Truth or dare:
Dare: Ask me a really hard question, not a superficial one—one that cuts so deeply you're ashamed to care so much.
Truth: If you could live your life over again, is there anything you would change?
It depends what you mean. If I could change anything I would, then yes, absolutely. I would change every sin I ever committed to an act of kindness, and every act of kindness I ever failed to perform to a act of grace. But it's no use talking about things like that. It has already happened – not the sins; I mean the change: in the eyes of God, all my sins have been forever changed to grace.
Or do you mean if I was to live my life over again, knowing what I do know, would I do anything differently? If I have any memories I would prevent from happening? then I would have to answer no. Given a choice between my life now, with all its problems, and another life, as uncertain as my future is now, I would choose this life. Uncertainty is one of my biggest stumbling blocks, my greatest fears, and I pay almost any price to have certainty. But really, my life has been pretty good so far; there's nothing worth pursuing here.
Do you mean, are there sins in my past which I did not know were sins at the time? things which, with my present knowledge, I would certainly avoid? No, not really. Thanks mostly to my parents, all my sins (that I remember) were fully conscious and willful, insofar as any of my actions were. Were there sins? Countless. But I don't think I have gained any knowledge in life which would have helped me avoid them; just experience. And without a miracle (see above) that's not enough.
But what about any sins in my past which I knew were sins at the time, but did not fully recognize their consequences? In one sense, I have never fully understood the consequences of any of my actions. The myriad pathways of cause and effect are untraceable, even in hindsight. There are certainly some of my sins which have caused more visible hurt than others. [Actually I am more ashamed of the sins which have never come back to haunt me. For I feel (however wrongly) that if I have suffered for a sin, I have to some degree paid for it. But the sins which did not matter to me must have cost another innocent person all the more.] But I don't think that knowledge would have helped me avoid them. Because in another sense, I have always known the possible consequences of my sin: either death for me, or death for Jesus.
There remains one more option, which may be the weightiest. Are there any actions in my past which, considered in themselves, were good, but which coming when they did, were wrong? Yes. Any upright deeds accompanied by wrongful motives? Yes. And it is these that cut me the most. It is these that I would go back and change if I could; that I would spend the rest of my life paying for if I knew how: These things which were genuinely good from my perspective at the time, but which did not take into consideration the good of others.
Friday, July 27, 2012
Wednesday, July 25, 2012
Investing II
I just had an revelation about the stock market. That I will disclose later. But first, let me establish that there are currently two philosophies of investing: in individual stocks, or in the market in general.
To confidently invest in individual stocks, you must know that they will go up more than other stocks. This knowledge can be gained by either information about the company's plans or about the data that those plans are contingent on. Investors who act based on knowledge of the company are call insider traders and are banned in all countries. Thus the only way to invest in individual stocks is based on knowledge which is publicly available.
But stock prices do not represent the current value of their company: they represent the expected value of their company. According to the weak-form market efficiency hypothesis, all publicly available information is already accounted for in the price of the stock. This would mean that every stock price accurately represents its expected value and there is no rational reason to buy one over another. Obviously people do, but on average over time their returns are the same.
But suppose this were false, and obvious general trends and societal influences could be used to determine the futures of individual stocks. What would this mean? It would mean that the average person was not smart enough, motivated enough, or informed enough to take advantage of this generally-available information. Given the number of geniuses and billionaires devoting their entire lives to studying the stock market, do I think I am smart enough to beat them at their own game, at less than 5 minutes per day? Most people would answer yes, but in good conscience I cannot.
People still buy stocks, and they are right to do so. Why? Because stocks, on average, have historically gone up. This is why I currently invest the overall market through index funds.
But I've been thinking; why does the stock market generally go up? It's a generational pyramid scheme! Why do people buy stocks? Because they will go up. Why will they go up? Because more people will want to buy them? Because there will be more people around in the future to want to buy them! We can be sure our kids will want to buy stocks because societal pressures and business/state policies (inflation) effectively force them to invest, at least for retirement funds if not for anything else. But obviously this all falls apart when the US population starts dropping, following that of other countries. The only chance left is to invest in fast-growing countries....
To confidently invest in individual stocks, you must know that they will go up more than other stocks. This knowledge can be gained by either information about the company's plans or about the data that those plans are contingent on. Investors who act based on knowledge of the company are call insider traders and are banned in all countries. Thus the only way to invest in individual stocks is based on knowledge which is publicly available.
But stock prices do not represent the current value of their company: they represent the expected value of their company. According to the weak-form market efficiency hypothesis, all publicly available information is already accounted for in the price of the stock. This would mean that every stock price accurately represents its expected value and there is no rational reason to buy one over another. Obviously people do, but on average over time their returns are the same.
But suppose this were false, and obvious general trends and societal influences could be used to determine the futures of individual stocks. What would this mean? It would mean that the average person was not smart enough, motivated enough, or informed enough to take advantage of this generally-available information. Given the number of geniuses and billionaires devoting their entire lives to studying the stock market, do I think I am smart enough to beat them at their own game, at less than 5 minutes per day? Most people would answer yes, but in good conscience I cannot.
People still buy stocks, and they are right to do so. Why? Because stocks, on average, have historically gone up. This is why I currently invest the overall market through index funds.
But I've been thinking; why does the stock market generally go up? It's a generational pyramid scheme! Why do people buy stocks? Because they will go up. Why will they go up? Because more people will want to buy them? Because there will be more people around in the future to want to buy them! We can be sure our kids will want to buy stocks because societal pressures and business/state policies (inflation) effectively force them to invest, at least for retirement funds if not for anything else. But obviously this all falls apart when the US population starts dropping, following that of other countries. The only chance left is to invest in fast-growing countries....
Wednesday, July 18, 2012
Caring for Your Introvert
Do you know someone who needs hours alone every day? Not alone, just in quiet by himself or with a few close friends. Who loves quiet conversations about feelings or ideas, and can give a dynamite presentation to a big audience, but seems awkward in groups and maladroit at small talk? Yes. Who has to be dragged to parties and then needs the rest of the day to recuperate? More or less. Who growls or scowls or grunts or winces when accosted with pleasantries by people who are just trying to be nice? Do I do that?
If so, do you tell this person he is "too serious," or ask if he is okay? Yes, or tell him to smile, etc. Regard him as aloof, arrogant, rude? Yes. Redouble your efforts to draw him out? Yes.
If you answered yes to these questions, chances are that you have an introvert on your hands—and that you aren't caring for him properly. In the first two you are correct, but the third is desirable if handled gently. As the world cannot be made to fit introverts (being the minority), they must learn to fit into it—and they need the extroverts' help. Science has learned a good deal in recent years about the habits and requirements of introverts. It has even learned, by means of brain scans, that introverts process information differently from other people (I am not making this up). If you are behind the curve on this important matter, be reassured that you are not alone. Introverts may be common, but they are also among the most misunderstood and aggrieved groups in America, possibly the world.
I know. My name is Jonathan, and I am an introvert.
Oh, for years I denied it. After all, I have good social skills. I am not morose or misanthropic. Usually. Well I may be. I am far from shy. I'm also shy (when defined as 'wary and distrustful; disposed to fear and avoid other people'), which compounds the problem. I love long conversations that explore intimate thoughts or passionate interests. Yes. But at last I have self-identified and come out to my friends and colleagues. In doing so, I have found myself liberated from any number of damaging misconceptions and stereotypes. Now I am here to tell you what you need to know in order to respond sensitively and supportively to your own introverted family members, friends, and colleagues. Remember, someone you know, respect, and interact with every day is an introvert, and you are probably driving this person nuts. Or at least compounding their problem/difficulties. It pays to learn the warning signs.
What is introversion? In its modern sense, the concept goes back to the 1920s and the psychologist Carl Jung. Today it is a mainstay of personality tests, including the widely used Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Introverts are not necessarily shy. Shy people are anxious or frightened or self-excoriating in social settings; introverts generally are not. Introverts are also not necessarily misanthropic, though some of us do go along with Sartre as far as to say "Hell is other people at breakfast." Funny, but not relevant. Rather, introverts are people who find other people tiring. Here's where we split paths.
Extroverts are energized by people, and wilt or fade when alone. I don't believe this. All the extroverts I know who have studied this definition have become convinced (falsely) that they were introverts. Granted it's a small sample size, but 'energized by' is not the same as 'enjoy'. Constant activity is necessarily physically exhausting, no matter how much you want to continue. Extroverts may last longer, but they crash harder after the party. They often seem bored by themselves, in both senses of the expression. True. How is this related (cause or effect)? Are people with little interest in self-study, contemplation, or introspection naturally attracted to other people, making them extroverts? Or is the extrovert's increased interaction with other people detrimental to his imagination or personality, dulling his capacity for individual thought? (You can tell I despise people who are bored by themselves.) Leave an extrovert alone for two minutes and he will reach for his cell phone. Yes. In contrast, after an hour or two of being socially "on," we introverts need to turn off and recharge. Yes. I haven't experienced multiple-hour intimate conversations to know if they are tiring. My own formula is roughly two hours alone for every hour of socializing. This isn't antisocial. It isn't a sign of depression. It does not call for medication. For introverts, to be alone with our thoughts is as restorative as sleeping, as nourishing as eating. Unless our thoughts are perverted, in which case being alone is unhealthy. Our motto: "I'm okay, you're okay—in small doses."
How many people are introverts? I performed exhaustive research on this question, in the form of a quick Google search. The answer: About 25 percent. Or: Just under half. Or—my favorite—"a minority in the regular population but a majority in the gifted population."
Are introverts misunderstood? Wildly. That, it appears, is our lot in life. "It is very difficult for an extrovert to understand an introvert," write the education experts Jill D. Burruss and Lisa Kaenzig. (They are also the source of the quotation in the previous paragraph.) Extroverts are easy for introverts to understand, because extroverts spend so much of their time working out who they are in voluble, and frequently inescapable, interaction with other people. They are as inscrutable as puppy dogs. No, not easy to understand. Just easy to predict, since their actions are more public and we have more frequent experience with them. Besides the fact that introverts are more likely to study out the thoughts and personalities of others. But the street does not run both ways. Extroverts have little or no grasp of introversion. They assume that company, especially their own, is always welcome. They cannot imagine why someone would need to be alone; indeed, they often take umbrage at the suggestion. As often as I have tried to explain the matter to extroverts, I have never sensed that any of them really understood. They listen for a moment and then go back to barking and yipping. Ouch.
Are introverts oppressed? I would have to say so. For one thing, extroverts are overrepresented in politics, a profession in which only the garrulous are really comfortable. Look at George W. Bush. Look at Bill Clinton. They seem to come fully to life only around other people. To think of the few introverts who did rise to the top in politics—Calvin Coolidge, Richard Nixon—is merely to drive home the point. With the possible exception of Ronald Reagan, whose fabled aloofness and privateness were probably signs of a deep introverted streak (many actors, I've read, are introverts, and many introverts, when socializing, feel like actors), introverts are not considered "naturals" in politics.
Extroverts therefore dominate public life. This is a pity. If we introverts ran the world, it would no doubt be a calmer, saner, more peaceful sort of place. Ha. As Coolidge is supposed to have said, "Don't you know that four fifths of all our troubles in this life would disappear if we would just sit down and keep still?" (He is also supposed to have said, "If you don't say anything, you won't be called on to repeat it." The only thing a true introvert dislikes more than talking about himself is repeating himself.) I don't know. I think that is an unrelated issue. (The problem with this type of personality study is that it assumes that when to traits frequently go together, they must both be present for either of them to be individually genuine. This is completely wrong and makes the study useless. There are thousands of possible character choices, and if you can only give a name to a complete set of them, you are giving that title to a single person—usually yourself.) I may want to talk about myself if I think the other person (note singular) is really interested. Repeating yourself, no. Expanding a previous idea for further consideration, yes.
With their endless appetite for talk and attention, extroverts also dominate social life, so they tend to set expectations. Yes. In our extrovertist society, being outgoing is considered normal and therefore desirable, a mark of happiness, confidence, leadership. And so it is. Extroverts are seen as bighearted, vibrant, warm, empathic. I don't know. I don't think all those adjectives necessarily describe 75% of the US population (the number you said were extroverts). "People person" is a compliment. Yes. Introverts are described with words like "guarded," "loner," "reserved," "taciturn," "self-contained," "private"—narrow, ungenerous words, words that suggest emotional parsimony and smallness of personality. I don't know. Most of those words sound positive to me. Female introverts, I suspect, must suffer especially. Good point. In certain circles, particularly in the Midwest, a man can still sometimes get away with being what they used to call a strong and silent type; introverted women, lacking that alternative, are even more likely than men to be perceived as timid, withdrawn, haughty. Maybe I should move west.
Are introverts arrogant? Hardly. Is this sarcastic? See next sentence. I suppose this common misconception has to do with our being more intelligent, more reflective, more independent, more level-headed, more refined, and more sensitive than extroverts. I typically (not necessarily—see above) am all these, in addition to being inclined to arrogance. Also, it is probably due to our lack of small talk, a lack that extroverts often mistake for disdain. Yes. Although a better word would be coldness or disapproval. We tend to think before talking, whereas extroverts tend to think by talking, which is why their meetings never last less than six hours. "Introverts," writes a perceptive fellow named Thomas P. Crouser, in an online review of a recent book called Why Should Extroverts Make All the Money? (I'm not making that up, either), "are driven to distraction by the semi-internal dialogue extroverts tend to conduct. Introverts don't outwardly complain, instead roll their eyes and silently curse the darkness." Just so.
The worst of it is that extroverts have no idea of the torment they put us through. Sometimes, as we gasp for air amid the fog of their 98-percent-content-free talk, we wonder if extroverts even bother to listen to themselves. Yes. Still, we endure stoically, because the etiquette books—written, no doubt, by extroverts Writing books is a solitary activity and therefore dominated by introverts. But proper etiquette is not determined by etiquette books, it is determined by popular people, social people—extroverts—and blindly recorded by introverts.—regard declining to banter as rude and gaps in conversation as awkward. True. We can only dream that someday, when our condition is more widely understood, when perhaps an Introverts' Rights movement has blossomed and borne fruit, it will not be impolite to say "I'm an introvert. You are a wonderful person and I like you. But now please shush."
How can I let the introvert in my life know that I support him and respect his choice?First, recognize that it's not a choice. It's not a lifestyle. It's an orientation. But it is a choice to allow that orientation to dominate your life, as opposed to learning to thrive in society.
Second, when you see an introvert lost in thought, don't say "What's the matter?" or "Are you all right?" At least not unless you really care and want to get into a long conversation about whatever they were contemplating.
Third, don't say anything else, either. Again, no. Introverts rely on extroverts to draw them into conversation in situations where it is appropriate or will produce desired goals. If no extrovert ever talked to an introverts, they would lead a lonely life.
Introverts want and need quiet time (note I did not say time alone). But when they choose to appear in social gatherings, they want someone to talk to. If no one approaches them, they do not know what to do, resulting in a feeling of helplessness, which only leads to a greater distaste for social gatherings and other people in particular. The second week after I started attending a new church, one of the matrons asked me if I was an introvert or an extrovert. I answered truthfully, introvert, and for the next year I don't believe one of the ladies entered into conversation with me or asked me to do anything. (I think there is always a women's cabal at these churches.) I would have been miserable (and was, but didn't know any better) except some of the men didn't pay any mind to my introversion, and reached out to me.My shyness didn't help, but neither did over-accounting for my introversion.
If so, do you tell this person he is "too serious," or ask if he is okay? Yes, or tell him to smile, etc. Regard him as aloof, arrogant, rude? Yes. Redouble your efforts to draw him out? Yes.
If you answered yes to these questions, chances are that you have an introvert on your hands—and that you aren't caring for him properly. In the first two you are correct, but the third is desirable if handled gently. As the world cannot be made to fit introverts (being the minority), they must learn to fit into it—and they need the extroverts' help. Science has learned a good deal in recent years about the habits and requirements of introverts. It has even learned, by means of brain scans, that introverts process information differently from other people (I am not making this up). If you are behind the curve on this important matter, be reassured that you are not alone. Introverts may be common, but they are also among the most misunderstood and aggrieved groups in America, possibly the world.
I know. My name is Jonathan, and I am an introvert.
Oh, for years I denied it. After all, I have good social skills. I am not morose or misanthropic. Usually. Well I may be. I am far from shy. I'm also shy (when defined as 'wary and distrustful; disposed to fear and avoid other people'), which compounds the problem. I love long conversations that explore intimate thoughts or passionate interests. Yes. But at last I have self-identified and come out to my friends and colleagues. In doing so, I have found myself liberated from any number of damaging misconceptions and stereotypes. Now I am here to tell you what you need to know in order to respond sensitively and supportively to your own introverted family members, friends, and colleagues. Remember, someone you know, respect, and interact with every day is an introvert, and you are probably driving this person nuts. Or at least compounding their problem/difficulties. It pays to learn the warning signs.
What is introversion? In its modern sense, the concept goes back to the 1920s and the psychologist Carl Jung. Today it is a mainstay of personality tests, including the widely used Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Introverts are not necessarily shy. Shy people are anxious or frightened or self-excoriating in social settings; introverts generally are not. Introverts are also not necessarily misanthropic, though some of us do go along with Sartre as far as to say "Hell is other people at breakfast." Funny, but not relevant. Rather, introverts are people who find other people tiring. Here's where we split paths.
Extroverts are energized by people, and wilt or fade when alone. I don't believe this. All the extroverts I know who have studied this definition have become convinced (falsely) that they were introverts. Granted it's a small sample size, but 'energized by' is not the same as 'enjoy'. Constant activity is necessarily physically exhausting, no matter how much you want to continue. Extroverts may last longer, but they crash harder after the party. They often seem bored by themselves, in both senses of the expression. True. How is this related (cause or effect)? Are people with little interest in self-study, contemplation, or introspection naturally attracted to other people, making them extroverts? Or is the extrovert's increased interaction with other people detrimental to his imagination or personality, dulling his capacity for individual thought? (You can tell I despise people who are bored by themselves.) Leave an extrovert alone for two minutes and he will reach for his cell phone. Yes. In contrast, after an hour or two of being socially "on," we introverts need to turn off and recharge. Yes. I haven't experienced multiple-hour intimate conversations to know if they are tiring. My own formula is roughly two hours alone for every hour of socializing. This isn't antisocial. It isn't a sign of depression. It does not call for medication. For introverts, to be alone with our thoughts is as restorative as sleeping, as nourishing as eating. Unless our thoughts are perverted, in which case being alone is unhealthy. Our motto: "I'm okay, you're okay—in small doses."
How many people are introverts? I performed exhaustive research on this question, in the form of a quick Google search. The answer: About 25 percent. Or: Just under half. Or—my favorite—"a minority in the regular population but a majority in the gifted population."
Are introverts misunderstood? Wildly. That, it appears, is our lot in life. "It is very difficult for an extrovert to understand an introvert," write the education experts Jill D. Burruss and Lisa Kaenzig. (They are also the source of the quotation in the previous paragraph.) Extroverts are easy for introverts to understand, because extroverts spend so much of their time working out who they are in voluble, and frequently inescapable, interaction with other people. They are as inscrutable as puppy dogs. No, not easy to understand. Just easy to predict, since their actions are more public and we have more frequent experience with them. Besides the fact that introverts are more likely to study out the thoughts and personalities of others. But the street does not run both ways. Extroverts have little or no grasp of introversion. They assume that company, especially their own, is always welcome. They cannot imagine why someone would need to be alone; indeed, they often take umbrage at the suggestion. As often as I have tried to explain the matter to extroverts, I have never sensed that any of them really understood. They listen for a moment and then go back to barking and yipping. Ouch.
Are introverts oppressed? I would have to say so. For one thing, extroverts are overrepresented in politics, a profession in which only the garrulous are really comfortable. Look at George W. Bush. Look at Bill Clinton. They seem to come fully to life only around other people. To think of the few introverts who did rise to the top in politics—Calvin Coolidge, Richard Nixon—is merely to drive home the point. With the possible exception of Ronald Reagan, whose fabled aloofness and privateness were probably signs of a deep introverted streak (many actors, I've read, are introverts, and many introverts, when socializing, feel like actors), introverts are not considered "naturals" in politics.
Extroverts therefore dominate public life. This is a pity. If we introverts ran the world, it would no doubt be a calmer, saner, more peaceful sort of place. Ha. As Coolidge is supposed to have said, "Don't you know that four fifths of all our troubles in this life would disappear if we would just sit down and keep still?" (He is also supposed to have said, "If you don't say anything, you won't be called on to repeat it." The only thing a true introvert dislikes more than talking about himself is repeating himself.) I don't know. I think that is an unrelated issue. (The problem with this type of personality study is that it assumes that when to traits frequently go together, they must both be present for either of them to be individually genuine. This is completely wrong and makes the study useless. There are thousands of possible character choices, and if you can only give a name to a complete set of them, you are giving that title to a single person—usually yourself.) I may want to talk about myself if I think the other person (note singular) is really interested. Repeating yourself, no. Expanding a previous idea for further consideration, yes.
With their endless appetite for talk and attention, extroverts also dominate social life, so they tend to set expectations. Yes. In our extrovertist society, being outgoing is considered normal and therefore desirable, a mark of happiness, confidence, leadership. And so it is. Extroverts are seen as bighearted, vibrant, warm, empathic. I don't know. I don't think all those adjectives necessarily describe 75% of the US population (the number you said were extroverts). "People person" is a compliment. Yes. Introverts are described with words like "guarded," "loner," "reserved," "taciturn," "self-contained," "private"—narrow, ungenerous words, words that suggest emotional parsimony and smallness of personality. I don't know. Most of those words sound positive to me. Female introverts, I suspect, must suffer especially. Good point. In certain circles, particularly in the Midwest, a man can still sometimes get away with being what they used to call a strong and silent type; introverted women, lacking that alternative, are even more likely than men to be perceived as timid, withdrawn, haughty. Maybe I should move west.
Are introverts arrogant? Hardly. Is this sarcastic? See next sentence. I suppose this common misconception has to do with our being more intelligent, more reflective, more independent, more level-headed, more refined, and more sensitive than extroverts. I typically (not necessarily—see above) am all these, in addition to being inclined to arrogance. Also, it is probably due to our lack of small talk, a lack that extroverts often mistake for disdain. Yes. Although a better word would be coldness or disapproval. We tend to think before talking, whereas extroverts tend to think by talking, which is why their meetings never last less than six hours. "Introverts," writes a perceptive fellow named Thomas P. Crouser, in an online review of a recent book called Why Should Extroverts Make All the Money? (I'm not making that up, either), "are driven to distraction by the semi-internal dialogue extroverts tend to conduct. Introverts don't outwardly complain, instead roll their eyes and silently curse the darkness." Just so.
The worst of it is that extroverts have no idea of the torment they put us through. Sometimes, as we gasp for air amid the fog of their 98-percent-content-free talk, we wonder if extroverts even bother to listen to themselves. Yes. Still, we endure stoically, because the etiquette books—written, no doubt, by extroverts Writing books is a solitary activity and therefore dominated by introverts. But proper etiquette is not determined by etiquette books, it is determined by popular people, social people—extroverts—and blindly recorded by introverts.—regard declining to banter as rude and gaps in conversation as awkward. True. We can only dream that someday, when our condition is more widely understood, when perhaps an Introverts' Rights movement has blossomed and borne fruit, it will not be impolite to say "I'm an introvert. You are a wonderful person and I like you. But now please shush."
How can I let the introvert in my life know that I support him and respect his choice?First, recognize that it's not a choice. It's not a lifestyle. It's an orientation. But it is a choice to allow that orientation to dominate your life, as opposed to learning to thrive in society.
Second, when you see an introvert lost in thought, don't say "What's the matter?" or "Are you all right?" At least not unless you really care and want to get into a long conversation about whatever they were contemplating.
Third, don't say anything else, either. Again, no. Introverts rely on extroverts to draw them into conversation in situations where it is appropriate or will produce desired goals. If no extrovert ever talked to an introverts, they would lead a lonely life.
Introverts want and need quiet time (note I did not say time alone). But when they choose to appear in social gatherings, they want someone to talk to. If no one approaches them, they do not know what to do, resulting in a feeling of helplessness, which only leads to a greater distaste for social gatherings and other people in particular. The second week after I started attending a new church, one of the matrons asked me if I was an introvert or an extrovert. I answered truthfully, introvert, and for the next year I don't believe one of the ladies entered into conversation with me or asked me to do anything. (I think there is always a women's cabal at these churches.) I would have been miserable (and was, but didn't know any better) except some of the men didn't pay any mind to my introversion, and reached out to me.My shyness didn't help, but neither did over-accounting for my introversion.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
