Table of Contents
I am a robot.
— How come you’re not afraid of anything?
— Who told you?
— What are you afraid of?
— For example… For example, scorpions. Uhm… Loneliness. I’m afraid of being alone.
— And what about you?
— All these creatures. But what if there are people inside them? Prisoners in a body that no longer obeys them? What if that happens to me?
(“One of Us,” a computer game)
In zombie movies, the zombies themselves are portrayed as mindless creatures driven by an insatiable desire to bite healthy people, who then also become zombies. This behavior is somewhat similar to that of rabid animals—they bite their victims, and the rabies virus is transmitted through saliva, causing new victims to also become aggressive. The rabies virus spreads precisely because it somehow compels the infected animal to want to bite another animal or a human.
How much more interesting would the plot of a horror movie be if zombies, after being bitten, didn’t lose their minds but remained ordinary people who just really want to bite someone? They simply enjoy it and experience pleasure from the sensation of pierced skin and the taste of blood on their tongue. There are people who find pleasure in wearing tight latex suits, who enjoy popping bubble wrap, who take pleasure in tormenting others, or who find joy in watching a washing machine work. If it feels good, that’s why they do it.
But we are those zombies. We enjoy doing things that don’t benefit us, but are required to satisfy the demands of someone who isn’t part of our “self.” We have sex, we go to bed, we eat candy, we love children, we get married – these are all things that our “self” – the conscious part of us – doesn’t need, yet we do them willingly and with pleasure. We take joy in doing them.
What is the “self”? Each of us is, in fact, a large colony of single-celled organisms, each of which is a clone of the other, living and dying solely so that some members of the colony can pass on the genetic material, which is identical for all, to the next generation. This colony of cells has developed a vast array of programs and reactions aimed ultimately at ensuring the immortality of the genes it carries. Each of us is analogous to an ant colony, where instead of ants, there are cells, and instead of a queen, there are the reproductive cells—eggs and sperm. Just as an ant colony releases its winged, reproductive members into the wild once a year in hopes of establishing a new colony, so too do cell colonies release reproductive cells with each sexual act in hopes of starting a new colony. Those cell colonies that do not do this die out without consequences for future generations. Those colonies that manage to do this more effectively for some reason create new colonies in greater numbers. For the colony to function harmoniously and purposefully and to be proudly called an “organism,” there are numerous mechanisms that coordinate the activities of this organism and stimulate it to behave in ways that are beneficial for the entire colony—behaviors that ultimately lead to the transmission of genes to the next generation.
Do we want to eat? We eat. Do we want to sleep? We sleep. Do we want to marry a partner of the opposite sex? We do. And this is despite the fact that a legally formalized marriage is only necessary for the fair division of property and responsibility for children, which young couples typically don’t have at the time of the wedding. We simply want to see our loved one – we act on that desire. We want to cuddle a child – we do. The emotions that make our lives so colorful and diverse, and which we believe distinguish us from “soulless” robots and computers, are actually nothing more than manifestations of absolute soullessness and mathematically cold calculation. Through emotions, our colony communicates with our “self,” letting it know what behavior is acceptable and what is not.
Everything we like or dislike, everything we choose to do or not do, is dictated by our genes in the overwhelming majority of cases, which shape the very colony that each of us is a part of. Guided by our emotions, we turn into zombie-robots, executing the will of our genes. We consider moral actions to be right, but they are simply advantageous when it comes to life within a tribe—where behavioral instincts were formed. We believe that conscience is a part of the soul or mind, but in reality, it is an element of the overall “programming.” We think we choose a gift for our “other half,” but the very desire to give a gift was dictated to us, and we are merely executing the will of a dictator. We believe we choose this “other half,” but in fact, we are just obeying a command developed as a result of very complex, yet cold-blooded and ruthless calculations that we are not even aware of, as it is not us calculating, but the colony that, through evolution, has acquired a built-in computer—an expert system. Similarly, a cynical computational system that evaluates everything—from burnt cutlets and the smell of sweat to the number of children born and the frequency of illnesses—gives us the command to end a marriage, and for some reason, we stop liking a person who is at least a friend and ally. We feel jealousy or tenderness, but it is still those same computers that have calculated something and issued a result-command. We lose our heads over love, commit crazy acts, behave seemingly illogically, but in reality, we are no better than a bream infected with parasites. The text for translation: [1]. Текст для перевода: ..
A person, carrying billions of their own cells, will similarly act according to their dictates and receive in return a reward—positive emotions—or punishment—negative ones.
But what about consciousness and that elusive “self”? It’s something new that was invented, through evolution, by a colony of cells. It’s the ability to analyze and find dependencies to construct a picture of the future, in order to understand whether a particular program, previously embedded in the organism, is effective, whether the computer made any mistakes in its calculations, and whether it accounted for all the input data correctly. The mechanism for predicting the future that exists in humans is not perfect; it leads people into a deceptive sense of confidence, relying on past facts and existing knowledge, but not on what might happen or on what a person does not know. Yet, in a statistically significant number of cases, it works and gives people an advantage over other animals. Unlike a rat, we can choose not to grab food from supermarket shelves, but to avoid a punishment that is not comparable to the benefit of stolen food. Unlike a dog, we can choose not to eat a sandwich right now at the airport, but to wait a couple of hours and get more for the same money by buying that same sandwich at the supermarket or making it ourselves. Or conversely, we might prefer to eat more now, even when we are no longer hungry, knowing that in a few hours we will be hungry again and there will be nowhere to eat properly. We choose to study a foreign language instead of drinking beer at the pub across the street. We can achieve greater pleasure and receive more rewards from the colony of cells that governs us, as we fulfill the main program more optimally – to pass our genes to the next generation. And if emotions are the robot, then reason is us – that small part of each of us that drives us to endure unpleasant sensations now in order to gain more pleasure in the future. [2]. Текст для перевода: ..
Reason has given invaluable advantages to those colonies of cells that possess it. It serves as a crutch for situations when the world changes, and old programs become ineffective while new ones have yet to be created. We wisely avoid driving under a “no entry” sign, even though the road is shorter; we sensibly refuse sweets; we prudently save money. Reason can recognize that old programs are ineffective and make the right decisions—regulating the actions of these programs. However, reason is not a perfect tool and makes mistakes, often systemic ones, such as believing in life after death or in the superiority of one nation over another.
In order for the mind to regulate and stop instinctive impulses, it has the final say, remaining connected to instincts only through a small informational bridge that transmits a single signal: “good” or its opposite, “bad.” The mind receives these signals—whether to eat, drink, or seek a partner—and decides how to behave next, always with the same goal in mind: to satisfy the needs of the large colony of cells we call an “organism.” The more intelligent a person is, the further they can see into the future. The stronger a person’s mind, the better they can control their own conditioning and resist emotional robots.
We imagine scenarios of “doomsday” in our heads, where tomorrow might not come, and we realize that we could behave like wild animals, unbound by any constraints that the knowledge of what will happen tomorrow would impose on us. It’s unlikely that we would all be completely immoral in such a situation—morality is part of our instincts. However, students would probably not prepare for exams, criminals wouldn’t write petitions for clemency, accountants wouldn’t close the cash register and balance the books by evening, and mothers wouldn’t care whether their children did their homework.
Right now, the reader’s mind is reading these lines and asking the question: Okay, how should I live? Should I restrict myself in everything, depriving myself of pleasures to stay true to myself, or should I leap headfirst into the depths of passions and emotions, giving myself completely to the process of enjoying life? The answer is simple: The sensations from the fall are magnificent and worth it. But before jumping off a cliff, it’s wise to make sure that there is a deep sea below, not rocks and sand.
In essence
What we consider to be “human” and what distinguishes us from “soulless machines”—our emotions—are actually the “soulless,” animalistic parts of us.
When we are driven by emotions without using reason, we end up with the worst outcome for ourselves and for the colony of cells that we are.
• It’s also important to use our reason carefully. We should study more about the cognitive biases that affect our thinking process. Our mind is not perfect. It usually provides better results compared to purely instinctual behavior.
• Perhaps, to train mindfulness, it would be beneficial to engage in spiritual practices, meditation, and yoga.
• Our “morality” is also not purely a human trait. Signs of moral behavior can be found in many animals.
• Don’t deny yourself the pleasures that life offers us. Good things come to those who know how to wait.
.
The happiness machine
The worst crime is pretense.
Kurt Cobain
Each of us has an built-in defense system against bad news. It helps us maintain a good mood, prevents our nerve cells from dying for no reason, and generally keeps us on the right wavelength. The main sorrows of unhappy people are often linked to the disruption of this system. [3]. Текст для перевода: ..
Do you want to see how it works? Write on any moderately popular photography blog that Canon equipment is better than Nikon, and you’ll see how fiercely the owners of cameras from either brand will argue for the superiority of their gear. The truth is, you can’t tell from the photos which manufacturer’s equipment was used to take them. Try asking people for their opinions on a particular brand of televisions. Try explaining to the owner of a new car that they made the wrong choice. You’ll quickly find yourself on the receiving end of everything in their trunk—first aid kit, fire extinguisher, emergency stop sign, and jack.
Once, psychologists conducted an experiment in which they asked a car dealer to give customers the option to choose a different car within a week if they were not satisfied with the one they purchased.
It turned out that the very possibility of choice makes people unhappy! The feeling of happiness a week after making a purchase was twice as low among those with the “option to choose” compared to those who were not offered such an option. It was interesting to see the adjectives that buyers in similar positions used to describe their feelings about buying a roadster. Those without a choice said the seat “embraced” them and that they felt like pilots in a cockpit, while those with a choice complained about… the cabin being too cramped.
Built-in protection is perhaps the only obstacle that prevents people from moving forward and making the right decisions. Everyone considers themselves to be purely rational. And even if they admit that they are not, it sounds like an appealing trait: “I’m all mysterious and unpredictable…” No matter what we do or what we engage in, if we are asked “why,” “for what purpose,” or “with what goal,” we will always find an answer. Even aimless activities we will rationalize by saying that we are “relaxing” or “it’s easier for us to think this way.” Ask yourself, what benefit do you get from Facebook or VKontakte? And in reality, what have you achieved?
By default, we trust the explanations provided by our consciousness. We consider these explanations to be the reasons for our actions “because they are reasonable and logical,” while in most cases, they are merely attempts to “tell” us why we act in one way or another. Therefore, reflection and self-analysis do not always help us see the true reasons behind our actions. A good illustration of this is the behavior of the ugly duckling in Andersen’s fairy tale. He decided to approach the swans, thinking it would be better for them to peck at him. But in reality, the duckling’s consciousness offered the nearest “logical” argument to justify his instinctive urge to get closer to his kind. A person wishing to get married will have plenty of rational arguments explaining their behavior and rejecting even the thought that marriage is a great deception, one that we “fell for” under the influence of dopamine and oxytocin.
Built-in protection often prevents people from critically perceiving reality. The attention that men give to women, which is necessary for maintaining their self-confidence, is often illusory. A woman, when she activates her “happiness machine,” sees herself as irresistible and genuinely believes that men are flocking around her and that everyone is in love with her. However, after some inquiries, it turns out that the entire “flock” consists of three people: one is married, the second is using her but has no intention of marrying her, and she doesn’t give the third one a chance because she finds him repulsive. And the others? They’re just too boring. Or is it a case of “the grapes are sour”?
The mechanism embedded in our minds that is responsible for rationalization, for seeking causes and attempting to predict consequences, for trying to see a system in random events, and for the obsessive desire to explain everything to ourselves and others, is regulated by dopamine. We receive positive reinforcement when we rationalize. This can lead to cascading, resonant effects, for example, when we hear something that strikes a chord with us, which activates the dopaminergic system, making us more inclined to trust the informational constructs presented in the news. The key is that the news is framed as a causal relationship. Compare for yourself what seems more plausible: “A national hero hanged himself” versus “A national hero committed suicide to avoid disgrace.” Or “All Jews must be exterminated” versus “Jews should be exterminated because they are subhumans and parasitize on other nations.”
The dopaminergic system, in addition to its built-in protective functions, governs our emotions, which often hinder us from thinking and acting correctly. We readily begin to convince ourselves and find rational arguments for the thoughts we already like, while seeking ways to refute ideas that we find disagreeable. We evaluate ideas based on our preferences just as we taste cherries at the market before buying. We do not engage logic and reason. Instead, we continue to rely on more primitive systems that have a greater influence on us. Thinking critically is difficult. It is much more pleasant to believe that our misfortunes are caused not by ourselves, but by Jews, Russians, or simply all men collectively. This is why such propaganda works—it promotes comforting thoughts, and people, picking them up, start sharing them. If it feels good, then it must be right. However, this approach places a person on the same level as a squirrel, which hoards nuts in cozy little burrows simply because it enjoys doing so. Moreover, in social networks, almost all the articles shared by participants are those that they like, rather than those that are worth believing in or that can be logically supported.
Most of us find people of the opposite sex pleasant, and we are more likely to judge or be tolerant rather than approve of the choices made by those who have a different understanding of what is enjoyable. Most of us take pleasure in having children, and we convince ourselves that raising children gives life meaning. Most of us enjoy directing our energy towards sexual satisfaction, and we will support a completely unscientific but utterly captivating theory by Freud. [4]. Most of us want to be able to foresee the future, and so, even if we don’t take it seriously, we read horoscopes. Society will find reasons to prove that those who don’t share its interests are wrong. People are social creatures, and societal pressure compels them to seek arguments for why their thoughts, which contradict public opinion, are incorrect, making them not unhappy, but rather striving for harmony, albeit through a different path.
Once, scientists conducted an experiment. [5]. In kindergarten, all the children were given sweet porridge for breakfast, except for one child who received bitter porridge. Then, each child was asked in turn how the porridge tasted, and all of them replied that it was sweet. When it came time to ask the child with the bitter porridge, in most cases, that child also said the porridge was sweet. It’s normal to want to fit in with society, but what should you do if the feelings of most members of society don’t match your own? What if what the majority likes doesn’t appeal to you? The first step is to recognize that this happens. In fact, it’s not just a possibility—it’s the norm. People are all different, and it’s perfectly normal for them to have different preferences. If all living beings liked the same things or were identical in every way, there would be no natural selection.
Does society and authority believe that people should have children? If they need to, let them have children. Society thinks that a woman should be modest and wait for her chosen one—let them wait. Society believes that one must get married—let them get married. Society thinks that one can only sleep with members of the opposite sex—so let them sleep. Society will find justification for any fact it likes or any activity it finds pleasant. And we, under the pressure of society, will start looking for arguments about why marriage is a good thing, why we need children, why a woman should be modest, and why a man shouldn’t do housework. But ideas that are appealing are not necessarily correct.
Each of us readily finds excuses for our stereotypes, lifestyle, and behavior. After all, it’s uncomfortable to think that we’ve wasted a lot of time on activities similar to a fly buzzing against a window. If we acknowledge that we regularly act incorrectly or pursue the wrong goals, we can’t be sure that our behavior is right for achieving the future we desire. And uncertainty about the future is what leads to a lack of happiness.
Caught in the clutches of self-rationalization and public opinion, people endure their tiresome spouses and hesitate to end relationships that hold no promise and offer no benefits. Anyone can easily come up with a million reasons for “why” they live with another person, while there are very few answers to the question “Why should I break up?” It often comes down to the fact that we prefer to live another day just as it is, rather than doing what we dislike—getting up and taking an active stance in life.
In essence
Just as endorphins protect us from unnecessary pain in our bodies, this built-in defense system shields us from a multitude of unpleasant experiences that are actually happening to us, but that we either overlook or rationalize.
• If you’re trying to sell yourself on the sexual market, the worst assumption you can make is that you need to solve your partner’s problems. Nobody has problems. And if, in rare cases, someone is surrounded by problems, they are likely reveling in it, so don’t dare to solve them.
• Public opinion is not an argument. Don’t argue with society. If you find it hard to go against the crowd, just keep your choices to yourself if they contradict public opinion.
• If you want change, you need to stop asking yourself questions like “Why is it this way?” and start asking yourself questions like “What good will come from this?”
It’s important to distinguish between what you like right now and what you actually need.
Cargo cult
If your wish hasn’t come true, it hasn’t been paid for yet.
The parable of “ The Store of Wishes Y. Minakova
When the United States fought Japan in the Pacific, they used Pacific islands inhabited by indigenous people who had no concept of civilization. The Americans dropped a huge amount of cargo produced by industry onto the islands: canned goods, tents, radios, weapons, and other useful items that were unknown to the islanders until then. But by the end of the war, the air bases were abandoned, and cargo no longer descended from the sky.
Then the islanders of Melanesia, in order to receive more cargo from the sky, began to do what the soldiers of the U.S. Army did. [6]. They “negotiated” through wooden headphones, built runways and control towers, and even organized military marches and constructed airplanes out of straw to summon cargo. The most advanced teachings interpreted reality in such a way that, in the creation of the world, white people received an disproportionately large amount of cargo, and “John Frum” must descend to Earth. [7]. “and distribute the miraculous cargo that is rightfully theirs to the islanders.”
Naive islanders, who knew nothing about industrial production, began to perceive the visible outcome as the cause. They thought that they needed to “talk into the headphones” and wave their arms on the “runway” for planes to land, when in reality, the plane first needed to land, and that’s why negotiations would begin with it, and they would show with their hands how to approach for landing. From their egocentric perspective, they concluded that the cargo should belong to them since it arrived on their islands, but in fact, the cargo came to their islands for entirely different reasons.
We laugh at the foolish islanders, but at the same time, we live in a cargo cult ourselves. Almost all of NLP is based on a modified version of this cargo cult. Practitioners of NLP believe that if you mimic the gestures and posture of your conversation partner, mutual understanding and “rapport” will emerge. However, the reality is quite the opposite. When rapport is established, conversation partners start to unconsciously copy each other’s postures and gestures. The essence of NLP boils down to advice like “to get to Australia, you need to stand on your head for a while. After all, in Australia, people walk upside down.”
Many people sincerely believe that the key to success and wealth is an expensive car. They spend their last money to look, but only to look, rich and successful. Yes, an expensive luxury car, just like an expensive suit, expensive watch, and expensive tie, is necessary when conducting business (not political) negotiations – they serve as a very important tool for manipulation and thus justify the costs incurred for their purchase. However, in order to need an expensive car, one must first become wealthy enough to engage in business and make deals where the price of the car is just 1% of the deal’s value. It doesn’t work the other way around: “I’ll buy a Porsche Cayenne and then the money will come.” There are plenty of examples around us where people buy expensive phones, watches, and shoes simply because they associate these items with success. In reality, it is success that allows one to own these items as economically justified assets. Such examples exist even in business. Just recently, we could observe how some agricultural enterprises took out loans to purchase expensive combines simply because successful agribusinesses had them. Apparently, they thought that the leaders of those holdings knew their stuff when it came to machinery, and that good equipment ensured their success. In fact, it was the other way around – money was earned first, which allowed them to buy expensive combines that became a justified investment because the cultivated areas increased, and the fields were already prepared for wide planters and, consequently, for wide harvesters.
Often, when girls choose a fiancé, they think like Melanesian natives. They look at successful married couples and believe that the key to their personal happiness is to find a successful man and marry him, so they can feel secure behind him like a stone wall. Their instincts are completely justified—they need to raise children, and a successful spouse who can cover family expenses is exactly what they need. However, in this case, a woman is needed by a successful and established man no more than as a bedmate with the functions of a cook and a cleaner. Those seeking a cozy spot under the arm of a rich man often envision themselves as “bed animals” or “kittens,” hoping for a kind, smart, and generous partner. But a “bed animal” is not an asset that a clear-thinking investor should acquire. Sexual appeal and market value diminish with age, and nothing new, like wisdom or true friendship, emerges to counteract this devaluation.
But this line of thinking about “kittens” is, in fact, nothing more than a cargo cult. In successful and happy families, everything is quite the opposite. The success of one partner in a marriage always owes 50% to the other partner, who did everything to make that success happen. Who better than a wife can give a man the right and wise advice on social interactions or political decisions? Who will take care of his appearance, his health, his culture? Who will set goals and monitor their achievement? The right wife and the right husband are both leaders. They are both those who know how to motivate, who can create and maintain the right mindset and atmosphere in the family. The fact that half of the success of one spouse rightfully belongs to the other is also reflected in the law—each spouse can expect exactly 50% of the jointly acquired property. Accordingly, from a commercial perspective, a man will choose a woman as his wife who can provide that very 50%. Otherwise, there is no point in marriage.
Being good at cooking borscht and giving oral sex is not enough to expect a happy marriage with a successful man. You need to know how to create such relationships and genuinely want to. You should be able to choose a promising lieutenant in your youth and invest in him, rather than chasing after established colonels. A colonel who has lived his life understands very well that there is no such thing as free sex and borscht in marriage, and that he will pay for sex and borscht not at competitive rates, but at monopoly prices.
People often seek a kind of magical “stability” in marriage. If a person is stable, then you can lean on them and gain stability for yourself. However, stationary stability is a myth, a fairy tale similar to the story of cargo cults. In a constantly changing world, stability is achieved through continuous movement. If you take a chicken in your hands and start moving its body from side to side, you’ll see that its head seems to stay in one place. The coordinated work of the chicken’s neck muscles compensates for the movement of its body and keeps its head steady. From the outside, it appears that the head is stable. But in reality, this stability is maintained by the constant effort of the muscles and the nervous system.
You can’t stay upright on a bicycle without pedaling. You can’t achieve stability by leaning on someone who is riding a bike. You’ll end up falling yourself and knocking the other person down too. You can’t expect to maintain the same speed towards your goal if you sit on the bike’s rack and dangle your legs, or even worse, if you start putting your feet in the spokes of the back wheel or hold onto the rider’s neck so tightly that they can’t breathe. You can only count on something when you’re riding a tandem, a bike where both people are pedaling. And then you’ll definitely reach success sooner than those who have only one person doing the pedaling. And you certainly won’t fall.
In the parable of the “wish shop,” from which the phrase in the epigraph is taken, it is shown that fulfilling desires comes at a cost. For example, a beloved job required giving up stability and predictability, being willing to plan and structure one’s life independently, having faith in one’s own abilities, and allowing oneself to work where one enjoys, rather than where one has to. Marriage in this shop could be obtained almost for free, but a happy life came at a high price: personal responsibility for one’s own happiness, the ability to enjoy life, knowing one’s desires, letting go of the need to conform to others, the ability to appreciate what one has, allowing oneself to be happy, recognizing one’s own worth and significance, giving up the perks of being a “victim,” and the risk of losing some friends and acquaintances.
However, the commitment to the cargo cult is not only characteristic of “blondes” but also of men. Similarly, believing that a man’s success with women is determined by his financial status and his ability to support a woman, they start to provide for a girl in an attempt to win her heart. They pay for her rent, take her on vacation, and offer other financial assistance, all while trying to avoid spending money on gifts and the girl’s whims, rationalizing that these are not the main priorities. Interestingly, such relationships may not involve sex at all, and the man will keep the girl financially dependent, hoping to win her heart in the future.
But the girl actually doesn’t want this man. If she did, she would have slept with him by the third date. Not only does she not want him, but she probably also hates him for the fact that he allows himself to keep her in his grip. After all, if she were to have a falling out with such a man, she would lose her place to live, and that doesn’t fit into her plans at all. So, she reluctantly agrees to stay for another month. At the same time, she understands that if she “gives” in to him, it would be cheap and look no better than plain prostitution. And that’s why she refuses to give in even more.
But, in reality, it’s the opposite. First, people are attracted to each other, and only then do they enter into any joint financial ventures. From an instinctual perspective, the quantity of courtship acts matters more than their quality. [8]. Текст для перевода: ..
Paying for an apartment for a female’s instincts when evaluating a male seems less important and less significant than receiving flowers every day. [9]. By ritualistically repeating the actions of affluent males without incorporating any genuine courtship, such men will never achieve their goal—the heart of the woman they are financially supporting. Interestingly, men who do not court but provide financial support also fall into the trap of the mere exposure effect. If they manage to break free from this effect, it is only with feelings of hatred towards the person from whom they gained nothing, even though that person never promised them anything. Thus, instead of the expected love, following the cult of cargo leads to hatred.
In essence
• One should not confuse causes and effects. Yes, every happy family has a “stamp in their passport,” but that doesn’t mean that this stamp is what guarantees their happiness.
To build a successful family, it’s not enough to just mimic the activities that lead to a happy marriage. You need to actively build relationships.
• Stability does not mean complacency.
The Power of Habit
Would you be so kind as to think about the question: what would… What good would your kindness do if there were no evil, and how would it… What would the earth look like if shadows disappeared from it?
After all, shadows are cast by objects and people. Here’s the shadow from… of my sword. But there are shadows from the trees and from the living. Do you want to strip the entire globe bare, tearing it down? All the trees and all living things are gone from him because of your imagination. enjoying the bare light?
M. Bulgakov. “The Master and Margarita”
Those who remember what they were taught in school surely know that a frog cannot see stationary objects. The results of an experiment are often cited, in which a frog is boiled alive without ever jumping out of the pot, if the water is heated very, very slowly. We laugh at the results of this experiment, but in reality, humans are not so far removed from that frog. After all, all the basic systems of perception we possess developed back when our ancestors could barely walk on the ground. How many of you noticed that in the two sentences above, the word “very” was repeated twice? Without noticing the change, we overlooked the very fact of the word duplication. Even those who did notice the repetition will remember that text editors specifically underline such cases in red to draw attention to the shortcomings of human perception, which simply cannot identify the error.
Just like frogs, we stop noticing the smell in a room if we stay there long enough. We perceive temperature through our skin receptors only in comparison to what we felt before and after. Try placing your left hand in a bowl of ice water and your right hand in a bowl of hot water, wait for your skin to adjust, and then simultaneously put both hands in a bowl of room temperature water. You will experience cognitive dissonance.
Experiments were also conducted on visual perception. People do not notice very slow changes in the images being shown. They also fail to see differences when two similar images are presented, separated by some kind of distraction. [10]. Psychologists conducted experiments in which customers did not notice that the salesperson serving them had changed while they “bent down under the counter.” Similarly, people failed to notice a gorilla walking among individuals tossing a ball to each other. Human perception is not perfect, and we miss a great many things and events around us simply because we are not attuned to see them. They are cut out of our reality. [11]. But mostly, we stop noticing things that don’t change or change very slowly. If political freedoms are gradually tightened, society won’t even notice how it ends up in totalitarianism. If the familiar taste of food is slowly altered, no one will notice the changes. However, if the difference is demonstrated, it becomes very noticeable. Everyone knows that the taste of bread varies from country to country. But no one can pinpoint the exact taste of the familiar, everyday bread. Bread is just bread.
The same goes for communication between people of the opposite sex. It stops being perceived as good or even existing if it doesn’t develop over time. People with whom our communication doesn’t progress cease to serve as external stimuli, no longer prompting us to react. Among our friends or ourselves, there are examples of how long-term relationships between a man and a woman, lacking progress, transition into a state of “friendship.” A couple that has lived together for a long time may find that they have been together “too long,” and their relationship leads to neither marriage nor children, resulting in a breakup. Similarly, spouses who have had children can become mired in daily life and routine, causing their relationship to slowly but inevitably cool down to nothing.
But what is progress in communication? Our closest relatives, bonobo chimpanzees, are so similar to us that we could even transfuse their blood. They use sex as a means of communication. We also use sex and sexual actions as tools for communication. We don’t engage in sex solely for reproduction; we use it as a declaration of intimacy and mutual trust. In other words, the development of communication between a man and a woman is, in one way or another, directed towards the bedroom. If this direction is not maintained, if there is no progress in the relationship, then people will drift apart.
Even communication between people that clearly does not aim for a sexual relationship is primarily driven by sexual motives. We are so accustomed to sex that we often overlook it. If sex is possible, it happens almost automatically. If it is not possible, it still underlies the interaction. For instance, relatives are precisely those people who are connected through chains of sexual interactions. A mother gives birth to a daughter after having sex with the father. The daughter does not engage in sex with her father, and it is not just that she doesn’t; it is explicitly forbidden, it evokes an internal repulsion, and this very denial of sex between daughter and father is at the core of their relationship. The behavior of a daughter and father is entirely different from that of a son and father. One might wonder, for example, why daughters tend to slam doors during arguments with their fathers.
Women are able to participate in society without being constantly pursued by males, simply because, unlike many other animal species, they have learned to conceal ovulation and thus remain attractive to males all the time, rather than just once a year. In our interactions, we are always figuring out who is more beautiful, who is stronger, who is in charge, how people look, and what they are wearing. We buy 90% of our belongings solely for social interaction, which is essentially sexual interaction. When we buy a car or a dress, choose an apartment, or go to a restaurant, the built-in computer within us, primarily aimed at effective reproduction, constantly guides us on what to do and how to do it.
When a girl is looking for a representative of the opposite sex “for communication” rather than for sex, she is primarily deceiving herself. Communication stops feeling like a stimulus if it lacks progress. Dates, second dates, third dates, dinners, kisses, cuddles, petting, sex, varied and frequent sex, cohabitation, travel, children, more children, new homes and other valuable acquisitions, children’s education, children’s marriages, grandchildren, retirement, travel, great-grandchildren. This is the route or path sought by those who want “just communication.” It is a journey where each step differs from the previous one and represents progress compared to the prior state. It is a path that, when the rhythm of change is properly maintained, fills life with meaning and happiness. It is a path that we enjoy. Just as a squirrel enjoys gathering nuts. These are our instincts.
Similarly, when a young man starts or maintains communication with a girl, he is aiming for something more. He is always aiming for something more. And if a girl starts to think “to give or not to give,” she is actually contemplating whether to continue the relationship or not. On one hand, her concerns that “he only wants one thing from me” are quite valid, and perhaps the guy will seduce her and then leave. But on the other hand, if she doesn’t allow the relationship to develop, then a breakup is not just “possible,” but inevitable. The question of “to give or not to give” really makes no sense. Do what feels good to you, not what is advantageous or disadvantageous for your partner. If you want to sleep with him, then go ahead. Will he leave? Well, he might. It’s better to understand that right away than to try to cultivate a sense of “attachment” in your partner while getting “attached” yourself. However, the very framing of the question “to give or not to give” indicates that it primarily concerns the level of trust in the partner. Are the guy and girl close enough to use sex, as a ritual, to solidify their mutual closeness and trust in each other? And if such a question arises, the answer is likely: “no, not enough.” This doesn’t mean that one shouldn’t enter into intimate relationships. It means that one shouldn’t assume that the current state of the relationship allows for 100% trust in the partner.
The blindness of people to things that are either unchanging or change too slowly is, on the one hand, not only a reason for separations but also the only real opportunity for people to come closer to one another. The fact is that humans belong to social animals that form hierarchical communities, and this, surprisingly, hinders reproduction, which in turn necessitates the development of specific behavioral mechanisms designed to navigate these remarkable obstacles.
Amazing obstacles arise in the place where the hierarchical community itself emerges. Unlike bees, ants, or antelopes, people care about who they interact with. They distinguish individuals and shape their behavior towards their peers based on their reputation—the history of that peer’s interactions with other group members. While an ant behaves the same way towards all ants and does not “recognize” its fellow ants, only distinguishing them by their general belonging to the colony, a wolf, a goose, or a human remembers. A wolf knows that it’s best to avoid a certain wolf, while another is cowardly and can be chased off without a fight. In such conditions, a leader does not need to compete with every member of the pack. They only need to contend with two or three rivals for the rest of the wolves to understand that they are dealing with the strongest.
The second condition for the formation of hierarchical relationships within a community, besides the ability to remember the reputation of fellow tribe members, is the inherent desire to establish relationships with one another. A school of mackerel does not engage in fights among themselves or determine which mackerel has thicker gills. In other words, species that form hierarchical communities exhibit intraspecific aggression. This aggression is not directed at members of other species, but rather at their own kind. The presence of intraspecific aggression is an evolutionary adaptation that allows members of a group to optimally distribute themselves across a feeding territory. [12]. This is a useful behavioral adaptation that allows members of a species to compete less for food. The degree of aggression within a species depends on the ability of its members to harm one another. The more heavily armed a predator is, the less likely it is to use its fangs and claws to inflict harm on a member of its own species. Aggression is one thing, but evolution does not support killing. In humans, “something went wrong,” and scientific and technological progress has put weapons in people’s hands that are not aligned with the instinctual limitations that humans possess. A person is unlikely to kill or seriously injure another person with bare hands without special training. Therefore, the instinctual regulation of aggression seems to be “unaware” that lethal weapons are being used instead of teeth and nails. Evolution is not likely to learn how to regulate aggression in humans considering the presence of constructed weapons anytime soon.
A person seems to be a relatively peaceful creature. We don’t bite each other on the street and manage to stand in line quite calmly. Of course, in the crush of public transport or in the same queue, the level of aggression caused by a lack of space increases, but it rarely escalates into real confrontations. The thing is, we live in communities that are much larger than our brains can handle. Real aggression tends to manifest within our “own circle,” rather than towards strangers and unfamiliar people. The apparent paradox of this statement quickly dissipates when we remember how “friendly” relationships can become among close relatives when it comes to dividing an inheritance. We can also recall that forty-five percent of those who died a violent death, including victims of wars and terrorist attacks, were acquainted with their killers. So, the fewer people you know, the greater your chances of living a long and happy life.
However, the presence of intraspecies aggression is precisely the surprising barrier that hinders two individuals from coming closer, not only for reproduction but even for communication. On one hand, relationships can be built with those you truly know, but on the other hand, any attempt at closeness instinctively triggers aggression. Any attempt, if it happens quickly enough to be noticed. These are the specific behavioral mechanisms that still allow people to connect.
The entire process of bringing people closer together is a complex dance, where each party signals to the other that they are open to another small step of intimacy. They are open because they have already become accustomed to the previous state, and the next step is small enough not to provoke an aggressive reaction. If one person suddenly finds another attractive, simply approaching them and suggesting sex or marriage is unlikely to work. The response will often be aggression. Of course, this isn’t always the case. There are unexpected or paradoxical reactions to such proposals, but they are extremely rare. According to “pick-up artists”—young men who practice these direct approaches—on average, they manage to get a girl’s phone number only with every tenth attempt.
To achieve mutual affection, it’s important to “acclimate” the other person to yourself. They need to get used to you while also experiencing a level of relationship progress that goes unnoticed by the system responsible for intraspecies aggression. According to K. Lorenz’s observations, a wild goose achieves mutual affection with the gander she loves, who initially ignores her, by simply staying close until he becomes accustomed to her presence and starts showing signs of reciprocation. If there is no acclimatization, the instinctive urge to get closer to the opposite sex will be overridden by a stronger instinctive drive of aggression towards them. Besides wild geese, all other animals that exhibit intraspecies aggression employ a strategy of gradual closeness. Moreover, the expression of aggression as a first reaction is not dependent on gender. Despite the common stereotype that all men are dogs, very few men on the street would agree to sleep with a stranger who offers them sex.
Aggression is not something bad or something that hinders our lives. Without aggression, people would never know love or friendship. Closeness, mutual trust, and cooperation can only be effective and enjoyable in a community where one expects competition and aggression from their peers. A pair of friends will always be stronger and better than solitary individuals. Love as a feeling is the flip side of aggression and hatred. It’s hard to imagine a lovestruck herring or an ant—they are indifferent to their peers. They don’t single anyone out from their surroundings. We recognize mutual attraction only because, normally, we repel each other and don’t allow others into our personal space. The distance from love to hatred is not far. They are essentially the same thing.
In essence
• Any relationship is only what it is when there is progress in it. Very few successful married couples come from romances that last for years.
• A person uses sex as a form of social interaction, as a ritual of closeness. It is natural for individuals of the opposite sex to seek out sex, even if they do not intend to start a family.
• Any closeness between people is successful only when it develops gradually. Signs of attention and expressions of affection should be mutual, and one should not rush things. If you like someone, the best approach is to start the journey toward marriage with innocent communication, gradually taking up more space in that person’s life. At the same time, it’s important to always think about progress.
Help of the hall
Arguments that a person comes up with. usually, they convince him more than those that came to the minds of others.
Blaise Pascal
Any business sells that subtle difference that sets it apart from its competitors. If there are five stores selling the same vacuum cleaners, and one of them sells more often, that store has found something related to the act of selling vacuum cleaners that distinguishes it positively from the others. It is this distinction that allows the store to make money, while vacuum cleaners are merely a necessary attribute for selling “that thing.” There is no profit in the vacuum cleaners themselves. If we apply this idea to the sexual market, everything that is not essentially sex, borscht, or coziness is sold, but is connected to the act of selling. It is this something that creates the economic profit that exceeds the “deposit” of the business. It is what enables a business to push competitors out of seemingly hopelessly “wild” markets. Even more interesting is that few people consider: “What is so specific about me that attracted my man to me rather than to my competitor?” And even if they do think about it, they start coming up with answers like “beauty” or “character,” or… well, “price.” As if everyone around always buys the cheapest option.
However, why come up with something when you can just ask? Ask whom? Well, the men who are already around, of course. Let them think and respond. Challenge them if they say “reliability”—you can’t assess it without trying. Argue if they say “beauty”—it’s unlikely that all your men are lining up for an appointment with Catherine Zeta-Jones. Nothing bad will happen. The worst that can occur is that you’ll be “won over” again. Give a man the chance to rationalize and articulate his choice, and to mention what exactly made him stop and choose you. Ask and finally understand what card you’ll bring to the next man you meet. Women often think that men flatter them shamelessly. At the same time, they will always flatter in a direction that is closer to the truth than in one that clearly doesn’t align with the facts.
The question “Why do you love me?” which women often ask and that leaves men stumped as they try to come up with a suitable answer, is actually a quite justified instinctive behavior for women. By forcing a man to answer this question, they reinforce in his mind the logical reasoning behind his feelings and the value of the woman to him. Sooner or later, infatuation will fade, and the man needs to remain with the woman based on the articulated reasons. However, this question does not allow the woman to understand her key differences. The man is already in love, and his mind will not be honest with him. Instead, it will provide plausible explanations that align with the surrounding reality and do not contradict his past actions. When a woman asks “Why do you love me?”, she generally does not plan to use the answer for her future marketing positioning in the sexual market. By the way, that’s a missed opportunity.
So what specific questions should be asked? You can use so-called projective questions. For example, asking “What do you like about women?” or “Why do you think men need women at all?” can help dig deeper into the topic. The man will unconsciously respond in a way that reflects his current long-term sexual partner. Don’t stop at the first answer. Continue the inquiry by asking “why” or challenging him. For instance, if he says “borscht,” you could argue that almost everyone can make borscht. It’s also productive to ask questions that focus on events rather than on yourself. Questions like “How did you notice me?” or “Why did you talk to me on the day we met?” are effective. It’s important not to be shy and to seek opinions from men with whom you don’t plan to build a relationship. They are less likely to flatter you, and you can get more honest answers. Of course, it would be inappropriate to approach a married colleague and bluntly ask, “Do you like me? What exactly do you like about me?” However, it is perfectly fine to have a large number of friends of the opposite sex with whom you can have fairly open conversations without any implication of intimate relationships.
If we look at the market through the eyes of an economist, it becomes clear that a firm can only make a profit through something in which it holds a monopoly or something that competitors are unable to provide for the same price. This is the key distinction between the offerings of a specific firm and those of its competitors. All pharmacies sell medications, but each one is convenient only for a certain group of customers. All car dealerships offer vehicles, but each individual chooses one dealership based on their own considerations, seeing specific advantages in the one they select. The price of the product rarely plays a decisive role. Not many people make their purchasing decisions based solely on the price. Often, these advantages are quite mundane—proximity, personal connections, convenience, appearance, and so on. But even more often, these benefits are not even recognized by the sellers, even though it is precisely this “something” that allows companies to stand out in the flat landscape of a competitive market, as featureless as the bottom of a dried-up salt lake. And it is this that provides companies with the economic profit that exceeds the income from a deposit equal to the value of the company.
Once, there was an article in the newspapers about a chicken that runs like a penguin. Its owners claimed they would never make soup from it. From the chicken’s perspective, that’s a complete success! If you want to avoid being “made into soup,” you need to learn how to stand out from those around you. It doesn’t matter whether it’s perceived positively or negatively. The point is to be special. Cheese with mold is essentially spoiled, but that’s what draws attention to it. Don’t be afraid to be “spoiled”; be afraid of being just like everyone else. And if you don’t fear the negative outcomes of your own uniqueness, you’ll achieve something good.
The main secret is that in this flat world, it’s enough to be just a small hill or a bump to find a sufficient number of fans among the entire population of the country. Imagine that you start offering a service or product that will be categorically rejected by 95% of the population for reasons unrelated to quality or usability. Yet, at the same time, 5% of the population will fall in love with your product and will be eager to get it from you. Compare this to a situation where you are just one of 100 or 1000 producers of a standard product that is in demand by 95% of the population. What market share can you expect under equal conditions? Will you be able to compete on equal footing with the giants that exploit economies of scale and huge advertising budgets? Will anyone be eager to get your product or service? No, you will have to push it. By the way, it’s always easier to pull than to push, and there’s a belief that this is why most cars today are front-wheel drive.
In essence
• No one but your customers can tell you why your product sells. Ask your customers. Ask people of the opposite sex and not just those you are close to.
• Direct questions are inappropriate, uncomfortable, and misleading. Use projective questions instead.
• A person who answers such questions is convincing themselves of why they like you. The typically feminine question “What do you love me for?” is not as naive as it seems to men. It is a strategic question that forces a man to convince himself of his love, even when that love may no longer exist.
• The one who stands out from the landscape will win. Don’t be afraid to be different from everyone else. Be afraid of the competition among those who are just like everyone else.
The text for translation: [1].Fish infected with certain parasites desire to swim near the surface, where they can be caught by birds, which then spread the parasite’s eggs throughout the water body. They are compelled to do this, and they find it pleasurable. An ant infected with a specific fungus will eventually want to climb to the underside of a leaf and remain there, waiting for the spores to mature. When the spores fall from the leaf onto other ants, they germinate inside their bodies and begin to release certain alkaloid compounds to achieve their goals. The infected zombie ants leave their colonies and wander alone until the fungus is ready to continue spreading spores in search of new victims. In their final hours, the ants climb back onto leaves and position themselves to disperse the spores as effectively as possible. A caterpillar that is home to larvae of a parasitic wasp will care for them, weaving cocoons and protecting them from predators.
[2].Religious people who suffer from constant self-restraint, often regarded as simple-minded by those with a scientific education, actually behave quite rationally. After all, it is reason that transforms temporary suffering today into the promise of eternal life later. In other words, those who impose limitations on themselves and practice religious asceticism tend to use reason more than those who are non-religious or religious in a “casual” sense.
[3].You can read more in the book by D. Gilbert, “Stumbling on Happiness.”
[4].The scientific nature of a theory lies in its ability to predict the outcomes of experiments, rather than explaining those outcomes after the fact. The theory of gravity is scientific. You can calculate where a stone thrown with a certain force at a specific angle will land. However, the theory of gravity cannot explain a situation where a stone, instead of falling, rises up. In contrast, Freud’s theory will always find an explanation for an event that has already occurred, and it is hard to imagine a situation that cannot be explained using Freud’s theory or other psychoanalytic teachings. At the same time, Freud’s theory does not provide tools for predicting human behavior.
[5].You can read more about similar experiments in the book “The Social Animal: Studies,” edited by E. Aronson, Volume 1. — St. Petersburg: PRIM-EUROZNAK, 2003.
[6].Rice, Edward John Frum He Come : Cargo Cults & Cargo Messiahs in the South Pacific. — Garden City: Dorrance & Co, 1974. — ISBN ISBN 0-385-00523-7
[7].There are suggestions that the name “John Frum” is a distortion of the phrase “John from (America).”
[8].Niccolò Machiavelli, in his book “The Prince,” advised rulers to do good things often and in small doses, while bad things should be done all at once and in large quantities. This is how our memory works; we remember facts rather than their substance. We often use quantity as arguments rather than quality: “How many times have you been abroad?” “How often do you have sex?” “How many car accidents have you had in your life?” “How often does your partner give you gifts?” The same goes for training animals. They are given a small piece of food. But this is just the fact of receiving food, and it doesn’t matter that the dog expends more energy. The brain remembers only those events that are tied to emotions. The brain remembers the emotion of “joy.” And joy is joy, regardless of whether it’s a pleasant surprise or a long-requested car.
[9].Even when it comes to just flowers, not all men realize, and certainly not all are capable of understanding, that for a woman it is much more pleasant to receive one flower 15 times than to get a bouquet of 15 roses all at once.
[10].Pringle, H.L. et al. 2001. The role of attentional breadth in perceptual change detection. Psvchonomic Bulletin & Review 8: 89–95(7). Simons. D.J., and Chabris, C.F. 1999. Gorillas in our midst: sustained inattentional blindness for dynamic events. Perception 28: 1059–1074.
[11].By exploiting the imperfections of human perception, Peter Watts wrote the science fiction novel “Blindsight.”
[12].K. Lorenz. “Aggression or the So-Called Evil.”