How I Think, Usually

My brain spends most of its time play Sudoku. Obviously, not Sudoku exactly, because that game gets boring quickly enough, but such a game on a large scale. My brain is all about taking what I know, and recombining pieces of that to draw conclusions, and so on ever building my set of logic. A statistician might call it a very Bayesian mindset.
My brain also loves Sun-Tzu, because his strategy makes how I think sound cool. Knowing strengths. Knowing weaknesses. Flowing and adjusting. And always with an end goal fixed clearly in mind. Among other quotes:

“Thus it is said, if you know the enemy and know yourself, your victory will not be imperiled; if you know Heaven and know Earth, your victory can be complete.” – Sun Tzu

In particular, I love stories, and I also love having objectives. I associate these two ideas strongly. Objectives are the cool-reasoned strategic focus. With focus on an objective, achievement is far more likely. But endlessly fighting for the sake of winning alone will soon grow old, and that is where a story comes in. The story is the art of making an objective into a full cultural and sensual experience, connecting its purpose into other objectives, and making objectives into livable life stories.
The human brain cannot manage nor enjoy large scale epics as single objectives, but as individual objectives coupled by stories, a narrative emerges. These narratives are loose but incredibly powerful – see Christianity for an example of just how all-encompassing and successful such a narrative can be.
And there you have it, a great majority of my brain’s activity summarized in three parts. The most basic and building understanding through exploration, experimentation, and validation. The next level applying that to objectives, populating options and adjusting until solutions are found. Then the next level, weaving a hundred such cold, sterile activities together into narratives that build from this an interesting, successful life.
*Some conditions apply.

Worlds in Worlds

Have you ever used a software called Docker, or used a VM (virtual machine)? The idea is that you build boxes or containers, which you create and define, which have their own self-contained systems and rules running on a computer. They rely on the base operating system to exist, but can have completely contrary procedures and actions, without any issues with the underlying computer.
A nearly identical idea to these digital boxes are fantasy books. Fantasy books run on top of the real world, still connected to the reader who lives in that real world, but can in turn follow crazy and impractical ideas which could never exist in the world below.
It is my belief that any person should be able to operate in just such a similar way, being able to spin up containerized fantasies which they can test hypotheses about the real world. They should also be able to conjure up such containers simply as daydreams, to escape and relax from the world. Again, the system continues that as new ideas are seen, they are placed into new containers to be tested as the time arises.
Made a bit simpler, the basic idea of how a person’s mind should be built starts with the base of proven, verified (and yet still retested in the future) knowledge which is the core of a person – their understanding of the world is their identity. This knowledge is too ponderousness to use on a daily basis.
Then, on the outside, you have what appears to be unorganized chaos. Different ideas and different tasks all working out of separated logical processes. And the thing is, the brain is exactly this, underneath it is far more along the lines of unorganized chaos than it is the calculator people often imagine. Activity continually flow around the brain to new regions and systems.
I am trained in neuorscience, but am not exactly a PhD, but even PhDs can’t tell you exactly how the human brain works yet, less their favorite pet theory. And here is my pet theory:
The brain works in a cycle. For the sake of argument, we’ll say I’m at work, and I have a (1) Business Problem a (2) Data Problem and (3) an Infrastructure Problem to face in my day. All of these are cognitive problems, but some will use more social parts of the brain, others more critical thinking, others more mathematical, and so on. Your brain activity naturally flows, and so should your actions, slowly moving amongst the tasks as your whims (ie your brain) seems to move. As you cycle through the tasks one by one, however, you leave behind each time lingering ‘memories’ if you will like little stars of glowing neural activity. After doing this for hours, what you should have is a constellation of stars, which if you take it in, is a pattern, some new understanding(s). These new understandings may relate to one problem, all of the problems, or something else entirely (that great ‘meaning of life’ you just discovered!).
Then take a few notes, because those glowing neural stars reset, or get adjusted, as you exercise and sleep, and it’s worth keeping them down for some later meta analysis. This is really the ‘idea of fantasy containers’ I mentioned earlier, separate but related areas of thought which moving among can be really useful to how you think. Or at least that’s how I think, and I think it’s useful and amazing for anyone who values building understanding, as I do.
Don’t worry about everything being perfect. Don’t enforce strict rules. Allow exploration, and bring together far more powerful ideas in the end.

Annoying People

On paper, I don’t think anyone will have an issue with my mindset.
But in reality, lots of people have issues with me. Let’s look at why

1. Challenging Beliefs

If you didn’t notice, my mindset is essentially a machine designed to challenge beliefs. I built this machine very deliberately when I was younger because of mental illness. I wanted all my thoughts to be connected, rational, and able to be rebuilt again from the most basic, undeniable facts observable in the world. I wanted the end of doubt, and I absolutely despise anything that is taken for granted.
I admire faith as it used to be mean in the Roman, largely unscientific early Christian world where it really meant ‘optimism’ largely akin to the idea of ‘hope’ in Rogue One and Star Wars in general, of the ability of forces acting through good to overcome powers of evil. But the modern idea of faith, that is ‘wishing will make things true,’ that I absolutely despise!
While religion may be the most obvious example of beliefs, in reality I annoy people for far more on simple beliefs. Examples of issues on a daily basis are dieting and nutrition. Amusingly, Europeans are far more likely to get angry at me for my opinion on sugar than on anything else when I travel. Sometimes there the problem can simply be I am far more scientifically educated on the topic, and this can make someone on the receiving end feel trapped. I would like to note for the record that quite often such discussions are peaceful, but it only takes a few to seem a problem.
I also tend to connect together people’s ideas together in ways that make them uncomfortable. For example, I might point out how someone’s stated ambitions don’t really seem to match with their actual behaviors. At some level, they are usually quite aware of this, and some people – people like me, appreciate the opportunity to explore difficulties to understand how they might become better. But what is clinical for me is often very emotional for others, and there we find other problems.

2. Emotions, bias, and freezing under pressure

Inactivity is bad. In particularly, one of my greatest fears is of freezing under pressure. This can seem hypocritical to some, because under normal circumstance, I love to ‘freeze’ up a decision by debating the whether-tos and the why-fors needlessly long. Debating the merits of different pastries at a pastry store, for example, is a serious topic of world-altering magnitude which must be thought about in great detail. But under pressure, decisions must be made quickly, and those decisions must be good and unbiased decisions as much as possible.
I used the word unbiased above particularly because bias to me identically means emotion. Anger, for example, far too often leads to people making terrible decisions under pressure, and the same is true of fear. Indeed, I think this is true of most bias in the modern world. Very few people can be rationally racist, that sort of bias, along with many others, is highly emotion based.
In a phrase, I despise emotion. Which is an ironic thing, since ‘despise’ itself is an emotional word. But I think you get the underlying point, which is that I despise emotions as the means of making decisions. Feeling emotions, fine. Seeking emotions, at least positive ones, is great. But using your current emotional state as the underlying reason for a decision is a really stupid idea. Yet it is a thing which happens all the time, far more often than rational decision making.
One problem is that I object to anything but the most rational and interconnected thought. It’s a problem for me because it’s impossible to be perfect, there will always be some mistakes. I understand that, and can compensate accordingly. However, outwardly I also object to great many ideas, thoughts, statements, and so on which pass by me in social settings. And before you tell me that ‘its how you object, not that you object which is the problem’ I must say no, that’s not not true. People hate being objected to, no matter how hidden it is, because our very fabric of social interaction is defined as seeking mutual agreement. And I don’t really care about agreement among people at all, only agreement with more scientific fact.

Pieces of the puzzle

Start with your standard, suburban middle class American.
Now from the parental-created cultural of this household, add much more value on science and nature, reduce EQ, reduce affection, reduce social interaction, remove religion, remove alcohol, increase the value on athletics, increase the available amount of money but remove the impetus for spending money just to show status, decrease in general the dependence on following social norms. Make the parents an unusually well united couple, with well-defined roles and high levels of cooperation resulting in them presenting a monolithic front towards the children.
Now take the parenting policy of this couple, and, as is often the case, make sure it is random and poorly defined. Sometimes it will be incredibly supportive. Sometimes it will be extremely violent and repressive.
Now add to this being a triplet. In itself, this actually brings lots of support and opportunity. But it interacts poorly with the parenting policy. Punishment policies encourage informing and betrayal, resulting in a feedback loop of increasing distrust and violence, which day and night is completely inescapable. Standards of judgment communicate that only the best of the three at any trait is ‘acceptable’ resulting in violent competition, and generally forcing the need to be strong across all aspects.
Now remember that here are still very young children that inhabit this world. They don’t know how to understand or change this world, but they must still survive and grow in it. And we all went a bit crazy.
One particularly important outcome is that this is a meritocracy which in no way resembles normal society. Respect is only given for strength across this little society. Perhaps even more so, I also began to respect perseverance above all. All three of us struggle with interacting with people on the terms they are used to, rather than the (more awesome) terms than we are used to.
Now, all that above was applicable to all the triplets, but let’s add some more things unique to me. Add in a love of history, starting with large piles of image-filled World War II history books I stole from my dad’s shelf that I poured over from as early as I can remember. Add in video games and Sun Tzu and you get a rather militaristic mindset at times. Add in fiction, Rowling, Scalzi, and Patrick O’Brian. Add in a love of the outdoors, the farm, Boy Scouts, and my obsession with gardening, beekeeping, and in particular, and symbolically, self-sufficiency – the love of the art and science of being able to make all you need from the land.
Now, above all, add in OCD, which part of a complicated mental struggle completed altered my life in 5^th grade, and which defined my personality to the present day. Suddenly, my life became about control, but in more particular, about controlling my self by better understanding the world. I needed to know what was right, and what was wrong, and I needed quick and independently verifiable answers.
And there, I think, you’ve built a little model of me! Isn’t it cute???

On Writing About the Self

I am special.
That really doesn’t go over well, does it? A pragmatic person might see that as a general statement of fact, because indeed to any individual, their own life is incredibly special – the one thing we are tasked with managing above all else.
But most people aren’t so pragmatic. Tell them you’re special and they will say any number of things to assert that you are, in fact, very much not special. Or in the case of my sisters, they take the opportunity to remind me how special I am for being the world’s most ugly person, and so on.
You are special!
That goes over a bit better, doesn’t it? Because deep down, you know it to be true in some form. It just feels right to you. Probably not perfect, really not necessarily superior to others, but you are just a bit more something than the rest of humanity, aren’t you?
I think it can argued that even among works where the reader has no direct stake in the narrative, the self is still strongly present. In fiction, we identify strongly with characters, taking their successes as our own. A scientific paper is making you, the reader more full of special knowledge with every sentence. A cookbook lets you be have a more awesome life too, just a successful recipe away.
I’m not really going to belabor that idea in too much detail. I think we can all agree that people like what they can personally connect with. The reason this whole discussion arises is from a rather different point altogether, that of marketing.
Of course, when I say marketing, I mean marketing myself. It has always been one of my great dreams to be able to right a little guidebook, a story, that in a few pages allows someone to completely see through my eyes – with the goal of course being that said people then get less angry, disruptive, and generally vitriolic towards my life, as is far too often the case on a daily basis. Thus, my writing here.
I have typed more words about myself than about any other topic by a truly astonishing margin. The roots of this are most directly in the love-letter emails my first girlfriend and I exchanged in 10^th grade or so. These rambling affairs were terribly long and had far too many P.S. P.P.S., P.P.P.S and so on than is typically recommended in style manuals. I can’t remember what all they said, but not long after I began to put more and more of my thoughts to word. I soon had diaries, sent letters, and wrote endless long personal essays.
And whatever were they for? They were there to help me understand myself. Thoughts in the brain are chaotic, random things. Thoughts on paper are forced to be, if still crazy and chaotic, at least a bit better organized. It is a fantastic way to organize ones thoughts, but as I learned, it’s generally still crazily difficult to organize them in a way that others can understand (so you think that I am indeed very special) and so that you are willing to read it (so you think that you are also very special by reading it).