The Setup: Part I

The Setup: Part I 
Part one of a three part series

We all have things about us that others find interesting, if they find us interesting at all. It can be jobs, stories, experiences, attitudes, approaches, etc... The things that others seem to question me about usually involve formerly being a cop, playing poker, and a few of the non-traditional positions I take on various subjects.

Two topics that continually run through my mind and dictate almost every attitude I hold on any subject deal with our sense of self and the notion of not actually having free will. Just like most things in life, these topics are very intertwined in my head but they are certainly their own entity and worthy of discussion. However, I've never really taken on the task of discussing these subjects because it seemed impossible for me to lay it out in a way that would convey any meaningful message.

I don't feel my talent is writing in any sense. I'm extremely thankful I loved my typing class in high school and learned the trade. It certainly makes writing my pieces easier. However, I labor at a lot of levels when it comes to putting down my thoughts in text. The first battle takes place simply trying to figure out what style I'm going to use to tell the story. I might know I'm going to write about a specific subject but I create a few different scenarios in my head and run them through several dress rehearsals, usually for days, before even beginning to actually write about the subject. Sometimes I even get about halfway through writing it and then nix it and go a different route. When I actually sit down and take the time to write the piece it usually takes a couple hours (one piece took about four hours -Kukulkan in the Sky With Diamonds- and another took about six hours- He Ain't Heavy, He's A Hologram). I'm not naturally a good speller and have to constantly look up everything. I know I make all kinds of errors in grammar but know most people don't know the rules any better than I do. I don't mention any of that other than to point out the fact I don't think I'm blessed at writing.

My ability, in my mind, is the telling of the story in an entertaining way, hopefully, that makes the reader consider looking at a topic in a new light. Rarely can you catch me offering up proven solutions to anything I'm discussing; mostly I'm simply asking, whether it's interpreted that way or not, others to question certainty. The two things I have wanted to write about and share more than any other deal with consciousness and free will and I've been unable to address them because I've never been able to come up with a template for conveying the message. Finally, I feel like I have an acceptable plan for allowing me the sanity to author the pieces I need to author. I had to break it up into segments and give each one it's due time.

It might seem so simple from the outside. "Just write a piece about self awareness and write a piece about free will," you say. I wish it was that easy for me. I could sense it didn't feel right to just simply write about the subjects but couldn't pinpoint what made me uneasy. It seems I've discovered I felt the need to author a setup piece prior to discussing the two topics that occupy so much of my thoughts.

When I was fairly young I was aware others thought I was smart. Don't get me wrong, I wasn't recognized as a genius or anything, I was just placed in the programs that identified seemingly bright kids. I never felt smart though. I didn't feel dumb either, but I didn't think I was all that smart. I knew smart kids and they seemed way smart to me in a ways I wasn't. They knew so much and could figure out so many things that were beyond me. I got good grades but other kids got good grades too. I never invented anything and was always disappointed that I wasn't creative enough to come up with something to enter into the science fair. I was pretty good in math but there was always a tier of kids that were higher than me all through my schooling. English wasn't my specialty and I hated to read. I found history boring. I just didn't feel like a smart kid.

As I entered my teen years and journeyed through high school I came to terms that I was "a different kind of smart" than the other smart kids. All of the same things were true about me from my elementary days in regard to my likes and dislikes of subjects and externally being viewed as smart but internally feeling like I wasn't as smart as it seemed. But as I aged I began to understand that it was how I looked at things that separated me in the intellect department. (If any of this sounds terribly conceited or arrogant be sure to tune into parts two and three where I discuss the ego and free will and relinquish all responsibility for my behavior and/or abilities). I was confident at this stage that I wasn't solving problems the same way my peers were. I had no idea what that difference was but I knew I didn't come to the same solutions they did traveling the same route. My very close friends were all really smart. I was always the "funny and crazy guy", never the smart one. I could compete with them and challenge them in games of intellect but I rarely won. I knew they were processing and retrieving information differently than me, I was observing it.

I can honestly say that it has been relatively recently, perhaps the last five years, that I finally realized enough about myself to understand how I think about things and how that is different than others I know. It has been my observation that the very bright people I'm around are very good at putting things together building upon a foundation and moving upward. They know and understand things and then they pile on another level of understanding. This is followed by another floor of understanding and then another. Finally, when we look at their buildings of knowledge we see the bright people have a few more floors than other people. They just know more.

I'm sure I'm not alone but I seem to work counter to this when I process information. I tear things down. I gaze at each floor and ask if it's necessary and true. I seek simplicity. I don't need a skyscraper to understand something; I only need to know the ground on which it is being built. If the ground is solid I know all I need to know. The elimination, in my head, of some very traditional loops in which society seems to process information places me in a spot where I often don't share a common reality with my fellow man. Those that live in towers built upon floor after floor of information, whether that information is "true" or not, don't like the idea of someone like me questioning whether their building is stable. If they have a structure of lie built upon lie built upon lie, even the removal of one floor can be a threat.

This isn't to say that however one operates and processes information is better than another way; they are just different. It's certainly possible to be a very intelligent person by building with knowledge and being the architect of a sturdy and towering structure. As I've mentioned, it seems like the bright people I know work this way. I bring up the different approaches because I'm aware it makes communication between the camps (the builders being the vast majority and the tear it downers being the small minority) difficult at times.

I think it is this gap that has caused me apprehension when discussing my views, in detail, about the ego and free will. This first piece (Part I) is a bridge for me. I needed to lay the groundwork of how I tick and why these ideas about these subjects are considered in my mind. I don't come in and buy the building even after I'm assured by the greatest engineers everything is up to par. I come in and purchase the lot and put one floor in place once I'm confident the ground is solid. I'm afraid of heights and don't long to live in the clouds of knowledge. I crave simplicity. Those that purchase sound buildings and live in the lofts aren't incompatible with my approach. Sound knowledge is sound knowledge. However, what seems to be uncomfortable to me is those that purchase condemned buildings of knowledge and then live under the illusion everyone else's building is crumbling.

I know from many conversations I've had with people that there is very little common ground when it comes to discussing the ego and free will. It's my observation that most people have given very little thought to either of these ideas. They are fascinating subjects to a lot of people but they enjoy the illusions and don't want to know how the trick really works, it would spoil it for them. It's because of these failed conversations time and time again that I knew I would fail at conveying any type of message when I finally wrote about two near and dear topics to me.

I opened by talking about things that people find interesting in others. I went on to discuss my attitude about my own intellect at various stages in my life. I know from my own experience that others find it interesting that I question our sense of self and even ponder, quite seriously, the idea that we don't have free will at all. I don't have delusions of grandeur when it comes to my audience. I'm very aware of the very small amount of regular readers I have. I am very comfortable with that. It is because of that I can author setup pieces and talk about all sorts of different things because I know I'm only truly connecting with a relatively small group of people - people that appreciate how it is I think.

When I write the next piece on our sense of self it won't be an argument. Instead it will simply be a journey through my thought process. Same is true for the third piece on free will. I truly felt shackled by the inability to present these two topics in a meaningful way. I feel freed by explaining to you in the setup piece what you're in for ahead of time. These are complicated areas that affect my processing of almost all information I receive. My thoughts on these subjects are very fluid and I'm not concrete on my positions. I would estimate I operate off of the premise that our idea of what we are, our sense of self, is wrong with about a 85% confidence level. I estimate my confidence in the idea that we don't have free will is about 65%.

Trying to quantify and explain in great detail why and how these things make sense to me seemed impossible. And it probably is. What did seem possible was simply sharing the thought process and let you observe how it affects my thinking. At the end of the day I can deliver the consistent message I wish to convey - question things. I feel if I didn't take the time to author the setup piece that the obstacles would be too much to overcome. Objecting to every statement I make or simply being confused and unable to follow would hinder my success of conveying a message. I've known this all along. By reading the subsequent pieces you are agreeing to the terms and conditions.

In a perfect world I would take a break, medicate, and begin Part II. In the real world I will take a break, medicate, and take another break.

The Levy Was Dry

The idea of tithing is mentioned in The Bible. God commands his followers to give a part or their animals and crops back to the church.

Tithe: transitive verb - to pay or give a tenth part of especially for the support of the church

The instructions are pretty easy to follow. If you acquire ten mules then you should give the tenth one back to God and let Him give it to the less fortunate. Notice the poor person, who doesn't have a mule, isn't required to tithe. The poor person will actually be the benefactor of the tithe and receive a mule even though they never contribute to the system.

Approximately 2000 years later it seems we have adopted a different attitude about the givers and takers of our times. Now it seems we look down upon them and vilify the poor and don't appreciate the idea of being forced to give away part of our hard earned income to support those who feel entitled.

To be fair to those who do harbor this resentment of the needy, God's plan was for the church to take care of them and not the government. But this still seems like an inconsistent attitude, begrudging the poor, once walked through to completion. If one honestly believes this nation was founded on Christian values and they believe part of the problem we face in modern times is the fact our country has gotten away from its Christian roots, then it would seem like the idea of the government helping out the needy would be more embraced by the followers of Christ.

The man that just ran for President of the United States of America and received about sixty million votes and lost recently explained why he thinks he didn't win:
"The president's campaign, if you will, focused on giving targeted groups a big gift...With regards to African American voters, Obamacare was a huge plus...Likewise with Hispanic voters, free health care was a big plus."

On election night Bill O'Reilly explained why he thought Romney was going to lose:
"It's not a traditional America anymore. The white establishment is now the minority. There are 50 percent of the voting public who want stuff...You're going to see a tremendous Hispanic vote for President Obama...and women will probably break President Obama's way. People feel like they are entitled to things, and which candidate, between the two, is going to give them things?"

Now, completely ignoring the blatant racism and sexism (perhaps another blog post on a different day), it seems obvious these people don't really view the needy the same way God did. God didn't decipher between which poor people to give to and he didn't set criteria for them to be the benefactor; He simply gave to them because they were poor. And what He gave them was your hard earned crops and livestock.

I'm not suggesting there isn't waste and inefficient parts of our entitlement programs. And I'm not suggesting people can't discuss those areas without seeming cold and mean. But what I am suggesting is the attitude we hold toward the poor seems to be out of alignment from the entity most people claim to follow.

Neither derivative Nor dependent

The election was a very interesting observation of the psyche of America. The world is a complicated place and there are literally thousands of different issues to address when attempting to govern a society of 314 million people. When all of those categories and ideas and worldviews and facts and lies and agendas got funneled into a two party system formula the end result was a clash of two entirely different realities.

I like President Obama and feel like I've been candid about that sentiment. I didn't even dislike Mitt Romney; I just disliked what he became when running for President. The Republican Party has been a mess for several years and the primary season forced Romney to embrace a reality of doom and gloom and trying to defend everything that was good about him (universal healthcare for his state, his success at Bain Capital, the fact that he was rich and good with his money). Even though I'm not a Democrat, I feel like they are at least trying to compromise and move forward. The Republicans have offered nothing but obstruction. My choice to vote for Obama really boiled down to something that simple.  So that is that as far as the politics of the election.

The most interesting part of the entire process was the collision course of two entirely different views of reality. One side, pretty much half of the country, dismissed fact after fact and insisted reality was based on "feeling". Trickle Down Economics feels like it should work despite every fact that shows it hasn't. Climate Change feels like a hoax and government conspiracy and 95% of the scientists on the planet are on their payroll. It feels like the various rights of women, ranging from their equality in the workplace to their right to control their own body, should be granted by old white guys. It feels like Karl Rove and Dick Morris and Rush Limbaugh should know what they're talking about when it comes to elections and the "effeminate" Nate Silver must be in the tank for the left because he believes in skewed polling. It feels like the government should be smaller and stay out of our lives until disaster strikes and we want the government to step up and save the day.

About three o'clock on election day the first information was released: the exit polling data. It seemed everyone was reporting high turnout for BOTH sides. This wasn't the expected reality of half of the country. They had been promised the left wasn't as excited to vote as those on the right were. They were informed many of the people that voted for Obama in 2008 were disgruntled and weren't going to vote for him again. They were told the younger vote wouldn't turn out this election. They were instructed on the mathematics of the independent voter and how it favored a Romney victory in a landslide. They were shown electoral maps with states painted red even though Obama lead in nearly every swing state. They were given bogus predictions about the election and not one person ever foresaw a blowout win by Obama.

By four thirty in the afternoon I was extremely confident Obama had won the election and was getting giddy about the prospect of a triple digit win. At 4:50pm I posted to my Facebook wall, "49-3. Holy Shit. (wink, wink)". At this time Obama had only gathered three electoral votes to Romney's 49. By five thirty I was extremely confident Obama was on his way to 332. Florida seemed in the bag with the returns that were still out at that time. Virginia was a little scary to me but the scenario was nearly a carbon copy of that in Florida with the only remaining returns coming from huge Obama areas. Anyone that had communications with me during this time frame can testify to my outlook at that time. One text I received from a person very close to me commented about how they were surprised how much red they were seeing and how well Romney was doing. I texted back and explained the election was over and Obama was going to win handily. My favorite text of the evening followed: "What channel are you watching?"

Now I'm going to open up to you more than I normally do. Sure, I share a lot of ideas and jot down a lot of words talking about different things, but I don't normally get too personal with you about things that are close to me. My motivation is almost always to offer sanity and some form of entertainment for anyone that might want to read my stuff. My hope is to prod those that don't think they need prodding and to provide reassurance to those that must feel like they are alone at times and let them know there are others out there in the sea of chaos. Occasionally I will comment in a tongue-in-cheek way and remind my viewers that I have removed myself for pulling for an outcome in regard to the plight of humanity. But the truth is, this is really where I land on most issues. It's not because I'm callus or don't believe love is the answer; it's because it works for me. It's much more peaceful and quiet this way. I have very good friends that root for outcomes and it seems draining to me on the outside looking in. On top of that, it seems pointless. None of this means I abandon being the best person I can be or caring about my fellow brothers. It just means I go with it and speak my piece and enjoy the breeze whichever way it may blow.

Having stated all of that, I can't deny my interest in the outcome of this election. A different result would have affected me at some level. I could have easily swallowed the pill if it were simply accepting Romney as the President. I wouldn't have been devastated by the thought of Mitt Romney running the country like many on the right seem to be by another four years of Obama. I wasn't under the impression our country would fail and socialism would take over if Romney won to begin with. I wasn't under the impression our military would be surpassed by Russia or China or Iran if Romney won. I wasn't under the impression businesses across the country would go under if Romney won. So even though I have different ideas about which direction to go, I wouldn't have been unable to continue going about my normal day to day business if Romney was my President.

However, what would have been very different would be the reality I would have to live in. A reality where facts no longer mattered. A reality where models that successfully predict the likelihood of outcomes are viewed as witchcraft. A reality where religious dogma determined the liberty of an individual and their right to pursue their own happiness. A reality where people can get air time on television and spout nonsense and lies and gut feelings and that trumps truth. A reality where science and faith are on equal footing. A reality that doesn't cherish and rely on compromise when coexisting with one another. A reality that adopts "my way or the highway" as its motto. A reality that would rather demonize than discuss. A reality that is at odds with reality.

For my own personal reasons I found myself really pulling for an outcome. I work so hard to decipher the hidden truths that seem to willfully evade us. I use the best models known to me to help me on my endeavor. I vigorously crunch my own numbers into my own personal happiness model and enjoy the results. Things aren't perfect in the world because of this. Nor are they perfect with my country, the things around me, or even me. But I maintain sanity and happiness a sufficient amount of the time and this means everything to me. You can take everything in my life (everything I have, I do, I am) and walk it right back down to that principle of maintaining harmony.

This election seemed to threaten my reality in some way. I'm sure I would have been able to adapt but I didn't feel the need. I can't imagine my adaptation wouldn't involve a more cynical view of humanity and a further retreat from cheering for the home team.  I'm relieved I didn't have to swallow that pill.

Four years ago I found myself teary-eyed on election night. The positive energy, people coming out onto the streets, huge crowds gathering to watch the new President speak, the making of history, it all seemed overwhelming to me. I honestly didn't think I could feel anything like that from this election, even if Obama won again. I was wrong.

Even though the reasons weren't the same, the feeling of being overwhelmed with joy was the same. And even though most of the time I truly don't root for outcomes, I can't help but feel a positive vibe when humanity does the right thing. It still feels good to experience that energy. We didn't do the right thing simply because we reelected our president. We did the right thing because we validated this reality. We can now go forward using the best models we have discovered to this point and don't have to adopt new ones that are pulled from the asses of asses.

Silver Lining

One of the biggest functions of the human brain is to crunch numbers and make predictions. It takes in millions of pieces of information every second, processes what it deems relevant to its role in the universe (however wrong that sense of relevance may be), and predicts what will happen next given everything it knows. 

No matter who you are or what you do in life you're probably in touch with your number crunching abilities in some aspect of your life. You are probably very knowledgeable about some things in some certain area and can successfully predict how things will unfold better than the average person. You probably know someone else that has a number crunching expertise in some other area.

Most people that own stock in the Stock Market rely on someone else to invest their money. It would seem that the majority of people have come to terms with the idea that someone else with more knowledge and understanding in this field is more equipped to make decisions of this nature. It would seem we value the people that are better predictors of the Market to handle our money than those that have less of a track record and those that are better at it certainly are financially compensated for their abilities. Has anyone ever given you a "tip" on investing in a "sure thing"? Naturally you evaluated what you thought about their predicting ability when taking this "advice", didn't you?

A lot of people enjoy going to the race track and betting on the ponies. I've seen people attend races and bet on which horses look the best. I've seen people bet on the names of the horses. A lot of people "in the know" at the track will simply place their money on the best jockey. They understand that jockey, usually, got to choose his pick of the litter. That jockey is going to make money based on how well he finishes in the race. They understand that jockey has inside information they don't have. Other people purchase a forum, a newspaper looking thing that is loaded with tons of information about everything pertaining to each race. The forum is raw information and lots of it. The more than casual bettor likes to crunch all of the numbers in the forum and try to successfully predict the winning horse(s). Those that do it better than others are financially rewarded for their talents of crunching the numbers.

We just experienced a huge storm on the East Coast. We knew this storm was coming and what to expect because someone crunched the numbers for us. We trust them, for the most part, because we know they know what they're doing. They are taking all the raw data and interpreting it and trying to successfully predict what will happen next. Even though it all seems so over the top when we see the media handle storms, they actually do save lives by passing on the information gathered by the number crunchers prior to the storm impacting us. 

People that live in earthquake zones usually know about it and pay insurance based on this reality of number crunching. Same is true for flood zones. Vegas thrives off of being able to predict the number of people that will bet equally on each side of a proposition and then they charge a small ten percent service fee for delivering this ability. Anyone that's ever walked on the Moon (I capitalize it - makes sense to me) put their lives in the hands of people that crunched a lot of numbers. So it would seem the notion of relying on others to interpret information is a valued trait in our society.

Nate Silver is a guy that crunches the numbers when it comes to elections. He gained a small level of fame back in 2008 when he very accurately predicted how all but one (tiny) state would fall in the electoral college. He drilled his predictions in The Senate that year. A couple years later he laid out the odds of the Republicans whooping ass in The House and he predicted they were quite high; he was right. This year Silver has gained even more fame because those on the right are try to delegitimize him. 

Silver has kind of a geeky look about him. He claims he used to be pretty successful at internet poker (after he sold a system to Baseball Prospectus that predicted the performance levels and development of MLB players) and leveraged some of his winnings to get him into a position where he could make a living in another arena. He's willing to crunch numbers on just about anything but it's his election predictions that have gained him notoriety. He's fairly candid about his process for crunching the numbers but he purposefully withholds the special sauce that makes his Big Mac's unique. I suspect he does this because this is his livelihood and his model is valuable. And why wouldn't a person that can successfully evaluate raw data and predict the likelihood that a given event will happen next be valuable to society? In 2009 he was listed by Time magazine as one of the 100 most influential people in the world. In 2010 The New York Times licensed Silver's prediction blog for publication by their paper. 

Nate Silver has been crunching the numbers of this election for the last four years. He has continually listed various probabilities for many months now. The numbers have moved in different directions over the months and Obama has almost always held the lead on Silvers FiveThirtyEight Blog. But the one probability that always gets people's attention is the odds of each presidential candidate of winning. At the time I write this essay, five days before the election, Silver's site predicts Obama with a 79% chance of winning and Romney a 21% chance. 

In the last two weeks I've heard all of the talking heads on the right dismiss the lamestream media and their liberal leaning polls. Rove, Morris, Limbaugh, Beck, and the entire Fox News Network have been calling foul on the polls that suggest Obama is winning. And Nate Silver has been targeted as an "ideologue" and a "joke", along with having "effeminate qualities", by those that don't like his numbers. 

Do you think when the owner of a football team sees his team listed as a two touchdown underdog that he tends to agree with the line or do you think it's more likely the owner thinks his team is better than what the odds makers think? Do you think when someone shows you a picture of their baby they accurately predict the likelihood that you'll think it's as adorable as they think it is? Do you think all of the above mentioned entities that are dismissing the polls that favor Obama have an interest in the outcome of the election? 

I want Nate Silver to be right because I want Nate Silver to be right. I love that we have a numbers cruncher that appears to be this good in this arena amongst us. It's information. It's difficult information to interpret. It's above most of our pay grades and we should relish the fact someone or something is capable of accurately interpreting this data. We are so grateful in so many other areas for this ability that others provide us. We seek out this information because inside knowledge, on any subject matter, is hard to obtain in life. 

If Silver had the numbers switched and predicted Romney to be the favorite I would be sad. The guy I want to win would be viewed as the underdog by the guy I think is good at predicting the outcomes of elections. That wouldn't make me change my opinion of Silver. Even if Silver gets this election wrong it probably won't change my respect for his talent. He's told us all along the chance, very specifically, that he'll get it wrong. When his model starts to fail at a number outside of his predictions then I'll consider reevaluating my admiration of him. Until then I'll continue to root for him because it's good for all of us to have him around. 

In a time where we get nothing but punditry about meaningless conversations, where the right and left spin everything in every direction, where we no longer agree on facts, where we lack the desire to find common ground with one another, would we not embrace this numbers cruncher? Rooting against Silver is rooting against valuable knowledge. Even if it turns out that Silver just got lucky and had a good run but he's really full a shit and was making stuff up, why would we want to root against him? What has he done wrong to this point? 

In the end this has little to do with politics for me. It has everything to do with how we coexist with one another. We should all desire the best working models known to man to help guide us in our endeavors. This doesn't mean we can't disagree. It doesn't mean that you have to vote for the same guy I'm voting for. Nor does it mean some of our best known models might fail us in the future. It simply means we all have to share the desire to search out those models and embrace them when we find them. We certainly can't root against discovering them.