appears to hold more promise for reaching goals, through the formation of implementation intentions. In short, one makes predecisions of the format: if situation X is encountered, then I will perform behavior Y.  (To this one can add "even if..." and/or "so that I can [goal]" to the end of the sequence.)  This all goes back to self-regulation and the T.O.T.E. model of feedback loops, where an implementation intention defines the "operate" portion of that sequence.  The wonderful thing about implementation intentions is that conscious intent is not needed and goal directed action can become virtually automatic. Since behavioral cues are now in the environment; thinking or reminding oneself about the goal is no longer the primary stimulus for action. It is especially useful for resisting temptations and, by extension, may also be used for impulse control as well. Studies have shown that this is an effective strategy for performing tasks such as math homework, and it can even help six-year olds to not procrastinate. Temptation-inhibiting implementation intentions are not immune to self-deception however, so this approach isn't by any means a panacea.

Here's an example:
Primary Goal: Maintain personal health, and employee and academic performance.
Secondary Goal: Improve my digital media and language skills.
Implementation Intentions (taking only primary goals into account right now):
If dishes have been in the sink for more than three days, then I will do them. If it is six o'clock at night, then I will do my math homework for one hour. If I have documentation to finish, then I will do that at work. If I want to read a construction book, or use the Internet, then I will, provided there are no dishes, math, or documentation remaining to be done and it is earlier than eight at night.

advice

Hindsight turned into Foresight:
Imagine meeting your future self.
What advice would he/she have to say to you?
What advice would he/she not say to you?
Listen closely, now is your opportunity.   

As the saying goes, hindsight is 20/20, so why not turn it into foresight?

Parent-Offspring Conflict

This morning I read Robert Triver's article "Parent-Offspring Conflict" that appeared in the journal American Zoologist way back in 1974. It is a very important article on the subject of evolution, and identified the process from which the article takes its title.

The article is divided into several main subsections:

1. Parent-offspring conflict over the continuation of parental investment
2. Conflict throughout the period of parental investment over the amount of parental investment
3. The time course of parent-offspring conflict
4. Disagreement over the sex of the offspring
5. The offspring as psychological manipulator
6. Parent-offspring conflict over the behavioral tendencies of the offspring
7. Conflict over the adult reproductive role of the offspring
8. The role of parental experience in parent-offspring conflict

According to evolutionary theory, each organism attempts to maximize its reproductive success and perpetuate copies of its own genes. Since the genes of the parents and offspring are different, though at the same time related, this creates and undercurrent of competition in an otherwise nurturing relationship. Conflict between parent and offspring occurs in any sexually reproducing organisms, and the parental investment in the offspring either positively or negatively affects the fitness of both in different ways. Offspring are not "passive vessels into which parents pour the appropriate care. Once one imagines offspring as actors in this interaction, then conflict must be assumed to lie at the heart of sexual reproduction itself."
I found several sections in the paper particularly interesting. This one underscores the situation of children in relation to their parents:

Throughout the period of parental investment the offspring competes at a disadvantage. The offspring is smaller and less experienced than its parent, and its parent controls the resources at issue. Given this competitive disadvantage the offspring is expected to employ psychological rather than physical tactics.

And this describes why parents want their children to be nice to each other, though the children are more likely to fight among themselves:

An individual is only expected to perform an altruistic act toward its full-sibling whenever the benefit to the sibling is greater than twice the cost to the altruist [because they are only half related to their siblings]... But parents, who are equally related to all of their offspring, are expected to encourage all altruistic acts among their offspring in which the benefit is greater than the cost, and to discourage all selfish acts in which the cost is greater than the benefit.

---

Source:  Trivers, Robert L.  "Parent-Offspring Conflict" American Zoologist 1974 14(1):249-264

comparative awareness

Today I was thinking about evolutionary psychology, which seems not too far removed from the philosophy and theory of mind. It all began late last night, when I read that pulmonate snails and vetigastropod snails are less closely related to each other than I am to a goldfish. Talk about a shift in perspective!

It is common knowledge that experiments with lab mice are useful to understanding basic physiological processes that humans and mice share in common, and thankfully there are quite a few of those (or the experiments would be far less useful).  It is an unavoidable conclusion that if I am so closely related to goldfish, I am surely much more closely related to mice. Yet obviously mice and humans are very different. But what constitutes that difference? I think it is the more developed neural circuitry and complex behavior that most distinguishes me from a goldfish or mouse, more so than any anatomically evolved traits. In other words, whether or not I can formulate the thoughts for making this blog entry is more significant than whether I have hands or I am covered in gold scales and live in a fishbowl. To the point: If complex behavior distinguishes me from a goldfish better than physical form, perhaps it is a more useful tool for distinguishing animals.

Is it possible to quantifiably compare the mental experiences of two different organisms? Is thought a scalable function, and does each conscious being fall somewhere on a "continuum of thinking"? Is there an "evolution of thought" describable with a "taxonomy of mind"? Does it make sense to talk about a classification of awareness or neural functioning within the context of evolutionary psychology? I don't have an answer to any of these potentially illuminating questions.  In the final assessment, this chain of speculation may be a dead end, as speaking of conscious thought may have little utility outside of a handful of organisms, and even among those it may only have marginal utility.  Evolutionary psychology is a field of study originally concerned with humans and our immediate ancestry, not much else.  Consider this entry by PZ Myers on the relative insignificance of intelligence from a biological perspective. 

---

A few days ago I was pondering "What does it mean to be a father? How does that position shape my understanding of myself and my relationship to everything else?" From an evolutionary psychology perspective, this is a developmental question. I became a father after first being a child, and this question would have made little sense to me 20 years ago, but today it is very relevant and influences my conscious understanding of the world. As I grow older this understanding will continue to be informed and shaped by new and changing conditions, forcing me to grow and adapt. Conscious thought is so maleable and fragile, any approach at placing it within a taxonomic system would have to be very different from classification techniques based on physiological and genetic markers.

Buddhism Without Beliefs

I finished reading "Buddhism Without Beliefs" a few days ago.  In the first chapter Stephen Batchelor explained how the four truths Gautama taught (understanding anguish, letting go of its origins, realizing its cessation, and cultivating the path) is the process of awakening "unfolding in your own mind at this moment".  Awakening is a process, not a thing to be attained. It is "an authentic way of being in the world", not a lofty goal.  Equally important is understanding that:

"This trajectory is no linear sequence of "stages" through which we "progress."  We do not leave behind an earlier stage in order to advance to the next rung of some hierarchy.  All four activities are part of a single continuum of action."

I think I understand how this may be.  To give an example, I can confront the anguish of one situation and deal with it, but that does not mean I have defeated all possible sources of anguish in my life once and for all.  It will reappear again and again in different forms, and every time I will employ each of these four phases Gautama taught.  And though it may be possible to engage in one of them without the others, it would be a very unbalanced and ineffective approach.  This irreducible quality of the four noble truths is good at combating obsession, so it is nice to see it here.  Not merely an article of faith, they are something to be acted upon (and tested first).

lawnmowers and dragonflies

This morning I was reading about a truck that uses gasification technology, and it lead me to thinking about lawnmowers. I need to sharpen my non-motorized push lawnmower or buy one with an engine. I remember reading about Harry Schoell, the inventor of the heat regenerative cyclone engine and their prototype lawnmowers developed as a possible application for the technology (supposedly ready by 2010). That would be fun to have! But then again, if had a lawnmower that used gasification technology, perhaps the grass clippings could be used as the fuel, which would make the lawnmower nearly autonomous, much like a solar powered artificially intelligent lawnmower. If AI beings ever take over the world, my money says it starts with lawnmowers (or a swarm of Roomba vacuum cleaners).

This afternoon I was outside standing and talking with my clients when a dragonfly flew up to me and landed on my left temple. I thought that was just too cool, never happened to me before. I continued giving my speech and let the insect rest on my head. I could just barely see it with my peripheral vision, and feel its light weight on my skin. Think of it as a counter-example to H.P. Lovecraft's cosmic indifferentism if you want.

I haven't the time to read it now, but if you do, tell me what you think of this article about the research of George Vaillant titled "What makes us happy?"

Seeing this life out

No wonder people find it difficult to set and work towards long term goals, the ability to think on long time scales seems to be a rare skill these days. I have had an interest in time and how the mind perceives it for several years now - is it possible to think on scales of months, years, and decades as if they were as real as the next hour, day, or week? Taken to an extreme, this creates a sense of timelessness, the same feeling that a religious person might experience when contemplating immortality. How far into the future can one rationally plan before lofty aspirations become pure fantasy and the last threads anchoring them to reality are severed?

Long term goals are important for a reason that did not become obvious to me until the last few days. Whatever other thoughts they may have had (or lacked), the recent shootings in Germany and Alabama were carried out by people who had no personal long term goals here on Earth.

One long term goal example from Don't Delay: global sustainability

Feedback

In 1943 Arturo Rosenblueth set the basis of cybernetics, proposing that behavior controlled by negative feedback, whether in animal, human or machine, was a determinative, directive principle in nature. Cybernetics focuses on how anything (digital, mechanical or biological) processes information, reacts to information, and changes to better accomplish the first two tasks. It is "the art of ensuring the efficacy of action" according to Louis Couffignal. A premise one might find implied here is that the stimulus behind behavior is the achievment of a goal.

Sound familiar? This has a lot to do with procrastination. In the field of psychology, the importance of monitoring and regulating one's attention to a task prompted George Miller to coin the acronym T.O.T.E.: test-operate-test-exit. In the same breath we could also talk about optimal foraging theory and control theory (a close sister to cybernetics). Each employs a specific example of the classic feedback model. In general terms, feedback is the process in which part of the output of a system is returned to its input in order to regulate its further output. Dare I say it, this is the most important principle for self-regulation in the battle against procrastination. Of course, it cannot address all the fundamental reasons for irrational delay, but it is a very big piece. (Sources: Don't Delay and as usual Wikipedia.)

---

Postscript 01 March 2009:
In 1973 William Powers built upon ideas like those of Rosenblueth's. He proposed the Perceptual Control Theory model of behavioral organization, which states that living organisms are closed-loop systems that act to keep perceptual variables in pre-specified states, protected from disturbances caused by variations in environmental circumstances. Which makes sense when considering a quote from Claude Bernard (1813-1878): "The constancy of the internal environment is the condition for a free and independent life."

predation

The predator's mind is always fixed on its prey. It's senses are tuned to seek it out. It's body is ready to attack it. "I will not be robbed of the joy of victory. Success will be mine."
Nature, red in tooth and claw -Tennyson

What reaction does this photo elicit from the human observer? It is easier to identify with the seal, but if you were in the mind of the shark what would you be thinking or feeling? Aggression, hatred, fear, joy? None of the above? Source

predatory behavior and the goal of an easy meal

I have visited the subjects of apex predators (in 2005), camouflage, and competition in the past. Here I've edited a selection of material from Wikipedia on the subject of hunting, which I believe can be very instructive when considering efficient goal pursuit:

The act of predation can be broken down into a maximum of four stages: Detection of prey, attack, capture and finally consumption. Optimal foraging theory states that all organisms, including predators, will act in such a way as to maximize their energy intake per unit time. In other words, they behave in such a way as to find, capture and consume food containing the most calories while expending the least amount of time and energy possible in doing so.

Predators may hunt actively for prey, or sit and wait for prey to approach within striking distance. Ambush predators or sit-and-wait predators are carnivorous animals that capture prey by stealth or cunning, not by speed or necessarily by strength. These organisms usually hide motionless and wait for prey to come within striking distance. They are often camouflaged, and may be solitary. Camouflage, a form of crypsis, involves concealment and obscurity; it is not limited to the commonly encountered visual camouflage of color, shape, and pattern, but encompasses other senses as well to deceive the observer into making a false judgment about the camouflaged object. Predators may also use mimicry to lure, traps or tools to catch, and complex weaponry to subdue and kill their prey.

In much of the world, humans are the largest, best-organized, most cunning, and most powerful predators. Nonetheless, broadly speaking, optimal foraging theory should still be capable of describing their behavior as well.

stalking the goal, a hunter's guide

Is the goal like a wary animal, conscious of its stalker, that takes flight when it suspects the approach of a hunter? If I do not pursue the target, what then should I aim for? We should not aim, we should disguise our earnest pursuit in the folly of play, a clever camouflage. Play, turned to deadly accuracy only at the last moment, when success has been assured.

Goal pursuit bears more than a passing resemblance to hunting: a target, the execution of a careful plan, exertion, elation upon success.

Blog review: Don't Delay

I read all of the posts on Don’t Delay; they were very good. I’d like to distill here some of the highlights that made an impression on me. First let’s review the costs of procrastination:

“It has been associated with depression, guilt, low exam grades, anxiety, neuroticism, irrational thinking, cheating and low self-esteem. …It can be an extremely disabling psychological condition.”

And some of the speculated reasons for procrastination:

• Lack of conscientiousness, defined as self-discipline, orderliness and organization, is a key personality trait that is highly correlated with procrastination.
  
• Lack of self-discipline is the strongest facet-level predictor of procrastination.

Who is not likely to procrastinate?

Individuals who tend to use an early action pacing style in task execution [as opposed to a deadline action pacing style] are most likely to meet deadlines. At least in western cultures, there is a common planning bias that leads to overly optimistic predictions. Generally, people underestimate how much time tasks will take and overestimate how much they will get done.

A few parts confirmed my suspicions:

• External control has negative consequences in the long run, possibly including alienation from personal preferences.
  
• Different types of procrastinators respond differently to certain levels of evaluation threat.
  
• Those who consider themselves procrastinators may actually be quite efficient at getting [tasks] done once they start.

Emphasis was placed on procrastination as an existential issue, and Pychyl explains the reasons behind this very well. I had never thought of it this way before, but it makes a lot of sense. In support of this he has referred to three well known books:

• Paul Tillich, The Courage to Be
  
• Viktor Frankl, Man’s Search for Meaning (1945)
  
• Steven Covey, The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People

From the existential point of view “procrastination is about choice”, and consequently we need to “bring conscious attention to our choice to needlessly delay a task and examine this honestly in relation to our values, needs, and goals. Empirical research has repeatedly shown that striving toward self-concordant goals strengthens the link between goal progress and well-being... Our actions, goals, and personal projects need to align with our sense of identity and purpose in life or we're more likely to disengage... We need to link the personal meaning of our goals to the tasks at hand.” Paul Tillich argues that courage is needed to live an authentic life, as opposed to living in “bad faith” (an existentialist phrase, which also describes something procrastinators do all the time). Engaging in life courageously requires we do three things:

• Affect change in our lives by taking control and not waiting on fate.
  
• Be committed to whom we are as individuals and the uniqueness this represents.
  
• Accept the changes and stresses of life as a challenge to address as opposed to a threat to avoid.

These steps are echoed in several other formulations. Pychyl himself has said:

• Just get started (behavior or action).
  
• Don’t give in to feel good (emotions).
  
• Be honest with yourself (cognitions).

Similar general advice to defeat procrastination:

• Set short-term goals.
  
• Learn and use strategies to make the task at hand more interesting.
  
• Look past the initial negative feelings you might have about a task.

Frankl used two simple ideas to combat any tendancy he had to procrastinate:

• "Do everything as soon as possible"
• "Do the unpleasant tasks first."

Addressing the existential nature of procrastination is important, though it is equally important to remember that “emotion regulation can often undermine self-control efforts.”

"Don't give in to feel good! It's easy to focus on our feelings and work to feel better now at the expense of the long-term goal. Don't. Expect to feel lousy when you begin.. If you can move past this initial discomfort and get started, your attitude will follow your behavior."

"Acting on our intentions, even on our self-concordant goals can be problematic at times because we can fall prey to some all too human shortcomings such as the way we think (e.g., temporal discounting, intransitive preference structures or irrational beliefs like worry), or our tendency to want to do "mood repair" first to feel good... Work with what you have. Move in the direction of the desired behavior. Don't give up. Keep a positive attitude [but it isn't a necessity]."

In the end:

"Progress on our goals makes us feel happier and more satisfied with life. Interestingly, positive emotions have the potential to motivate goal-directed behaviors and volitional processes (e.g., self-regulation to stay on task) that are necessary for further goal progress or attainment. Very clearly you can see how if you "prime the pump" by making some progress on your goals, the resulting increase in your subjective well-being enhances further action and progress… we experience the strongest positive emotional response when we make progress on our most difficult goals."

"We often need to transcend the current situation to see our current task within the context of our overarching goals and values. Doing this allows us to find the meaning in what may seem a meaningless task. Linking the task to our values and finding meaning in the task also reduces its aversiveness... Hope springs eternal for those who transcend the immediate situation, particularly their feelings, and find meaning in their goals... Helping people become more hopeful might reduce their procrastination. Be kind with yourself, yet also be relentlessly mindful, firmly bringing your attention back to your goal and your focus to the schedulable act at hand."

A quote favored by Pychyl that seems particularly suited to the subject:

"Two roads diverged in a wood, and I-
I took the one less traveled by,
And that has made all the difference." Robert Frost (1874-1963)

---

My reflections:

The identification of procrastination with existentialism is very important. And so, to me, the most important entry Pychyl wrote was when he identified procrastination as a existential problem, describing existentialism in this way:

"I'll stick with Sartre and his terse, I think rather clear, way of defining the existential problem, "man's existence precedes his essence." We're in the world and exist before we know our purpose, before we understand that essence that provides meaning, that defines us. Our essence is what we make of ourselves. It's our choice, and this is the crux of it. Existentialism is a philosophy of choice."

For many years I have often thought to myself "I don't know why I am doing anything." At these times when I need a motivating reason, I find one that will suit the purpose though it is dropped quickly. Perhaps this was because it was too superficial. My latest effort took a different approach. Usually I have looked for recurring themes in what I have taken an interest to over the years in my life, as well as what is important in my relationships with other people. This time I created an all encompassing task list of several hundred items and from this identified four things to focus on. The task list is periodically updated as new things are added when they arise and other things are removed as they are completed. The abridged list of four items remains relatively constant and serves as a reminder of the purpose and meaning I have chosen for my life. This has lent greater stability to my life and brought much more focus to my efforts, though I have yet to fully realize its benefits.

Procrastination is very much an existential issue for me. People used to ask me why I procrastinate. At first I said I don't know why. Later I said I don't know why I should do anything. Now I can say it is an existential problem. But hopefully I won't be asked that question as often. Incidentally, the four items are: provide quality youth education, family activities, learn Japanese, and make a few useful things out of wood. They define my life and aspirations fairly well.

consciousness and time

Slime mold has just been added to the list of animals for whom scientific speculation exists about their status as conscious (or at least intelligent) beings. I am always fascinated as this list grows and which lifeforms get added to it- in fact I should make a referenced list someday. A much more exclusive list is that of self aware creatures, to which the magpie has been added, the second non-mammalian addition after pigeons.

As I was waiting for a friend to visit, I began to think about how my perception of the passage of time changes depending on what I am doing. After considering several different situations from faster to slower perceptions of the passage time, it seemed to lead to the conclusion that time doesn't exist for dead people, and consciousness, therefore, must include a sense of the passage of time. If this is true, then in answer to the question: "Where do you go/ what happens when you die?" would be "You don't go anywhere and nothing happens; everything stops". But stopping stops too; it is utterly impossible to imagine, let alone describe, nothing. As we can only imagine something, the only state that has any reality to us is conscious awareness, and that is all that would appear to ever have any meaningful existence to us. Though we die, if ever we are, we are alive.