I think it's incredible how Buddism and Stoicism arrived at such similar perspectives. And they are both incredibly relevant hundreds of years later.
I like the analogy with school bullies :)
Replying here to "F.ex. I want to live in a beach house in a relative solitude (with nearest city at 30-50km). Would I belong to the modern world then?" because I cannot reply directly to it:
I think there is a compromise between how much of the physical environment we can change vs is imposed by the rest of society. But I don't think you need to physically isolate to make impactful change. You can create a completely different experience, that nudges you in different directions while living even in an apartment in the city. With our wealth, information access and technology, each of us can push himself in a different direction through our information diet for example, objects in the home and their arrangement, intentional habits.
I think the difference is that now we live in an artificial environment with new problems. few people would have had vitamin D insufficiency before industrialization
I had that problem when I moved in the mountains last year. Bought a LARQ bottle (UV disinfection) and fixed it with little effort. Kaladyn also makes good UV disinfection I believe.
I think my realization was that it's not about 'who I am' but rather about what I do. So the breakthrough was not caring how an action affects my image (e.g. appearing weak) but rather as a learning point (e.g. more tired indicates a problem that should be diagnosed).
Sure, thanks for sharing your experience, it created a good discussion as a result.
You mention an identity crisis, which is what I was responding to, and it was suggesting to me there was some self-reflection going on. You mention human nature as well:
"You cannot win by fighting human nature. You win by embracing human nature"
Do we really know what human nature is? Do we really know the true nature of the human mind? Are we identical to our bodies? If we lose a limb, do we change our minds/identities?
These are largely unanswered questions, but to me it suggests mind over body. So from this perspective, maybe the body is weak at times, and this can be confused with our own identity if we're not careful. Check out David Goggins (he has several interviews on YT), if you're not already familiar with him.
Thanks, this is a really interesting discussion
I am familiar with David Goggins. He is quite amazing. I think what he does in some ways is mind of human body, but in other ways is an expression of human nature.
Let me explain. I was probably not very clear in the post about this part on human nature. Homo Sapiens evolved to adapt to a certain environment. The 290,000 years before the Agricultural Revolution were spend in an environment quite different than the world today. We as a species are exquisitely adapted to survive and thrive in that environment. This is why we have conquered the Earth.
When I say human nature, I mean our biases, blindspots, logical fallacies that are adaptations to that environment. In essence a model of the world that still believes (unconsciously) we are in that past Paleolithic context. When I say fight human nature, I mean fight impulses that come from those adaptations. Impulses which are not beneficial now, such as being sedentary, but were in the past (when it was advantageous to conserve energy as much as possible).
My conclusion was that in the past I thought I could fight this past model (human nature). But now I realize it's not a game anybody can win, except for very short periods of time.
Rather I believe the solution is to change your environment and your model of the world, so that those unconscious biases (human nature) pushes you to behaviours which are beneficial.
To come back to the sedentarism example: instead of attempting to move from doing nothing to intense exercise 6 times per week (which is what everyone does), to make it a gradual habit: like at least 10 minutes of running at the same time every morning before your cup of coffee. This habit will naturally grow into a bigger habit. You are using your human nature to reach the outcome. In this case instant gratification (coffee after), habit formation (same trigger every day), overcoming resistance with minimum dose (only 10 minutes).
We'll have to disagree about human nature. I think humans have a powerful mind that has more control of the body than people realize.
"Homo Sapiens evolved to adapt to a certain environment. ... This is why we have conquered the Earth."
This sounds like a contradiction. Did we evolve for a specific environment, or did we conquer the globe with all its different environments? People live literally in every type of environment, from deserts, to mountains, to jungles, to very cold places. In every single case we have adapted.
Why are you saying it's so hard to adapt to new circumstances? It seems you are suggesting human nature is not as highly adaptable as it obviously is. We are creatures of adaptation.
> But now I realize it's not a game anybody can win, except for very short periods of time.
I think you're speaking for yourself here only, because there are plenty of examples of how this "nature" has been shattered into pieces. What were humans doing on the moon? Why are humans capable of meditating and fasting for days/weeks? Why are humans capable of extreme feats of athleticism that our ancestors would have never dreamed of. The list is very long.
Tying this in with the my first comment, if you think you don't have control, then for sure you will not, because you will block that possibility.
When I say a certain environment, I mean wild nature. The jungle and the mountains are more similar than the modern city.
I suggest our biological adaptation cannot keep up with the rate of man-made change. The Internet dominates our lives now for example. But it did not exist 50 years ago. It took less than one generation. Biological adaptation needs many generations.
The unconscious is made up of deep layers. It took millions of years to adapt to the wild environment.
When I say you cannot win, I mean daily habits. We achieve great things (like space travel) with our conscious knowledge: science accumulated over generations. But then at a daily level we do a lot of things which are self-harmful. These come from unconscious choices for survival that have the opposite effect today.
Like exercise. Some people do extreme feats. Most struggle to do any exercise. What's the difference? The ones doing it a lot have a deep habit of exercise and adjusted their model of the world. Most who don't want to do it, are driven by the unconscious model that any energy conservation is advantageous.
You have lots of control. My argument is that willpower is not a brute force. You cannot force yourself to change. It only works for a short time. Rather that the key is to adjust your unconscious model and the environment so you change.
But I can sum them up:
No sugar (e.g. sucrose), ever. This includes honey, fruits, sugar hidden in non-sweet foods. The problem I consider is the fructose in sugar, not the glucose
No hydrogenated oils, e.g. transfats
No seed oils, e.g. PUFA, e.g. rapeseed, sunflower, corn.
No cereals, e.g. wheat. For cereals I am not 100% sure they are detrimental to me, rather that there is good chance
No alcohol
No nitrites
Lots of meat
Lots of saturated fat
16h+ fasting daily (e.g. no breakfast)
95%+ of meals are cooked
Thank you
Good point about the source of my worries about weakness. At the core it's about living up to who I aspire to be. Moments of 'weakness' are like sliding back from that towards the lazy instant gratification monkey.
I have the same problem of connecting with people because of not showing weakness or complaining.
> Moments of 'weakness' are like sliding back from that towards the lazy instant gratification monkey.
That's not weakness. That's compromising with your nature that you cannot override.
I tried to be a productive robot with a predictable throughput. Many times. Never worked and will never work.
At one point you should accept some of your undeniable limitations.
Challenging all others is what it means to try and self-develop further.
> I have the same problem of connecting with people because of not showing weakness or complaining.
We the people are deep down very competitive and envious creatures. If you complain too much, you are weak. If you never complain, you are too strong and are disliked because you don't conform to the society's averages.
People in a social setting can only be pleased by you pretending to blend in with them. Harsh (and likely easy to dislike for the HN crowd) but it was demonstrated by the anecdotal evidence of many separate people whom I've known, myself included.
<That's not weakness. That's compromising with your nature that you cannot override.>
That's kinda the point of the article.
But I do believe you can change the environment and your model of the world, so that this human nature makes choices which are good for you.
So you don't become a robot. But rather you adapt better to this modern world.
Agreed. I am just not sure how compatible changing your environment with belonging to the modern world are. F.ex. I want to live in a beach house in a relative solitude (with nearest city at 30-50km). Would I belong to the modern world then?
I checked. You are not subscribed. Turns out I had a problem with MailChimp and the subscribe was not working. Please do it again.
Sorry for the annoyance.
From what I know there is no scientific proof of this practice because there has been no investigation to measure its effects. The closest to a test of dopamine fasting is to look at other practices that reduce dopamine, like meditation and mindfulness. These practices aim to escape the rat race of finding the next gratification.
Mediation and mindfulness are effective. They imply other techniques and learnings besides dopamine fasting. So we cannot know how much of their success comes from dopamine fasting, and how much from the other aspects. However their success is a potential indication that reducing dopamine significantly for a limited period of time can have significant benefits.
Besides this, it makes sense. Biologically if cellular structures can develop tolerance for something, the absences of that stimuli increases sensitivity.
How do we know those other practices effect dopaminergic activity? You seem to say this like they are a standard, but I am not aware of any research on them.
good tactic :) I observe the same virtue signaling. It's a very powerful belief. Recently someone told me they had to watch Game Changers 10 times because it seemed illogical. But now the same person thinks it's gospel. There are so many associations tied into vegetarianism, it moves people in ways they don't aknowledge
I like the analogy with school bullies :)
Replying here to "F.ex. I want to live in a beach house in a relative solitude (with nearest city at 30-50km). Would I belong to the modern world then?" because I cannot reply directly to it: I think there is a compromise between how much of the physical environment we can change vs is imposed by the rest of society. But I don't think you need to physically isolate to make impactful change. You can create a completely different experience, that nudges you in different directions while living even in an apartment in the city. With our wealth, information access and technology, each of us can push himself in a different direction through our information diet for example, objects in the home and their arrangement, intentional habits.