Inkwell: Authors and Artists

    
More paradox than contradiction there.
  

    
Ah, but the sentence without the framing "but" would have been
off-topic!
  

    
I thought one wasn't supposed to begin sentences with conjunctions. 
Going off-topic would be a minor offense by comparison, if you had gone
off-topic, but the Paulson plan (such as it is) was relevant.  Any
port for wedging in a good link will do in a storm, however, so thanks!
 
  

    
*BUT* Anatole Kaletsky of The Times 
 ....   *BUT* as the cross-examination rolled on ...

If it's good enough for The Times it's good enough for me!
  

    
*AND* that means I can do it without compunction, too.  *BUT* I've
traded that for being guilty of going off-topic.  I'll shut up now.
  

    
Topic? We're expected to stay on topic?

Here's another topic you take on in the book, Gary: mental illness. How is
it that the "disorders [of the mentally ill] may well have their beginnings
in neural vulnerabilities that we all share?"

(Topical aside: I've seen references to research that denial is necessary
for happiness--that people who see the world most "realistically" are more
likely to be depressed. That seems to run counter to the "kluginess-leads-
to-mental-illness" idea.)
  

    

Interesting questions. I should warn you at the outset that I'm not
trained as a clinical psychologist, so I'm speaking a bit outside my
expertise here. But here's my take.

1. The literature on so-called depressive realism is actually pretty
mixed. Wikipedia actually has a nice, balanced summary here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depressive_realism. 

2. My own best guess is that relative to happy people, people who are
depressed are more realistic about some things (e.g., risks, dangers,
and negative occurrence) but less realistic about others (e.g. their
own personal successes, likely future prospects, etc). 

3. Which leads to the broader point I was trying to make in "Things
Fall Apart" (the chapter in Kluge to which you refer): our basic mental
architecture often leads into unfortunate feedback loops. Because of
the way our memory works,  negative thoughts tend to breed more
negative thoughts. Have a fight with your boss, and you start to think
about why people in general can't be trusted, and why your neighbor
annoys you. Next thing you know, you're drinking whisky and listening
to breakup songs. Negativity dredges up negative memories, and those
dredge up still further negativity.   

4. In this way,  at leastpart of mental illness comes from not being
able to reason systematically and objectively about the world, and
that's a weakness in the human mind in general, but one that gets
exacerbated in cases of mental illness.  

5. It's no accident that many forms of therapy (e.g cognitive therapy)
aim at getting people to overcome bad mental habits, such as
overgeneralization from small sample sizes.

Kluginess doesn't explain the entirety of mental illness, but it may
well be a major contributor, that predisposes the species as a whole.
  

    
Very interesting, thanks.
  

    
"Next thing you know, you're drinking whisky and listening
to breakup songs."  Sound right to me.
  

    
Sounds like a great way to pass an evening. As long as one knows when/how to
call it a night. Better with the right company, too, now that I think about
it.

Gary, that business about "getting people to overcome bad mental habits" is
an important theme of your book, but we haven't said all that much about it
here. What are some of the concrete things you talk about in the book that
you can suggest to people here on the Well or following along on the Web?
  

    

I noticed that the Amazon page for the book cited "Make contingency plans"
as one of the practical lessons of the book.  I sometimes think that the
problem with being upbeat, positive and not prone to depression while also
running negative scenarios is that it is a little bit crazy holding those
two worldviews at the same time.

Be paranoid and be confident, simultaneously.  That seems to the the
instruction for many life situations, and it has a hhigh likelihood of
making one feel a little bit inauthentic, at the least.
  

    
Thank you, Gary and Bruce. It's time to focus on another discussion,
but please feel free to continue here as long as you like.
  

    
Since the uncertain world offers both opportunity and hazards, it is
interesting that a mind that reflected this might feel inauthentic. 

A statement like: "I feel most authentic when I am seeing what I want
to see" suggests that I feel real when my ego feels satisfied.  

Can we go beyond this and should we?
  

    
Addressing both Bruce and Gail, the idea behind "making contingency
plans" (one of my own favorite suggestions in the final section of
Kluge) was the following: 
 
There's a (klugey!) split in our brains between ancestral mechanisms
that work primarily by reflex, and modern deliberative systems that
allow us to make long-term plans. The trouble is that the older system,
perhaps simply in virtue of being older, holds the steering wheel. So
the human condition is to form long term plans ("lose weight", "get
good grades", "be nice to my parents") and then fail in the heat of the
moment -- when the reflexive system often takes over -- to follow
those long term plans. We end up eating milkshakes instead of dieting,
playing video games instead of studying, and snapping at (and
overreacting) to those we love -- and regretting it later.

A contingency plan, as I use the term (based on research by my NYU
colleague Peter Gollwitzer) is a specific "if I am in X situation, take
Y action" plan -- and a tool for outwitting your inner kluge. 

Rather than saying "I need to eat better", which is vague and easy to
forget, say "when I see a chocolate cake, I will sit on my hands." The
beauty of this seemingly simple change is that it allows the modern
deliberative systems to *speak the language* of the older reflexive
systems. So even if the impetuous reflexive systems aren't listening to
the more-thought-through plans of the deliberative systems, you can
still achieve your goals.  
  

    
That's great, Gary.

Thanks so much for joining us for this conversation!
  

    
Interesting ideas.  Thanks!

My impetuous reflexive systems still think my thought-through approach is
inauthentic, (each aspect probably sees the other as the monkey-mind), 
but now I understand why that conflict leaves me unanchored.