Atheists are hardly ever self-aware

Atheists are hardly ever self-aware. Atheists are often false intellectuals. They are given a hypothesis – an answer to some of life’s hardest questions, and they choose not to build the premises to support the argument. The atheist says, “That doesn’t exist,” while taking a simplistic definition of “that” and focusing more of their efforts on straw arguments aimed at religious people. Some of which has merit.

God takes many forms across the world. To many, god is a man in the sky that created the worlds. To more, it’s hope in an afterlife. To some, god is an ideal – it’s something to pursue, something we can become. God is a goal, and gives not only answers to “what next?” But also answers “how?” How do I live out an ideal life? To simply say these definitions of God do not exist means that there must be other answers to the questions “What next?” And “How?”

Atheists are false intellectuals because they take the words in the Bible as historical truth and argue that science will never determine the absolute truth in the reading. There is no experiment that can be conducted to prove the existence or non-existence of a god as a creator and judgmental being in the sky.

This is the route and thinking of scientists, but it does not pursue the meaning of God as an ideal. The words in the Bible can be disproven from a historical standpoint, but the meaning of God depicted in the Bible and other sources is the story of all of us.

Atheists argue against the former. They choose the historical God to argue against, without delving into the meaning of God. When God is defined as an ideal, the criteria that makes God ideal can be argued – and should be argued. So should the validity of presenting a single ideal way to live.

Christianity presents an ideal way to live. So do other religions. The characteristics vary, although slightly, from religion to religion and tradition to tradition, but they each present an ideal way to live.

Atheistic views are simplified and do not extend to the next level of analysis. What is the ideal? Does this vary from individual to individual, or group to group? Buddhism, Christianity, and other religions really say, “No, ideals (embodiment of God) do not vary from individual to individual, or group to group. There are universal ideals that anyone can follow, and be happier and freer if they choose to follow.”

Self-awareness is the level that we know ourselves. It is our ability to know we are in control of our own thoughts, emotions, and behaviors. We are in control of our happiness, or our lack of happiness. It takes a self-aware person to be happy when faced with difficult external situations.

People that believe in God, by any definition, are in pursuit of happiness by following the path of their God (their ideal). The God-fearing police their thoughts, emotions, and behaviors. If they believe in an afterlife and a moody man in the sky, they will police their thoughts and actions because of their fear. If they believe in God as an ideal, they will act in accordance of that ideal, knowing it is both a challenge and a reward. Reward can be the psychological reward of not being dependent on vice, or it can be the satisfaction of knowing that the day’s actions were in line with the ideal being strived for.

Atheists deny the need for this policing. They argue it is best to be “unfiltered,” when really they are promoting action without direction. By acting without direction, individuals necessarily aren’t working towards an ideal – or anything.

It is easy to argue that there are good things to work toward. For instance, if you work for a company, you work to maximize profits. If you are in a relationship, you may have a goal to be more intimate. When you define these things to work for, these can be seen as your ideal. The highest ideals ever imagined and documented have been named “God” and published in Bibles and religious texts.

There are many religious followers that do believe the stories in the texts are literal events that occurred. These people deny published science that define how the earth ages and wage wars over non-believers, instead of understanding the meaning of the passages and the God they worship. It is these extremist, non-intellectuals that atheists choose to fight their intellectual battle.

Even these religious nut-cases can exhibit self-awareness that exceeds the simple atheist. These guys still do the policing of their thoughts and behaviors. They do these as God-in-the-sky fearing people that don’t wish to defy their moody god. Still, this policing is more than the by-the-book atheist pursues.

Now, not all atheists are the false intellectuals I described. However, I defined the common arguments atheists put forward, and the problems with that. Many atheists still create a code of ethics and morality to follow. What they don’t do is equate that perfect morality with God. Perfect morality has been defined and refined and documented for thousands of years. The most complete, eloquent definition of perfect morality is called God, and it is documented in the Bible.

It really is a circular argument only the most intellectual of atheists get into. They say, “there is no god. We can be moral without god. This is how to behave morally. This moral living is ideal.” What they don’t add is that this is how god has been defined – over and over. Just more eloquently and beautifully than the atheist’s academic paper.

Much more common than this intellectual that gets into this circular debate is the teenager who heard a few buzzwords that science must be repeatable under double-blind experiment and understands that the events in the Bible are not historical. Therefore, God doesn’t exist. This is usually a rebellious phase – a way to rebel against the ideas of our parents and “old people.” Many people do not stop this rebellion and never stop to consider the moral ideals that have been presented and discussed in academia and in church.

Atheists are hardly self-aware for these two given reasons. They do not explore the possibilities of the different definitions of God, and they do not seek or provide answers for the “what next”s and the “how”s without connecting it to an ideal, which many of us call “God.” Because of the rebellion against the definition and existence in a god, there is no attempt made to police or monitor the thoughts and behavior. Because there is no attempt made to monitor thought and behavior, there is no awareness brought to that thought and behavior, at least, no consciously. Because there is no awareness brought to thought and behavior, atheists often lack self-awareness.

Cities are unnaturally stressful for the human body and mind

Cities, almost by definition, are unnaturally stressful for the human body and mind. Cities are centers for industry and entertainment. The largest quantity of jobs are in cities because that’s where the people are, and it takes more jobs to support people that work all those jobs.

This is how complexity works. A man with nothing has no need for complexity. When he acquires things, he needs somewhere to store things. So, he buys a box. When his boxes fill up with things, he buys a shelf to store his boxes. When his shelves are full, he gets a storage unit for more shelves, and then a warehouse. It takes time to go through shelves and storage units and warehouses to find what you want.

Stress occurs when you can’t get what you want. When you can’t find what you want, you become stressed. Other forms of stress happen when people don’t behave how you expect them to, which throws obstacles in the way of you getting what you want. Same with sitting in traffic – other cars interfere with what we want.

The man who has nothing, and lives far from everything, has no need for boxes, no need to sit in traffic, and no need for the complexity on which stress feeds. The man with nothing, and desires nothing, is free from stress. The poor beggar is not necessarily stress-free just because he doesn’t have things – which lead to stress. The beggar wants. He yearns for things, and therefore is stressed, because he doesn’t have what he wants. It’s the poor stoic that is free. Or, simply, the stoic.

Cities are the opposite of freeing. Cities introduce complexity to us and they introduce wanting. The beggar and the slick city playboy have this in common. They want. The beggar wants his next meal and the playboy wants his phone to be faster and the local transit to get him to his destination faster.

Living in the city, he can influence those things. Cities are the innovation hubs. Engineers are at work trying to make phones faster and trying to speed up transportation. While these engineering feats may allow us to solve problems faster, they still leave us wanting.

If we were told 20 years ago we would have cell phones with wireless internet access with pages that load in 5 seconds, we would be blown away. We wouldn’t fathom that 5 seconds would be slow and that we would need to make that faster. Yet, here we are, 20 years later. 15 years after dial-up internet and 10 years since wifi devices made their way into every home, and buffering is one of the ultimate evils.

A more complex phone doesn’t solve our problems any more than dial up internet did. We still want, just as much. We may want more, since we expect so much more. We expect delivery in 2 days instead of a month. We expect pages to load in 3 seconds instead of 20. Our technology has improved, but it hasn’t solved us. We still want.

Complexity doesn’t solve our problems. It masks our problem. Our problem is that we want things. Complexity sells us an image that’s worry free. Complexity – the boxes, the storage racks, the newest phone – they all promise us less worry without addressing the real problem.

The real problem is we want. Not wanting doesn’t sell. No one is incentivized to sell not wanting things.

It’s ironic that we are told the cure to complexity, and the cure to the stress caused by complexity, is to buy more things. It starts with a storage bin and ends with a city full of technology and industry that’s working hard to create more complexity.

The real cure to stress is to eliminate things by first eliminating the want of those things. This is a hard sell. It’s hard for two reasons. One, the more complexity we introduce in our lives, the more complexity seems to be the answer. I mean, if we have boxes full of things, we can’t just get rid of the boxes and have things laying all over the floor. That doesn’t make life easier.

We started this feedback loop of complexity and stress the day we wanted something and went out and got it. The only way out is to be content with what you have. That is easier when you have fewer things than when you have many, since, as we went over, more things require complexity to manage.

The second reason is that incentives are all out of whack. Apple sells us, through their advertisements, that we will be less stressed when we use their phones because they’re fast and easy to use. But we’re only using them to add to the number of things we own. Sure, we can get rid of the fax machine, camera, and book library. But we are still left with the problem of wanting. We want the phone to be faster. We want it to get us where we’re going faster than not only the physical map, but faster than the Waze app navigates. There is no “good enough” in advertising, and a lot of people get paid a lot of money to keep us thinking that way so we will continue to spend money.

If Apple told us we could reduce stress by throwing away our phones, a lot of people wouldn’t drive sports cars and have luxury yachts that all come with their own imperfections and maintenance costs. Imperfections and maintenance are complexities, and complexities are stress.

Escaping the city escapes the engineers building the latest digital shelf. Escaping the city escapes the dwellers that pay high rents that need engineering jobs to cover. Not that engineers are the bad guys. The human brain is at fault. The human brain wants more things. We see things as status symbols, which are sexy to the other sex. The marketing department sells us the image of success, and the engineers build it.

Cities are unnaturally stressful for the human body and mind. They add unnecessary complexity and disguise that complexity as the answer to complexity. We are all the culprits to blame. We choose to be the bad guy every time we desire something – every time we consume something. No thing will ever solve the ultimate problem.

Equality is not a virtue to be strived for

Politicians, leaders of corporations, journalists and school teachers – really anyone seeking approval of the masses, preaches equality as a way to gain favor with the masses. Those masses seek the wealth, status, and objects that the elites possess. The “elites” are always a small handful of people, and the large majority of society makes up the disadvantaged masses. At least, that’s how it’s marketed.

We are biologically different

People are not equal. And we never will be. DNA isn’t equal. In every organism where evolution is capable of taking place, mutations occur in DNA that allow for the evolution of a species. These mutations cause diversity in genes, and in the individual made up of those genes. Nearly all multi-celled organisms are going to be different, genetically.

So, people cannot be equal on a cellular level. The differences only begin there. We will never be equal in our status, in our happiness, in our financial wealth, and in our intelligence. Genetic differences will keep some people smarter than others. The smarter people will find ways to make more money OR do what it takes to achieve sex and status in their societies. The people with status will be rewarded with wealth in the form of finances, sex, and lack of need to worry about essentials. Not that the privileged don’t worry. Intelligent and beautiful people seek similarly intelligent and beautiful people of status to mate with, so that their children will have similar traits.

Education helps bring dumb people up, but it benefits the intelligent more than the disadvantaged, and keeps the gap alive. While education will bring the bottom up, it will widen the gap in comparison. The advantaged will benefit more from education because they will be able to make more use out of the information, draw more insights, and have fewer distractions such as bills that get in the way. Plus, the wealthy have better access to top schools because they can afford the resources to make a school better, and more location independence to make sure they settle in a good school district.

Inequality is not unique to humans. The animal kingdom is full of alpha leaders that are more genetically or resource-gifted than their beta peers. The alphas, like humans, are rewarded with the sex, reproductive options, and dibs on food and shelter. Socialists in the animal kingdom that try to take from the alpha are either destroyed or outlive the alpha to become their own kingpins at the top of their tribe. Never in the animal kingdom does this altruism continue once in power.

Promoting equality as a virtue will never succeed. Not only are there fundamental differences in people that rule out the option of ever obtaining genetic equality, but there are psychological incentives that keep this from ever working.

We have different motivations

Even if it were possible to be genetically equal, which it isn’t, this would not be a natural way to live. We should not want this because of our differences in sexual psychology. Men are attracted to women that are beautiful. We evolved to find traits attractive. If all women looked good – with the round butt, thin waist, and pretty face, then all women would be attractive to nearly all men. Men would be a bit more discriminatory with things like kindness and femininity, but most of what makes a woman attractive can be agreed on.

This does not work the other way around. If all men looked the same, much more pressure would lie on men’s social skill and status within their community. Women do not like a man for one or two qualities. What makes a man attractive to a woman is his status compared to other men. Good looks can allow a man to project confidence over other men, but it’s the actual status women long for. There will always only be a handful of attractive men within any community. These are the guys at the top of the social hierarchy.

I said sexual psychology, but this applies to all types of equality – not just gender equality. A lot of the other inequalities – racial, class, income, stem from this sexual psychology. Some groups of people have lower intelligence (measurable, and largely determined by genetics) than others. We’re talking group averages not individuals within groups. These inequalities are still sexual because people have to compete for sexual status with what they have. While this should be understood by society, it is instead used as a tool for political persuasion – these less intelligent are targets for manipulation instead of for promoting happiness and peace through harmony.

This makes sense. The less intelligent are more easily manipulated, and are therefore more likely to give into pressure from advertisements to spend money on products and services. They are also more likely to give into a political ideology which can be used by a manipulator to gain power. A good thing to promise these less intelligent people is “equality”. Equality can be used to instill jealousy with the more successful, and move blame to another group.

The way around this, to get people to think the same and have common attraction triggers, is to have a collective conscious that is capable of being filtered. A robotic conscious could allow for this. One downside of this, is this robotic conscious would eliminate the modern free will that humans have. Certain thoughts and behaviors would have to be censored, such as a man’s want to invent in order to appeal to women, or a woman’s want to go after a more attractive man.

Profit is what encourages innovation and labor in a society. Profit leads to a security of financial being, the accumulation of things and, in this, status. With status, man and woman (but mostly man) are treated with sexual favors.

Profit grows companies which grow societies, and profit gives the individual reason to work. By putting in a hard day’s work, I can choose how I spend my profits. After paying bills, I spend my money on dates and entertainment that make me pleased. If I don’t put in hard work, I risk being fired, which puts my love-life at risk in addition to any long-term financial security I may concern myself with.

So too, companies have incentives to be better – to look for new ways to solve problems and to reward their employees that do this. Companies that don’t will fail, and everyone involved will suffer the loss of finances and maybe love. The beauty in having a choice, in not being a part of a collective, is we can participate in the financial economy, or choose not to. Not everyone seeks to be top dog in a company, or even in the sexual market. Think monks.

These motivations aren’t going away

Trying to create societies where everyone shares and everyone gets along have been monstrous disasters. This was proven time and again, across the world, in the 20th century. The Soviet Union, home to 200 million casualties, is the glowing example. The Soviet Union was violent, backwards, and evil – all in the name of equality. Other examples were Maoist China, Che’s Cuba, and Venezuela.

Totalitarian regimes turn evil when people don’t conform, but more than that, totalitarian evil emerges when people do. When people are told they are the exact same, even if they don’t see any evidence contrary, which is impossible, they will live as servants to the status makers that decide what is reproductively attractive – even though that goes against nature.

If all else is equal, and it won’t be, women will choose to have sex with the most beautiful man. That man will be given sexual access at the expense of others. More likely, there will be the government officials, who, even if they have the same resources, will have advantage in job title which would become attractive.

Even in a perfect, on-the-Marx socialist world, there is never full equality. The man with all the same resources will be in envy of the more beautiful man. What you get is a chasing of different ways to be equal, until you get to the unequal DNA that I started this essay with. Then, it falls apart. There is no equality in nature. There never will be. I will never have the Lamborghini, as fun as that would probably be, because I won’t put in the time in a career that leads to Lamborghinis. And that’s fine. The pursuit of equality is worse than futile – it is dangerous.

Even if we could achieve equality in a handful of chosen areas (we all have the same car and house) by implementing a number of policies, we should still not pursue those policies. The policies would necessarily encroach on the free will of some individuals. There will always be people that disagree with policies. In a free society, people can choose to disagree. In a collective, they cannot. That is damaging to the spread of innovative ideas, and moral ideas.

Martin Luther King held an unpopular opinion that later manifested in more virtuous laws. We want that. He could not have accomplished that in an (even more than America towards blacks at the time) oppressive country. In addition to individual oppression, efforts to achieve equality through socialism killed more than 100 million people during the 20th century. Equality is a common goal for socialism that has killed many millions and destroyed the hopes and ambitions of many others.

The three most common forms of inequality spouted by politicians are: gender, racial, and economic. I covered economic and the other two fall into the same categories. There are racial differences in abilities. These do not extend to every member of every race, but they extend to the averages.

Gender has more pronounced differences, especially when it comes to reproductive health and sexual incentive. Men are not attracted to the woman who has financial stability the same way women find financial strength attractive in men. When women seek the same financial equality as men, they will, almost necessarily, put in more years in school and work to maintain their goal of equality. Even if they achieve it, they have lost out on the reason men were in the race to begin with – sex. Equality has become an incentive for women, not a result of the work. And the goal will never be achieved. Even if it is achieved financially, it won’t be achieved across every metric. I’m most interested in the happiness metric, and that won’t be brought about through financial equality.

In summary, equality is not a virtue because:

  • It is impossible to be equal genetically. These genetic differences manifest in social structures.
  • It pushes the values of some onto the collective, which includes individuals that do not value equality as high as individualism.

Equality, whether obtainable or not, should not be strived for, because:

  • Equality as a goal infringes on the wants of individuals by making certain values mandatory. It encroaches on individual human free will.
  • Political efforts for equality led to the death of millions during the 20th century.

Why people hate Trump

Trump is disliked because he’s an arrogant billionaire. Trump is hated because he represents the results of following the laws of nature. He succeeded in business, marriage, and politics by exhibiting the uninhibited, natural behaviors that lead to those rewards.

It makes sense that the modern culture would resent this. The culture is trying to re-engineer what we think is natural. This happens with sex – look at rise in transsexual behavior and legislation, anal sex, and sex dolls. All of these replace the intimacy that naturally comes with sex. Let alone the baby that naturally follows sex and imposes commitments upon the doers. People have degenerate forms of sex not to have children and a relationship based on trust, but instead as a means to be seen as the type of person with high enough status to have lots of sex.

In the workforce, the best workers end up with status through promotions, wealth, and recognition. However, the culture wants us to believe that there is only oppressors and oppressed and that wealth is taken from the poor to be spent by the wealthy. In reality – in nature, wealth is not zero-sum, and economic value is typically created by the wealthy and shared with the lower classes through both taxes and incentivized employment. People join the workplace not to add value to the economy so they can share in trade, but instead join the economy to gain status in the eyes of others.

Despite thorough historical, economic, biologic, theological, and psychological literature on what constitutes natural, there continues to be this push toward a world that is more concerned with subjective equality and feelings not being hurt rather than actual, natural results. 

Why would society push these lies? Mostly because it pays. Having more people in the workplace means companies will have larger profits because there are more people to produce and more money going around to consume. Having people insecure about sex means they will spend more money on products and services that claim to fill these shortcomings.

This is not sustainable. The more people ignore their own biology and the feelings that result from our evolutionary design, the more delusional we become with the natural world around us. We are lying to ourselves.

When we lie to others about what we want out of a relationship or what we want out of a career (status, instead of sharing with someone or the community), we lie to ourselves because our actions go against the natural feelings that occur in all of us.

By hiding our feelings from ourselves, we become less empathetic towards others. We assume our motives are virtuous, and that others’ motives are not virtuous. We become distrusting. When we are distrusting, we are less likely to have healthy relationships with others and less likely to be trusted by producers and consumers in trade. We are less likely to be rewarded in sexual and economic markets.

Trump participates in the natural markets. He built a business by being aggressive, hard working, and cunning – traits that are rewarded in the financial markets. He succeeded in the sexual market by developing the charisma, leadership, and powerful image that is attractive to chicks.

Modern society says that these traits aren’t what lead to success. We are taught that equality is the highest virtue. That giving to the less fortunate is the path to riches. That working long hours in a career is the way to status. That being nice, instead of powerful and charismatic, is the way to a woman’s heart and pants.

These virtues are not rewarded in the natural world. There is tons of evidence that supports this. The bad boy with the tattoos and motorcycle gets the girl instead of the “nice guy”. The sociopath that plays office politics gets promoted to CEO. This is only natural.

If we don’t get material reward, at least we have our dignity because we did the right thing as a culture, right? Wrong. We did the opposite of what is true, and we behaved that way because of dishonest reasons. We wanted the girl and the status, and those things never came. They never came because we never developed the skills necessary to attract these things.

In being dishonest, we destroy our own soul rather than build it up over the competitive womanizers.

Trump’s soul is healthy compared to people that say they hate him. He built the skills to succeed in business and in relationships. This goes against everything our culture tells us from the time we are little. We are unprepared to deal with the world, and we are unprepared to deal with someone who figured it out. We are told he is wrong, but we know deep down that he did the things that would lead to his definition of success, and we did the wrong things because we were lied to about what the right things were.

Do we yell at our parents, teachers, and entertainment heroes – all of our influences that made significant impact on our lives?

Unlikely. We are much more likely to take our frustration out on the man who did the right things. People hate that they’ve been lied to about what success looks like and what it takes to be successful. These people project this hate – the deception they’ve been through, onto others. Plus, our friends, entertainment heroes, parents, and teachers will share our frustration and we can be made together.

The United States of America is an empire akin to Rome

The United States of America is an empire akin to Rome. For more than 500 years, the Roman Empire was the most dominant nation in the world. It was superior to all other nations technologically, economically, and culturally. The United States has existed for fewer than 300 years, but has been a superior nation for most of that time. The USA has seen success in the same general areas as Rome – the economy, technology, and the culture.

Rome’s economy was open to free trade, although there was little industry compared to a more advanced economy. This led to a wide range of available jobs which allowed many participants into the economy. As technology improved and allowed previous jobs to be done more efficiently by fewer people, those left without jobs were able to find new ways to add value to the economy, which led to more technology and more jobs.

Similar, the United States is the economic and technological center of the world. While there are major financial hubs in Europe and Asia, the New York Stock Exchange is the largest international stock exchange, and the largest private companies in the world are all American. On top of that, America has most of the international startup ventures. Private American citizens and their companies invest in new technologies and attract the best engineers to work on their projects. The United States has long been a business-friendly nation, which encourages risk-taking entrepreneurs to try to add value in new ways. This encouragement comes in the form of capital availability, local resources that can help, and success stories to emulate.

Rome was, and the United States is, the strongest military in the world. This is largely due to the availability of resources in the two nations and how those resources combine with the technology to create superior weaponry. It also has to do with the individuals and the leaders of the nations. Romans and Americans have conquerors. That’s how the nations were founded, expanded, and how other advantages like resources have been secured. The United States has a disciplined military that incentivizes members to work hard for the country. Rome was even better at this – making it a great honor to serve in the military despite little financial reward.

The United States is, not so slowly, being taken over in terms of global market share and GDP. Other nations are catching up fast due to larger citizen bases now having access to global resources through the internet, improved education.

The Roman Empire collapsed because it was no longer seen as necessary. Surrounding countries had grown in resources and power. The infrastructure and values that had been a part of Rome for centuries were taken for granted by the citizens. Some of those values included military discipline, free trade, and virtues of not wanting. Discipline was not only in the military but in the society. As faith in these values and infrastructure faded, so did the resolve of the Romans. The resolve of Rome faded compared to that of the surrounding nations, and the empire collapsed in political and militant struggle.

The degradation of values and, with those values, freedoms that made Rome great is similar to what’s happening in the United States. The US won two world wars. It’s home to the financial and technological centers of the planet. We invented cars and airplanes. And today the United States lags in infrastructure and is growing far less rapidly in technology and the general economy compared to other nations.

In summary, the United States of America is an empire akin to Rome. The US maintained its position as the dominant force in the world for centuries. Both achieved this economically, technologically, and culturally. Both nations had a strong military force that kept civilians safe and inferior nations in fear. Like Rome, the citizens don’t understand the framework that the superior technology, culture, and economy depend on. We can learn from Rome in order to not sacrifice individual freedom to maintain a position of political dominance. As Rome demonstrated, if one is given up, the other follows.

Programmers could be significantly more effective if they engaged with Authentic Relating practices

Programmers could be significantly more effective if they engaged with Authentic Relating practices. Authentic Relating practices are games we can play with other people to better relate to them past just a surface level of relationship. These are games that help us to be empathetic and relate to what other people like and the hardships they are going through. These practices are beneficial the personal lives and careers of everyone – not just programmers. but mostly programmers.

Authentic Relating started in San Francisco in the 90s as a repeatable way to solve interpersonal conflicts and build new relationships. The practices follow principles that have been discussed by Stephen Covey and many others that have been helping to explain social skills for centuries, which all start with a confident self.

The practices are often games that can be played by multiple individuals to solve the goals above (new relationship or solving conflict) as well as increasing empathy, strengthening the community. One example of a game is The Noticing Game. Two people sit across from each other, making eye contact, and they take turns sharing an observation, thought, or feeling that emerges. The purpose of this game is to build comfort in expressing emotion, while also increasing the amount of topics that can be discussed with an individual. Over the course of several minutes the participants will need to move past the obvious physical characteristics to talk about.

Another example is The Hot Seat. One person in a group sits in “the hot seat” for 5-10 minutes and chooses the level of spice (mild, medium, hot) which determines how deep and intense the questions will get. The group asks questions rapid-fire, receiving quick responses from the nerd in the “hot seat.” The point of this is to to build the strength it takes to be comfortable asking questions that get people to open up more, and to be comfortable receiving probing questions.

Programmers are not known for their extroversion and their ability to inspire emotion in others – inspiration that would come from connecting with the emotions of others, which comes from being empathetic and able to relate. Being empathetic and able to relate comes from practicing empathy and the ability to relate.

By engaging with these Relating practices and being more empathetic to others, programmers can build trust in the teams they are working with. They can understand the challenges other team members face – whether related to the project at hand directly or if they are related to the project indirectly – such as a hardship at home that brings the energy, creativity, and patience of the team member down. These indirect challenges can manifest in a team environment and bring the morale and results of the whole team down.

If programmers are empathetic toward these internal and external challenges, they can work to resolve them as a team instead of continuing to insist on deadlines and updates – which at this point can be counterproductive.

In addition to team members, programmers would better understand their customers’ wants and problems if they engaged in Authentic Relating practices. Programmers are usually creating something to solve a problem for their potential customers. By relating to the individual, by understanding what the customer wants to see, experience, and the problem they want solved, a programmer can address these in his work.

In addition to work scenarios – whether with team members or customers, programmers can be more effective by using Authentic Relating practices to solve those indirect problems of their own. By being better able to interact with other humans and form strong relationships, programmers can have stronger relationships with family, friends, and lovers. This can help keep the mind sharp when it needs to be – because it will reduce worry that is happening outside of the immediate situation.

Programmers could be significantly more effective if they engaged with Authentic Relating practices. They would be more empathetic to the wants and needs of others, more trustworthy in teams if they better relate to team members, and happier because of the strengthened relationships with other humans and the ability to be honest and expressive.

Western civilization has been in decline for at least 150 years

Western civilization has been in decline for at least 150 years. The western world is built on individual freedom – the freedom for the individual to choose his own success or failure. The two systems that have most facilitated these individual freedoms have been capitalism and Christianity. These systems and, through that, the individual freedoms, have been eroded over time.

Capitalism is the ability to profit from the excess in labor. This depends on division of labor, so that the producer is motivated to over-produce so that he may trade for other stuff he wants. It is unselfish in that a producer is producing for more than himself. It is selfish in that the producer will almost necessarily ask for the largest amount of compensation for that excess. Capitalism is the ability to sell your neighbor what he needs for profit.

In a capitalist society, the individual can choose how much he wants to produce. A man can be a broke writer or a wealthy banker. This depends on the individual’s skillset, profession, and how the market values the output of that work.  He can live a life of stoic poverty, un-stoic poverty, or wealth and abundance of things. It depends on how much the individual produces.

Christianity tells us to treat others how we want to be treated – to be nice to people. There’s more to it – there are more specific virtues to follow and specific examples (Jesus) to follow, but for the most part Christianity is about treating others with respect while pursuing an individual’s mission. That mission can be about anything (that doesn’t negatively impact the individual or others).

Christianity is freeing because the mission of the individual is up to the individual. The individual’s mission isn’t dictated by a government but is chosen by the individual. In addition, Christianity recommends virtue, which is a way of being free from want and societal expectations – like status, simple pleasure, and prescripted employment paths.

Capitalism is declining for multiple reasons. One is the rise in the popularity of socialism in developed nations. Natural and unnatural influences (examples below) on the capitalist markets have created divisions in economic status. When these divisions appear unjust, the groups that feel slighted often blame the capitalistic system for the unjust outcomes.

Another reason for the decline is the inflationary impact of policy that has debased the global currencies. Monetary policy, handled in almost all cases by a central government, can be used to manipulate the price of goods in the market, including the currency. Monetary policy often serves to give an appearance of helping the lower classes while really only benefiting the banks and governing bodies. Whether inflationary or deflationary, monetary policy moves more value into the hands closest to the policy creation (banks, governments). This negative impact on lower classes pushes even more people towards socialism.

There’s also an impact of division of labor that extends beyond mere exchange of goods. Unlike external (to the free market) policy, advertising is a natural evolution of capitalism. That doesn’t mean it’s good. It’s good for profits. But it’s not good for people. Advertising targets people’s insecurities and makes them want more. When people want more, they need to work more which means they contribute more to the systems that create insecurities and inequalities. Markets are fueled by wants. Companies create wants. Wants keep the individual from experiencing the present.

Christianity on decline as religion becomes less popular. Religion is way down in the Western world. The increase in popularity of science has had a lot to do with this. STEM is where the jobs are, so STEM is where the education is. STEM has a public appearance of being opposed to Christianity, which is unfortunate and inefficient (another essay).

In addition to science in education, church scandals – especially in the Catholic Church, have put a negative light on Christianity. There have been tons of media coverage of the pedophilia that occurs in the Catholic Church. It’s not bad that there’s coverage, but this scandal does shape public perception through the negative press. There is very little positive in the church news.

Last, the glorification of vice is a major reason for the decline in Christianity and the decline in personal freedoms. With the decline in virtue, more people look to the outside world to bring satisfaction. Although external reward cannot bring eternal internal satisfaction, businesses are quick to exploit this search with the promise of fulfillment. New cars are promised to fill a void in status. Alcohol promises the reduced inhibition and the social grace that will come with faded nerves.

This is different from the rest of the world because the whole world doesn’t allow everyone to be free. The eastern world is full of socialist states or countries that enforce cultural rules. Others are tribal and each tribe has their own rules to follow. These strict rules suppress the meaning of freedom for individuals, let alone the positive ends that can be realized by allowing those freedoms.

These freedoms have been in decline for a long time. As Logan Allen, author of the unfinished theses, says, at least 150 years. This fall has been part political, part economical, and part the morality and values of the individuals.

Politically, the West is far less conservative than it was 150 years ago. Republicans in 2019 are going to battle over abortion being allowed until childbirth, rather than going to battle over women receiving a right to vote. Each loss for conservatives because it meant that there were more people who would be more likely to side with the collective instead of the individual.

Over the long run of history, conservatives have never one a single battle. After the women received the right to vote, gays have been allowed into churches to marry, and taxes have grown to cover – not only services that don’t benefit every individual but also, services that benefit the collective rather than the individual. At least, in theory it benefits the collective over the individual.

Socialist dogma since the beginning of time has praised the collective over the individual. But these are the dogmas the eastern world had to overcome through war and suffering. They had to learn hard lessons that cost millions of lives that it is not beneficial to value the collective over the individual.

Western civilization has been in decline for at least 150 years. Western civilization is based on the individual freedoms promised by capitalism and Christianity, which are both declining. Christianity is on the decline due to the war with the science community, scandal, and the glorification of vice. Capitalism is on the decline because of the socialization of the population due to wants instilled by free market results and politics.

Jackson Pollock was a mediocre drunk who was funded by the CIA

Jackson Pollock was a mediocre drunk who was funded by the CIA. I actually laughed when I saw this prompt, but it’s not untrue. This prompt didn’t fit the mold for the other economic and sociological thoughts that Logan Allen produced prior. Until I got into it.

During the Cold War, Stalin put an end to the individual identity. People weren’t allowed to follow their passions or skills in a socialist nation. They worked toward the collective good, and were assigned work in a Soviet-owned facility. That included the art scene. Stalin only allowed socialist realism to be created. These had to capture the struggle of the working man or the Soviet nation in times of war against the oppression of the west and elites. No other paintings were allowed.

Some great paintings were made in socialist realism. However, that’s not the spirit of art. Art is great for its ability come from anyone, and be about anything. Art is the manifestation of the wants and desires of the author. And the skill of the author. The soviets had great painters. Those that weren’t were either not allowed to paint or sent off to gulags if they did a poor job. But they didn’t allow genuine art to manifest out of the desires of the authors. They manufactured art. Much like music in 2018, but that’s for another essay.

Jackson Pollock was a famous drip painter at the time, and remains an iconic artist. His art has been in recent Blockbuster movies such as Big Lebowski and Ex-Machina. In Ex-Machina, Pollock was praised for his ability to paint with an unburdened mind – one completely free. In Lebowski, he is praised for his ability to make paintings just “come” into being. These are two things the Soviets didn’t want – freedom and a creative spirit – the entrepreneur.

These freedoms despised by the Soviets – entrepreneurial spirit and creativity, are natural feelings that humans feel. Some people are drawn towards entrepreneurship. Others to artistic craft. But in a socialist state these natural desires must be suppressed because one person cannot be “better” than others. Creating is a way to set someone apart from others through profit and the status that comes with creating something that is valued. This cannot happen in a socialist state where no one is allowed to be better than others.

The CIA had access to Pollock through the Museum of Modern Art (MOMA) in New York at the time. They funded the museums and galleries that would display artists that specialize in abstract expressionism. Pollock received his fame and money through these channels.

The CIA chose to fund Pollock (and other abstract expressionists) because he was a symbol for the freedom Americans had over the socialist Soviets. His art was a protest against everything the Soviets stood for – individual freedom, individual wants, and skill that was put to use for his wants – not the collective. The fact that people were willing to pay for Pollock paintings meant that value is in the eye of the consumer. Even if that value was inflated by CIA propaganda, that doesn’t take away from the fact that people spend millions on Pollock paintings.

The CIA also chose Pollock because his art was simple. Drip art didn’t require the specialized skill or the threat of being sent to death camps that was required of the Soviet realism. When someone looks at a Pollock, they think, I can do that. That’s what the CIA wanted.

Jackson Pollock was a mediocre drunk who was funded by the CIA. His style of art did not require any unique talent. The CIA funded him and boosted him to fame for this reason – they wanted to show the Soviets and Americans that the United States stands for the ability to choose our path. We don’t need to be great to try something. We can be creative. Others can’t.

Software engineering, writing, and producing media are the most valuable skills in the world

Software engineering, writing, and producing media are the most valuable skills in the world. These are the skills that will benefit society in this age of technology. These are the skills men must learn if they are going to be valued in the sexual market for their accomplishments in the economy.


Software engineering is important because it is how things are built these days. The days of innovating with brick and mortar and physical architecture are behind us. It isn’t nearly as shareable, scalable, or receptive to change as software.

While these present opportunities for software engineers, these also present challenges to software engineers. The engineers must be able to manage at scale while being receptive to change. The two of these can be contradictory. It takes hardware investment to scale hardware. There must be servers that maintain the speed and quality of software. Also, for any organization going through changes, this can be difficult if they are constantly needing to change systems or work precedes.

To add value to a business in 2018, you must have technical abilities with software. Everything is digital these days, and every industry is a software industry. Healthcare, banking, oil and gas – these are all niche industries and also software industries. Companies operating in these spaces have become data companies so that they can make sense of their company data and make better decisions to beat the current competitions. They have a further need to become data companies to shut out potential new competitors. Data giants such as Google and Microsoft are now threats to industries that have gotten by for decades or centuries because of their niche knowledge. Now the data giants are the ones with immense control and resources.

Writing is important because it is the articulation of ideas. Writing will always be important. Even in the days of Instagram and Snapchat and YouTube, writing remains a superior method of communication and articulation. Behind every great video is a great script. Behind every piece of technology is an idea.

Writing is how we articulate and share ideas. We’ve been sharing writing since stone engravings thousands of years before Christ. Then there were books and then the internet and now we share ideas in 280-character tweets. We will continue to document our ideas – whether technical ideas relating to software engineering or philosophical.

Producing media is important for both entertainment and for distilling ideas. As gatekeepers are removed from radio through podcasts, TV through YouTube, and newspapers through social media, everyone has the opportunity to be a media producer.

The removal of gatekeepers means that more producers will have access to more consumers. There is more opportunity for niche entertainment when there aren’t gatekeepers controlling quality or content. If there are 50 people on the planet willing to pay to hear you speak or sing, you’re not going to have a show on Comedy Central. But, if you could reach those people, you could make some money – maybe enough to eat.

Software engineering is among the most valuable skills in the world because businesses are going technical. If you want to add value to businesses, you must be technical. Writing, because articulation of thought and ideas is needed to make sense of new technology, which is the driving force of economic market value. Producing media is important because entertainment will never cease to exist in humans. Creating content will be more important as those software engineers do away with media gatekeepers. This change will be documented by the writers.

Accelerationism is the primary force driving change in the world today

Accelerationism is the primary force driving change in the world. Never before has change happened as fast as it is currently happening, and that will continue to be the case.

Accelerationism is the change in state. To accelerate is to change velocity. The world is changing its velocity constantly these days. This is made possible by the more advanced, digital technology that emerged in the last couple decades, and manifests in every aspect of our lives.

New technology allows accelerationism. Every new technology ever invented has made other, new technology available – both directly and indirectly. New technology directly enables new technology because tools can be added to existing tools and improved upon. For example, the assembly line was created and then robotics were attached to assembly lines.

More recently, Salesforce created its development platform and now there are thousands of applications on the Salesforce network, some for purchase, others free. These examples show how new technologies do not improve the rate of change in a linear fashion. Where one robotic arm was attached at a time after trial and error, hundreds of apps can be developed and deployed simultaneously.

Platform technology such as Salesforce significantly enable new technology. An assembly line is limited to anyone who has access to the manufacturing floor of the shop in question. Salesforce is available to anyone with an internet connection. In America, almost zero people don’t have technical access available to Salesforce in 2018 (doesn’t mean it’s used by everyone with internet).

It’s the invention of these platform technologies – where other technologies and improvements can be made on top of one technology, that drives the constant change. This started with the invention of the internet. When the internet was turned on, people could shortly after contact multiple people at a time and solve problems from anywhere in the world through email and discussion forums. That was the beginning of what led to Salesforce applications.

These platforms and new technologies also indirectly promote new technology. By eliminating old jobs and removing the need for human labor – which is the goal of technology, new hordes of people are left in need of employment. In an advanced world, lots of that employment is in technology fields. So, the scores of people who would have found employment laboring in a profession before are now picking up technical educations and competing against or creating new technologies (not commenting on the sustainability of this, but it is the current state). These products and services are where the demand is for jobs. Plus, there’s incentives for the creative entrepreneurs through venture capital and public offerings, that offer major cash payouts to companies that succeed.

Accelerationism is the primary force driving change in the world today. This is because:

  • Digital platforms allow people to constantly build and deploy new technology.
  • Jobs are being eliminated by computers doing human work. This allows computers to aid in humans learning. This also allows more humans to be working on other ventures.