A better term for the hyperrationalism I’ve been talking about would be…well, hyperrationalism, but even better: Platonicity.  Plato said it is irrational that we prefer the use of one hand over another.  Of course it’s “rational” in terms of the universe we’re in (which exhibits ‘handedness’ in chemistry) and how our brains evolved (to be asymmetric for a reason).  I may return to this in more detail.  Taleb defines Platonicity as “the focus on those pure, well-defined, and easily discernible objects like triangles, or more social notions like friendship or love, at the cost of ignoring those objects of seemingly messier and less tractable structures.”  (He doesn’t ever note the irony involved in Platonicity, which postures as being as rational as possible but it’s actually grounded in focusing on the “easily discernible” over the messiness of life as it actually exists 99% of the time.)

Taleb’s book failure is the failure to follow through on what he presents.  He effectively trashes much of academia (though he fails to show the limits of the more directly empirical sciences like physics, where Platonicity manifests more indirectly).  He shows how easily our theories and stories about the world are trash.  Most scarily, he doesn’t just show that for predictions of the future, but our understanding of the past.

In the end though, his answer really boils down to “learn the biases [common errors] and heuristics [shortcuts that create holes] in your cognition and develop practices to avoid them” and he gives some examples, like not giving your money to a mutual fund manager.

But what would he replace the academy with?  What research programs would he devise?  What theories of the world (other than the theory that we have certain tendencies toward certain errors) would he construct and with what method?

He has shown that understanding the past and predicting the future are even harder than most of us realized, and he has even perhaps narrowed the limits of what we could predict and understand even if “perfect.”  However, by identifying the mechanisms that distort our understanding, he has made it possible to be more precise in our theories and models of the past and future.  While what we can predict may be more limited than thought before, using his tools, it can be strengthened.

But he shies away from grasping at the reigns of history.  Wimp!

One thing he taught me about theory building relates to the search for mechanisms.  

A Platonist would reject something whose mechanisms seem impossible according to his theories.  At least an average skeptical empiricist may accept something that seems to work yet conflicts with his models of the world but would also not attempt to figure out why that is (or Taleb seems not to).

Take homeopathy.  The mechanism by which it claims to work (diluting a substance with water so much that it’s impossible that any significant amount of the substance is left in the ‘medicine’, taking which is supposed to help the person) is scientifically impossible.  However, there is some evidence that it “has an effect over a placebo.”  The harder the investigation, the less evidence.

Now turn to antidepressants.  The mechanisms by which they claim to work are scientifically plausible, but only plausible.  They’re actually little understood and disputed.  And a recent review of the studies as to effectiveness show that in a majority of studies for most patients the difference from placebo was minimal (and it should be noted that homeopathy has no direct side effects, whereas antidepressants have many, including suicidal urges).

A skeptical empiricist could say the “superstition” of someone following homeopathy would’ve protected him from the rational idiocy of something like antidepressants.

But I want to propose a mechanism they have in common: the relationship of the client and healer.  I propose that it’s that relationship that produced the positive effects (including from the placebo, especially in the depression studies: not the belief per se that the pill was making them better, but the hope that someone was caring for them).

Now, the empiricist says, “Where’s your data?”  I would point to the qualitative but indirect data of how humans evolved in close-knit communities, how babies can die if given their “physical” needs but are not held, etc.

I think a better approximation is (from the overcoming bias blog): “How does this constrain your expectation?”  In other words, if a statement can equally explain or not explain something, it’s nonsense.  How would the world be different if my proposition is wrong?  One could then design experiments based around my supposition.  I think Taleb’s method fails to show how to get to this point.  How to develop a theory in a way that is aware of the common errors and takes steps to prevent them: a back and forth between empirical (concrete) and theory (abstract).

How does one decide what medicines to take?

The skeptical empiricist will outlive the Platonist.  But the anti-Platonist theorist will save both their lives.

But what that means could be developed more.  Saying a balance or back and forth between concrete and abstract is not enough.  A big step is 1) taking into account the anti-biases of Taleb and 2) passionately striving for the grand theories, for taking up the reigns of history, anyways.  Something like that…perhaps.

What is life mastery?  Depends on what you want out of it.

The goal should not be “having no problems” but being able to meet challenges with the most resources.

Every area of life feeds into this in different ways.

Research and theory-building in terms of understanding each area (which supports the intellect’s theory building).

Nutrition: Animal fat, animal protein and organs, omega 3, limited/no grains, sugar, fructose or veggie oil.

Work out: sprinting, walking, moving heavy things around.

Social relationships: can pull you down, or make up for doing everything else wrong.  How to figure that out?  ”You just know”/learn to trust your gut and heart and not lie to yourself–which is partially learning but more removing pain (hypothesis).

The above is mostly “objective”–perhaps wrong or limited but ideally, one can research, define an outcome, work to achieve it.  But most don’t.  For the majority who don’t, this can be attributed to various social factors.  But for those who do attempt this with diligent research and big plans, most fail.  Why?  While the social factors loom in the background, most immediately the cause that is changeable: emotional challenges.  The above must be researched to go beyond “common sense”, but whatever one’s conclusions, most fail in putting them into practice.  There’s the rub.

Solution: The issues are in the tissues.

Motion leads to emotion is the ground for thought.  (Add in notes on motion and cognition and exception that proves rule of Hawkins.)

Motion is composed of structure and breath (as well as other things that are less influenceable, such as heart and chemicals/hormones/et al.).

Recovering flow in motion takes conscious practice to reduce deformations from chronically stressed, anti-flow modern lifestyles.

Joint mobility and moving the body through its degrees of freedom (yoga) are the primary means to do so.

The bigger emotional “issues”–from mood to character traits that inhibit one’s enjoyment of life–can be addressed through the conscious practice of creating the flow of breath, movement and structure throughout one’s day.  Some issues are directly addressed, whereas others are “trained” for by creating the habit of responding to stress and negative emotions with “flow” (spontaneous, joyful, aware).

The details of fascia, heart rhythms, breathing patterns, hormones, movement patterns, etc. are interesting and perhaps necessary for motivation, but are unnecessary for the process to work.

The rub of this is in 1) one’s emotional pain blocks the process of creating a daily practice to expand one’s ability to flow through life, 2) one’s emotional pain limits the expression of this flow outside the practice in one’s day, and 3) one’s emotional pain can make it appear one is doing 1 and 2 but is doing them in a way that is avoiding certain issues/tissues.  Most common is 1, most potent perhaps is a combination of 2 and 3: a certain situation (say a certain complaint from a loved one) triggers a whole ensemble of physical, emotional, social responses from you that are less than life affirming but also work to hide even that reaction.  How does one bring awareness to those things?  The meta-patterns?  Journaling may be a help, though if one’s journaling about it then one’s there with the proper techniques and dedication, or at least dedication.  I think one gets there through building a stronger foundation through a daily personal practice of widening and deepening one’s flow.  Other techniques: counseling, journaling, etc. may all play a role but are ancillary to changing the body’s (e)motion.

So I suggest the key to life mastery is a daily personal practice focused on mobility: joint mobility and bodily flow.  (Think tai chi plus yoga, see Scott Sonnon’s work.)  Plenty of people who don’t do that as a conscious practice achieve far more than those who do it as a conscious practice.  

I speculate that some do do it unconsciously and not as a separate practice.  Others doing it would increase through contributions to the world.  So I still say…speculatively…that it’s the key.

The details are interesting and necessary to talk about, but there’s the basics.  …?