Category: articles

The Fuck You Level: Why America Can’t Take Risks Anymore (Extended)

~ cafebedouin ~ Leave a comment

The Speech

In The Gambler (2014), loan shark Frank explains success to degenerate gambler Jim Bennett:

You get up two and a half million dollars, any asshole in the world knows what to do: you get a house with a 25 year roof, an indestructible Jap-economy shitbox, you put the rest into the system at three to five percent to pay your taxes and that’s your base, get me? That’s your fortress of fucking solitude. That puts you, for the rest of your life, at a level of fuck you. Somebody wants you to do something, fuck you. Boss pisses you off, fuck you! Own your house. Have a couple bucks in the bank. Don’t drink. That’s all I have to say to anybody on any social level.

Frank’s asks: Did your grandfather take risks?

Bennett: Yes.

Frank: “I guarantee he did it from a position of fuck you.”

The fuck-you level is simple: enough backing that you can absorb failure. House paid off, money in the bank, basic needs covered. From that position, you can take risks because downside won’t destroy you.

Without it, you take whatever terms are offered. Can’t quit the bad job. Can’t start the business. Can’t tell anyone to fuck off because you need them more than they need you.

The Inversion

Frank says “The United States of America is based on fuck you. Told the king with the greatest navy in history: fuck you, we’ll handle it ourselves.”

But here’s what’s strange: America increasingly prevents most people from reaching fuck-you level, while Europe—supposedly over-regulated, risk-averse Europe—makes it easier.

Northern Europe has statutory frameworks allowing competence-dependent risk in playgrounds. European EN 1176 standards explicitly permit risk if developmental benefits are high. US ASTM F1487 standards focus on hazard elimination and fall height attenuation.

Result: “Adventure Playgrounds” (Abenteuerspielplatz in Germany)—construction materials, tools, supervised but risky play—are common in Northern Europe. Berlin alone has 220 hectares reserved for playground space, much of it designed for “peril to teach handling it.” They’ve largely vanished from America due to insurance costs and liability standards.

The mechanism is straightforward. U.S. healthcare spending hit ~$14,885 per capita in 2024, largely private and fragmented, with bankruptcy risk from injuries. European universal systems average ~$6,000 per capita with minimal out-of-pocket exposure. A broken arm in Germany is covered. In America, it’s a potential financial catastrophe plus lost wages.

This isn’t about Europeans being braver. It’s incentives. American visitors to these playgrounds are shocked. Won’t let their kids near them.

Meanwhile in America: sanitized plastic, liability waivers for everything, warning labels on coffee cups. Try opening a gym for genuinely risky training—parkour, climbing, anything requiring actual danger to develop skill. Insurance costs make it impossible.

The p7attern inverts. Europe feels looser. America feels constrained.

Why?

Three Facts

Before explaining the mechanism, understand three facts:

Fact 1: Risk-taking is impossible without downside absorption. You can’t experiment, fail, and try again if first failure destroys you. Need cushion.

Fact 2: Different societies build downside absorption differently. Some through collective systems (taxes, healthcare, safety nets). Some through private networks (family, community). Some not at all.

Fact 3: When downside is unabsorbed, institutions must eliminate risk. If you’re exposed with no backup, prevention is only rational choice. Not cowardice—mathematics.

America talks liberty but operates on exposure. Europe talks safety but operates on insulation.

That’s the inversion.

The Mechanism

Simple: The fuck-you level requires something to absorb downside. Different societies provide that different ways.

European kid breaks arm on construction playground: healthcare handles it. No bankruptcy risk. Family has fuck-you level through collective systems. Kid can take risks.

American kid breaks arm: potential financial catastrophe. Medical bills, lost wages, maybe lawsuit. Family has no fuck-you level. Parents can’t let kid take that risk.

Not about attitudes toward danger. About who bears the cost when things go wrong.

When you have fuck-you level:

  • Can experiment
  • Can fail and try again
  • Failure isn’t catastrophic

When you don’t:

  • Must prevent everything
  • Can’t afford single mistake
  • Caution is only rational choice

Europe front-loads fuck-you level: taxes fund healthcare and safety nets. This enables looseness in daily life.

America back-loads it: litigation redistributes costs after disasters. This forces defensive prevention of everything.

Why Activities Can’t Exist

I wrote in 2018 about gym design priorities. Many gyms optimize for liability protection rather than skill development. Foam pits everywhere, excessive safety equipment, activities designed to be defensible in court rather than pedagogically effective. The gym exists but in distorted form—focused on legal defense rather than actual training.

This isn’t speculation. Commercial liability insurance policies for gyms explicitly exclude coverage for:

  • Unsupervised sparring
  • Specific apparatus without certified supervision
  • Inverted aerial maneuvers unless over specific foam density

The gym’s physical design becomes direct manifestation of insurance contract terms. Equipment choices, supervision requirements, activity restrictions—all driven by what the policy will cover.

Costs reflect exposure: general liability for mid-size gyms runs $500-2,000 annually, but add high-risk activities like parkour and premiums spike 20-50% due to claims history. In Europe, lower litigation rates (loser-pays rules in many countries) and universal healthcare mean gyms can offer rawer training without foam-everything.

The question: who bears the cost when someone gets seriously hurt?

In America: the gym owner faces business-destroying lawsuits. Insurance becomes prohibitively expensive or unavailable. Courts often void signed waivers acknowledging risk.

The gym owner has no fuck-you level. One bad injury ends the business. So the gym that can exist is one optimized for liability avoidance rather than function.

If healthcare absorbed medical costs, different gyms could exist. Someone breaks ankle, system handles it, everyone continues. But American gym owner is exposed. No fuck-you level means can’t structure operations around actual training goals.

This pattern—activities distorted by who bears costs rather than shaped by actual function—appears across many domains.

The Goalie Problem

From institution’s perspective, the logic is clear.

School with no fuck-you level: liable for every injury, no backup. Must ban risky equipment. Must prevent everything that could trigger lawsuit.

European school with fuck-you level: healthcare absorbs injury costs. Can have construction-debris playground because not exposed.

American school isn’t irrational. It’s responding to incentives. It’s the goalie with no net behind it.

Same for gyms, youth programs, any institution that deals with physical risk. Without something to absorb downside, prevention is only rational choice.

The Exceptions

But America has 400 million firearms causing roughly 45,000 deaths annually. How does excessive caution elsewhere square with that?

Answer: political power determines who gets fuck-you level.

Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (2005): gives gun manufacturers unusual statutory immunity. Bars most civil suits seeking to hold manufacturers liable for criminal misuse of products. This protection is essentially unique—no other major consumer product sector has comparable federal immunity.

Before PLCAA: cities and victims filed suits on public nuisance and negligent marketing theories. After PLCAA: those cases dismissed, new filings sharply constrained.

Gun manufacturers got legislated fuck-you level. Protected from liability for costs their products impose on others.

Meanwhile parkour gym: no legislative protection. Small constituency, easy to frame as “unnecessary danger.”

Cars: established insurance frameworks spread costs. Drivers have liability insurance. Manufacturers face normal product liability but not open-ended tort exposure.

Constraint falls heaviest on those who can’t politically defend themselves. Those with power arrange for costs to be borne elsewhere—they get fuck-you level. Those without face full liability system—they don’t.

The Wealth Exception

There’s another way to reach fuck-you level: having money.

Wealthy families are their own support system. Can absorb:

  • Medical costs from risky activities
  • Business failures and experiments
  • Legal issues and liability exposure
  • Geographic mobility to supportive contexts

Rich kid gets 100 attempts because failure doesn’t destroy them. Has fuck-you level through private wealth.

Poor kid gets one shot, maybe. No fuck-you level. Pressure makes even that shot harder to take.

System isn’t “no risk allowed.” It’s “risk only for those who already have fuck-you level.”

This compounds inequality. Risk-taking ability determines opportunity access. Without collective fuck-you level, only those with private fuck-you level (wealth, stable families) can experiment and innovate.

This creates a U-shaped curve of physical risk-taking:

Wealthy: Buy voluntary physical risk as luxury good. Mountaineering, skiing, general aviation, equestrian sports, amateur racing—overwhelmingly dominated by those with fuck-you level to absorb consequences.

Poor: Accept involuntary physical risk as employment condition. Roofing, logging, construction work—selling their body because they lack alternatives. The naked short not as strategy but as necessity.

Middle class: Trapped in sanitized zone. Too wealthy to risk body for wages, too poor to absorb costs of leisure injury. This group faces maximum constraint—can’t take risks for survival (don’t have to) or recreation (can’t afford to).

The 1980s Paradox

Many people perceive the 1980s as looser—kids roaming unsupervised, riskier playground equipment, less institutional oversight. If safety nets were weaker then, why?

This was a perfect storm. Four major factors converged to reduce risk-taking since then:

Liability culture shift reduced institutional fuck-you level. While federal tort trials declined, overall tort costs as a percentage of GDP remained high, and liability insurance premiums for institutions spiked. This formed a self-reinforcing cycle with network dissolution: Networks weaken → disputes move to courts → court judgments increase → fear of neighbors rises → networks weaken further as people avoid situations requiring trust → repeat. Whether network collapse or liability expansion came first matters less than recognizing they now reinforce each other.

Occupational transition changed who writes policy. Manufacturing employment fell from 21% in 1980 to roughly 8.3% in 2024. Policy-makers increasingly lack direct experience with physical risk. They can’t distinguish manageable from negligently dangerous. Result: overly restrictive policies that prevent others from using whatever fuck-you level they have.

Financialization changed risk framing. Risk shifted from ‘environmental reality you navigate’ to ‘portfolio exposure to be hedged.’ Physical risk becomes cognitively illegitimate—there’s no hedging mechanism for broken bones. People with identical material capacity behave more cautiously because framing changed.

Demographic concentration changed stakes independent of material capacity. Even with fertility rates stabilizing around 1.6 to 1.8, the per-child investment has skyrocketed. Losing one child when you have five is different from losing your only child. Same capacity to absorb medical costs, different implications for lineage survival.

Notably, playground injuries dropped roughly 50% since 1990, but this came at the cost of removing the developmental benefits that risk provides. The system successfully prevented injuries by preventing the activities that caused them.

The Class Dimension

Occupational shift creates class dynamics beyond policy-making.

When significant portions worked in construction, manufacturing, farming—physically risky jobs—people maintained daily calibration about manageable risk through concrete consequences. You developed practical judgment.

Roofing contractor has different risk intuitions than HR manager writing workplace safety policies. First group still exists but second group increasingly sets policy for everyone.

Creates disconnect: policies written by people who’ve never navigated physical risk for people who do so daily. The OSHA warning labels aren’t just information—they’re constant messages that someone else is responsible for your safety, undermining the judgment that physical work requires.

Tokyo’s Different Configuration

Japan demonstrates third approach.

Tokyo allows tiny businesses with minimal licensing. Six-seat restaurants, narrow specialized bars, hallway-sized food service. Creates incredible diversity—weird niches viable because starting is cheap and you don’t need scale.

This works through:

  • Low entry barriers (minimal permits, insurance, capital)
  • Universal healthcare (injury won’t bankrupt you)
  • Low litigation culture (social stigma against lawsuits, loser-pays system)
  • High social trust (reputation enforces standards)
  • Extreme density (tiny operations viable with millions nearby)

Provides enough support for people to experiment at small scale. Healthcare handles medical downside, social enforcement maintains standards without lawsuits. Entrepreneurs reach fuck-you level more easily for business risks.

But same system constrains other ways.

Reputation-based enforcement that enables physical risk-taking also enforces social conformity. As of late 2025, Japan remains the only G7 nation without same-sex marriage recognition; courts in November 2025 ruled the ban constitutional, reinforcing that network membership provides economic support but demands conformity to network norms.

Networks give you fuck-you level for business risks. Networks take away fuck-you level for identity deviance.

Two Kinds of Fuck You

Before going further, understand that fuck-you level operates differently for different risks.

Physical/economic fuck you:

Cost is money. Medical bills, business losses, legal fees. Can be absorbed by:

  • Wealth
  • Healthcare systems
  • Insurance that works
  • Family economic support

Identity/social fuck you:

Cost is network membership. Family rejection, community exclusion, loss of employment/housing through network connections. Can be absorbed by:

  • Legal protections that override local networks
  • Alternative communities you can join
  • Economic independence from birth network
  • Geographic mobility to accepting contexts

Same support structure can provide one fuck-you level while withholding the other. This explains why Tokyo enables business risk-taking while constraining identity deviance. Why the American South protects gun manufacturers but not trans kids. Why Northern Europe often provides both.

American Incoherence

America destroyed traditional support networks through mobility and individualism.

Then:

For physical/economic risks: Replaced networks with litigation system. But litigation doesn’t prevent catastrophe—just redistributes costs afterward through lawsuits. Without something to absorb downside, institutions ban everything defensively. Result: almost nobody reaches physical fuck-you level except through private wealth.

For identity/social risks: Failed to build coherent replacement. Created geographic fragmentation where protection varies wildly.

This produces contradictions:

Risky playground: impossible everywhere in America. Uniform physical constraint through liability fear. No institution has fuck-you level.

Being LGBTQ: fine in San Francisco (identity fuck-you level through legal protections and alternative networks), potentially life-destroying in rural areas (no fuck-you level, hostile birth network, no alternatives).

Those with wealth bypass both constraints. Have private fuck-you level for everything.

American middle class faces unique exposure: neither traditional network support nor state-provided support, operating in liability system designed for someone else to pay, but often landing on them. No fuck-you level on either dimension unless they build it themselves.

What This Explains

Campus speech controversies: Institutions apply only risk-management tools they have—compliance procedures, administrative oversight—to all domains. Not confused about difference between physical and social risks. Just lack fuck-you level in both domains. Must prevent everything that could trigger institutional liability or reputational catastrophe.

Anxious parenting: Without collective support, parents know they bear full cost if anything goes wrong. Helicopter behavior is rational response. Parents lack fuck-you level, so can’t let kids take risks. Additionally, fewer children means higher stakes per child—losing an only child is lineage extinction, not family tragedy.

Rural/urban divide: Same liability environment for physical risks (uniform, nobody has fuck-you level). Completely different support for identity risks (fragmented—some places provide fuck-you level, others don’t).

Why innovation happens where it does: Requires ability to fail multiple times. Only possible with fuck-you level that absorbs failures.

The Naked Short

Frank’s prescription assumes you can accumulate the $2.5 million first. But to get there, you need to take risks. To take risks safely, you need fuck-you level.

This creates catch-22: need fuck-you level to reach fuck-you level.

There’s an exception: the naked short. Take catastrophic risk without protection. Sometimes works.

Immigrants arrive with nothing, bet everything on one venture. Startup founders max credit cards, sleep in offices. Some succeed. Historical westward expansion: people left established areas without safety nets, took enormous risks. Many died, some succeeded.

This is real strategy for those who can’t access gradual accumulation. Requires either extreme risk tolerance, desperation, or different utility function that values potential upside more than catastrophe avoidance.

But it’s not systemically reliable. Can’t build society around expectation that everyone gambles catastrophically. Most people attempting naked shorts fail. Society relying on this as primary mobility mechanism produces high failure rate with enormous human cost.

And increasingly, the American economy has transformed this desperation tactic into a business model:

Gig work = industrialized naked shorts. Uber drivers, DoorDash workers, gig contractors execute unhedged risk not as temporary strategy for reaching fuck-you level but as permanent condition. Over 40% of gig workers now fall into poverty or near-poverty levels. They bear vehicle costs, injury risk, and income volatility with no benefits while platforms extract value. The system doesn’t just tolerate naked shorts; it depends on a permanent underclass executing them.

Crypto = financialized naked shorts. Total exposure to volatility, marketed as path to wealth.

Startups = venture-capitalized naked shorts (for founders, not VCs). Founders bet everything while investors diversify across portfolio.

The gig economy is structural institutionalization of the naked short. What was once desperate individual strategy is now economic model at scale.

Frank’s “position of fuck you” is about building fortress first, then taking risks from strength. The naked short is gambling on reaching fuck-you level. Sometimes works, usually doesn’t. And now it’s how millions make a living.

The Options

You can give people fuck-you level by:

  1. Providing collective downside absorption (European model—tax-funded healthcare and safety nets). This enables small-scale experimentation and individual risk-taking. Europe produces fewer global tech giants than the US, though whether this reflects different risk incentives or other factors (market fragmentation, venture capital structure, corporate governance, language barriers) remains unclear. Collective fuck-you level clearly protects individuals from downside; its effect on extreme upside-seeking is harder to isolate.
  2. Maintaining strong private networks (traditional/Tokyo model—family and community support)
  3. Accepting that only wealthy reach fuck-you level (current American drift). US system is cruel but selects for high-variance outcomes through survival pressure. Creates extreme winners and extreme losers.

You prevent fuck-you level by:

  1. Destroying support networks without replacement (American path for many)
  2. Making individuals/institutions bear full costs without backup
  3. Using liability systems without collective insurance

Risky playground exists in Europe not because Europeans romanticize danger but because they built systems giving institutions fuck-you level. Can’t exist in America because institutions have no fuck-you level—they’re exposed.

Same for experimental gym design, weird small business, non-standard education model, career pivot at 40.

The American Contradiction

Frank says “United States of America is based on fuck you.”

Told king with greatest navy in history: fuck you, blow me, we’ll fuck it up ourselves.

But that rebellion worked because colonists had collective fuck-you level. Enough people, enough resources, enough distance from Britain to absorb downside of failure. They could tell the king to fuck off because they had material capacity to survive his response.

Modern America destroyed collective fuck-you level. Replaced it with fragmented, unpredictable substitutes that don’t provide reliable capacity to absorb downside. Created liability system that makes institutions and individuals exposed. Only those who reach private fuck-you level through wealth can actually say fuck you.

Europeans have collective fuck-you level through healthcare and safety nets. Can take risks because system absorbs downside.

Japanese have network fuck-you level for business, network constraint for identity. Can start tiny restaurant, can’t deviate from social norms.

Americans have litigation system that assigns costs after disasters. Must prevent risks because nobody has fuck-you level to absorb them.

The country supposedly based on “fuck you” now structurally prevents most people from ever saying it.

Caveats

This framework is hypothesis requiring validation. Some claims now have stronger grounding:

Now better documented:

  • Statutory differences in playground standards (EN 1176 vs ASTM F1487) explain regulatory divergence
  • Insurance contract exclusions directly shape gym design; premiums spike 20-50% for high-risk activities
  • Wealth/risk relationship shows U-shaped curve consistent with fuck-you level mechanism
  • Healthcare cost differences (~$15K US vs ~$6K Europe per capita) create different exposure levels
  • Litigation culture drove institutional liability insurance costs up significantly 1980-2000
  • Playground injuries dropped roughly 50% since 1990 via design sanitization
  • Over 40% of gig workers fall into poverty or near-poverty levels
  • Manufacturing employment decline verified (21% to ~8.3%)

Still lacking comprehensive data:

  • Complete time series of liability insurance costs across all recreational sectors
  • Systematic 1980s comparison across all risk domains
  • Cross-country injury rates with controlled comparisons
  • Whether policy-makers with physical work backgrounds write measurably looser policies

What remains documented:

  • PLCAA provides unusual statutory protection for firearms industry
  • Basic institutional differences in healthcare and legal structures
  • Geographic variation in legal protections is substantial
  • Commercial gym insurance policies contain specific apparatus and activity exclusions
  • Gig economy structural precarity well-documented

Framework explains observed patterns. Core mechanisms are empirically grounded, though some historical sequences and causal arrows remain hypotheses needing further evidence.

The Core Insight

When you see seemingly contradictory risk attitudes—risky playgrounds in “over-regulated” Europe, sanitized environments in “freedom-loving” America—don’t look at attitudes toward risk.

Look at who has fuck-you level.

Society that gives people fuck-you level can permit risks. Society that leaves people exposed must prevent risks entirely.

Not about values. About incentive structures created by how we distribute the capacity to say fuck you.

Frank was right: wise man’s life is based around fuck you.

What he didn’t explain: you need systems that let you build it.

His prescription assumes you can get up $2.5 million first. But to accumulate capital, you need to take risks. To take risks safely, you need downside absorption. To get downside absorption in America today, you already need capital.

The catch: you need fuck-you level to reach fuck-you level.

America still celebrates the rhetoric of “fuck you” but systematically denies people the material conditions to build it.

What Did the Buddhist Say to the Hot-Dog Vendor?

~ cafebedouin ~ Leave a comment

“What did the Buddhist say to the hot-dog vendor?”

“Make me one with everything.”

And then, somebody’s later addition…

The hot-dog vendor makes him his hot-dog with all the trimmings, and says, “That’ll be $7.50.”

The Buddhist reaches into his saffron robes, extracts a $20 note, hands it over, and starts eating. The vendor turns to the next customer… but the Buddhist interrupts him. “What about my change?”

The vendor is unperturbed.

“Change comes from within.”

—”What did the Buddhist say to the hot-dog vendor?” Status-Q. November 30, 2025

The One-Month Knowledge Sprint: How to Read Books, Take Action, and Change Your Life

~ cafebedouin

“The basic framework I’d like to suggest is the one I used for my Foundations project: pick a defined area of improvement, and make a focused effort at improving your knowledge and behavior over one month…

I break down the process of conducting a month-long sprint into four parts:

  • Choose a theme.
  • Take action.
  • Get books.
  • Adjust based on feedback.

—Scott H. Young, “The One-Month Knowledge Sprint: How to Read Books, Take Action, and Change Your Life.” scotthyoung.com. September 2025.

Obviously, a month isn’t a great deal of time, but it can serve as a work unit and you can break your interest into month units, same as a professor might break a topic down into a semester, units, and individual lectures. Same concept applies.

Principles of Interaction

~ cafebedouin ~ 3 Comments

Note: This essay is a work in progress, a way to think through some ideas I have about social interaction, reality testing, worldviews and what not.

Introduction

“Von Neumann would carry on a conversation with my 3-year-old son, and the two of them would talk as equals, and I sometimes wondered if he used the same principle when he talked to the rest of us.”—Edward Teller

I think about this Edward Teller quote a lot. What principle would Von Neumann have when he was talking to people? There are a couple of assumptions in this quote that should be made explicit.

If you are a once in a generation intellectual genius like Von Neumann, by definition, you are going to be surrounded by people who are less smart. But, intellect is only one type of gift. Some people are big hearted. Others are funny. Everyone has a unique blend of qualities that makes them, to some degree, unique.

Many people have the view that young children are empty vessels than need to be taught. But, perhaps the secret to treating children as equals lies in understanding that the ability to look at the world without preconceptions is an enormous gift. It obliges anyone in dialogue with that perspective to reconsider ideas that with another would go unquestioned.

So, I think the principle here is that our ideas about who is worth talking to are, generally speaking, incorrect. If two people of Von Neumann’s talent were able to talk together, would that be a better conversation than each could have with a person average intelligence or a child? What gives a conversation value?

The Value of Conversation

Not all conversation has value. It clear that some interactions simply aren’t worth having. Sometimes, one or both parties have an agenda and/or acting in bad faith. Other times, people have no common interests or interest in keeping a relationship with another person. There are people who are stupid, or they have such a narrow scope of interest – say, they enjoy complaining – that the is little of value in talking with them beyond their bad example.

But, what makes for a good conversation? There are many guides. We are told How to Disagree. Or, there are discussions on the nature of politeness. There are mental frameworks for thinking about it, such as adopting a perspective like the The Theory of Visitors, where the defining feature of all relationships is impermanence, which invites us to enjoy interactions because they are fleeting. And, yet others, that recommend that we should keep our shit to ourselves.

Fundamentally, I’ve really been struggling with the questions of the who, the what, the how, and the why of social interaction. In the end, conversation is the basis for any relationship. Not all relationships are worth having. Which are?

The Who

The first problem of our time is who should we spend time with? There are people in this world who are the walking dead. They don’t want new experiences. They don’t want to have to think. They don’t want to spend time with themselves. So, they distract themselves with a constant stream of entertainment or mindless activity. If they don’t want to spend time with themselves, why should other people spend time with them?

There are many variations on this theme. There are people in parasocial relationships with celebrities, where they believe they know them based on a character they have played, social media or a autobiography. There are people “falling in love with A.I.” A Twitter account I follow recently shared that she was talking about her emotions with an A.I. because she didn’t know anyone that cared to talk about them. On one level, this is a cry for help. On another level, this is why you need to work through your shit yourself because you shouldn’t be putting that kind of burden on other people.

People also go through arcs. Maybe someone who was once an addict has moved through that period of their life. Now, there is room for other people now that they are no longer in the grips of addiction. There’s also windows of opportunity. Maybe people just have a lot on their plate, and they don’t have room for more friends, activities or whatever.

But, how do we know that for ourselves? Maybe, because of other obligations, there isn’t room for new people. Or, maybe we are shifting in the other direction, maybe we do have more room, but how do we forge genuine connection with others?

And any talk of genuine connection needs to take into account that, broadening your social circle will invariably entail interacting with a lot of people. We know that 3-6% of people have a Cluster B personality disorder. How do you identify those people?

Moreover, just as there are people that argue in bad faith, there are people that interact in bad faith, in general. However, we must be careful to understand the percentages? Of any random selection of people, how many interact in bad faith?

I think this leads us to one principle: Know the person you are interacting with. If you don’t know that person, then you need to be very careful of how much time you spend in their company, whether literally or figuratively. There’s also a chicken-and-egg problem. How do you know someone without conversation?

Of course, this is the mystery of small talk. We talk about things that don’t matter to help reveal the character of the Other. The hope is that it can serve as a bridge, one that takes us to caring for each other and talking about things that matter to us. But, just as some people are only looking for surface entertainment so they don’t have to spend time with themselves, those same people will hide in small talk because they don’t want to spend time with themselves, or really with other people. This is far more pervasive than people with malignant mental health problems, such as those 3-6% mentioned above.

On the other end, if we think that most people don’t have anything interesting to say, a la The Barker, in The Church of Interruption story, we cut ourselves off from others. A life cut off from others is the other end of the spectrum of people that hide in entertainment and small talk. It’s a little death, where we are broadcasting to the world from our little coffins and no one is receiving your broadcast.

The What

If we know the person we are interacting with, this leads to another principle: Interacting with someone is a relationship. So, if we know the person and want to be in a relationship with them, then small talks establishes and serves as a foundation that can be extended to things we care about and build a relationship.

We need to get find out: who they are, what are they interested in, etc.? Perhaps a guiding principle is: Can this interaction lead to human flourishing, either in me, them or the both of us? Prior to writing this essay, I think the only place where I have really followed this kind of interaction is with my young nieces. I am frequently thinking about how I can model certain types of behavior, how I might challenge them in ways that will help them grow in a beneficial way, and so forth.

I generally don’t look at interactions with adults in this way. Probably because I, personally, focus on autonomy and agency as values, and I think trying to influence people in particular directions undermines their autonomy and agency. The flip side of these values is that I also don’t want to be part of how people are using their agency. Ballot box political issues? Community or celebrity gossip? Sports? The latest hit show, movie or entertainment? I’m, largely, not interested. These are varieties of getting lost in small talk.

On a personal level, I have an internal dialogue that is withering. It’s absolutely brutal. I’m used to it. I think it is, in the main, useful in making me the kind of person I wish to be. But, I tolerate this kind of abuse because I see its value. Being that way to other people, however, is rude, particularly if you respect their autonomy.

Even if you don’t care about autonomy, I’ve found, over the years, that you cannot tell people anything. People get comfortable, like I’ve gotten comfortable with a rude internal dialogue I wouldn’t normally subject people I care about to. You cannot really predict how people will respond to anything you do. You certainly cannot predict whether it will end in human flourishing, however defined. So, what is left? What are we doing when we are talking to one another?

Are you interacting to pass the time? For amusement? Because we are maintaining relationships that are a product of luck and circumstance? There is a lot of talk about a loneliness epidemic, particularly among men. At base, are relationships about not being alone? What should they do for us, in shaping our character? Why spend time with other people? What makes our current relationships worth having?

The Why

The main question is: to what end? Why interact with anyone else?

If you are a genius like Von Neumann, you aren’t interacting with people because you’re likely to learn something you didn’t already know, particularly in your area of expertise. And, hidden in the quote above, I think that may also be a hidden assumption. That social interaction is about information seeking or refining our mental models of the world.

But, clearly, this is not how most interactions work. We aren’t looking for information. We are looking for validation. I remember hearing a quote that marriage is to bear witness to the life of another. I think there is some truth to that, and there is somewhat true of all our relationships. We get to see people on their best and worse days, and our response to those moments. In the crucible, gold is tested. All theory, any idea about how the world works, needs reality testing. There is nothing more real than the people around us.

This is not a view I’ve seen before. It’s a useful way of thinking about our social milieu. If our social interactions are primarily on the level of small talk, it is doing the opposite of reality testing. It’s hiding reality, and it is doing the same thing as immersing ourselves in entertainment.

The How

Looked at in this way, we now have a heuristic for thinking about our relationships with others. Does this person help me to hide from reality or test it?

Which brings us back to Von Neumann, children are all natural reality testers. They engage in make-believe. The imagine worlds that don’t exist. They make up rules and new games. They spend the majority of their time testing reality. Adults do not. Adults think they already know. But, even adults have constructed fantasy worlds, they just tend to believe they are real and are only doing limited testing.

But, we are all playing the child’s game. We all have ideas about how the world works. We all have a reality we have created in our minds. But, how many of us think we are testing it, seeing where the flaws are, where it is wrong? Most of us aren’t.

Further, maybe we have incompatible visions, even if we meet another person that is actively trying to refine their ideas about the world. They may have ideas and values that are incompatible with our worldview. So, most interaction is talking past one another.

So, you have to choose. You have to chose who to interact with, after you know who they are. You have to be interested in knowing the contours of your and their worldview and have an interest in testing it. You have to think about your relationship, and how you can serve to help yourself and others to test your ideas.. But, we have limited capacity to do this kind of work. So, maybe the key here is selection.

If it is person you only know through social media, do you really know who they are? Are you sure you are not dealing with a fiction? For example, how would you determine whether you are dealing with an LMM, someone attempting to catfish / scam you? The answer is you largely you can’t. As time goes on, it will become harder.

So, you need to filter. Social media is good to get an acquaintance with what I think of as the over-id (a portmanteau of Emerson’s Oversoul with Freud’s id). It will expose you to fragments of memes, myths and other elements of humanity’s cultural legacy. But, at the same time, it is exposing yourself to a kind of mental illness of a powerful collective. There is room to use this for our development, but there also seems to be a lot of ways that it could go wrong, and drive us into ways of thinking that are destructive, or at least maladaptive. Certainly, away from any sort of reality testing.

There’s probably a continuum, where on one end is the over-id and on the other is an affinity group, a group of individuals with whom we can have flourishing relationships with. Chances are, our affinity group will be a small one.

So, perhaps the first task of someone like myself would be get the inner dialogue more in line with how I would like to speak with the group. As is common in Buddhist loving-kindness practice, we probably need to start with ourselves before we can show grow more skill at showing loving kindness to others. Then, we need to broaden our area of concern to those closest. And then, look at our friends, acquaintances and lastly, even the social media environment and look for people that we think they (and we) might be able to bring closer, and in a way that benefits everyone in the relationship.

I don’t know how Von Neumanm was able to interact with everyone as well as he did, given how talented he was. But, I imagine there was a process like this one that he used to be able to interact with a larger set of people and do it in a way that treated everyone as equals. Everyone has something to bring to the table. The question is whether yours is the right table, or not.

Arnold Bennett’s Ten Step Plan for Learning to Appreciate Poetry

~ cafebedouin

“I would advocate for more use of an anthology. And more memorisation. You may also find that, to begin with, you do not want take such a critical approach and would prefer to follow your nose rather than doing what Hazlitt tells you (although you should read Hazlitt at some point, he is among the greats). Still, I hope some of you find this of some use. It is taken from Literary Taste and How to Form It.”

–Arnold Bennett’s Ten Step Plan for Learning to Appreciate Poetry

Tsampa

~ cafebedouin ~ 2 Comments

Tsampa is roasted pearl barley flour that is a staple food of Tibet.

Tools

  • Large flat skillet
  • Sieve
  • Clean cloth
  • Spatula
  • Grinder

Ingredients

  • 250g organic pearl barley

Recipe

  • Take the barley, place in a bowl, cover well with cold water and soak for 12 – 24 hours.
  • Drain the barley in a sieve and leave to drain well for 10 minutes.
  • Transfer the soaked barley to a clean, dry cloth, roll up into a sausage, and refrigerate overnight.
  • The following day, heat a skillet over medium heat.
  • Take a generous couple of handfuls of the soaked barley, and put them into the heated skillet. Stir well.
  • Keep stirring, to keep the grains from sticking together or to the pan. Gradually, as they cook, they will turn translucent, then to white again. Then, they go a nice nutty brown colour and will flow very loosely around the pan and have a sound like gravel.
  • Pour the roasted barley grains into a large, clean glass bowl, and toss them a few times to cool them.
  • Repeat, roasting all the barley.
  • When cold, grind all the roasted barley into a flour.
  • Transfer from glass bowl to a clean jar.

Maes-Garreau law

~ cafebedouin ~ 2 Comments

“The Maes–Garreau law is the statement that ‘most favorable predictions about future technology will fall within the Maes–Garreau point’, defined as ‘the latest possible date a prediction can come true and still remain in the lifetime of the person making it’.[1] Specifically, it relates to predictions of a technological singularity or other radical future technologies.[1]“

-Wikipedia contributors, “Maes–Garreau law,” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Maes%E2%80%93Garreau_law&oldid=1178567369 (accessed February 26, 2024).