Now seems like a good time to write a little more.  I came across something about burnout on slashdot (and the linked nymag article).  Interesting stuff.

One excerpt of note is the statement, “… happiness equals reality divided by expectations.”  Which is a corny way of saying what Bertrand Russell said a long time ago — Unhappiness stems from a misunderstanding of reality.

Of course it’s easy for the pessimist to misinterpret both statements.  They might reply, “well, then, I’ll expect absolute shit so that I won’t be disappointed.”  Which is not the implication at all (I can’t imagine that happiness equaling a divide-by-zero error is a good thing).  Not to mention, someone who makes a statement like that is already bitter, disappointed and most likely they thrive on it.  Anyway, what the receiver of this advice is challenged to do is to not have irrational or outlandish expectations.  Unfortunately, people who hold such expectations obviously don’t view them as irrational or outlandish, otherwise (one would hope) they wouldn’t seriously hold them.

The article really caught my attention because it highlighted something I’d been struggling with — burnout at work is not caused by workload.  Not necessarily, anyway.  Don’t get me wrong.  My workload can (and often does) get crazy and is a source of stress.  On the other hand, I am quite happy in general.  I think I’ve sustained this level of moderate, even-keeled happiness for a long time now.  At least a year.  Probably more like 2.  I’m not sure exactly what has changed.  Perhaps it’s due to a number of things — transplanting myself to Minnesota (could have been anywhere, really, and from anywhere) and living entirely on my own for a long time (three years now?) among them.  A change of environment worked wonders for my state of mind.  This was actually an interesting point of debate between Jason and myself, though I’m not entirely sure whether that debate occurred on the phone or on this blog.  I’ve also had some relatively even-tempered relationships in the past few years — much in contrast to a few volatile, tumultuous relationships I had while in the southwest.

On the other hand, I do lead a very solitary life.  Sure, I’ll hang out with friends on weekends.  Work permitting, I’ll enter bar poker tournaments during the week.  Overall, though, I spend my time at work and at home.  Honestly, I’m usually just too tired to do much of anything during the week.

A solitary life is apparently a cause of burnout, simply because there are fewer outlets for an individual.  Luckily, I do things to fill in those gaps — I play online poker, video games, etc.  Still, it’s a major factor.

I learned that quite dramatically the last time I visited Las Cruces.  Just spending a week with family and friends did wonders for me.  My chest pains went away entirely, and did not return until several weeks after I returned.  I felt refreshed when I got back.  Interestingly, my mood (by my perception, anyway) didn’t change much — I was happy before, during and after the vacation.  There were only three things that changed — I was in a different geographical location, I was with family & friends and I wasn’t working.

It’d be a mistake, I think, to emphasize any of those factors too much over each other.  To wit — I like my job.  The culture at my company is great.  I’d turn down a substantial increase in salary from another company with a significantly different culture.  Really.  That’s not to say that it isn’t a source of stress — of course it is.  I took on a new role in the last several months, and the company has been reorganized.  No matter how well it all works out in the end, that’s gonna cause stress and frustration (for example, when being informed that our group would get a new boss — the third in about as many months — one co-worker asked, “And who will be our boss next week?”  Luckily, our company’s culture thrives on such honest yet sarcastic commentary).

Likewise, geographical location shouldn’t be overvalued — sure, the weather is great down there.  But that visit was in late summer, so there’s not as much dramatic difference between there and here as there is, say, in the wintertime.

Family and friends?  Of course that’s a significant factor.  But I’ve got plenty of family and friends here, too.  Granted, they are different family and friends, but on a purely detached, psychological level, family & friends are family & friends.  Hell, watching a favorite sitcom has similar psychological effects as spending time with friends (no pun intended — indeed, I must enthusiastically deny that pun because I never much liked that show).

I think, personally, that my main cause of burnout is too much routine.

On one hand, routine is good.  Successful people stick to routines (if you believe what some books would have you believe, anyway).  I read something about a study showing that people who eat the same food on a regular basis enjoy their food more, counterintuitive as that may seem.  I’m the kind of person, though, who goes in streaks.  When I was an adolescent and teenager, I was obsessed with magic.  Slight of hand, etc.  I got really good at it too.  Unfortunately (though fortunately for my sex life), I eventually burned out on it.  I’ve returned to it every few years, if briefly.  I was into collectible card games as a young adult.  I never returned to that, but I do play poker now, and get much enjoyment from it (as much as I may criticize some of the more annoying personalities who are attracted to the game — poker is interesting in that it lays bare peoples’ personalities, and it’s not always pretty).  I’ve done the same with video games.  Programming too.  My interest in philosophy (and the like) follows a similar course, though not to the same degree — philosophy can be, in one sense, not so much an activity as it is a disposition.  Nevertheless, with all these things I have periods of intense interest followed by periods of diminished, though not extinguished, interest.  And yes, I do the same thing with varieties of food.

In short, I like to shake things up a little.  Not to the extreme of some people who need constant novel stimulation, but over a relatively long-term period.

That’s a long-winded way of saying, “Breaks are good.”  However, I think it is helpful to understand and examine the details.

Another major cause of burnout, for myself anyway, is uncertainty.  Whether it’s about a job (re-org madness), financial problems, personal conflicts, etc.

Too much routine mixed (paradoxically, almost) with uncertainty can cause anyone to burn out.

Am I burned out?  I don’t know.  I don’t think so.  One thing that’s helped is that we’ve recently hired another programmer for my team.  At least now I can concentrate on the more pressing matters.

Regardless, I have a lot of the symptoms.  Sleeping problems (though that’s not unusual for me), easily getting frustrated, etc. have plagued me.  Believe me, I’m no fun to talk to after work.  I need that decompression period.  I’m not angry or mean.  I just don’t want to talk.  I can occasionally be talked into an after-work beer, and that sometimes loosens me up.  As a rule, though, I like to go straight home and either read (usually on the web) or play video games or poker.

Anyway, I’ll be visiting Las Cruces again very soon.  And believe me, I’m looking forward to it.

Seriously. Jason sent it to me. Great article.

I know philosophy bores many people. But read it. It’s great. And you’ll learn a thing or two. I know I did.

Also, I bought CKY’s newest one. Also good. A bit more metal than I expected, but I like it.

Random question — is there anything about philosophy that confuses or irritates you? Just looking for Wrestle that Shark ideas. Jason and I have a good one planned (about happiness), but I’ve got no idea what we’ll talk about after that.

I guess the point is that part of what I want to do is talk about philosophy for people who didn’t study it. That doesn’t mean dumbed-down — I just mean that when you’re neck-deep in something, you have no idea what other people think about the subject.

If the roles were reversed, and Party X did this instead of Party Y, then Party Y would raise objections, but since the roles are not reversed, Party Y has no problem with its own behavior.

I hate those kinds of arguments. They are at best circumstantial ad hominem, perhaps abusive ad hominem. These sorts of arguments may even be question-begging.

People of all political affiliations pull this one. The most recent I heard was someone arguing that if Joseph Wilson were more sympathetic to George W. Bush’s politics, Democrats would have been screaming up and down that he had no business commenting on the president’s assertion that Niger tried to or did sell uranium-enriched yellowcake to Iraq.

There’s a lot to be said about the whole situation, but I’m confining this to this post’s thesis. I’ll not concern myself with the substance of the argument — just the technique.

To put it in even more simple terms, how many times have you heard someone say, “If the Democrats were doing this, Republicans would be screaming bloody murder” or “If Republicans did this, Democrats would suddenly be defenders of state rights”. Crap like that.

So why do I object to this line of argument? First of all, these sorts of claims are neither confirmable nor falsifiable because they are not talking about situations which actually exist. Or, as Sartre argued, you cannot argue that you are or were capable of doing something unless you actually did it. Likewise, it makes no sense to argue about how an opposing individual or group would behave in a hypothetical situation, because that situation never happened. Not only that, but a situation is always more complex than either sides of the argument want to acknowledge. What would result from a reversal of roles is not obvious or reliably determinable.

Second, the argument is incredibly ironic. Consider this: usually, when Party X is making this argument, they are asserting that Party Y is partisan and uninterested in doing the right thing. They are asserting that Party Y is only taking the attitude they are because of their current position. This is problematic because as long as this type of argument is considered acceptable, it can be applied by Party Y to Party X as well. They’d both be fallacious, but they’d both be equally fallacious.

And it’d still all be a bunch of nonsense.

In fact, I often wonder about people who make these sorts of assertions. Kind of like how a cheating spouse is likely to be suspicious of his/her partner. That is, people who do certain wrong things often suspect others of doing the same. So I have to wonder whether people who readily make arguments like this are exactly what they’re accusing others of being.

Now don’t take that last paragraph too much to heart. I can’t really back that up with much. It’s inductive at best. But that is kind of the way I see things, so I’m uncomfortable when one group accuses another of cynicism.

But more than these reasons why it’s a bad form of argument, I think it’s rude, hypocritical and unconvincing. Remember how mad you get when someone pulls this on you? They’re unfairly mapping all these motives onto you. But how many times have you used this argument on people, convinced that you were right?

And as I said, it’s unconvincing. Have you ever been swayed to take another position by one of these arguments? Have you ever said: “You’re right! I am an unprincipled, cynical partisan hack!” Only people who already agree with the person making the argument will agree with the assertion.

It’s a bullshit argument. If you agree with me, be sure to call people on it. Even people you agree with.

If you disagree, let me know why.

I scanned through Conversational Terrorism, and I didn’t see it there. I may recommend it.

It’s been interesting.

Part of my problem is that I tend towards moderate liberalism (I didn’t realize I was moderate until somewhat recently). This is not especially helpful in arguments. The problem is that I readily (sometimes actively) point out or admit to my own mistakes. I’m not going to stop doing that, but this can be perceived as a lack of solid grounding. Anyway, I’m not interested in “winning” arguments.

There are a couple points of contention. One is to what extent the courts can “interpret” the Constitution, and whether they have exceeded their authority in particular cases or in general. Another is the fact that the judges are appointed by democratically elected representatives. The last is kind of a side discussion, but nevertheless an interesting one: to what extent any sort of ethical system should be adhered to, and whether ethical systems can fail.

I’m not going to name individuals, and I’m going to do my best not to misrepresent their views insofar as I understand them.

Interpretation

It is my belief that any law is subject to, and demands, interpretation with a measure of restraint. I think that that is inevitable and necessary. Take, for example, the eminent domain clause of the 5th Amendment:

…nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Yes, we are discussing Kelo v. New London.

There are two problems, as I see it. Nowhere is “public use” nor “just compensation” defined in the Constitution or its amendments. We tend to think of “public use” as involving infrastructure, but there is no federal law (so far as I know) that states that. The court ruled that under some circumstances economic development is a form of public use (some will argue that I’m wrong about “some circumstances”).

My understanding is that the condemned property will be used for a park (Fort Trumbull State Park), but that seems to be left out of most criticism of the decision. Critics concentrate on the justification of economic development.

So, what do you all think? Does economic development or the creation of a state park constitute public use? To what extent is this actually a park, since my understanding is that parcels of the land will serve commercial purposes?

I should also point out that while I tend to think it was a poor decision, I do think it was solidly based on precedent. The Supreme Court is not bound by precedent, but adherence to it is preferred. See the opinion for the precedents.

Appointed Judges

Despite well-reasoned (in my opinion) arguments for the lifetime appointment of judges, conservatives seem to take pains to emphasize that these judges are not democratically elected. I’m not quite sure what the intent of this emphasis is. It seems to be more of a critique of the judicial branch than of their decisions.

Reasons for lifetime appointments are spelled out by Hamilton in the Federalist Papers. I don’t quite understand whether there is a controversy here, or if there is, why. I’ve (surprisingly) yet to hear anyone cite the “good behavior” requirement for lifelong tenure, though I think that that would be a bad argument. As far as I can tell, “good behavior” concerns impeachable offenses, not judicial philosophy or acting on that philosophy.

My big fear is that people will start to treat judges the way we (unfortunately) treat presidents—that is, we seek to impeach them for political reasons—thus defeating the rationale for lifelong appointments.

So again, what do you all think? Why do conservatives constantly emphasize that the judges are appointed? I’m trying not to be cynical.

Ethical Systems

Ok, this one is much more open-ended. However, it arose out of discussion of judicial philosophy. I pointed out that strict interpretation of laws can bring about tyranny and the reinforcement of arguably unconstitutional laws. The question is whether flexible interpretation is better, worse or equivalent (and if so, to what degree).

It evolved because I pointed out that one way of criticizing ethical systems is to point out how they can lead to what we feel in our gut to be unethical consequences.

Someone brought up the so-called “Golden Rule” and asked how it failed. I responded briefly by pointing out how Kant stated that his Categorical Imperative (which is very similar) is not itself sufficient for a moral code. I would also argue that neither the Categorical Imperative nor the Golden Rule can give answers to a large number of ethical dilemmas. I can’t think of any situations where these rules would give a wrong answer, but plenty where they give no answer.

• Better off dead by Jonah Goldberg
• Foreign law is not law by Thomas Sowell
• Confiscating property by Walter E. Williams
• Damaging ‘Deference’ by George Will

I think some of these are better than others, though I am ultimately not persuaded. Part of the problem is the mischaracterization, as I see it, of opposing arguments.

That’s the battle I’m really fighting, I think. My political temperament has developed into a severe skepticism of ad hominem and straw man arguments. I am not persuaded by cynical speculations on motive either. I have little patience for these things. They are a waste of time and are intellectually dishonest. That said, I’ve been guilty of these mistakes in the past. I try to avoid them now.

Anyway, for those of you who made it this far (here’s your certificate of completion), thoughts are welcome.

But being a philosophy geek has some serious downsides. In the article they talk about how geeks tend to rake in the dough. Philosophy doesn’t exactly pay out the nose. Plus, a lot of people are confused or annoyed by philosophy. I can’t tell you the number of times a girl’s eyes gloss over when I start talking about epistemology. Some are downright hostile to it. One ex-girlfriend would actually turn up the car radio when I started talking about that stuff.

Imagine the self-doubt of a drama student, without the “HEY! LOOK AT ME!” attitude. Mixed with an inability to stop worrying about whether there’s a distinction between the brain and mind or whether utilitarianism can encourage authoritarianism. And don’t get me started about religion.

And with me, choices of conversation include that and video editing. Take your pick.

Men who are unhappy, like men who sleep badly, are always proud of the fact. Perhaps their pride is like that of the fox who had lost his tail; if so, the way to cure it is to point out how they can grow a new tail. Very few men, I believe, will deliberately choose unhappiness if they see a way of being happy.

— Bertrand Russell

I sleep badly, and I must admit I probably seem proud of it. And I now have cause for some unhappiness. I’m glad Russell believed this shit. That means I can too.

Though I’m taking him out of context. Meh.

I’ve long believed that truly smart (or maybe wise) people can minimize or avoid unhappiness. Good ole’ Bert seems to agree.

First, let me explain something. When driving across New Mexico, you have to get through some moderately dangerous spots. Usually these are bridges across chasms. Depending on the shape of your car, your speed, and random natural occurrences, you could be plucked off these bridges and tossed down to your death. It’s rare, but it happens.

In these spots and others, there are signs that say “Strong Winds May Exist”. I, being a student of philosophy and a smart-ass, always thought that these signs were hilarious. They seem so contemplative, as if they were inviting the driver and passengers to explore the nature of Wind. Is wind something which exists? In the same way that a car exists? Is wind so much a thing as it is a description of movement? Can all things be described this way?

The absurdity, of course, being that it was just a dumb sign put there to advise people that their lives may be in danger. Never mind whether they could actually do something about it. It was those two words: “may” and “exist” that just cracked me up.

I know. Philosophy students are weird. I know. Weird senses of humor. I know that Jason was in on this joke.

So some of you may think this is funny, some may not. But this article about Douglas Adams made my day. Specifically page 5, the story told by Mark Wheaton:

… Adams talked about the nature of humor, recalling a story about driving in the American Southwest and passing a sign reading: “Strong Winds May Exist.” He extrapolated on this for awhile, making eloquent use of his trademark humor …

I need to get Jason or someone to snap some photos of one of these signs for me.