You Say Potato, I Say Patato: The Meaning of Life

I’m going to begin with one of the most devastating excerpts you will ever read, an idea that has forced me to construct a rebuttal strong enough to give my life purpose, a quote from psychologist Tom Pyszczynski:

“Self-esteem is a protective shield designed to control the potential for terror that results from awareness of the horrifying possibility that we humans are merely transient animals grouping to survive in a meaningless universe, designed only to die and decay. From this perspective, each individual human’s name and identity, family and social identifications, goals and aspirations, occupation and title, and humanly created adornments are draped over an animal that, in the cosmic scheme of things, may be no more significant or enduring than an individual potato, pineapple, or porcupine.”

Okay. I’m sorry if that put you in a bad mood. I’m even more sorry if it ruined your day. But I’m not sorry if it undermined your aspirations and dreams. Because by the time you’ve finished reading this, your mood will be improved, your day will seem boundless, and you’ll realize how insignificant those aspirations and dreams were to begin with. And I have no qualms declaring that because I believe that as humans, conscious beings aware of our existence, we have complete self-autonomy. Though a product of both nature and nurture, two influences that have an undeniable impact on our present state, we have the final say in who we are and what we do. Because of this ability to completely control our impact on the present, we are not potatoes, nor pineapples, and not even porcupines, but rather complex social and emotional beings equipped with the power to devise our own happiness or sadness, satisfaction or disappointment. And if you decide to agree with me, then get ready: the world is your oyster.

But first, a quick preface: I am going to frequent words and ideas that have trickled into political and religious debacle, words and ideas whose affiliation which such “industries” has deemed them utopian fallacies in common talk. But my mentioning of such words refer purely to their philosophical meanings, because I don’t subscribe to the arbitrary laws implemented by such “superior” powers, but rather to the power of the individual and the empathy inspired by sharing the human experience: libertarianism and humanitarianism.

Simply stated, libertarianism refers to the belief of free will and is characterized by the individual’s power “to do otherwise.” In every situation, you are faced with a myriad of choices. What you ultimately choose is up to you, without any influence wielded by external powers or prefabricated equations. Think of a simple board game analogy: are you a pawn being moved wherever the player decides, or are you the player, making the decisions first hand? If you consider yourself a pawn, who or what is controlling you?

But really. If you don’t own you, then who does? Whose voice is that in your head, if not yours? The default argument against free will is determinism—the idea that we are following a linear path created by the laws of physics, that we are just variables in a greater equation that explains the universe. According to this school of thought, we have created the illusion of free will, but really our destiny has been predetermined. But how can this be so? How can the pure randomness of our thought processes be the product of an equation? I guess that dream I had last night where I showed up to class naked was determined even before I was born. The millions of synaptic connections that strengthen and weaken perpetually and conjure up the most random of thoughts, memories, and ideas have been programmed to follow an algorithm that has existed since the beginning of time. An infinite amount of years ago, it was determined that the six-hundredth-and-forty-second word in this post would be fuckleberry.

Okay, so maybe I’m being a little harsh on determinism. Maybe it wasn’t decided at the beginning of time that the six-hundredth-and-seventy-third word in my post would be crakpin. Perhaps some sort of third party power does in fact influence my thoughts and behaviors. Wait—scratch that. Something else definitely determines who I am: nature and nurture.

The two things that we have absolutely no control over are nature and nurture. We can’t help which sperm fertilizes which egg and in turn what genetic combination is created. We can’t control the decisions our mothers make as we develop in their wombs and furthermore, whether we reap the benefits of healthy choices or wallow in a bath of toxic chemicals. Once born, we have no influence on what hormones are released in our body and when, and how those hormones will permanently change our neural connections.

It’s not up to us whether we are born into an affluent neighborhood or third-world slums. And usually ending up somewhere in the middle, we can’t control the values our guardians instill in us, or the values we develop ourselves as a result of neglection and bad parenting. With every stimulus we encounter, the wiring of our brain changes forever. By the time we are old enough to form memories, we have already been exposed to millions of stimuli, none of which were in our control. The combination of our genetic makeup and the environment in which we were raised creates a disposition that will influence our every decision. One could argue that we are each subject to certain thoughts and behaviors as a direct result of the interplay of nature and nurture. Since neither can be controlled, yet both have brought you to your current disposition, your actions from this point on aren’t a result of your free will, but rather a byproduct of the interaction of nature and nurture throughout your life thus far.

Many fields, namely psychology, but also neuroscience, sociology, and philosophy, have been created and exhausted trying to better understand the human condition. Each of these subjects has been dedicated to discerning why humans do what they do. And after thousands of years of trying to figure it out, not much is known. The nature verse nurture debate is still just that: a debate. There is no way to predict what any one person will do with the rest of his or her life, let alone the next five minutes. In trying to gain a better understanding of humans, psychologists have done a lot of research, with the most revealing results found in twin and adoption studies. In twin studies, researchers have tracked down many identical twins who were separated at birth yet ended up eerily similar. Let’s take the “Jim Twins:”

“Jim Lewis and Jim Springer first met February 9, 1979, after 39 years of being separated…Both had been adopted by separate families in Ohio, and had grown up within 45 miles of each other. Both had been named James by their adoptive parents, both had married twice; first to women named Linda and second to women named Betty. Both had children, including sons named James Allan. Both had at one time owned dogs named Toy…In one test which measured personality variables (tolerance, conformity, flexibility), the twins' scores were so close that they approximated the averaging of the totals of one person taking the test twice. Brain wave tests produced skyline-like graphs looking like 2 views of the same city. Intelligence tests, mental abilities, gestures, voice tones, likes and dislikes, were similar as well. So were medical histories: both had high blood pressure, both had experienced what they thought were heart attacks, both had undergone vasectomies, and both suffered from migraine headaches. They even used the same words to describe these headaches. The twins discovered they shared alike habits too. Both chain-smoked Salems, both liked beer, both had woodworking workshops in their garages. Both drove Blue Chevys, both had served as Sheriff's deputies in nearby Ohio counties. They had even vacationed on the same beach in the Florida Gulf Coast. Both lived in the only house on their block.”

The Jim Twins make a very convincing case for the overwhelming influence of “nature”—identical twins, leading identical lives, separately, without the knowledge of their other half. But now lets take a look at Winner and Loser Lane, the poster children for the influence of nurture. The Lanes, who lived in a housing project in Harlem during the late 1950s, had a son who they had a particularly good feeling about. They decided to name him “Winner.” Several years later, they had another son. For reasons unknown, this one they named “Loser.” Lets take a look at how they turned out:

“Loser Lane did in fact succeed. He went to a prep school on a scholarship, graduated from Lafayette College in Pennsylvania, and joined the New York Police Department (this was his mother’s longtime wish), where he made detective, and eventually, sergeant. Although he never hid his name, many people were uncomfortable using it. “So I have a bunch of names,” he says today, from Jimmy to James to whatever they want to call you. Timmy. But they rarely call you loser.” Once in a while, he said, “they throw a French twist on it: ‘Losier.’” To his police colleagues, he is known as Lou.

And what of his brother with the can’t-miss name? The most noteworthy achievement of Winner Lane, now in his midforties, is the sheer length of his criminal record: nearly three dozen arrests for burglary, domestic violence, trespassing, resisting arrest, and other mayhem.”

The Jim twins make an outstanding case for nature. The Lanes make just as convincing a case for nurture. Is each story probably the most extreme example you could find to support either nature or nurture? Yes. Are there thousands, maybe even millions of studies out there that show both nature and nurture have a nearly equal affect on how you turn out? Probably. But the stories make my point—both nature and nurture have an overwhelming affect on whom you become. But it is unclear what affect each has, and which, if either is dominant. The reason it can’t be determined is because a third factor comes into play: free will. But if each case makes a pretty convincing argument against free will—one relying solely on nature and the other on nurture—why did I spend so much time discussing them? They illustrate the extremes of nature and nurture, not the more common interaction of each that is achieved through the practice of free will. But how does free will come into effect? Self-awareness.

Technically defined, self-awareness is the “capacity for introspection and the ability to reconcile oneself as an individual separate from the environment and other individuals.” Usually associated with free will and libertarianism, self-awareness operates closely with the idea “I think, therefore I am.” I think, therefore I am…what? What am I? Me.

You are not fully you until that very moment you become self-aware and separate yourself from the people and environment that have for so long defined you. Now, you are truly living as you, and not as a product of your DNA and the countless experiences that have led to this moment. Before, I was Peter Stephen Routzahn, as defined by my genetic disposition, environment, and upbringing. A combination of my parents Stephen and Tara, a product of a little town in South Jersey, the result of the values my parents instilled in me. Now, I am Peter Stephen Routzahn, as defined by me. As the one in control, I decide who and what influences and shapes me, and no longer settle for what is merely available. Completely self-aware, I can no longer blame or praise my parents, my upbringing, or even my luck for the shortcomings or successes I have experienced thus far. Because I am the sole determinant of who I am, all of the weight, all of the pressure, all of the blame, and all of the praise is on me. I decide whether I want to be an optimist or a pessimist, someone who learns from his mistakes or someone who wallows in self-pity. And you get to decide for yourself as well.

But there is one more thing you must liberate yourself from before you can enjoy the freedom allowed by self-awareness: the future. As a believer of libertarianism and as a person who practices complete self-autonomy, you are in complete control of yourself, but you are not in control of other people. You aren’t in control of the weather, your friends, your car, or even your dog. So don’t waste time planning for or deciding around an unsure future that is the outcome of an infinite number of factors outside of your control. Instead, realize that you can control how you react to others, how you react to the weather, how you react to your friends, your car, and your dog. So live in the now, make decisions as events occur, not before they occur. This will help you enjoy the present most and decrease the chance of disappointment in the future.

Think about it. Say you plan for events A, B, C, and D, in that order. Since you exert no control on the universe, they don’t actually fall in that order, and instead, event D occurs first. And then unforeseen event E pops out of nowhere. And then event A finally happens, but it isn’t followed by B, but rather event D repeats itself. And before you know it, your plans were ruined, and you’re D-E-A-D. So moral of the story is, don’t plan—react. React to each event as it occurs and look forward to the plethora of opportunities created by each twist.

Just as you can control how you react to events, you can control how you receive and relate to other people. This is where religion and politics come in handy: they suggest a list of rules on how people should relate to each other. But there is no universal set that everyone abides by. Instead, there are different cultures, religions, and governments, which, although attempting to preach similar ideas, clash in the fight to have the dominant ideology, creating a world-scale culture war waged just to declare who are right. Instead, we should prescribe to the idea of humanitarianism and the empathy inspired by sharing the human experience. Take off the masks created by race, gender, religion, orientation, caste, political party, and age, and , and we’re all just human beings, and we should treat each other as such. Why waste energy time and energy disliking something. Thinking negatively towards other is just that: thinking negatively.

Actually, why waste your energy and time thinking negatively at all. Now that you’ve read about libertarianism and self-awareness, rid yourself of the stress and fear caused by the unpredictability of the future, and perhaps reconsidered how you relate to others, celebrate your newfound freedom. From this point on, only do what you want and what you love. Don’t waste any time on things you don’t care about or things that don’t make you happy. I mean who says you can’t? You’re in charge of you—no one else. Don’t settle for anything less than what makes you happy. Make changes. Quit. Try again. Move. Whatever. Or keep everything exactly the same. Said very succinctly by an angsty teenage boy in the film Little Miss Sunshine: “Do what you love and fuck the rest.” Said eloquently by Steve Jobs in his commencement speech at Stanford: “Your time is limited, so don’t waste it living someone else’s’ life. Don’t be trapped by dogma, which is living with the results of other people’s thinking.” Follow the footsteps of Steve Jobs and adopt his morning ritual and ask yourself the following everyday when you wake up:

“If today was the last day of my life, would I want to do what I am about to do today? Whenever the answer has been no for too many days in a row, I know I need to change something.”

So that’s that. There is my worldview, the doctrine I live my life by. It might seem absurd, unrealistic, and maybe even too optimistic. But it works for me. It’s a set of rules I’ve created for myself to ensure I make the best of every moment. And if you make the best of every moment, when you look back, you have the best life you could have made for yourself. This is my protective shield against the horrifying possibility that we humans are merely transient animals groping to survive in a meaning universe designed only to die and decay. If, in the long run, it turns out that we are no more significant or enduring than any individual potato, pineapple, or porcupine, who cares? I’m happy and if I create a meaningful life that I enjoy, what else matters?

Education Reform: Teaching How to Think, Not What to Think

When was the last time you witnessed a student, of any age, claim he or she was excited for school? Looking forward to studying? Bright-eyed and bushy-tailed waiting by the door for the bus? Probably never. The education system is just a series of steps getting you to the next level of schooling, and this journey is becoming increasingly long with academic inflation. People spend the best years of their lives pursuing a bachelor’s degree and then a master’s degree and eventually a Ph. D. And not everyone gets hired, for the skill set needed to land a job in our ever-evolving society changes perpetually.

The education system is proving ineffective because we are teaching students the wrong things. There seems to be a universal hierarchy in schools all over the nation: an emphasis on literacy, math, and science, and a depletion of the arts. The former teaches formulas and organized thought, and the latter emphasizes creativity. But as we continue to cut the arts nationwide, do we see an improvement in the education students receive? In our evolving society, we must teach creativity so students learn to adapt to change, rather than teach them a curriculum that expires before it can be used in the real world.

Thoreau captures this sentiment eloquently: “What does education often do? It makes a right cut ditch of free, meandering brook.” As it turns out, many of the people who we regard as the literary, scientific, and innovative geniuses of both our time and history books have it out for traditional schooling. Einstein. Gates. Jobs. Judging by their impact on our world, I might have to agree.

A few years back, Ken Robinson did a TEDxLecture called “School Kills Creativity.” In this lecture, he discusses the unpredictability of the future—in the long run—and even five years from now. We don’t know what the future holds, hence teaching static information seems irrelevant. Instead we should teach creativity so that we can be prepared for the unsure future. He claims that we are born free thinkers and we get educated out of creativity. Just think back to your early childhood. Remember how those students who always did the assigned work, followed the arbitrary rules of the classroom, and sat quietly with their hands folded on their desk were praised? And how students who do anything but that were diagnosed with a “learning disorder?”

Michael Michalko, another advocate of teaching creativity and author of “Creative Thinking,” has a whole reservoir of quotes ready to chuck at you on the topic. Similar to Robinson, he claims “everyone is born a creative, spontaneous thinker, but people create mental blocks that keep them trying something new.” Referencing the famous fact that Edison came up with 3000 prototypes before inviting the light bulb, he encourages people to “desire success, but embrace failure” as well as “listen to experts but know how to disregard them.” If his ideas were employed on a daily basis, I think we would see more innovation and less fear of failure. Because failure is inevitable, embracing it creates a positive learning experience, rather than a creativity killer.

I’m highly interested in education reform because I think a solid education, like the one discussed above, is the solution to many problems—with the least important being low test scores. What problem in our society couldn’t be fixed, or at least improved, by innovative and creative thinking? I’m not embarrassed to admit that I shed a tear or two during the film Freedom Writers. I’ve always been sensitive to the topic because I feel I’ve been shaped by traditional schooling—at first a product of it and eventually an adversary.

When I was a little kid, I could draw a sentence much more clearly than I could write it. My teachers told me I was a gifted artist, but also told me to focus on academics. I tried to integrate creativity into my daily life, but it got harder as school progressed and college loomed in the imminent future. By the time I graduated high school, I was the poster child of traditional schooling. Straight A’s. More extra-curriculars than I could count on my hands. Acceptance letters from great universities. But stressed to the point of sickness. School wasn’t fun—it seemed like a never-ending job.

Sometimes I regret the decisions I made in high school, but then I remember if I hadn’t been such an obsessive student, I wouldn’t have gotten into USC. And now that I’m here, I’ve realized it’s time to control my education, instead of letting my education control me. I take classes that seem interesting and study parts of the textbooks and lectures that intrigue me. Sure I don’t have a 4.0 GPA anymore, but I look forward to school. I get excited to study because I focus on the material that interests me most. Rather than having a temporary storage box of material I forced myself to memorize, I have a free flowing consciousness of information I want to know. Taking art classes again, I’m encouraged to be creative and to think outside the box on a daily basis. And I can honestly say I like school now. I’m lucky to have had this epiphany, because many students don’t. But If schools taught how to think, rather than what to think, this could be the mindset from day one. 

The Future

The future, as brought to you by Microsoft. Very interesting. And I can't decide whether I like it or not. But I do find the music quite motivational.

O Rly?

So apparently, there is a scientific explanation behind crazy cat ladies.

Also, new craze "Inbread cats" has swept the interweb.

Just one of many examples of the latest meme phe-nom-e-noms. Google "inbread cats" for more cuddly cats garnished with grains.

Urinalysis & Not-so-fair Welfare

As more people turn to the government for assistance in times of economic hardship, states are fighting back by making it more difficult to receive aid. Employing the motto “If we have to piss to pass, so do you,” state governments are enforcing drug screens before eligible applicants can receive welfare, food stamps, and public housing. Is this an attempt to even the judicial scales or a ploy to curb money spent on government aid?

Either way, I’m not sure how fair it really is. According to Hammurabi’s Code, “an eye for an eye,” “a piss for a check,” it makes sense. If I have to pass a drug screen to earn the money deducted for welfare, then you best pass to get it. But here’s the loophole: drug tests at the work place are not instituted by the government; drug tests for welfare recipients are. So a more accurate description is “I might have to pass a drug test to earn money, but you definitely have to if you want welfare.” Because each one is regulated by different standards, the stereotype that those on welfare are more likely to be drug users is reinforced, making it even harder for citizens hit the hardest by economic woes to get back on their feet. Especially because there is no reported significant difference in drug use among the employed and those receiving government aid.

Again, this becomes a bipartisan debate. An article from the New York Times describes how Republicans favor the drug screening laws that encourage budget cuts, while democrats believe it is only creating more indignity amongst those suffering the side effects of our less-than-perfect economy. In situations like this, it seems like some politicians come up with the most stock-response to their party and stick by it.  We’re all just humans, and we make mistakes. Sometimes people experiment with drugs. Some people go through a phase. No one is perfect, and we need a law that takes that into account. But we also need a law that considers America’s best interest, and such a law would limit budget spending on government aid and focus on things like education and healthcare.

Leave it to a state split down the middle to come up with the most reasonable solution: something that takes the dignity of the person and the interest of the states into account. Florida requires participants buy their own drug test. If they pass, they are reimbursed and receive aid as needed. People who fail are disqualified for one year (only six months if they receive treatment). Payments can continue through grandparents or other relatives so kids aren’t cut off as a result of their parent’s mistakes. After enforcing this policy, Florida has seen the number of welfare recipients return to the same level as the beginning of the recession. 

Florida’s approach says “if you pass, here’s your aid and $40 for the test. If you don’t, you have a chance to redeem yourself, and we won’t jeopardize your kids. See you in a year.” The results speak volumes about laws that favor a split and aren’t too heavily influenced by either party. This makes me rethink my previous sentiment about our bipartisan government, and, ahem, nation. Although such a divide can sometimes leave half the population unhappy, it can also create a compromise that pleases everyone. And I guess that’s what a democracy is all about.