We’ve all been advised to “accept” some bad thing. You know: “it is what it is”, “embrace the suck”, and variations thereof. But what does it mean to accept something?
"Mind wandering" conjures up an image of random, accidental, and aimless thought fragments going hither and yon like a drunken sailor. My perspective is much more like Smallwood and Schooler (2006), in which they describe mind wandering as a “goal-driven process”. A lot of mind wandering does seem to be on a mission of sorts: rehearsing, planning, rehashing – as if trying to achieve resolution to some sort of unfinished business.
Think of thoughts as guests at the party of your mind. Imagine being at a family gathering and the relatives are a talkative bunch. You are “observing” the scene not as a detached bystander but as a loving, involved family member. You catch snatches of conversation, some not that interesting, some best to ignore.
Willpower consists of three competing elements: 1) I will – the ability to do what you need to do; 2) I won’t – the other side of self-control; the inability to resist temptation; and 3) I want – your true want, the ability to remember the big picture of your life. When we castigate ourselves for impulsive actions, we often say we weren’t “thinking”. I interpret that as saying we weren’t considering the Big Picture. We were operating on a concrete level, not thinking beyond the moment.
Under ranked-choice voting, the incentives push candidates to build broader coalitions. Since no candidate knows whether someone will garner enough votes to win in the first round, each candidate is incentivized to capture the votes of those who may not have picked them as their first choice. To do this, they must try to appeal to a wider array of voters than they would have otherwise. - How Ranked Choice Voting Can Increase Inclusivity and Voter Participation. Georgia Lyon/Campaign Legal Center May 21, 2021
5. Switching Costs: switching to new ways of doing things involves time, money, effort, uncertainty, risk, disruption, feelings of incompetence, and changing roles/relationships. These costs are especially high during the transitional period, as the comfortable and familiar gives way to floundering, doubt and subpar performance while everyone is still learning the ropes.
Social scientists are people too, with their own intuitions about human nature, happiness, inequality and ideal societies. I'm talking economists, psychologists, sociologists, anthropologists (etc). I'm talking about the people who made up the theory of inequality-aversion.
The research social scientists conduct and the conclusions they reach are not independent of their intuitions about what is and ought to be. That's no reason to dismiss their work, only a plea to be alert to possible lapses of scientific rigor in what they do and say.
But we Californians are already living the consequences of overpromising and underfunding pension benefits. To illustrate….
The US currently spends about $4 trillion on healthcare (splitting the difference between 2019 and 2020). To get to Switzerland, we’d need to get that down to under $3 trillion a year. That’s a tall order.
Any way you look at it, the US spends way more on healthcare than other developed countries, both as a share of GDP and on a per capita basis. So why are these other countries’ health outcomes so much better than ours?
Since the US public debt is already rather high, I would stipulate that government funding to boost social mobility come entirely from additional tax revenue. US tax revenue - across all levels of government, from local to state to federal - is currently around 25.5% of GDP. I suggest raising that to 30% of GDP, or another 4.5%. This is close to the government’s take 20 years ago but still less than the average for developed countries, as per the following chart…
“Contrary to popular perceptions, populist voters are not uniformly deplorable, stupid and racist; they are deeply motivated by perceptions of a rigged, socially immobile economy. Whether a citizen has an unlucky start in life or is knocked down by an economic crisis, too many Americans cannot get ahead on their own merits. Given the Democrats’ recent drubbing in Virginia, the party would do well to pivot away from condescending culture wars and towards a fairer economy where opportunity is more equal and reward is allocated in line with contribution.” - Eric Protzer/Letter to the Economist December 4, 2021
Note the either/or thinking, what Daniel Dennett calls “rathering”, e.g., treatment rather than policing, as if increased access to treatment and more police on the street were incompatible policies. Why not do both? In fact, that is exactly what mayor Breed plans to do. Besides, there’s plenty of evidence that increasing foot-patrols in criminal hot spots does reduce criminal activity in those areas, mostly through deterrence (not increased arrests) and without displacing crime to near-by neighborhoods (Andresen & Lau, 2014; Piza, 2018).
Thing is, subjective and objective are not mutually exclusive. If they were, humans would not exist. Fear is a useful emotion. Without it, humans would not exist. What we perceive and feel sheds light on what is happening in the world. That doesn’t mean people don’t overreact or imagine things, only that it’s rarely “all in the head”. So what in the real world might perceptions of safety be tracking? I would guess local criminal activity, including property crimes.
Inspiration for this post:
Bobbin Singh, founder and executive director of the Oregon Justice Resource Center, said attempting to find a middle ground on policing…ignores the racism that’s baked into the justice system and the Police Bureau. “The question before us is not that complex. It’s binary. Either you support racial justice or you don’t,” Singh said. “You don’t find compromise with those structures; you dismantle those structures.” - Black councilman nudges Portland center on post-protest path. By Gillian Flaccus/AP News December 9, 2021
California farmers have a water crisis. Not enough of the stuff and the supply keeps shrinking. The coastal urban dwellers aren’t all that sympathetic. A common sentiment: they shouldn’t be growing crops that need so much water, not in such a drought-prone state. Tear up those almond orchards!
The earth’s biosphere is in the middle of a mass extinction event, thanks mostly to the loss of wild habitat to agriculture. We need to shrink the amount of land used for agriculture to expand wild habitat and protect endangered species. Since livestock farming destroys more habitat than other types of agriculture and cattle are the most destructive of livestock animals, it would make sense to go after cattle ranchers and their enablers, aka those who eat beef.
The growing demand for beef is coming mostly from Asia and Africa and no matter how impassioned the pleas from environmentalists and vegans, the people in those regions aren’t going to change their food preferences any time soon - not when memories and stories of widespread hunger still linger in their collective minds.
But demand is only half the equation….
Ingroup favoritism—the tendency to favor members of one’s own group over those in other groups - has been well-documented in social groups across time and place. However, real-world studies are often descriptive, making it difficult to infer underlying process or generalize from specific groups delineated by nationality, race, ethnicity, religion, political affiliation, etc. to other intergroup contexts. The “minimal group paradigm” overcomes the limitations of descriptive studies by using an experimental research design in which participants are given artificial group identities.
Unanticipated events, insufficient time, lack of requisite skills and a multitude of other factors may prevent one from acting as intended. Actual control over a behavior depends on the ability to overcome barriers of this kind, as well as the presence of facilitating factors.