The Neuroscience of Zen

Dr. Philippe Goldin and Ryushin Paul Haller spoke tonight as part of the California Academy of Sciences lecture series in San Francisco, at the packed Herbst Theater. This was the last lecture of this season, and we learned tonight that every lecture of this season was sold out, including this one.

Goldin has a Ph.D. in neuroscience and spent 6 years in India and Nepal serving as an interpreter to Tibetan Buddhist lamas. He now works at Stanford. Haller is a Buddhist monk and Abbot of the San Francisco Zen Center.

Goldin opened by saying that now is a time of convergence, a meeting of East and West. The East has had centuries of Zen Buddhist traditions that seem to draw upon some ancient wisdom, and the West has rigorous scientific methodology and study and it excites him that these things are now untied. We now know that zen practices stimulate the brain in a very measurable way, and have tangible, positive effects.

Haller pointed out that both neuroscience and zen are "amoral," meaning they are not attempting to prescribe any sort of moral rightness or wrongness. Instead they seek to illuminate and explain "what is." Incidentally, I found Haller's mannerisms and way of speaking interesting. On the one hand, he's an old man that one might be mistaken for a crazy person or something. But he's actually very thoughtful in his speaking. Also he's Irish and has a bit of an Irish accent, though he's also lived in Russia, Afghanistan, Japan, and Thailand. His appearance and accent don't really match the stereotype of the kind of wiseman that he is.

Meditation Exercise

Haller said he'd like us to do an exercise with him, and that we might find it silly but that it might help us. He asked us to imagine for the next two or three minutes, that we "are not ourselves." Meaning we have no concept of what it's like to be who we are, and instead we are just experiencing the present moment.

He then apologized for asking this, but he said we should all stand up. I thought this moment alone said a lot about him. His apology was sincere in that he was acknowledging that he is kind of invading our personal space by asking us to do anything at all. And we didn't even have some terrible forced interaction with strangers, like Jane McGonigal's disaster thumb wrestling thing. Anyway, after standing up, he asked us to sit down, but in a different way than usual. He demonstrated the method, and said we should imagine that we are not familiar with our chairs, that perhaps they won't be able to hold our weight. So sit down very carefully, and with much attention to whether the chair can take the weight, and what it feels like as we sit down. He then asked us to close our eyes as he suggested we think about our breathing, the feeling of our feet on the floor, the feeling of the muscles on our face, and so on.

This is, of course, meditation. It's something I know a fair amount about from reading science about it, but not something I know of first-hand. Somewhat ironically, he got my attention here. (The irony is that meditation all about the direction of attention.) It's actually very difficult to just think about those things he's saying without thinking about anything else. The mind is whirring and buzzing with thoughts about every kind of thing, and meditation is an attempt to clear the mind of those things. Think of it as trying to balance on one leg. A master of balance is actually someone who, when a slight imbalance begins, can very quickly correct it and return to a balanced stance. Likewise, an expert at meditation can return to an empty mind very quickly when stray thoughts enter.

I am no master. I have written

Click to read more ...

Men and Women

This is an interesting paper about the differences between men and women. You might set aside some time to read it.

It addresses the delicate point that there seem to be more men of ability in some areas (science, Chess, genre-creators in music, etc) with a much more plausible explanation than the conspiracy theory that throughout all cultures and times, men have kept women down. The author explains that the entire notion of "men vs. women" is a screwed up way to look at it, and that the actual evolutionary issue is "groups (that contain men and women) vs. other groups (that also contain men and women)."

The author suggests three main reasons we see such a disproportionate number of men at the top of so many fields. My summary is as follows:

1) Nature plays dice much more with men than women. Men are at the top of a lot of things, and they are also at the very bottom of a lot of things. Most people in prison are men. Even with height, it varies more with men in BOTH directions (meaning there are a lot of men way shorter than the male average, moreso than women way shorter than the female average). Though there appear to be more men at the top levels of IQ, there are more men at the BOTTOM levels as well. In the set of people who are mentally retarded, the more severe the case, the more likely the person is to be male, and below a certain point, it's basically all male. Though the average in IQ and many other things can be the same in both sexes, it's males nature takes chances on and ends up with more extremes in both directions. Also, I thought his notes about how deceptive the stats for minimum wage and grade point averages were interesting.

2) Evolutionarily, men need to stand out. The author presents a staggering statistic about how many of our ancestors are female as opposed to male. Twice as many are female! Although half the people who have ever lived were female, that's not the same stat. 80% of females who have lived passed on their genes (passing on genes means "ancestor" here), while only 40% of the men who have lived passed on theirs. Men are in a tough situation, and would do well to separate themselves from the pack, perhaps by accumulating wealth or power or skills, or something. The author says the number of times a group of 100 women have gotten together to build a ship to sail to far-off-lands is basically never, though men have done this many times throughout history. If you have an 80% chance of reproducing, it's just a better strategy to play it more safe and pick amongst the many men who are available to you. No need to build a ship or conquer some other land. And so evolution gave men a REASON to peruse all the crazy things they do, and to be passionate about them. To put it another way, the set of women geniuses who are just as able to be great at science as men contains fewer who WANT to devote themselves to such things.

3) Men's "relationship spheres" are different than women's. Women care about deep 1-on-1 relationships, and lucky for us, this has allowed our species to actually survive. Having families and raising young is pretty central to carrying on the species, so this preference of women's is not "worse." Quite the contrary, it's mission critical. Men's preference is to have a larger sphere of more shallow relationships. If you look at violence in the home, women actually commit it more. If you look at violence amongst "shallow relationships" such as going to the mall and getting into a knife fight, men commit it radically more. In each case, it's just the sphere that gender cares about more.

While the woman's sphere has allowed us to perpetuate the species, it has mostly stayed the same over the centuries. But the men's sphere is what enables science, trade, corporations, and so on. The men's sphere over time allows a culture to accumulate knowledge, wealth, and power. When your group of men+women is competing against other groups of men+women, your group is going to be in great shape if the women are great at their sphere (necessary for survival) and the men are great at theirs (not necessary for survival, but bring power to your group overall).

Given these three points, it's not hard to imagine that most CEOs (and even Chess players) would be men, even if the average intelligence of a man is exactly the same as for a woman (which is does appear to be). I know it's a delicate subject, but I think the author does a great job of not even mentioning any morals about what "should be," only looking at what is, and explaining how evolutionary forces created these specializations. To any particular man or woman who wants to excell at the other's stereotypical sphere: go ahead! Anyway, if you have comments, better to aim them at what the paper says, rather than my imperfect summary.

The Theory and Practice of Happiness

The subject I've researched the most and written about the least is the happiness. Instead of putting off the version of this that reads like a research paper with sources cited and so on, I will just tell you a rambling story. And for full disclosure, my own level of happiness from 1 to 10 is about a 7. I am currently below the US's average answer of 7.4. (Note that Switzerland, Iceland, and Denmark are all above 8.0 averages).

A Crash Course in Happiness

For 100 years, the field of psychology was concerned with fixing problems in people, and the study of "happiness" was considered not a topic worthy of study. You couldn't even say the word happiness in an academic paper, you instead needed a jargony term: "positive affect." In more recent times, we now know that happiness is NOT the absence of misery. The absence of misery is being kind of neutral at best. People who have misery can simultaneously be very happy, even (more on that in a bit). The point is, even though last century's psychology was highly successful at curing various mental ailments, we now know that actual happiness requires more than that.

Happiness is in many ways a trap. It's evolutionary biology's way of making sure we keep going, and keep seeking. That is why happiness is so elusive; by its very design in our brains, it's something out there beyond our reach, something to strive for. Those of our ancient ancestors that were completely satisfied with what they had were less likely to go over that next hill in search of the greener grass and more resources, and thus less likely to win the competition of survival of the fittest.

Money is a big trap for many. One of the most consistent findings in this field is that money has zero correlation to happiness, except for the poorest people in the world. If getting more money will help you meet your basic biological needs for food, water, and shelter, then yes it will make you more happy. Beyond that, it won't, but it damned sure seems like it would, doesn't it? There's a corollary here that is especially relevant to American culture. Americans tend to work more hours than workers in other countries. Let's say you make enough money that you live comfortably. You get an opportunity for a promotion at work which means more responsibility, more hours, and more money. We are conditioned to believe this is a no-brainer of a choice: of course you take the promotion because more money is more happiness. But it isn't. If the job would be more personally fulfilling to you APART from the money, it could increase your happiness. But if it's not, then you're trading away more of your personal time in exchange for money that won't make you happier. You'd actually be happier if you worked LESS, rather than more, if it's a job that you aren't passionate about. 

More money lets you buy more material goods. A new TV would be nice. And a new clothes. And a new car, and so on. When you get that awesome new TV, the awesomeness of it wears off after a short time. You are going to be very bad at predicting that ahead of time (we all are). You're bad at predicting how much happier the TV will make you and for how long, at how a political election will affect your happiness, at how the death of a family member will affect you, your favorite sports team losing, winning the lottery, and just about anything else. In all these cases, the feeling you predict may very well become real, but it lasts a much shorter time than you would expect. The TV becomes just another thing very quickly. You bounce back from the death of a loved one, even if takes a month or a year, but when it happens the sadness seems like it will be permanent. One study compares the happiness levels of people who won the lottery with people who became paraplegics (can't use their legs) because of an accident. Although right after these events, the happiness levels are what you would expect, after one or two years they level out to be exactly the same across both groups. Yes, really.

The term "hedonic treadmill" is

Click to read more ...

On Subsystems and Selves

Simple diagram of The Application of Object-Oriented Design Techniques to the Evolution of the Architecture of a Large Legacy Software SystemIn a later post I'll tell you about the subsystems in the game Puzzle Strike, but first I thought we could discuss subsystems in general. Disclaimer: this post is intentionally labyrinthine because that's how thinking about things works.

Christopher Alexander

Christopher Alexander wrote the book on subsystems back in 1964 and it's still very much worth reading. He explained that sometimes a system is made up of a web of deeply interconnected relationships, or in other words: a mess. If changing any part of a system means you disrupt everything else, it's very hard to tinker with and improve without ruining something. On the other hand, it's easier to deal with a system when its made up of subsystems that (though they might themselves have interwoven webs of connections) do not have many connections among each other. This way, if you tinker with subsystem A, you probably won't ruin subsystem B by doing so.

Computer programmers are well aware of this concept. The Model-View-Controller architecture is one example in that it separates 1) the stuff the user interacts with, 2) the stuff the going on behind the scenes, and 3) the stuff the user sees. If you need to rewrite the stuff the user sees, this hopefully has little effect on the other two subsystems.

Another point Alexander brings up is that when we encounter some system, we naturally try to view it as a collection of subsytems, but the way we choose to carve things up can be based on our personal biases. In fact, it can even be determined by the language we speak. The set of all possible subsets of a system is usually so large that it far exceeds the number of words in our language. If our language happens to have a word that describes something, we're more likely to carve things up THAT way, just because we have a way of talking about it. Some languages have more words than ours does for snow, or more words for happiness, or more words for types of small rivers, etc.

As an example, imagine we were going to build a building. That's a very complicated system. What are the subsystems? Maybe plumbing, electrical, and load-bearing materials are three of the subsystems. After all, each of those things has a lot going on within the subsystem but relatively few connections between subsystems. But we could slice things up differently. Maybe some of the plumbing is made of copper pipes. Maybe some of the electrical has copper, and perhaps some other part of the building uses copper, too. Maybe copper parts are subsystem, all related in that they are susceptible to rust and water damage over time. Or what about simply "the bathroom" as a subsystem? Everything in a bathroom must work together, fit, be functional, not cost too much, be aesthetically pleasing, etc, even though it contains plumbing, electrical, and load-bearing materials.

Alexander's point with all that is actually that the best way to carve up a system tends to be the way that gives you the most disparate (as in not tightly woven) subsystems.

Many years ago, I was lucky enough to talk with Will Wright, and I read Notes on the Synthesis of Form on his recommendation. I saw on his whiteboard a diagram of the subsystems of The Sims Online. I couldn't help mentioning the idea that perhaps there was some other set of subsystems, and perhaps the ones written there were simply easier to SAY, as opposed to being the best ones. He said yes, good point, and looked at the diagram. Then he said, "actually, the instant messenger isn't really listed here, it's part of several of these subsystems but maybe it would be better to think of that as its own node."

Susan Blackmore

The ultimate in systems is the

Click to read more ...

Happiness and Its Causes

Last week, I attended the conference Happiness and Its Causes in San Francisco. There were dozens of speakers: doctors, psychologists, researchers, and Buddhist monks, to name a few.

Happiness, we now know, is not something that we must wait around to just "happen." Though the root of the word (the "hap" part) means "luck," neuro-science, psychology, and other fields now know enough to explain that happiness is a state that people can consciously work towards, that there are specific ways of going about it, and that these ways have measurable, repeatable results. The more you know about the subject, the less luck seems to be involved.

The Tone

Before even mentioning the subjects discussed, I'll say that the overall tone of the conference was a contrast to the Game Developer's Conference. The average maturity level was much higher, there were no slimy business deals happening all around me, and there was a general calmness and mutual respect that permeated the place. I saw valuables strewn about unattended, but we all knew that no one would actually steal anything here. Also, there were quite a few more Buddhist monks wandering around than the usual conference.

The topics were too wide-ranging to summarize here, especially considering that many speakers only captured the tip of the icebergs of their subjects. I've read many of their books, so I think the best way to deliver this information to you in a non-boring, distilled form is for me to write several articles over the coming weeks. But here's a quick roundup.

Venerable Robina

The mastermind behind the entire conference is a monk known as Venerable Robina. She's from Australia and organized this same conference in Sydney, then took it to the US. She's currently based in San Francisco where she runs the Liberation Prison Project. Venerable Robina explained that over 10 years ago, a prison inmate wrote to her asking for advice about life and about the mind.

Click to read more ...