The Election Results 2018

I don’t send out musings via email anymore, just file them in my internet storage site. They get sufficient dispersal via that means. I really only write them for myself, to more carefully reach conclusions on matters of life that interest me. There are over 500 musings since 2004. Short ones of course. Smile. But I decided the musing below is time sensitive enough and germane to most Americans that I would send it out. Delete at your own discretion. 

The Election Results

It is inane for me to get too excited about this election. It is sort of like Christmas might be for many kids in the ghetto; they may get a couple of trifling gifts, but the realities of their life will not change. In affluent neighborhoods there will be no trifling gifts but expensive materialistic acquisitions as an endless continuum, a sort of the same ole, same old—enough is never enough. 

This election only influences the rate at which our human species implodes on itself with various sorts of chaos from varied sorts of causes, all of which are going to result in massive human deaths and misery—while all of the pertinent issues are hardly any serious focus in this election. As if we should really care whether abortion is legal or not. It only takes a pill now to terminate an abortion. We couldn’t stop alcohol use during prohibition, we couldn’t stop marijuana by making it illegal, but we can stop abortions by making it illegal. Sure, only if we are exceptionally naive. The humans species has advanced enough to be clever enough to have avoided the impending disasters, but the long existing human traits of violence—intolerance to diversity—blind patriotism to family, friends, religion, race, culture, economic status, nationality—addictions and compulsive behaviors involving wealth, sex, power, eating, winning contests, endless ‘things’, self serving values, and so on have now gained dominance over the better angels of our nature—including empathy with the less fortunate, sharing wealth, ensuring that all humans have good health care, living wage jobs, good schools, good teachers, good job opportunities, safe environments in which to live, adequate leisure time, good pensions, justice for all, and so on. 

Human history has for thousands of years headed in a positive direction in terms of the better angels of human nature having made progress against our negative evolutionary time dated genetic traits. We have invented endless machines which can make life easier for us, but instead of all these inventions making life easier with more justice, more leisure time, and reasonable prosperity for all—the ability of the wealthy via the power of money, has given the few who are wealthy the power to accumulate more and more of the wealth of our society, no matter the form of government, or culture, or religious bent, or racial nature—and are doing so now at an exponential rate in the United States and at different rates globally. 

All of this relatively rapid shift in the nature of human societies across the globe has reached the point of no return. Humans are genetically smart enough to understand the consequences of climate change, of human overpopulation, that violence begets violence, that addictions and compulsive behaviors cannot bring contentment, that for peace and prosperity to be long term, the maximum number of humans must have their basic needs met, that charitableness is not a choice but a necessity, that diversity is good—in fact the basis for evolutionary progress, that the Golden Rule is the basis of human ethics—-not competing self-serving man made religions (with competing rituals/human scriptures); that science—not feelings—are the basis of facts. Today, globally, feelings have replaced facts as the basis for truth.  Varied human groups are now hell bent on teaching other diverse groups a lesson they will not forget. Each group senses other groups of various ilk, are the reason for their own economic misery or fears, and expelling or repressing these groups in their country is deemed a necessity for their own peculiar self serving group to get a bigger piece of the pie. Of course natural resources are limited, so even today there is no way all humans could live the lifestyle the affluent now live. 

On top of all this, conventional war between uniformed soldiers on a battlefield is a thing of the past. No one has more weapons of mass destruction, or drones, or smart missiles, or sophisticated weapons than the United States, or has invaded more other counties, than the United States in the past 50 years—-and what wars/economic-military actions have we won?  Maybe Granada and the Balkans. Governments across the globe have  sophisticated weapons, and the common people have terrorism. Terrorism is the poor and disaffected groups’ weapon of toppling their society. The police and armies can’t be everywhere and street riots are often now endless roving bands of protestors coordinated by cell phone directives from internet space. Total havoc can now be achieved both by powerful government weapons of mass destruction, and by all sorts of  terrorism by angry cabals, large and small. American society is rapidly approaching this stage.

In short, nothing about this election is going to change any of the above. Trump is not the source. He is the chosen symptom, not the cause. His anger and feelings toward others is the only common link between him and his supporters. We actually went from a President who never found a human group for whom he didn’t try to help make their lives better, to a President who could care less about anyone or anything except his own personal wealth and power. He is the perfect caricature of 24 hr discontentment every day of the year. The same kind of thugs, with minor variations, are gaining control of governments across the globe, not just the ones where such thuggish governments have existed for decades—like in most countries of South America, Africa, the Middle East, and Eastern Europe. America is rapidly becoming politically/religiously some sort of Baghdad West. 

Given all the above I am not very stirred up by this election. This election will change none of the above. It is too late. The anger of our species towards each other is palpable across the globe. All solutions to the real problems are global and there is zero chance of global cooperation in this current  atmosphere. While this is sad in the short run, evolutionary progress is not via human time, but evolutionary time. There is no reason to think that God’s laws which were created to run the evolutionary process will not bring about an evolutionary correction, which in evolutionary time, will result in a life on our planet which we cannot possibly envision today. Humans may well survive and have lost the traits which are dooming us here in the short run. Or there may be a new species. We need remember this: hell, no one 200 years ago could possibly have predicted the nature of human life on this planet today. If we could bring Lincoln back to see things as they are today he would be absolutely astonished. 

So all is well in the long run, albeit as we all know, death levels all of us. Even Trump and his endless discontentment will be short term. Peace and the absence of stress is the reward of death. All any of us got was a chance, by chance, to participate in the evolutionary process for a minuscule period of time. That is good enough for me in the absence of choice, and I have been relatively lucky, so gratitude dominates my terminational years. Fair is fair.  We will all be dead. The evolutionary process and God’s laws (however you choose to define God) will continue the amazing evolutionary progress, started billions of years ago, without us. It will continue without us too. 

I have eagerly let the torch pass to the next generation. I wish them well, as our forefathers wished my generation well. Living high in the sky in my condo, a sort of log cabin lodge in the sky, with many floor to ceiling windows—as the sun moves, I move with it to stay comfortable and peaceful on the sunny side of life. Father Time peers in more often now, but kindly enough, never tipping his hand as to what he has in store for me when the curtain falls on the final stage of my life. I prefer to fade away in some sort of fog than fall into a medical pit as the curtain slowly falls, or endure any slow purposeless clinging to life, which creates care expenses. I still haven’t figured out why I would want hundreds of thousands of dollars wasted to keep me alive several more months/years instead of such huge financial resources being spent on those who still have a life ahead of them. As with most things we value in life, enough is enough at some point in life, albeit the point of enough will vary as part of human diversity.  

Thus, per all of the above, this election does not change the strong negative feelings which exist between large segments of our population——whites, blacks, hispanics, immigrants, gays, capitalists, socialists, the affluent, the poor, the rural, the urban, the suburban, varied religious groups, various cultures. None of the self serving prejudices are going to be changed a bit. The losers will just step up their level of assault on perceived enemies, followed tit for tat by the winners. We have become---politically, and religiously, just like the Middle Eastern nations—revenge, intense negative feelings, and intolerance of diversity, will just go up notch by notch—while climate change and human overpopulation, and lopsided distribution of wealth will reap their toll on humans across the globe. Implosion will come suddenly and completely, while any recovery, on evolutionary time, will likely be lengthy, and again, on evolutionary time. Progress however, based on billions of years of history, will be intact—eventually and without our self serving emotional illusions. 

Given the ‘Trumped Up’ levels of hostility, intolerance, blame, prejudice and hate now engulfing our society (rural, urban, and suburban)—it seems rather genius-like of me to have chosen hermit-hood to escape such a toxic social/political/ religious environment. Both Sheebiejiebee the cat and myself  are independent and need plenty of space. Maybe twice a day Sheefiejiebee will decide she needs to be petted but it has to be on one particular place——my den desk—period. It would be hard for me to remember when I have had any conflict, argument, or clash with anyone about anything since retirement. The productive years were the appropriate years for all the competing, manipulating, and chasing after meritorious goals. Everyone is friendly now and why not—I am not between them and any goal they might be trying to achieve. I voted already, and was disappointed how few young people were in line. They are making a big mistake, it is their world to run now, and letting the older people continue outdated values, prejudices, injustices, and beliefs is a mistake.  

I have no idea how this election will turn out. I am very isolated now from virtually all the varied groups being targeted by often baseless feelings (ethnic groups, gays, those whose economic buying power has been going down for decades under both Republican and Democratic regimes, liberal organizations, conservative organizations, the urban poor, the rural poor, the suburban poor, and just about any minority group who suffers the most when the nations wealth gravitates ever more rapidly to the few at the top. It puzzles me how anyone can seriously argue that a government is not obligated to prevent 3 citizens from owning more of our nations wealth than the bottom 50% of our citizens. Or 43% of our adult citizens are allowed to not have a high enough income to even qualify to pay federal income taxes. I guess it depends on whose feelings (rational or not) are motivated enough to vote in greater numbers, or those who have little or no empathy with the plight of the groups unable to protect themselves, are enough energized by their hostile feelings toward diversity to vote in greater numbers. It really makes little difference. When the election is over all these emotional feelings on both sides will remain. Our progress and survival as a nation depends on whether the three largest groups, none of them with an absolute majority, can find a way to treat each other via the Golden Rule—- and each group help each other group solve the varied and distinct problems faced by each group. Otherwise a very violent civil war will take place. 40% of the guns manufactured across the globe are now in the hands of American citizens. This will not be a civil war by soldiers in uniform on battle fields. No, this civil war will be more like the war in Rwanda, where citizens blindly hacked each other to death with machetes, except we will use guns, bombs, sniper fire, computer hacking, and roving riots coordinated by smart phones so that the police and national guard cannot be everywhere. In fact, if this scenario ever happens here, most of the police and health care workers will be home trying to protect their own families.

Except for my FANAFI Fund (Find A Need And Fill It) I stay as far from the fray as possible. I am starting a musing on “how did our country get to this state the last 50 or so years with both Republican and Democratic Administrations?” We are now a nation of the protected few who protect themselves via the vast amount of money they have to ensure such protection—via control over all three branches of government, and the unprotected many who need governance that takes responsibility for all its communities and meets the needs of all its citizens.  “How did the world’s greatest democracy and economy become a land of crumbling roads, galloping income inequality, bitter polarization and dysfunctional government?” This  is not fatal to human evolutionary history, but it is sad for those of us living in the present.

The storage site URL for this upcoming musing (will take a bit of time to compose) is:  rsjlifemusings.blogspot.com 

Science of Personality Part 3

Science of Personality  Part 3

The motivations discussed to date relate to how our personality seeks to achieve certain external outcomes. How others perceive us is to varying degrees important to us. On the other hand we also have internal values that affect the nature of our personalities. We call these intrapsychic motives. 

However, the current consensus by psychiatrists is that we attempt to behave consistently because other people expect us to. Predictability is something others feel more comfortable with regarding other people. People are motivated to be accepted by other people and to the extent they can do this they have higher self esteem. Some ghetto kids will dress in threatening ways because they want those who like to bully or terrorize others will be less likely to attempt this with them. To the extent they achieve a feeling of higher personal safety they then have a greater self esteem. I learned in teaching these perceived ‘thug dressed’ students that it is often necessary to create a personal clash with them in front of the class, then tell them to see me in my office about the matter. This, of course is risky to confront their ego in this manner, but once they show up to the office ready to punish me for their perception of my ‘disrespecting’ them, I pretend I don’t remember the incident and instantly start asking them friendly and empathetic questions about their background, at which point they invariably become talkative and friendly. Despite their personal appearance they usually have a strong need for friends in ‘high places’. Often they become a sort of front line of defense if any other students become confrontational in the classroom, and will verbally take the upset student down and thus deflate the tension. 

It is well understood that our emotions affect our personality traits. This is rampant globally in today’s political/religious/cultural/ethnic/economic environment. Beliefs are based on evidence and emotions. Facts and evidence are now playing less and less importance roles compared to emotions in deciding reality for more and more people. Evangelicals are not supporting Donald Trump because he sounds and acts like Jesus Christ. They support him because he assures them he will help certain religious beliefs they hold become the law of the land. Poor rural citizens support Trump because he is as angry at  establishment politicians as they are. Immigrants, often a major source of slave labor for many decades, are suddenly the reason perceived by other citizens as the reason they are falling further behind economically decade after decade. Emotions blind them to the reality that if these immigrants are gone, they then become the sole source of slave labor and will need to work two jobs to achieve a livable income. Elimination of prostitution stems partly from a belief that prostitutes are victims and generating moral decay in our society. However, the ones who are angriest at prostitution crack downs are the prostitutes themselves, whose source of income shrinks. Sexual diversity is one of the most mysterious human behaviors, not readily reasoned out by facts. People seldom use their own sexual turn-ons, as the basis for social discussions, as it is impossible to rationally explain a foot fetish, a preference for oral sex, sexual dominance, exhibitionism, etc. Sexual practices involve feelings, not facts, and yet the intensity of sexual practices can vary from high to a disinterest in sex, or at least certain sexual practices. Other areas of human behavior are based a lot more on logic and facts. These are the kind of behaviors discussed in this series of personality musings. 

Emotional differences between humans can be divided into two general categories—positive affectivity and negative affectivity—that is, how often a person experiences positive and negative emotions. We need be careful here since these two general emotions are controlled by separate areas of the brain. This is important to remember since being high in one area does not necessarily mean we are low in the other area. Most of the time we are not highly emotional so there is plenty of time here for one to actually be high in both negative and positive affectivity. 

People who are high in negative affectivity not only experience negative feelings more often but their emotions here are stronger. Trump once stated that he could kill someone in public and most of his base would defend him. He is probably right. That hardly makes a portion of his base evil or sinful, but it does demonstrate how strongly emotions are driving their support for him. The recent Congressional hearing on nominating Cavenough to the Supreme Court is a clear example of emotions driving the debate, not facts or evidence or logic. Normally, conservative Republicans are fire and brimstone pulpit denouncers of improper sexual behavior, and Liberal democrats are more tolerant of sexual misconduct—-but here the roles were reversed based on the emotional drives to get a conservative on the Court or stop a conservative from getting on the court. Feelings can be the major force for actions. What intelligent, rational national politician would send pictures of their genitals over the internet to strangers unless their emotional state at the time drove these actions?  If one’s income has been losing buying power decade after decade no matter which party was in office, why is it puzzling that antiestablishment feelings will drive their politics to the point where they would choose blowing up the whole system just out of anger. Our feelings matter. Terrorists are  often not crazy, just so bereft of any hope for their future that they prefer to end their life— and just for spite, take as many others out with them as they can, thereby making all of society feel less secure, just like they have felt for so long. 

People high in negative affectivity dislike their jobs, their friends, and even their marriages, and their lives overall. Furthermore, this is a fairly stable trait. Notice that when evaluating personality traits we are not using terms like evil, sinful, bad, good, God fearing, acts of a Devil, religious affiliation, cultural affiliation, ethnicity, conservative or liberal, etc. It is all about genetics, the environment, neurotransmitters, diversity, and chance. There is no rational reason to literally hate or blame products of an urban, rural, or suburban ghetto for their damaged personalities and mental health, since clearly, but for the wheel of fortune, these kind of personalities and mental/physical health situations could be us as well as them. 

People who have high positive affectivity are more cheerful, upbeat, and optimistic than those high in negative affectivity. People who are happiest are so based on three factors: Higher positive affectivity, lower negative affectivity, and they are more contented with their lives. However, happiness and contentedness are two separate mindsets. Happiness is often temporary—your team won the game, you got a promotion, you just bought a new car, etc. Contentment is more lasting and often signals you have learned when enough is enough of varied desired goals. 

Many of the personality traits already discussed contribute to the ultimate degree of contentedness in our lives. Also high positive affectivity ensures better health for more people. For example contented people show more resistance to infectious diseases, but not conditions like cancer. Contentedness is probably the universal goal of all individual humans everywhere, and our varied personal traits play a major role in just how much contentment we achieve. That is not to say the playing field is level for everyone. It obviously is not. The goal of any human society is to set up a governance in which the maximum number of citizens can achieve the maximum degree of contentedness. So far, no form of government is achieving this today. But the evolutionary process is moving forward, on evolutionary time. The reality is that time does not fly by, Time stays, We go. None of us, personally, are the focus of evolution. Rather the genius of the process is not any of us personally, but the continuing progress achieved over billions of years by this process. We can pray to all the various Gods and religions we, as humans, have created, but there is no evidence that any believers of any particular religious faith, are exempted from any of the pitfalls which accompany human existence at any particular time in human history. Religious beliefs may give us the strength to endure life, and that is good as an isolated benefit, but religious beliefs also create intolerance and often ensure conflicts which become  seeped in extreme cruelty to perceived heathens. There is no fury which exceeds those who believe their punishment of heathens is the will of God. This is one of the ironies of life, beliefs that should supposedly make human life more peaceful, just, and prosperous—instead often lead to just the opposite.  Part four to follow. Varied personalities are interesting to me.

Science of Personality—Part 2

Science of Personality—Part 2

Now that we have identified the 6 basic personality traits and some of their consequences, we need take a look at just how these traits are measured for a particular individual. All of these basic traits form a Bell shaped curve for the entire human species. Thus, most of us are located somewhere on this curve.  How an individual fits in is often pegged by asking them a series of questions about how they would feel or respond to varying situations. We could take any trait but let’s take agreeableness. Even if you score high on the agreeableness scale it doesn’t mean you are always agreeable in every situation. Under certain situations a person may not be agreeable at all. In addition, some people who are agreeable by nature may not have the same intensity of agreeableness as others have in that same situation. Thus, we need remember a personality trait often is situation related and intensity sensitive. 

From a certain perspective we must remember that personality is dependent on brain function to express itself. So we are essentially, at the brain cellular level, talking about neurotransmitters, synapse function, and established brain pathways. Some of these pathways are determined by our genes and other pathways are learned pathways, much as when we learn to ride a bicycle. Our genes set limits on how well we can learn to ride a bike. So when we say one of these six personality traits are 40% genetic, we are essentially setting limits on their expression. 

Motivation is involved in our personalities in three ways. First, how motivated are we to interact with other people? Second, how motivated are we to be successful at a particular path? Third, how motivated are we to influence other people or have power over them? Let’s start with the first one, called affiliation motivation. This motivation is related to extraversion in the sense that extraverted people tend to have high affiliation motivation. However, some people can have high affiliation  motivation but are not highly extraverted because they lack confidence, fear rejection, or simply do not have the skills to be highly social. It is very distressing to be shy of social contact if you have high affiliation motivation. People with low affiliation motivation are not indifferent to how other people view them, but they are less concerned about it because they have less desire to affiliate with others. For those people with high affiliation, they are more likely to be insecure and dependent.  They may be too clingy and dependent. These people prefer to work with others rather than work alone. Couples who have similar affiliation motivation tend to be happier as couples who differ in this respect. 

Achievement motivation is an interesting personality component. It is 40% genetic, so right away there limits are considerable from a genetic standpoint. People high in achievement motivation tend to be more successful in life if the achievement is based mostly on effort. They work harder and longer at a task, but tend to like a job in which their effort can carry them far. But we need to be careful here. The goal in life is to be contented. By no means are those most successful with career goals necessarily the most contented. Those who are satisfied with little are often more content than those with more wealth, power, popularity, etc. and yet always want more. And too much achievement motivation, called an A type personality, can be harmful to  one’s health and make them more susceptible to heart attacks, high blood pressure, neuroticism, and so on. 

Another type of motivation is power motivation——the desire to have control over others. Like many other aspects of personality there are pluses and minuses to being low or high here. People higher in power motivation belong to more groups and organizations, where they have more opportunities to have control over others. They tend to end up in careers where they can be in control of things—like manager, CEO’s, school principals, teachers, members of the clergy, etc. However, just wanting to have control over others does not mean a particular person will be successful at that. Other aspects of their personality may not enable them to be very successful. That sometimes leaves their children as the primary avenue for them to exert their control. This can then impact on the personalities of their children, but since each of their children have their own unique personality, this will not impact necessarily in the same way. 

Leaders in high power motivation are not necessarily more effective. Fewer ideas get discussed and  members of a group feel less free to operate on their own even if their particular ideas are superior to the ideas of the power hungry leader. Thus, leaders infected with high power motivation are only more successful if their ideas are the best most of the time. There is no difference in power motivation between sexes. People who are higher in power motivation tend to have friends who are lower in power motivation, people higher in power motivation tend to seek spouses who are lower, and employers with high power motivation seek employees with lower power motivation. Thus, a particular employee applying for a particular job would do well to figure this factor before accepting a job. If a person has a high need to run their ‘own show’ they better be careful working under a boss who is determined to ‘run the whole show’ 

This perhaps is a good time to be realistic about how much of a child’s personality resembles that of their parents. While it may be a good thing to view our children as strong replicates of ourselves, this is hardly true at all. Half the genes come from one parent and half from the others, but then there is the issue of which genes are dominant when. Then add that heredity only plays a role ranging from 30% to 60% in most of the traits we are discussing here. So this means roughly 50% percent of a child’s personality is even based on heredity. This, again roughly, reduces the impact of one parent down to 25%. It is hardly a surprise then that a given parent will find others in their life who are a better match for them than any of their grown children. Of course it is a good thing that parents feel a strong responsibility, for whatever reason, to properly raise their children. Those who can’t do this leave kids in their formative years in a difficult situation, one in which proper support and guidance will have to come outside the family, and this can often be a disaster. The other side of the coin here is that it can be very upsetting to realize a child of your own is hardly a replicate of your own personality. Good parents realize that parenting may require different approaches depending on the offspring in question. Rigidity here can be disastrous. Many parents face some emotionally serious situations when they realize an offspring is hardly a carbon copy of their own personality. 

In part 3 we will continue to investigate additional factors which determine personality. I don’t know why I say we since at least 80% of everything here is from Professor Mark Leary. To a very limited extent I have taken what I have learned from him and applied my own life observations, which tend to be limitless, as part of my own hobby is to ponder all aspects of life in writing. I have stopped high-lighting portions of this musing because in these personality musings, it’s all high-lighting. 

The Science of Diverse Personalities---Part One

The Science of Diverse Personalities

Most everything in this musing is based on writings by Mark Leary, Professor at Duke University. 

To understand why we all have diverse personalities, and what generated the diversity, we need  include the impact from genetics and the person’s environment. There are 6 different personality traits—extraversion, emotional stability, agreeableness, conscientiousness, openness, and honesty/humility. But to form these traits we have to consider certain associations such as affiliation motivation, achievement motivation, power motivation, need to maintain internal psychological consistency between beliefs, attitudes, behavior, and other people’s view of ourselves. Also involved are self esteem and authenticity. We will need to throw in happiness, social anxiety, embarrassability, anger, hostility, guilt, shame, affect intensity, moral character, values, moral foundations, virtues, character strengths, curiosity, cognitive closure, intellectual humility, cognition needs, beliefs about human nature, beliefs about the world, locus of control, authoritarianism, identity, self-efficacy, self compassion, attachment style, tactics of social influence, Machiavellianism, dispositional empathy, consistency, stability, sex differences, classical conditioning, operant conditioning, observational learning, experiential learning, tight versus loose cultures, individualism versus collectivism, cultural values, nonconscious processes, nonconscious content, motives, habits, self control by inhibition versus initiation, goals, anti social disorders, borderline personality disorders, histrionic personality disorders, narcissistic personality disorders, avoidance, paranoia, dependent personality disorder, obsessive-compulsive personality disorder, schizoid personality disorder, schizotypal personality disorder, and well-adjusted personalities.

To the extent we can understand all the above pieces of personality, and then properly relate all of them to each other regarding a particular personality trait, then we will, to varying degrees, have an understanding of just how complex understanding personalities really is. An immediate problem is that peculiarities will pop up pertaining to many of the above, which just adds to the complexity. For example, one important personality trait is the degree of extraversion a person is deemed to have. Trying to place myself here seemed impossible. If I don’t know the group well I find myself tending to be strongly introverted and shy. If I am quite familiar with the members of any group I tend to be strongly extraverted. I live currently in a high rise condo building. Most would probably classify me as extraverted since I am very friendly and very aloof all wrapped in one. The friendliness is inane chit chatting with no attempt on my part to remotely know anything of substance about their lives. Plus, given a choice I am almost always likely to choose doing things on my own. Not really that much of a group person. But we all need remember that diversity, a key aspect of the evolutionary process, cannot be given attributes of good, bad, sinful or ethical. How much of any of the many aspects of personality listed in the first paragraph are genetic vs environmental will vary. Our formative years, including parenting, play a big role in how many aspects of our personality develop. We also need keep in mind that much of the expression of our personalities is situational. We often behave differently in different situations. 

For the most part our personalities produce consequences for ourself and others with whom we come in contact, but any impact on the evolutionary process is minuscule, if at all. Nothing about the evolutionary process is centered around the lives of any individuals of any species. It is the human species which creates images of God and write scriptures, invent religious rituals, etc. It is true that our human activities have driven many species to extinction, put a strain on our natural resources,  overpopulated the globe and, for the first time in evolutionary history, activities of one species will now be the genesis of a sizable climate change. So in a larger sense, any increased knowledge about our own personalities or personalities in general can only impact on the degree of contentment we can reach personally, given our own peculiar personality.  And as is always, the playing field here is not level. We don’t all start off life with an equal chance of achieving a high level of contentment. The best we can do is to seek a kind of governance over our society which best succeeds in maximizing the contentment for the maximum number of its citizens. 

Let’s start with the 6 basic personality traits and go from there. The first one, extraversion, influences more of the other aspects of personality than any other trait. Psychologists prefer to use the one term, extraversion and talk about high and low degrees of this trait rather than use the two terms extraversion and introversion. In terms of happiness, extraverts tend to be more happy about their lives. People high in extraversion enjoy being around other people, enjoy social gatherings, and tend to seek out others with whom to do things. They also tend to be more assertive and dominant and tend to stay busier than those low in this trait. 

Another of the basic traits is neuroticism, a measure of emotional stability. People who are high in neuroticism experience more negative emotions and these emotions tend to be stronger and last longer. They are more likely to experience anxiety, sadness, guilt, and regret. They are more afraid of things that don’t bother others as much. They try to avoid situations which look risky or threatening. They get bent out of shape more easily to many aspects of life, and are less satisfied with their lives. With negative feelings in abundance they need emotional support from others and tend to be somewhat needy and dependent. If someone is highly neurotic there is likely to be more conflict and less satisfaction in any marriage. And naturally this affects the spouse who then finds less satisfaction in the marriage. It is a sad situation in that a person high in neuroticism needs emotional support and yet the high neuroticism drives others away. High neuroticism results in a greater number of health problems, higher mortality rate (particularly heart disease and immune system damage). Some doctors feel that neuroticism is a major public health problem. High neuroticism has a strong genetic component. Parenting can also be an influence as children learn to sense high emotionality as normal. Plus, children can learn to perceive the world as a dangerous and unhappy place.  We need remember that we are talking about degrees of neuroticism or whatever the trait in question. There is no all or none law operating here.  At this point we are spending time with defining important personality traits and mentioning some possible consequences of having the trait in question to a strong degree. As we proceed other factors will be discussed which help determine the strength or formation of these basic traits. And remember, while genetics plays a role, the genetics involved is highly variable from person to person. Finally, we all have limited and variable ability to put all the pieces together into any perfectly completed puzzle. 

The third major human behavioral trait is Agreeableness—-the degree to which we have positive feelings towards others. At the low end of the spectrum are people who are not very nice. They tend to be antagonistic, hostile, inconsiderate, critical, callous.  Those at the high end of the scale are more likely to be pleasant, kind, sympathetic, and helpful. At the high end of agreeableness these persons tend to believe most people are honest and decent.  Those at the low end are less trusting. When conflicts occur, agreeable people try to reach compromise and reach results which are acceptable to everyone. They prefer negotiation rather than using power or force to get other people do what they want.  Agreeable people are more often helpful to others, whether family, friends, or strangers. They are more likely to donate their money and/or time when other people are in need. Those low in disagreement tend to be more prejudice, not just to certain races, ethnic groups and gays, but toward other stigmatized groups such as the obese. Agreeable people place higher value on relationships with other people and make a greater effort to tolerate frustrations caused by other people rather than getting angry or lashing out.  Plus they are more empathetic and see the world through other people’s eyes, and experience greater distress when others are suffering. That does not mean those low in agreeableness are never sympathetic, but are much more selective. Those with high agreeableness have more successful friendships and romantic relationships. They get along better with other people and bring out better behavior in other people. 

The 4th major human behavior trait is conscientiousness. People higher in this trait tend to be more responsible and dependable. They try harder to do what they should and to do it well. They are more organized than less conscientious people, are more industrious and have more persistence. They will be less impulsive and have a high level of self discipline. Conscientious people are healthier and live longer, less likely to smoke, use drugs, abuse alcohol, become obese, more likely to exercise, practice safe sex, drive safely, have greater success in school, at work, make more money, less likely to get divorced, are less likely to break rules, or cheat on a spouse, more likely to hold their tongue when something is best left unsaid, be careful even when it doesn’t matter.

The 5th major human behavior trait is openness.  This trait mainly expresses how open a person is to new ideas or experiences. They are more likely to experiment and to engage in intellectual discussions. People high in openness are more curious about more things, less dogmatic, less set in their ways, and more humble about their positions. They are more flexible in their behavior.  Those less open are more conventional and traditional with their lives. People who are high in openness don’t feel a need to conform to social expectations. People tend to gravitate to friends and romantic partners with those who have the same level of openness. People less open have more conflicts with other people, and tend to be more prejudice, and be more secretive about the things they do, and prefer to tell their friends about events after they have happened. People high in openness tend to enjoy sensory  experiences, art, plays, etc. They are more likely to say they experience chills or goosebumps when they see beautiful things or hear beautiful music. 

The 6th major behavior trait is honesty/humility. People who score high in this trait tend to be consistently honest, generous, fair, faithful, and humble. People who score low tend to be deceitful, manipulative, greedy, sly, and arrogant. If a person scores very low this may signal psychopathy in that they show total indifference to the well-being of other people. 

This gets us a start on understanding why our personalities are so diverse, but many factors also come into play to influence these basic traits and these factors we will begin to consider in Part 2 of this musing. 

The Science of Unique Personalities

The Science of Unique Personalities---Introduction

Two subjects have attracted my attention the past few months—human evolution and what determines our unique personalities. Frequently I am asked if I just sit down and write musings from off the top of my head via some kind of spontaneous combustion. Of course not. My hobbies and career, by their nature, have given me a broad background on many of the areas I write musings. 

I have read over 3000 books, non of them fiction—and many of them biographies or science or nature, or  politics, or religion. In addition to this I have taken 99 DVD courses from the Great Courses Company who have assembled some of the most knowledgeable (and best lecturers) Professors from quality Colleges and Universities. This adds 2,596 course lectures from that source. Now add my long time habit of wondering around on solo walks in nature and select urban areas. Finally I have had thousands of college students from all sorts of background and personalities over my productive years, and it was my nature to interact with many of them on a personal basis even though that kept me on campus far more hours than is typical for a Professor. Unfortunately I do not have a keen memory retention like Lincoln, so a good deal of info from these above hobbies gets lost over time. Fortunately, many of these experiences get reinforced or expanded over time from the sources above. Finally, the existence of Google enables anyone to get immediate stats on any topic, person, or quotes from any particular person. Plus, in my earlier productive years I saved quotes on endless subjects so I have a library of quotes from that source and many books that are nothing but quotes on various subjects. Many people think people who need a lot of personal space in their lives tend to  sit around and vegetate.  It is often the opposite: I have tremendous difficulty keeping up with all these activities above and am always behind. During my productive years keeping up with all these activities was simply impossible, but that was okay since in younger days we tend to have so much more energy and are receptive to career challenges. But that energy and receptiveness can burn out as the years go by. Then it is time to retire.

My career as a physiologist did not do much to develop any noteworthy skills as a writer, so whatever my musings may be, they are not literary masterpieces. Knowing my own limitations, I never have felt anything I write is the last word on anything. These musings are food for thought, nothing more. I have never made any attempt to promote these musings and therefore any readership is limited to those who somehow find the URL for my storage site for these musings. There are over 20,000 hits which is nothing these days, but suffices for my ego as I certainly am under no illusion that my thoughts on anything are going to change the evolutionary process one iota. I have said many times that if Lincoln had not engineered the end of slavery in the United States, someone else would have down the line. The evolutionary process has no set time lines, just set directions for progress, and no species, including the human species, can alter the laws God created to run the evolutionary process. We think, with all of our human creations that we run the show now. We do not. 

My recent interest in human evolution and what determines our unique personalities has led me to select and isolated conclusions but the unique personality thing requires psychological insights that I cannot possibly provide. Thus, I have been searching some time now for the right psychologist to shed more accurate light on this topic. So what follows now is taken from “Investigations into Human Personality” by Professor Mark Leary (Duke University). Thus, this musing is simply my attempt to condense his knowledge into a form which I can personally retain as a guide to my understanding of my own personality. I reckon this might help anyone understand their own unique personality better, and even more important, generate some tolerance for human diversity.

Given the length of this introduction to the topic and the abundance of info on the topic, I think I will end this introduction and make a series of shorter musings on the various components that come together to give us our unique personality. So, I will begin putting all this together and will start posting probably within a week. 

To be Normal or Peculiar—which is better?

To be Normal or Peculiar—which is better?

The question is loaded. Most would recognize this immediately.  What is normal? Peculiar in what way(s)? Better for who?  Of course the evolutionary process would grind to a halt if every member of every species was normal. Most famous people were not normal. That’s a big reason biographies are a favorite read for me. 

Terrell Owens recently stated: “I do not need a vote by some (mostly obscure non athletic sports writers) to validate my athletic achievements.” Their opposition to acknowledging his athletic achievements were stated to be his ‘peculiar’ personality which was not to their liking. The absurdity here is plain enough. Without his ‘peculiar’ genetic degree of willpower and his learned (from his grandmother) focus on his personal goal to be the best wide receiver possible, he could never have developed his limited athletic ability enough to get to the top of the mountain. In his case the willpower and focus amounted to extreme selfishness as his saw it and this ‘selfishness’ was enough to deny him entry into the Hall of Fame for several years. 

As a strong advocate of the Golden Rule as the basis of an innate human genome for ethics, I try to employ this universally accepted moral principle as the basis for my own ethical mantra, albeit like others, the Golden Rule is too often overlooked as simply too inconvenient at a particular time for varied reasons. So how would the application of the Golden Rule work in Terrell’s case? Using a bell shaped curve would hardly make Terrell Owens ‘normal’. But then the questions becomes, ‘what does his peculiar ‘lifestyle’ do to hurt others?’ Terrell was essentially all about his football performance and all other aspects of his life were essentially ignored, for which he paid the price in these areas. It would be a real stretch to say anything Terrell did in practice, or off the field, in anyway made other teammates a worse football player. All his antics after touchdowns, his one man self serving cheering squad was irrelevant to the performance of any other players, and living socially in his self created bubble prevented both himself and others from meaningful social interactions. The Golden Rule states we should do unto others as we would have them do unto us. Owens created his bubble (for whatever reason) and so he made it clear that he wished to be left alone in his bubble. That being how he wished others to leave him be, then they, to be ethical, needed to leave him alone in his bubble. This would constitute fairness to both sides.   

HIs media bashers refused to do this. They had their own notions about how available he should be to them personally, how he should behave after touchdowns, how friendly and interactive he should be in the locker room, how much he should hang out with other teammates off the field, and so it goes, on and on and in all these areas of behavior, important to his media enemies, Owens refused to dance to their tune. This then, is all on them since they clearly could not handle his ‘peculiar’ life style, despite it being, if anything, both detrimental and advantageous to T.O., not to them or anyone else. 

Peculiarity (diversity) is one of the kingpins of the evolutionary process. To be intolerant of diversity, as a personal basis for prejudice against others, is to essentially be waging war against the very laws, created by God, to run the process. If diversity was bad, it would have long ago been eliminated from the evolutionary process. After all, the whole purpose of the process is to eliminate features of the process which are not suitable to effectuate evolutionary progress. When I was young and in undergraduate school I was a huge fan of Barry Goldwater. Both of us were innocently naive at the time about diversity, and I was amazed to find,  decades later, that we both independently had changed our political philosophies. 

It seems we can, in good conscience, be true to our own peculiarities and limitations so long as they do not hurt others. The number of times someone has defended me by stating, in one way or another: “Well, Dr James is Dr. James and changing him seems impossible. But his efforts are on behalf of others—never self serving actions to gain more money, titles, power, administrative favor, or reduced workload for himself.  His results are often admirable, at least for those he represents, and so what are we to condemn him for—being peculiar?”

Obviously being peculiar required me to be saved by others many times. Or at least caused key others to defend me. But it is also clear, in the big picture, that we cannot condemn anyone for being ‘peculiar’ or ‘normal’. Normal, in this musing, are those who are around the center of any bell curve psychologists create for normalcy. Normalcy, after all, is just a term for numerical majorities. Plenty of normal people commit crimes against others of physical, mental, or ethical natures. More crimes are committed by ‘normal’ people simply because there are so many more of them. 

Fundamentalists of varied religious sects believe God created humans, expects them to follow certain scriptures and rituals—but fundamentalists do not behave as if God is behind the creator of all humans, just certain people. There is no furor which compares to religious furor against certain human differences. Jesus though, spent most of his time amongst the ‘undesirables’ in his community, those despised by those in the majority. So once again, diversity is a major player in the evolutionary process, and I assume God, however envisioned to be, created the laws which govern the evolutionary process. To the extent my assumption here has validity, diversity is to be seen as good, not bad. Certainly normalcy cannot be bad since God’s evolution process laws have given us so many of them, while diversity cannot be bad because diversity is basically what makes evolutionary progress possible.

The truth seems to be that most of us, given the power to change ourselves, would want to make ourselves peculiar (different) in some positive way like greater sexual attractiveness, intelligence, athletic talent, musical talent, career talent, social popularity, etc. The problem here is that God’s laws which govern the evolutionary process are not geared to provide any individuals, of any species, exemptions from these laws. There is no evidence that God, via prayers to God to make individual exemptions, ever does so. However, the evolutionary process has given humans, alone among all other species, the power for us to help each other via our innate sense of ethics—the Golden Rule. 

We are not, by any logical thought process, the end product of the evolutionary process. For humans to gain the status we currently have among all species, we used our brain power, intolerance of others (humans or other species), our propensity for violence, revenge, greed for material wealth, power, titles, popularity, control over others, etc. to wipe out enemies (human or other species). 

In terms of absolute numbers, we have successfully dominated all other species. We are, so to speak, king of the hill—the same hill dinosaurs were once the king. 

Unfortunately, the same traits which enabled us to abundantly reproduce, are now counter productive to further progress. The laws which govern the evolutionary process have dealt harshly with any species overpopulation. No species has ever successfully thrived in an overpopulated environment of that species. We are innately smart enough to understand the consequences of overpopulating the earth, but the traits listed in the paragraph before this one are too strong right now for us to suddenly reverse course. It seems more likely, given the current collective mental state of humans globally, that we will correct overpopulation by killing ourselves off. It may be by various methods since just about everyone now has the means to engage in massive human destruction—from dozens at a time to millions. 

The situation right now is difficult to correctly assess as to what it all means for the future—both here in the U.S. and world wide. We kill many Americans today via war casualties, individual domestic murders, terrorism, suicide, and recreational drug overdoses. Domestic murders presently kill far more Americans than war casualties, terrorism, suicide, death from AIDS and recreational drug overdoses. The actual death rates are not going to reduce our population size in any significant way presently. However, war casualties, domestic murders, suicide, and recreational drug doses are rapidly rising. More significantly, they are rising mostly in the lower economic class and lower middle class. Those living in our urban, rural, and suburban ghettoes are far more likely to die, as a war casualty in a foreign land, as they often sign up in order to get an income. It is this segment of our mercenary soldiers who end up in the killing fields. Those in these, ever growing in size, ‘ghetto’ areas are exactly where the deaths are higher from suicide, deaths from inadequate health care, deaths from murder, and deaths from overdose of recreational drugs. Individual terrorism is increasing at an exponential rate and this affects all economic classes.

Our overpopulation starts with too many human individuals trying to get a bigger piece of the economic pie (wealth). Our natural resources are limited and this factor is now coming into play. There is no way every human being on our planet could live the lifestyle the more affluent now do. There simply are not sufficient resources available at this time. Another reality is that the ‘system’ is rigged, no matter the form of government, for the affluent to have a much easier time accumulating more wealth than the non affluent. The tax laws favor the wealthy in endless ways—lobbyists ensure legislatures vote their interests, the affluent have better developed genetic potential via better schools, better teachers, more stable families, better health care, better career opportunities, and so on. This means that the available wealth in any nation today gravitates at an exponential rate to the already affluent. Interestingly, at this time, this exponential rate is greatest in the United States. 

The above paragraph is the basis for a very threatening situation globally for our human species. Something has to give. In theory, humans have the intelligence to interpret the situation and make the necessary corrections. Some humans really do see, in varying degrees, the problems facing our species and corrections needed. Unfortunately, these people are in a distinct minority and lacking the personal nature to win the kind of brutal conflicts which are now converging globally on our species. This is becoming increasingly a global political game in which various kinds of ‘thugs’ are winning control over the situation. The kind of political leaders now emerging across the globe are uneducated, violent, intolerant toward diversity, greedy, highly partisan toward their political base, and see violence as the means to their ends. 

In addition, what is different today, compared to past human history, is that the major problems today are almost all global and can only be solved by global cooperation and enforcement. Climate change is a global problem. In a global economy, which we have today big time, livable wages is a global problem, and until global livable wages can be enforced, the majority of workers cannot escape increased poverty. As already noted, until human overpopulation can be reversed globally, we are trapped. No nations are really working on these major problems—rather, the political energies are all directed toward pointless and uneducated feelings. In some sort of senseless way, the affluent are increasingly making a deal with the ‘Devil’ to appeal to all the prejudices in human societies against each other, and in return the affluent get to preserve all the economic and legal devices which enable the affluent to gain an even bigger share of a nation’s economic wealth. The reality here is brutal. This  further increase the amount of a nation’s wealth in the hands of the already wealthy can’t possibly come from the poor—they have nothing left to give, and thus it must come from the middle class—pushing more and more of them into poverty. 

Somehow, but not surprisingly, I have veered away from the musing title. But even here the last few paragraphs above have meaning. Whether we are personally ‘normal’ or ‘peculiar’ on the Bell Curve of human personalities, we will not, if alive, escape the consequences of the laws which govern the evolutionary process. Mother nature bats last and her corrections can be brutal, long lasting, and yet in the end, progress continues, never at a constant pace, but so far progress always has been the winner. 

Od course no one votes to become ‘normal’ or ‘peculiar’. We are what we are. Either way it might be a blessing or a curse. Ethics is not related to whether a person is ‘normal’ or ‘peculiar’. 

Understanding Moral Superiority

Understanding Moral Superiority

Morality is a difficult concept. All sorts of diverse groups and individuals believe they have a legitimate moral basis for their actions and verbal statements. For a start, the evolutionary process is not exactly drenched in morality of any sort, unless we postulate that progress over billions of years makes it moral (the end justifies the means). Perhaps it does, but that eliminates morality on any individual basis. 

I would guess that the majority of humans everywhere think they have a good moral basis for their actions and verbal assertions. It might be morally correct to have opposed Hitler by an individual German citizen, or an individual American ghetto neighbor to finger a young gang member for a crime committed, but then maybe they prefer to live than to be abundantly moral. Most everyone growing up, saw plenty of ‘immoral’ things going on in their schools, but for the most part, it seemed best to mind their own business. The reaction to the young behavior of a man nominated for the supreme court is debated widely by our citizens, but whether it is morally significantly important at all varies, and almost purely on the basis of other issues, not morality. Liberals, who usually are more lenient about sexual behaviors, suddenly are incensed; the religious right—who preach fire and brimstone from the pulpit about sexual behaviors—become the defenders; conservatives are simply not going to see their hopes on conservative issues vanish, are not going to let any such incidence block the nomination (too many ‘more important’ issues are at stake). Trump may be the only honest one: (“I can do anything I want, including murder someone, and my base will stand by me”).  

But this musing is not about the Supreme Court nomination. The goal here is to make sense of moral superiority. Often moral superiority gives way to some sort of end goal. Even in a football game, if our team wins because a referee missed a blatant penalty, we are elated our team won—period. In the Vietnam War at least 4 United States Presidents didn’t care how many Vietnamese we killed as long as we won the war. We ended up killing around 2 million Vietnamese citizens, leveled every structure of any worth, lost only 58,000 thousand deaths ourselves, still lost the war, and eventually gave in because it became political suicide to draft any more young Americans for the War. And all because we refused to allow an election by the Vietnamese themselves to choose a leader for all of Vietnamese. With third World Countries, America has a history of supporting democracy—unless the wrong person wins or will win an election. All of these are examples of end goals overriding morality. 

I suppose, if God (however we define God) is all powerful, then certainly He/She/It would eliminate immorality. It would seem strange that morality might exist so God can have some humans to punish or protect. I doubt this. Certainly, if God protects those who follow the right inherited religion, then we would know by now which religion to practice because those followers are protected from the kind of things for which all people pray to their God. But alas, no matter your inherited religion, just as many of your flock die from certain diseases, get raped, die in car accidents, end up divorced, fail on tests, etc as members of any other group under comparable situations.  This genuinely casts problems trying to interpret the significance of morality. Since roughly 97% of species that ever existed are now extinct, the widespread notions we are God’s favorite species, and to the extent for some people, that a Heaven or a Hell exists, seems a tad overly optimistic with no evidence, other than faith, to support the notion. 

So, getting any firm handle on the importance of morality is no easy task. I can’t get a handle on my own sense of morality. For a start, it is easier for me to adhere to moral standards than many others because luck has placed me in a position where it is relatively easy for me to be moral. Suppose I had been born in a Newark ghetto and raised by a ‘crackhead’ mother? I would probably have stronger negative feelings about a lot of things in life than any obsession with morality. Especially today, when for the less fortunate, the ‘good life’ is right in their face via cyberspace gadgets all the time round the clock. Science tells us that we inherit a certain amount of willpower and it can be used up over time. We have tests today that can measure our amount of willpower and can track it’s decline over time. Maybe this is what we mean by mellowing out. I have personally witnessed this in college students from ghetto areas. Often they exert amazing willpower to lead exemplary ‘moral’ lives despite their environment and it is not unusual for them to have amazing focus, cooperativeness, trustworthiness, honesty, dependability, etc. But over time, with so many hurdles in their way, they give up and settle for a profession or life situation far below the life potential they had at birth. I’ll put it this way—if I had been faced with half the hurdles they faced in their formative years, I can’t even imagine what my destiny might have been. Even with all the luck in my formative years, I would have managed to destroy my career at several points in life were it not for others who stepped in to prevent my self destruction. To the extent that I did a lot of things ‘my way’ in life is only true to the extent others protected me while I did so. 

At least some people who have high moral standards seem to be trying to pay forward to others in need, out of recognition for those who assisted them to have some success in life. We know that diversity is a key element for evolutionary progress. So even if we label The Golden Rule a universally accepted ethical principle, on what basis would we assume this inherent genetic trait is spread around to the same degree. No other genetic traits are. Even if we were to a assume every human is born with the same degree of Golden Rule ethics, our environments, especially in our formative years, are all over the place. We already know, for example, that if a child is beaten physically a lot during their formative years, then that child, as an adult, is far more likely to physically beat their offspring. Where does moral superiority come in here? We know that strong fear is more likely to result in our killing someone. Well, if one lives with little fear in their lives then the likelihood of their killing someone is greatly reduced. Where does moral superiority come in here? Most believe the way in which some youths in ghettoes dress is morally wrong and very intimidating to others. They should, to be morally correct, dress differently. I once asked such a student who was genuinely trying to get a good grade, why they dressed the way they did. Their response: “I have to get from my home to the bus stop or train stop or the grocery store and arrive in one piece or alive. I dress this way so others will think twice about messing with me. Simple as that.”

I often asked at a student hearing whether punishing a student for a rule which in most cases serves a purpose, should be enforced in a case where it doesn’t apply to a particular student and harms them. To harm them, to me, is unethical. Do unto others as we would have them do unto us applies in all cases. Otherwise, it is unethical. For whatever reason, I had a lot of pets when a child. These pets probably taught me empathy for the less fortunate. They needed kindnesses and support and a young child feels rewarded emotionally for being their protector. Then they die, sometimes quickly, sometimes not so quickly and we feel bad, we feel helpless, we feel sad, and we develop kindness for a sense of diversity since these pets were of varied natures. Feeling the same kindness with other humans was far more difficult. We are the dependent in those cases with our known peculiar needs dependent on others to provide, or at least tolerate. A lot of our self worth and esteem is achieved via ‘patriotism’ to family, our inherited religion, our culture, our ethnicity, our social/economic stratus, our small circle of friends, our school, our nation, and so on. All of these attachments make us feel special in varied ways. However, these patriotic feelings, to certain groups of various sort, do not help us act according to the Golden Rule. The Golden Rule does not apply to only certain groups. In short, the evolutionary process, proceeding according to the laws God created to govern the process, has given the human species the ability to help those less fortunate. Praying for God to intervene with His own laws is a waste of time. 

Reality develops in different ways to varied degrees over varied periods of times, not that we ever get any firm grip on reality. If we all see reality through our own particular tinted lenses, then it seems natural that our ethical natures will vary. We could, I suppose, live our lives in a self constructed bubble and simply focus on certain personal objectives in life—a la Terrell Owens—but others would then see us as selfish, having no ethical considerations for others around us. In some sort of strange way this would enable us to treat others as we would have them treat us (leave us alone). But this life style is rare, quite rare. In most cases we do want to interact with others substantially. 

The nicest thing about the Golden Rule, as the basis for our ethics, is that it cuts through all the complexities and obfuscations thrust at us to become ethical. There are no rituals involved, no inherited religious human written and outdated scripture to pick and choose from, no college degree in religion/ethics required, and it requires minimal judgement of others. The only clashes with our innate ethics often comes from our own personal desires for wealth, titles, power, sex, fame, a stash of more and more things, popularity, and personal safety. Self survival may trump ethics in certain situations and the course of action may not be clear at all. I once had a student who suddenly hid in the back of the class outside of sight from a small window in the classroom door because he knew which ‘gang members’ committed a serious crime on someone, and feared these gang members would kill him or his mom to keep him quiet as a potential witness. I did not press the issue of exactly what he saw, or advise him to go to the cops. I instead arranged for him to live with an uncle in another state and go to college elsewhere. My reasoning was that the victim was dead or suffered whatever, while the student was alive with a future, and he better protect his own future. He could not undo the crime. After all the entire gang could claim he was a gang member and was the one who committed the crime. Legal justice is not always justice at all. 

Ethical behavior via the Golden Rule is an endless battle between doing the right thing or allowing our natural instinct for more is better regarding our own learned pleasures at a particular point in our lives.  One has to learn the difference between transient periods of happiness which can become addictive or compulsive, and achieving personal contentment which is more sustainable. Addictions and compulsive behaviors cannot bring contentment. It becomes an endless cycle in which the highs need be higher each time, and the lows which follow are always lower than the lows before. Much of life is avoiding this trap. Enough is enough is a valuable trait. Now that I am retired I spend far more money on my charitable FANAFI (Find A Need And Fill It) Fund then I do on myself including food, taxes, entertainment, etc. Does this make me morally superior to those who do not? The goal of all humans is to achieve contentment. Funding my charitable grant provides me contentment and frees me from the alternative——spending a lot of time and energy face to face with the less fortunate. I did that in my productive years which brought me contentment also. Thus, whether I choose to admit it or not, I really am doing it to gain contentment. I am being selfish. If living as best we can by the Golden Rule, and applying it to all of humanity did not bring contentment, on what basis would be want to adhere to this ethical principle?  All man created religions tend to have a Heaven and Hell after death as their motive for ethical behavior. But just to be sure there is always forgiveness by God for our sins and often this redemption can be gained on our death bed. This is unbelievably self-serving. We can kill 3 people, repent later, and go to Heaven. In essence we have eliminated any chance for the 3 we killed for them to repent if necessary, got rid of them from our lives, and still we go to Heaven. Nice deal. 

All this seems to dictate that moral superiority is basically a smart selfish means to gain maximum contentment in our lives. All humans can practice the Golden Rule via spending time/money/ fairness to others. It is not burdened by the all or none law; that is, the more we practice the Golden Rule the more contentment we gain. We all know some poor people who are more contented than ourselves in life via just being satisfied with little, and never mistreating anyone with whom they come in contact. Many times I have been kind of jealous that such a simple life can bring them so much contentment. Since we are truly unique diverse peculiar individuals it is to be expected that our use of the Golden Rule will vary. There is no one way fits all. No one is morally superior, just better at using ethics to achieve a more contented life. What is more self serving than that, and at the same time helps the less fortunate. Win/win I guess. 

The Golden Rule (ethics) is always competing with greed, violence, punishment, intolerance of diversity, pride, titles, power, and so on. Right now, in the present time, the Golden Rule is losing. All these other human traits are on the rise everywhere across the globe. But in the long run, God’s laws which govern the evolutionary process will, after some sort of massive evolutionary correction, allow the Golden Rule, on evolutionary time, to gain control via an improved human species or a new species. That is always how the evolutionary process has worked and progress invariably been the result, not on human time, but evolutionary time. All we can do right now, on human time, is to keep searching for a form of government that can actually maximize contentment for the maximum number of people. In the mean time, Time Stays, We go, albeit my musings seem never to end.