Just want to say something about Rob out of appreciation.
When a psychologist does a deep dive into philosophy and the history of philosophy and science I think it is a true reveal of the depth of the person and his professionalism as well as contribution to the field.
Rob doing this strikes me that way about him.
Philosophy predates psychology as a very similar field in terms of their goals of improving humanity, and rather than going for bloggy clickbait Rob goes into this...
I appreciate the meaningful gesture that opposes the superficial science writing we are usually exposed to.
I wonder if @Rob Henderson would relate to Adam Driver’s military background vis a vis the arts careers? Very inspiring talk: https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZPR74eGn9/
Regarding the attribution to “nature,” this would not have been an unusual way for Christians to speak at that time in history, especially after Thomas Aquinas (1200’s), who remains highly influential to the present. Natural law, and even a “natural theology” was derivative, rather than positive law, proceeding from a close observation of the way God made the world. Christians would place many of the short aphorisms of the book of Proverbs in thIs category. The “telos,” or the end (purpose) of the things observed suggests an ethical or practical guideline. Some historians even tie the beginnings of modern science to this close observation of the natural world. Evolutionary biology, and psychology, particularly where it aspires, or seems to aspire, to prescriptive suggestions about how to live or behave, would seem to be in this tradition. For my part, this connection is why I find certain aspects of your writing fascinating. You are curious enough to closely observe the natural world in ways that are highly and practically suggestive.
James these are great points but the origins these close observations of the natural lie further back and further east and west in the “Medieval” Islamic worlds. Muslim scholars had the advantage of being (relatively?) unburdened by superstition and a disapproving religious authority. They also developed a scientific approaches to theology and history prior to their work in the natural sciences. One prominent example is linked below. These approaches and thinking clearly influenced Thomas Aquinas.
I am a big fan of your summaries and lists. It’s a treasure to have these works digested and simplified. I’m a busy mom and otherwise might not have any exposure to some of these and philosophers and thinkers. I read this after I dropped my daughter off at school and before chore time. It’s a great way to start the day. Thanks Rob!
“We underestimate how often people’s ambitions are motivated by envy, resentment, and the desire to prove something to others, rather than any kind of objective and impartial desire for power or status.”
This seems the definition of the malcontent; the actor that believes he deserves more… with his assessment of “enough” is always relative to what he sees others attaining.
Wanting more is a natural and ubiquitous human trait that explains both human progress and societal destruction. Believing that more is deserved is where things go off the rails.
It also goes off the rails when the attainment of more is done by looting and not real productive achievement (because it depletes the pantry), or by reduction of top-end achievement so to make low-end achievement look better by comparison.
I would argue that our current culture and political war is driven by people having adopted an ideology backed by this behavior.
But it also goes off the rails when the attainment of more is unreasonably blocked or made scarce. This is the bit that frustrates me because it should be a common and bipartisan human interest to protect access to human achievement growth opportunity. We have allowed too much corporate consolidation. Too much outsourcing. Too much immigration. The once abundance of paths available for individuals to attain a good life have been reduced. Thus competition to achieve more is fraught with more envy, looting and class anger. Off the rails.
Lastly, there is an outer-focus and an inner-focus relative to wanting more. And I see it as teachable. Most successful athletic coaches understand that winning is a secondary outcome of performance, and that peak performance derives from practice that leverages inner-focus. These coaches also know that focus on winning only and the related negative fear of losing… it generally causes internal noise that results in poor individual decisions that contribute to more losing. In the end we all really only compete with ourselves for achievement.
I agree with your idea that wanting more is natural. This is exemplified by the wealth dysmorphia that Rob alluded to in an earlier post, and what may lead elites to believe they're not as successful as they are, because there is someone higher up on the totem pole. I personally find the problem rooted in looking at the results of others, rather than their process. When one looks at others' processes, they'll tend to find in most cases, people get what they deserve.
I think the idea you posited about barriers to entry is more nuanced. I think there are two components to this: the incentive for specialization and improvement in access to education. The need for specialization has made entry to certain domains increasingly difficult, and given the direction our world is moving in, I believe that makes sense. And as access to education improves, competition is more fierce and it becomes more difficult to stand out in a certain field.
Education yes, but only if the mission is re-framed to be preparing students for their next step in achieving an economically self-sufficient life. We have millions of people with student loan debt without sufficient skills nor opportunities to advance their economic circumstances. The education system is frankly a mess. And in terms of "more", for most people, it really just delays the launch into independent achievement that would serve to provide it.
What I noticed reading these is how someone immediately leaps to mind as the person the maxim takes aim at... but I never thought it was me. It's strange how easily we can see the faults in others and how very difficult it is for us to recognize our own failings.
I appreciate the thoughtful newsletters from Rob that remind me that I am a work in progress and the work will never cease.
Great stuff Rob. Number 17 and your comments on it really got me thinking especially in light of this weeks events in the banking sector.
First off I think that there is a difference between “disdain for wealth” and “love of poverty”. Aristotle posited that the most moral people in a society are the middle classes. I think it actually relates to the comments you made on the effect of poverty on one’s mindset. Ironically this mindset can actually effect the upper classes as well. If one’s societal position is tied to having great wealth, that position is often quite tenuous and thus it creates anxiety about being struck from such a pedestal. In a further irony, that fear may be what motivated the accumulation of wealth in the first place.
As far as the Cato Institute article, I think many “wordsmith intellectuals” are not “anti-capitalist” but rather “anti-the Cato Institute’s vision of capitalism”. In hindsight, it should be noted that the article was written shortly before the dot-com bust. Also, page three of that very same newsletter features Alan Greenspan. Fast forward Greenspan’s errors played a key role the 2009-2010 mortgage collapse. In the past couple of days I have spoken to some committed and successful Capitalists about the Silicon Valley Bank crisis. They are all smart enough to realize that criticism of this system is important.
I would love to turn several of these into posters and put them up in my workplace, especially the one on asking for & giving advice. I need to buy this book. :)
Outstanding article spotlighting La Rochefoucauld's genius. Where are individuals like him nowadays? In our frenetic, bulging world, the main structures are more level, the longer "tent poles" are now leveled mainly. And the real leaders have gone underground from where they steal and manipulate as circumstances allow.
I just sent this to one of my colleagues (employee) who replaced a cunning employee, who I fired; apropos #29, the fired guy entangled himself in a such a web of deception as I have ever seen. My Lord, he was a bazaar, cunning, shrewd, calculating, too smart by half idiot. It became comical.
Don't you wish that people like that would channel all that mental energy into something more productive? He'll probably end up as your congressman in a few years ;-)
Excellent review! So much so that I just bought the book to read and keep on my shelf. I enjoyed your examples. Thanks for introducing me to (another) great book.
I think the key word in that maxim is "loudly". If you're being immoral in some way, and over coffee I mention that maybe you should stop stealing the neighbors newspaper every morning, that's one thing. On the "loud" side, if you are walking down 5th Avenue in Manhattan and I have a bullhorn and start following you while screaming that you are a thief, that's another level.
I was going to say this as well. I don't know what proportion it is but it seems like a significant proportion of people think that they're ugly, not smart enough, not good enough, etc. It's the old cliche or eye rolling statement where someone like Charliez Theron says you should see her when she wakes up or something.
I think part of that though is to pre-empt that very criticism; if I pre-emptively say those bad things about myself, it's like a shield against hearing it from others, or at least training for it. And if that doesn't happen or I hear the opposite, so much the better.
I think by leaving it open, it allows the person answering the question to insert their own definition. You and I may be far apart on our definitions of "success", but we can both gauge how successful we are. We're just using different rulers to measure.
Penny, it appears that to others, your questions may appear antagonistic, but I find your desire to uncover a more nuanced interpretation to be laudable. I've noticed that in many of Rob's posts, you posit interesting follow-up questions that I look forward to almost just as much as the posts themselves.
Just want to say something about Rob out of appreciation.
When a psychologist does a deep dive into philosophy and the history of philosophy and science I think it is a true reveal of the depth of the person and his professionalism as well as contribution to the field.
Rob doing this strikes me that way about him.
Philosophy predates psychology as a very similar field in terms of their goals of improving humanity, and rather than going for bloggy clickbait Rob goes into this...
I appreciate the meaningful gesture that opposes the superficial science writing we are usually exposed to.
Seriously, thank you Rob.
This is what I value in RH too
I wonder if @Rob Henderson would relate to Adam Driver’s military background vis a vis the arts careers? Very inspiring talk: https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZPR74eGn9/
Regarding the attribution to “nature,” this would not have been an unusual way for Christians to speak at that time in history, especially after Thomas Aquinas (1200’s), who remains highly influential to the present. Natural law, and even a “natural theology” was derivative, rather than positive law, proceeding from a close observation of the way God made the world. Christians would place many of the short aphorisms of the book of Proverbs in thIs category. The “telos,” or the end (purpose) of the things observed suggests an ethical or practical guideline. Some historians even tie the beginnings of modern science to this close observation of the natural world. Evolutionary biology, and psychology, particularly where it aspires, or seems to aspire, to prescriptive suggestions about how to live or behave, would seem to be in this tradition. For my part, this connection is why I find certain aspects of your writing fascinating. You are curious enough to closely observe the natural world in ways that are highly and practically suggestive.
James these are great points but the origins these close observations of the natural lie further back and further east and west in the “Medieval” Islamic worlds. Muslim scholars had the advantage of being (relatively?) unburdened by superstition and a disapproving religious authority. They also developed a scientific approaches to theology and history prior to their work in the natural sciences. One prominent example is linked below. These approaches and thinking clearly influenced Thomas Aquinas.
https://en.unesco.org/courier/news-views-online/ibn-al-haytham-s-scientific-method
I am a big fan of your summaries and lists. It’s a treasure to have these works digested and simplified. I’m a busy mom and otherwise might not have any exposure to some of these and philosophers and thinkers. I read this after I dropped my daughter off at school and before chore time. It’s a great way to start the day. Thanks Rob!
“We underestimate how often people’s ambitions are motivated by envy, resentment, and the desire to prove something to others, rather than any kind of objective and impartial desire for power or status.”
This seems the definition of the malcontent; the actor that believes he deserves more… with his assessment of “enough” is always relative to what he sees others attaining.
Wanting more is a natural and ubiquitous human trait that explains both human progress and societal destruction. Believing that more is deserved is where things go off the rails.
It also goes off the rails when the attainment of more is done by looting and not real productive achievement (because it depletes the pantry), or by reduction of top-end achievement so to make low-end achievement look better by comparison.
I would argue that our current culture and political war is driven by people having adopted an ideology backed by this behavior.
But it also goes off the rails when the attainment of more is unreasonably blocked or made scarce. This is the bit that frustrates me because it should be a common and bipartisan human interest to protect access to human achievement growth opportunity. We have allowed too much corporate consolidation. Too much outsourcing. Too much immigration. The once abundance of paths available for individuals to attain a good life have been reduced. Thus competition to achieve more is fraught with more envy, looting and class anger. Off the rails.
Lastly, there is an outer-focus and an inner-focus relative to wanting more. And I see it as teachable. Most successful athletic coaches understand that winning is a secondary outcome of performance, and that peak performance derives from practice that leverages inner-focus. These coaches also know that focus on winning only and the related negative fear of losing… it generally causes internal noise that results in poor individual decisions that contribute to more losing. In the end we all really only compete with ourselves for achievement.
I agree with your idea that wanting more is natural. This is exemplified by the wealth dysmorphia that Rob alluded to in an earlier post, and what may lead elites to believe they're not as successful as they are, because there is someone higher up on the totem pole. I personally find the problem rooted in looking at the results of others, rather than their process. When one looks at others' processes, they'll tend to find in most cases, people get what they deserve.
I think the idea you posited about barriers to entry is more nuanced. I think there are two components to this: the incentive for specialization and improvement in access to education. The need for specialization has made entry to certain domains increasingly difficult, and given the direction our world is moving in, I believe that makes sense. And as access to education improves, competition is more fierce and it becomes more difficult to stand out in a certain field.
Education yes, but only if the mission is re-framed to be preparing students for their next step in achieving an economically self-sufficient life. We have millions of people with student loan debt without sufficient skills nor opportunities to advance their economic circumstances. The education system is frankly a mess. And in terms of "more", for most people, it really just delays the launch into independent achievement that would serve to provide it.
What I noticed reading these is how someone immediately leaps to mind as the person the maxim takes aim at... but I never thought it was me. It's strange how easily we can see the faults in others and how very difficult it is for us to recognize our own failings.
I appreciate the thoughtful newsletters from Rob that remind me that I am a work in progress and the work will never cease.
Great stuff Rob. Number 17 and your comments on it really got me thinking especially in light of this weeks events in the banking sector.
First off I think that there is a difference between “disdain for wealth” and “love of poverty”. Aristotle posited that the most moral people in a society are the middle classes. I think it actually relates to the comments you made on the effect of poverty on one’s mindset. Ironically this mindset can actually effect the upper classes as well. If one’s societal position is tied to having great wealth, that position is often quite tenuous and thus it creates anxiety about being struck from such a pedestal. In a further irony, that fear may be what motivated the accumulation of wealth in the first place.
As far as the Cato Institute article, I think many “wordsmith intellectuals” are not “anti-capitalist” but rather “anti-the Cato Institute’s vision of capitalism”. In hindsight, it should be noted that the article was written shortly before the dot-com bust. Also, page three of that very same newsletter features Alan Greenspan. Fast forward Greenspan’s errors played a key role the 2009-2010 mortgage collapse. In the past couple of days I have spoken to some committed and successful Capitalists about the Silicon Valley Bank crisis. They are all smart enough to realize that criticism of this system is important.
I would love to turn several of these into posters and put them up in my workplace, especially the one on asking for & giving advice. I need to buy this book. :)
Outstanding article spotlighting La Rochefoucauld's genius. Where are individuals like him nowadays? In our frenetic, bulging world, the main structures are more level, the longer "tent poles" are now leveled mainly. And the real leaders have gone underground from where they steal and manipulate as circumstances allow.
I just sent this to one of my colleagues (employee) who replaced a cunning employee, who I fired; apropos #29, the fired guy entangled himself in a such a web of deception as I have ever seen. My Lord, he was a bazaar, cunning, shrewd, calculating, too smart by half idiot. It became comical.
Don't you wish that people like that would channel all that mental energy into something more productive? He'll probably end up as your congressman in a few years ;-)
Excellent review! So much so that I just bought the book to read and keep on my shelf. I enjoyed your examples. Thanks for introducing me to (another) great book.
I think I passed the audition: I was simpatico with most of those aphorisms.
I think the key word in that maxim is "loudly". If you're being immoral in some way, and over coffee I mention that maybe you should stop stealing the neighbors newspaper every morning, that's one thing. On the "loud" side, if you are walking down 5th Avenue in Manhattan and I have a bullhorn and start following you while screaming that you are a thief, that's another level.
Easy read - https://www.cbsnews.com/news/everyone-thinks-they-are-above-average/
Research paper - https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31789535/
Psychology Today article - https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/getting-along-and-getting-ahead/202001/people-think-theyre-better-average-how-much-better
This one also talks about the "worse-than-average" effect - https://www.spring.org.uk/2023/01/above-average-effect.php
I was going to say this as well. I don't know what proportion it is but it seems like a significant proportion of people think that they're ugly, not smart enough, not good enough, etc. It's the old cliche or eye rolling statement where someone like Charliez Theron says you should see her when she wakes up or something.
I think part of that though is to pre-empt that very criticism; if I pre-emptively say those bad things about myself, it's like a shield against hearing it from others, or at least training for it. And if that doesn't happen or I hear the opposite, so much the better.
Having a bad day?
I think by leaving it open, it allows the person answering the question to insert their own definition. You and I may be far apart on our definitions of "success", but we can both gauge how successful we are. We're just using different rulers to measure.
Penny, it appears that to others, your questions may appear antagonistic, but I find your desire to uncover a more nuanced interpretation to be laudable. I've noticed that in many of Rob's posts, you posit interesting follow-up questions that I look forward to almost just as much as the posts themselves.