More Musings on Status - We Should All Be So Lucky

I continue to contemplate the importance of status in our caveman days. I think about the earliest days of man's history, when humans lived nomadic lives, in small groups with close kin. In those days, there couldn't have been much to build status heirarchies on but talents and skills related to survival. Being a good hunter would matter. Being good at making fancy clothes would not. Now fast forward a several millenia.

Survival is no longer the struggle it was. Humans have learned to cooperate, which has led a more efficient use of resources and more insulation from environmental threats. But some things have not changed. It is still the case that those at the top of the heirarchy have access to the best food, shelter, and mates. Status still matters, a lot. However, one may ask, in those days, upon what would a heirarchy be based?

This is an interesting question. Being a good hunter would not necessarily be of interest in a community where the big shots have their food delivered to them. In other words, once a heirarchy was established whereby those at the top could coerce others into providing for their survival, the skills associated with procuring and preparing the necessities of survival would have instantly been commoditized. So what could a status heirarchy in those days be based upon?

Obviously, it could (and most likely would) be based upon warrior skills. One who does well in battle carries the threat of force, which easily translates into status. The heirarchy could also be based upon the possession of desired goods, such as money or land. Rich folks could trade their possessions for food, mates, and protection. What else?

It's reasonable to suppose that religion could have emerged in these conditions as a new heirarchy. At a time when man's understanding of his world was continuously daunted by the inexplicable, it isn't a stretch to suppose that individuals who claimed access to a higher power would have been able to weild it for status. And the bigger and more elaborate the story, the better. The more ornate the ceremony, the better. As long as these individuals could offer some evidence of their connection to something larger than the physical world, the masses would defer. Once again, the bigger and more elaborate the story, the better. This would have been a virtual vacuum for the skilled grifters and con artists of yesteryear. Over time, as more and more of the people bought into their story, these religious figures would have attained more and more status, more and more power.

So, now we have a society with three central heirarchies - the warriors, the rich, and the religious leaders. Fast forward now to the 18th century in France, in the decades prior to the French Revolution. There are three groups who hold all the power - the Royalty, the Nobility, and the Clergy. The Royalty has taken the place of the warrior. In truth, however, the Royalty controls the military, so this heirarchy has merely become more discriminating - there is room for far fewer at the top. The point is that we can see a progression of heirarchies from our earliest days to not so long ago, and that they didn't change a whole lot for of tens of thousands of years. This points to persistent influence on human behavior, which, of course, is our genes. We can also see that humans eventually came to realize that basing the concentration of power over all people upon these three heirarchies was barbaric and wholly unacceptable.

The philosophers of the Enlightenment codified the perniciousness of this practice, and from their words flowed both the American and French revolutions. So, it is clear that humans are willing and able to extricate the deleterious aspects of genetically-driven human discourse from society. They only need to be made aware of the fact that things can and should be better. And here we are, 200 plus years later, and we still have work to do.

Too many of us are still basing our opinions of ourselves and others upon notions of status, upon notions of in-groups versus out-groups (that is, preferring those we deem like us over those we deem unlike us). These assessments of our social world are largely genetically-driven - after all, we are still working off the mental blueprints of our cave-dwelling ancestors. We have constructed versions of reality that are littered with heirarchies that we deem important. Alas, in most cases, we have not done this rationally.

We have taken as truth what we have been taught from our youngest days. On questionable matters, we have given preference to explanations offered by those we know versus those we do not. We have emulated the beautiful people in our midst. We place emphasis on popularity over ethics, upon wealth over disposition, and upon looks over personality. This has ensured the persistence of erroneous ideas and the resistance to intellectual progress. In short, our genes are still having their way with us, big time. But this is not a bad news story. Some have shaken free of these genetic influences, and it is to these people that we should look for encouragement.

Some have learned to consider everything rationally, and to be aware of, and compensate for, known biases. These people have come to their own conclusions about life and how to live it. They have asserted their individuality upon reality, which has inevitably put them at odds with those who cling to their allegiances. But they stand upright, for they know that truth will never fail them. And some, some are even able to change minds en masse. They are agents of change. They are able to impose their conclusions upon the status quo, thus retiring it, and moving it forward at the same time. This is free thinking, and the possibilities are endless. We should all be so lucky.

The Publishing Biz - Episode 3

In the last installment, I mentioned that I had been contacting some publishers who seemed a bit more suited to take my book to market. One editor at a mid-sized publisher of science books recently expressed some interest. We had a great phone conversation where I explained the thesis of my book, why it is unique, and why it has tremendous mainstream potential. Not wanting to waste his time, I also mentioned the difficulties I've had thus far in getting a deal. He did not seem deterred, as he asked me to send along a proposal. With hope in full bloom, I quickly accommodated his request and waited.

I didn't have to wait long, though. Within 24 hours, I had a return email saying that he was going to pass. (There's that hated phrase again.) The guy gave me the same old excuses - I'm not a credentialed scientist, his senior execs would never let him publish something like my book, and so on. I was astonished. Why did he not simply pass when we were on the phone? I told him why others were passing, but he still wanted a proposal. Why? He passed for exactly the same reasons. So, not willing to let it stand with a rejection note, I called him and asked what the problem really was.

He told me that I talked him out of accepting my book. Dumbfounded, I asked if he'd have made a different decision if my proposal was less forthcoming. He said no. Hmm. So, though my proposal apparently spent too much time explaining that I wasn't going to fit into the "formula" that is so sought after in the publishing business, he would have ultimately rejected me anyway, once he came to same conclusion himself. Wow. It's amazing. For whatever reason, I keep coming across these people who just can't get out of their usual modes of operation. But, like I've said before, I am convinced that someone out there has the vision and creativity to see the potential for my book. So, the search goes on...

People Are Sheep

Imagine that you're driving up to a parking garage. It has two entrance lanes, each with an automated ticket machine. There are four cars in the first lane and none in the second. You notice that the first lane has an attendant pulling the tickets from the machine and handing them to the drivers. What do you do? Do you get into line or pull into the second lane?

I experienced this very situation at the airport today. By the time I was up to the lanes, I just pulled into the line. I was, like everyone else, I presume, assuming that the second line was not operational. After all, why would there be an attendant working the first lane? When I got up to her, as she handed me the ticket I could easily have reached myself, I asked if the other lane was broken. She paused for a moment and then said no. I instantly smiled because, all along (for the 30 seconds or so that I sat in line), I suspected that there was absolutely no reason for her to be standing there doing what she was doing, and that I was an idiot for waiting in a line for no reason. The funny thing is that it seemed like she made the same connection at the same time. She laughed as I was pulling away.

Today's situation reminded me of two things. For one thing, I am always inclined to examine the ways by which a situation can be optimized for time. Sometimes, I come up with ways to save myself all sorts of time. Other times, I see ways to save time, but I conclude that the payoff isn't worth it. The thing is that the vast majority of instances where I see ways to optimize my time, the procedure required entails going around a bunch of people who are masquerading as sheep, which brings me to the second thing.

I am amazed again and again at how willing people are to simply fall in line. It is almost as if folks subconsciously perceive a line as indicative of something that is to be desired, and rather than consider the matter themselves, they are content to take the word of those who are already there. The only thing left to do is queue up. I've actually tested this at festivals.

A few friends and I will look for a stand that has no one in line. We'll line up single file at the table and wait. It never fails. Within a very short time, people will start lining up behind us. It's eery. Really. Try it. The interesting thing is that I often wonder if there isn't a genetic component to this, something related to the herd mentality.

In our caveman days, there was absolutely safety in numbers. Loners didn't get far in life. So, it isn't unreasonable to suppose that genes emerged that influenced individuals to pay attention to the group and to go along with the crowd. Status in the group was also of paramount importance, which means that the high-status individuals would set the agenda, so to speak. As it would also be advantageous, reproductively speaking, for individuals to be aware of their status, those without status wouldn't have much to do but to figure out what the plan is and get on board. Independent thinking, for the lowly, would be pointless. By the way, this is the kind of wild speculation that you do when you're considering the effects of evolution on the human mind, and it's really hard to find useful evidence that tilts the scales one way or another. Nevertheless, just for fun, let's consider what this scenario (assuming for the moment that is correct) has to tell us about modern humanity.

Right away, we're confronted with the idea that humans who fall into line without weighing the situation for themselves may be, whether they know it or not, pessimistic about their status in the group. In other words, they don't feel like they have the decision-making responsibility in those situations. If this is true, then it means that these people are following their genes inappropiately. If there is a point to this site, it is that our most pressing task as modern humans is to push aside the genetic influences that no longer make sense in life. If this tendency to not think that comes from the internal perception of low status is real, it is a stark example of an opportunity for enlightenment.

The fact is that status in this world is largely irrelevant. More importantly, now, as opposed to tens of thousands of years ago, there are vastly more ways to obtain status - you can be good at millions of different things, which means you can always obtain status with people who share your avocations. But the things that matter these days are driven by those who have the most visible status. Relatively speaking, nobody knows about the world badminton champion, at least not compared to an NBA player. So, the basketball player's status is more widely known, which means he has more influence on the social agenda than the badminton champion. Those for whom status is important pay more attention to what the basketball player says and does. This is silly.

Today, how we stack up against our peers is a lot less important than most of us would believe. Our genes have pushed us to place more importance on measuring high on the yardstick of popular public opinion than on simply enjoying life. Thankfully, this is easily undone. We have only to recalibrate our assessments of what matters in life.

Knowing that we will naturally pay attention to status, we must endeavor to be vigilantly aware of our wayward emotions, and to have a plan for keeping them in check. When the wrong thoughts creep in, we simply usher them out. It's nothing more than a matter of willpower. You just have to believe that the rationale behind your effort is sound and that it will yield benefits. I can vouch for both, but don't take my word for it. Empirical evidence makes a great foundation for strong belief. So, try it. See if you don't feel a burden lift from your shoulders. Or maybe you've already done this. If so, I'll see you in the short line.

Who Am I?

Though the nature of consciousness is still very much an open question, it seems clear that the notion of self is a central feature. In other words, our consciousness is at least partly defined by our awareness of ourselves. And if we are aware of ourselves, it's reasonable to suppose that we can know ourselves. But a question arises. How exactly do we go about getting to know ourselves?

I suppose we do it like we go about getting to know others. In fact, it probably happens in that order. I would bet that infants know their parents before they recognize that they are people, too. So how do we get to know others? We watch what they do and listen to what they say. Over time, we get a feel for their history, for how their mind works, with whether they mean what they say, and with what they care about. It's pretty much the same with getting to know ourselves. But, in that endeavor, we have access to a fortuitous additional bit of information.

We have the benefit of knowing our thoughts. So, we know what we think, which means we really know what matters to us. Coupled with the knowledge of our actions, we have all that we need to know ourselves very well. Or do we?

Knowing what crosses our minds only gives us a truer glimpse into how our motivations translate into actions. To be sure, that understanding is key to knowing ourselves. But we still don't know what we really need to know, which is why what crosses our minds crosses our minds. For this, we cannot rely solely upon introspection. We need science, specifically evolutionary psychology.

The science of evolutionary psychology deals with the human mind by exploring its origins from an evolutionary standpoint. At the heart of it is the notion that the human mind was designed by natural selection to facilitate the survival of humans on earth anywhere from 20,000 to 100,000 years ago. Understanding what life was like back then, so they say, tells us a great deal about why our minds work the way they do. With the help of evolutionary psychology, we can now understand why we think many of the thoughts we think.

We now know that social status for our cave-dwelling ancestors was of paramount importance. We know that being a part of the in-group was essential to survival. With those kinds of requirements, and the easy separation of those who could get along and those who could not, natural selection easily and permanently installed in the human mind the tendencies to pursue status and interpersonal acceptability. This has serious implications on our quest to know ourselves.

We have to wonder how much of what we think is somehow driven by our genetic need to fit in and be recognized as worthy among our peers. We have to wonder how it is we go about figuring out what groups to fit into. After all, in our modern world, there are lots to choose from. And we also have to wonder how it is we go about picking the people we admire and the people we despise. If the evolutionary psychologists are right, then, from a mental perspective, we are far more at the mercy of genes that any of us would like to believe. But this is not a bad news story.

Quite the opposite. The beautiful thing about being conscious is that we are not only aware of ourselves and our thoughts, we have the power to change what we think about. Given what we know about our caveman origins, it is clear to me that there's work to be done. We have to rationally consider what matters to us, and, just as importantly, who matters. Now, don't get me wrong, this is not a trivial matter. It takes a lot of courage to look inward with the intent to accept what we find. But once we do, we have a baseline from which to evaluate our thoughts.

If I rationally conclude that being a nice and genuine person is of the highest ethical value, then, in evaluating my contemporaries, I have no choice but to put a consideration of that above a consideration of something less ethically important, such as what someone does for a living. Then, when status-oriented thoughts, such as, "Ooh, he's a television star." cross my mind, I know that I must put them aside and ask, "Yes, but is he a nice person? Does he seem genuine or fake?" Believe it or not, these kinds of personal thought control exercises are actually quite easy, especially when you can count on the legitimacy of the rationale behind them. In fact, everyone is skilled at doing this. The problem is that too many people push out the right thoughts as they simultaneously nurture the wrong ones.

For them, just as for all of us, the solution is simply to learn to tell the difference between the thoughts that matter and the thoughts that are remnants of our ancient heritage, of a time that has long since passed. So, to the question in the title of this, Who Am I?

I am a modern human with the mind of a caveman. I am aware of the needs of my ancestors with regards to the social group, and I am aware that many of those needs no longer exist. I have assessed what it means to live the good life, and I have rationally set a course to obtain it. In doing so, I have committed to extricate my mind of the thoughts that weigh it down. I have committed my mind to truth and all its consequences. I have learned to spot wayward anachronistic emotions and to compensate for them. I cannot say that I have arrived. But I can say that I am not lost.

The Publishing Biz - Episode 2

In March of this year, I attended the Book Expo America (BEA) convention in Chicago. This is THE show for the book industry. Every decent publisher is represented there. There are aisles and aisles of booths for companies that specialize in any genre you can think of. I went because the one agent I had been hoping to convince to represent me finally gave me the thumbs down. In other words, I started feeling desperate. It was then that I decided that I'd try to get published without an agent. This is mainly because getting the endorsement of a reputable agent is every bit as hard as getting to a reputable publisher. So, in my view, it seems more practical for someone who is business-minded like I am to take my chances pitching my work directly to a publisher. If I get a deal working, I have access to deep legal talent that is well-versed with the ins and outs of publishing contracts. More importantly, I can't imagine an agent being as passionate as I am about what I've written, and given the uphill battle I have before me, passion is going to be the key to winning.

Anyway, at BEA, my plan was to approach any publisher that I thought might be interested in my book. I carried with me the sample cover art that I had designed by a talented local artist (check it out here). I also had a fairly well-rehearsed elevator pitch for the book's concept and marketability. The feedback I got was unanimously positive (except one senior editor hated the cover). Every person I spoke with liked the idea of the book and acknowledged that it is unique. Then, the hammer dropped. From there, all I got was, "Are you a scientist? Are you a counselor? Are you a psychiatrist?" "No," I'd say. "You don't need to be scientist to explore the personal implications of a scientific concept. I'm not trying to publish cutting edge science. This is social philosophy that is based upon science. Moreover, no professional scientist, philosopher, or counselor will ever write this book because it would be a bad career move." But they weren't buying. By the time they heard no, their eyes glazed over and I quickly realized I had already been tuned out. Harsh. But hey, that's business.

I also got my share of the, "We don't accept unsolicited manuscripts. You need to have an agent bring this to us." Ahh, I see. You'd rather pay at least 15% more for an idea that you've already acknowledged is interesting and unique? Once again, these were people who were just locked into their little modes of operation and were simply unable to see the big picture I was laying before them.

Lest anyone get the wrong idea, let me just say this. I am solely responsible for what happens with my book. I am sure that the publishing industry is very friendly to people who have what they want. I don't. I have something that has the potential to be VERY lucrative for them, but they don't see it yet. My job is to change their perspective. Reality is reality - it doesn't change. Therefore, if I am going to succeed, I have to see reality as clearly as possible as quickly as possible, so that I can accept what I have to do, and then get on with doing it.

That said, I walked away from BEA with 13 good prospects. These were editors who listened to my pitch and asked me to send them a proposal. Since then, I have followed up with every one. Most have politely rejected me - via email, no less. However, a couple have entertained a few subsequent conversations. One guy, a senior editor at a company that publishes science books, really had me thinking he was gonna bite. We scheduled an hour to talk a few weeks ago. Alas, he began the call by saying he was going to pass. (By the way, it appears that "I'm gonna pass." is as prevalent in the publishing world as it is in Hollywood and kiddie card games.) This guy was really interested in the book, but he said his bosses would never allow him to publish it. I'd need to be a credentialed scientist, he said. Oddly enough, he said that the last couple of books he'd done had tanked, and that he really needed a hit. Ah, I see, so your plan is to continue doing what doesn't work? What can I say? He was scared. Lucky for me, he pointed me to a few folks he knows who might think differently. I'll save the details of that for the next installment. Suffice it to say, I still don't have a deal...

Interpersonal Truth - Part 2: Emotional Coercion

There's a little thing I call emotional coercion, and it is going on all the place. It's wrong and it needs to be talked about. Because it doesn't get much attention, I'll admit that I find it a bit awkward to describe. But hey, my intentions are good, so here goes.

To coerce is to bring about by force or threat. To emotionally coerce is to bend the actions of others by threatening emotional turmoil. It takes place most prevalently between people in close romantic relationships. It exists because many people choose to appease the desires of hotheads and manipulators because it simply isn't worth it to do otherwise. For example, a husband with a quick temper emotionally coerces his wife by asserting his wishes upon her, even though he knows that he is making her do what she doesn't want to do. In some cases, the threat of real force underlies the emotional coercion. In other cases, the outbursts are enough to bend her will. Husbands will often complain about wives who give them so much grief that they avoid behaviors rather than running the risk. Who hasn't been held hostage by a loved one in tears?

Now, don't get me wrong. I understand that people need to be allowed to express their emotions. However, some people, the emotionally coercive, are aware of the power they have, and they use it to get what they want. This is no way to interact with people we care about. To those for whom this notion of emotional coercion hits home, I'd say you need to think about how it feels to be forced to do something you don't want to do. Then think about how dispicable it is to do this to a loved one. And to those who find themselves emotionally coerced, I say stand up for yourself. It is never acceptable for someone to wield emotional power over you to get you to behave as they want, not as you want. Yes, there is compromise, but this is beyond compromise, and there is never any chance of confusing the two. Relationships must be built on mutual respect and admiration. Anything less is settling.

I am convinced that good romantic relationships are available to everyone who's willing to do what it takes to be desirable. Unfortunately, too many people get into relationships that are fraught with emotional coercion. Instead of seeing this as a deal breaker, they suffer on. In doing so, they miss out on the opportunities for real relationships with solid foundations. If the idea that emotional coercion is wrong were articulated alongside the idea that honesty is the best policy, we might end up with a generally more content population. But nothing will ever happen until people realize that this is a human phenomenon that has no place in our modern world of reason.

The Docilization of America

No, I'm not trying to be one of the Williams of obscure words (that's Buckley and Safire). Don't bother with your dictionary; I made it up. Docilization is the process of making people docile. That, it appears, is what some of our social engineers are after, and it's no surprise that they are primarily Republicans. I am referring to Bush's New Freedom Commission on Mental Health, which came about in 2002, and is now recommending comprehensive mental health screening for "consumers of all ages," including pre-school students. Schools, so they say, are in a perfect position to screen 52 million students and 6 million adults who work in the schools. As I read about this, I could feel a chill going up my spine.

The rationale for this program is well-meaning (as are all social engineering plans). They say that mental health problems, though they are very prevalent, are often missed or misdiagnosed. I'd buy that. They also say that, each year, many young children are expelled from schools for unruly behavior and for emotional problems. I'd buy that, too. The solution is to screen for mental problems and recommend treatment, which happens to center on anti-depressant and anti-psychotic drugs. This I cannot buy. It's a load of crap.

There's no question that medication is sometimes required to deal with mental problems. However, we are on the verge of eerily playing out the vision of Aldous Huxley in his classic, Brave New World. Huxley wrote the book in 1932 to be a piece of satirical fiction. In it, he describes a futuristic society where individuals are genetically engineered to be stratified into several levels. Those at the top live the best lives and make all the key decisions. Those at the bottom are designed to be workers, workers who are content to only be workers and to have no say in the direction of their lives. To keep this utopia humming, among other things, every person takes a pill daily that keeps him or her happy and comfortable with life. When criminals commit crimes, which is rare, they are not incarcerated, they are given a heaping dose of this "soma" drug. So, I guess what is happening is that our little people are the equivalent of Huxley's criminals - instead of dealing with their actions, they are going to be drugged. I have problems with this on multiple levels.

For one thing, we're talking about a government administered plan. That, alone, should scare the bejeezus out of just about anyone. To think that 52 million kids are going to be screened, with the results being a thumbs up or thumbs down on anti-psychotic and/or anti-depressant medication, is truly frightening. Even if they have only a 1% error rate in their diagnosis, that's 52,000 kids who will either be put on drugs unnecessarily or who will do without when they really need them. But there's a bigger issue - whether a drug actually solves a problem or masks it.

In many cases, there is no doubt that chemicals in the brain are off, which is causing the child to behave in a rambunctious or otherwise undesirable way. Personally, I say suck it up and learn to live with it. That's how character is developed. But putting that aside, what about the tons of kids who exhibit bad behavior for reasons other than brain chemicals? What about the kids who act out because mom and dad regularly engage in violent disagreements? What about the kids who act out because mom and dad could care less about them? What about the kids who act out because they're bored with the curriculum that is geared for the lowest common denumbinator (that's my word, too)? If Bush's gem of a little program is enacted, these kids will be put on drugs like Ritalin, which will most likely curb their deviations from teacher and parent expectations. But will the problem will be solved? Not even close. It will be masked. It will remain hidden in the background until something comes along that even Ritalin can't control. Then what? Admission to an institution? Prison? Come on.

The bottom line is that the behavior of children is all that should be evaluated. If Jimmy can't control himself, discipline him. If it doesn't work, get his parents involved. If that doesn't work, get him out of the classroom and send him for mental health screening. That'll keep the numbers of kids being screened manageable enough for us to expect good results. It'll also make drugging our kids a last resort, which is exactly what it should be. Even if something like Ritalin can improve Jimmy's behavior, isn't everyone better off if he learns to control it himself? Will he not take the lessons learned along the way into the rest of his life? Will he not use the ability to overcome personal hardships to overcome the inevitable barriers that will stand between what he wants and what he can attain?

So, once again, Bush and pals prove themselves to be unable to see the ramifications of their principle-driven actions. I think everyone applauds when politicians vote their conscience. We all appreciate it when our public servants commit to what they believe in, even when it could cost them politically. But sometimes, their altruistic ideals do not translate into policy without undue harm to some group of people. In this case, that group of people is all of us. If we have a bunch of docile kids who've used pharmaceuticals to help themselves and their parents avoid facing reality, we'll eventually have a bunch of docile adults who don't know what to do when reality gets tough. And with a war on terror going on, this is bad news for everyone.

When are they and the well-meaning social engineers going to learn that anomalies in the populations of humans are far too complex to "fix" with broad, sweeping government solutions? The one thing that works every time is simple - hold people accountable for their actions and their actions alone. That goes for kids, too. Docilization is not the answer.

My Own Little Reality Blog - The Publishing Biz - Episode 1

I occasionally get asked the question, "What made you start writing a book?" The answer is two-pronged. On one hand, many of the thoughts I have simply take too long to explain in any other way. You only need to see blank faces across the table so many times before you decide that maybe your ideas need a new vehicle. So, for me, the choice was to either let these ideas come and go or to start writing them down. I chose the latter and found that some common denominators starting emerging that led me to the conclusion that I had the makings of a totally unique book. That brings me to the other reason I write - money.

Anyone who's read many of my posts knows that I am all about getting myself to financial independence. I don't want to be rich so I can show off my stuff or so I can pretend to be better than other people. I want to be rich so that my time is...well, mine. That brings me to the basis of my reality blog. I have a book that I am 100% certain has no equal on the planet. There has never, EVER, been a book that has asserted that the human mind was not designed for happiness and that, if we are to obtain it, we must learn to train our minds to think differently. More importantly, the methods discussed in the book work. They really have freed my life of much of the frustration that has crept in since the carefree days of youth. And they have worked for many of the people in my life, as well. So, you'd think that publishing something such as this would be snap, right? Au contraire.

The publishing business is a business, first and foremost, and book sales have been down in the last couple of years. This has editors at publishing houses in precarious positions. All of them are inundated with proposals from authors who believe they have the next big bestseller. For them, deciding what to publish is akin to placing bets. They are investing large sums of money in the acquisition, editing, printing, marketing, and distribution of books that they hope will return a tidy profit. If the book's they choose fail to recoup the initial costs, they face serious consequences, including the possibility of termination. So, they hedge their bets like crazy.

In the nonfiction world, it's all about what they call "platform." Your platform is defined as the audience from which you can draw to basically guarantee book sales. A guy like Dr.Phil is a sure bet because he has a gigantic platform from his appearances on Oprah and now from his own show. If he puts out a book, it really doesn't matter what it says, it sells, and it sells a lot. Similarly, Bill Clinton, as an ex-president, has the mother of all platforms. Though many reviews panned his book, My Life, it is still a major best seller. A good platform means that the publisher doesn't have to invest as much money in marketing the book. The theory is that writers with good platforms generate sales on their own. In most cases, this is true. However, the increased emphasis on platform has led to a serious decrease in emphasis on the quality of the work. It is, apparently, better to sell 10,000 copies of a sure thing than to take a risk on a book that may sell only 1000 or has the possibility of selling 1,000,000. This puts guys like me at a distinct disadvantage.

My book has its basis in science, so the first question I am always asked is, "Are you a scientist in the field of evolutionary psychology?" The answer is no. But the science that underpins my book is not controversial. It's well accepted in the scientific community, and it's been around for more than a decade. So, it doesn't matter if I invented it or if I teach it, as long as I've gotten the particulars right, all is well. But this does not matter in the world of platforms. My book is also very much a self-help book, so I am also asked if I am a counselor or therapist. Again, the answer is no. I argue that counselors and therapists, at least the ones who write self-help books, do not base their opinions on academic science. They base them upon clinical science - the experiences of mental health practitioners with patients. This is how they're trained, so we shouldn't expect them to write something like I've written. This is why my book is unique. Again, however, this does not matter in the world of platforms.

It seems that there are very few daring publishers these days. There was a time when publishers saw themselves as purveyors of valuable information. Of course, it has always been a business, but in days passed, editors who stumbled upon outstanding books were in a position to take risks. They were believers in the power of well-written good ideas. Those kinds of books are viral, in the sense that people talk about them enough to catapult sales into best seller ranges. Even a nobody with no platform could get published if his or her work was good enough. I am convinced that these people still exist. My quest is to find one.

As one of the key draws of blog sites is the opportunity to get inside the head of the blogger, I want to document my experiences in getting published. Up to this point, it has been fraught with emotional ups and downs. I've managed to get to some fairly powerful people in the publishing industry. I've made my pitch and I've gotten some great feedback. On two or three occasions, I have been almost certain that a deal was in the works. Alas, however, all have fallen through. But I am not deterred. I will admit that the disappointment has been agonizing at times, but I press on. Every day, I try to do something that will advance my chances of getting my book into bookstores. One day, something will work. I know it. But for now, I'll have to be content with keeping a journal of my trials and tribulations, all with the vision that I will one day look back and appreciate the journey. More to come...

This World Is Not Deterministic...

This world is not deterministic. There is no fate. There is no "things happen for a reason." There is action and reaction. Period. And if there ever was a "grand plan," we humans would have ruined it long ago. At every moment in time, an infinite number of circumstances, some in whose creation we are accomplices and some that occur randomly, are triggering human emotions that define the nature of the moments to come. Those emotions are the motivators for our actions. When we take action, we influence the outcome of events that are still to pass - else we would not act, right? The thing is that our emotions can be very quirky. In only slightly differing circumstances, the same piece of news can elicit drastically differing responses. The only way you could ever say that the world is deterministic, that there is fate, would be if you could say that the emotional responses of humans can be predicted reliably. Like weather, we can predict that certain things will happen (like rain and temper tantrums), but we have a hard time saying when or where (OK, maybe it's not hard when it comes to some people.). The point is that we humans and our collective, emotionally-driven actions guarantee against determinism. This is good news.

To say that the world is not deterministic is not to say that there are no laws of nature. There are, and if we isolate enough of the variables, we can see them in action whenever we want. The fact is that there is such a thing as absolute truth; we just can't observe and/or grasp all of it. So we do the best we can, knowing that the quest to understand our world will serve us well as we navigate it. We call a spade a spade, and we rely upon reason and logic to get us as close to absolute truth as possible. They have worked spectacularly for centuries. Nothing else has ever come close. We can, therefore, anchor our minds with the idea that the best way to discover the truth of any situation is by considering it in a critically rational way, by maintaining a scientific sort of skepticism. And we're most skeptical of the notion of certainty. There are far too many things for which our explanations are sorely lacking to be strutting around proclaiming that we are certain. The key is that by seeking truth and relying on logic and reason to get us as close as possible, we have a firm foundation from which to pursue our interests in life.

The world's indetermism is perhaps most profound when it is invoked in pondering what to do with our time here. Many people are hung up about status and background. These people, whether they know it or not, are determinists. They believe rich people lead rich people lives and poor people lead poor people lives. They believe where you come from determines where you'll end up. They believe that the way things have been is the way they'll continue to be. For some of them, to struggle against this fate is an act of futility, one that diverts limited resources from the practical responsibilities of life. For others, their ambition is defeated, for whatever reason, and they cling to determinism to justify their failure to achieve. In both cases, these people have missed the boat. Recognizing that the world is not deterministic causes us to reject this line of thinking and replace it with an action, consequence, desire, competence, and opportunity mentality.

If we think of time as unfolding from this moment forward, we can think of every choice we make as having consequences. Most are insignificant, but some reverberate for a while. If we take an interest in truth, we get a serious leg up in accurately predicting events further and further into the future. The fact is that for just about anything you'd ever want to do, there's information available on how to go about a doing it. And before anyone gets the idea that only sooome people do certain things, there's information available about real people who routinely disprove this hairball idea. Now, it is true that some information is easily obtained, while some requires considerable investment. We might have to study or pay our dues by doing things we don't like to get to the information we seek. That's where desire comes in.

The indeterminist idea implores us to explore our interests to determine how best to take action. We recognize that our actions can impact future proceedings, and our quest for truth has us seeing farther and farther into the future. In short, we are aware of the real power of our actions if we choose wisely and commit to our decisions. All that remains is to figure out what we like. This requires a preference for experience, and an open mind with no tendencies toward judgements. We know right away when we find something we like, so we simply explore the consequences of pursuing it and weigh them against those of our other options. Eventually, hopefully, a dream life appears in our imaginations.

This is where things get good. I would say that a life that allows us to pursue our interests and spend our time with the people we care about is a pretty good template for a dream life. This is a life filled with "want to dos" versus "have to dos." Visualizing something like this, for the indeterminist, is a substantial motivator. Desire is now properly tuned. All that stand between the desire and the realization of the dream are competence and opportunity. Competence is the practical side of the action/consequence concept. This is where we put our understanding of our world into use. We use the things we know to get to things we don't know. Sounds a lot like logic, right? This is the investment in information component of the success strategy. Here, we are focused on the deterministic aspects of our indeterministic world. We are students of cause and effect. We are pattern detectors. We are generalizers, and we are sythesizers of random information. Most importantly, we're goal oriented and we accept the realities that confront us.

If one's desire is to make a living as a musician, he or she must accept the hours of practice that will be required. If one's desire is to be a physician, he or she must accept the years of schooling that stand in the way. And, just to be clear, we recognize these hindrances as hurdles, not roadblocks. Every goal can be achieved. It's all a matter of desire. How much are we willing to pay, and how confident are we in our ability to make the key decisions along the way? Thinking of these as hurdles keeps us optimistic. We need only decide which we will attempt to overcome. Opportunity can play a major role in these considerations.

With goals and the competence to achieve them in hand, we pursue opportunity. We do not await opportunity for we cannot expect it to come to us. We pursue it by understanding it. This is very simple - we study those who have achieved what we desire. Our fluency with the principles of cause and effect will alert us as to the actions that lay ahead. Once again, we weigh them against how much we want what we want. If the desire is strong enough, we do what it takes, create our opportunities, and realize our dreams.

All along the way, we have held tightly to the notion that every moment could go in an infinite number of directions. We have held tightly to the notion that the world is not deterministic. This has emboldened us to consider our actions as supremely meaningful in the unfolding of our lives. Stepping back in awe at our power, we have committed to the judicious use of it. We become knowledgeable and experienced so that we can make the most of our decisions. In a larger sense, we just want to make the most of the time we have. Seeing the indeterminacy of the world is the key to doing just that.