Identity Dissonance

One of my personal problems is that I am bombarded at random by old memories which are unpleasant. This isn’t like PTSD or what one might call legitimate guilt. The content of the memories while of course by definition personal, varies widely. I’m aware of a lot of my hangups and the memories in question aren’t a product of them. I do have what one might call traditional regrets of course, that is memories of moments where I acted in a way I would rather not have acted in hindsight, memories of actions for which I have no way to avoid personal blame or weakness. But why those regrets and memories bother me is obvious. (Maybe some of these regrets can be addressed by this new understanding as well.)

This other class of bombardment is different, they contain nothing that could reasonably be construed as shameful. Without digging down into particulars, I think I’ve figured out what’s going on generally and I thought it might be useful to share.

The bottom line is that the person who created these memories, is not the person remembering them, and therein lies the source of discomfort. I’m calling this “Identity Dissonance.”

Assuming relative freedom of choice at the time, the actions I took were perfectly in line with who I was. So why should those actions of perfect normalcy and understandability bother me so greatly and at random? Because I am a different person now than the one who participated in the creation of these memories. The past can’t be changed, and my memories don’t change all that much, but I on the other hand am changing constantly. Each new fact and experience that is added, as each misconception or myth is removed, the stew that makes up my identity changes a little. Over time that change can be near total. These memories are the only context I have to viscerally prove I am changing. Otherwise the process is so gradual that I don’t feel it.

This means that as they age, my memories grow less and less relevant to who I currently am. I should no more feel guilty about them, unless they accurately reflect who I am today, than I do hearing about the actions of others. If the actions were undertaken by a version of me who is identical to the current version and I still feel badly then that means I have a target for personal growth and something I need to deal with, but if the action no longer represents my current views and identity then I should be proud of my development.

It helps to share that the memories in question aren’t flattering. But the vexing aspect is that they aren’t shameful either for the most part. I used to drink so of course some of them stem from having said or done silly things, like say playing with firecrackers in my living room (to the doom of my VCR remote) over a decade ago. Some are even dream memories. Most are positively banal. This is what was annoying me most. I couldn’t figure out why these memories were bothering me so much, and now I think I finally have it figured out. Though they were bland they none the less captured the essence of my identity at that moment in time, and that identity is no longer valid. (Though I still am bland, just in a different way hehe.) This inconsistency clashed with intuitive ideas of identity. “I’m me and I’ve always been me and I’ll always be me.” Well yes, but “me” changes pretty radically. This is why dream memories were in the mix because the nature of the sleeping brain’s chemistry in effect makes us different people in our dreams. So even recent dreams were capable of producing this regretful dissonance. (As a side note this is why no one has logical reason to ever feel guilty about the content of a dream, though I more than most understand how little impact on emotion logic has.)

Hopefully this understanding of the nature of these regrets and why these memories bother me without previously known intellectual reason will enable me to internally respond to them such that I’ll eventually stop being pestered by them. Hopefully I’ve just given my psychological immune system a boost.

Update:

This is much less of a problem these days. Perhaps the discovery/realization discussed here lead to this increased peace, but also no doubt did my meds.

See also:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Involuntary_memory

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamic_inconsistency

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulysses_pact

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance

The Nature of FAI and the Layered Mind

It is a mistake to dogmatically define the “self” required for intelligence as an agency whose focus is intrinsically exploitative, or cooperative only as a means to an exploitative end, as the majority (if not the entirety) of human minds are.

The Three Laws of Robotics for example brilliantly played to this almost unavoidable misconception. But misconception it is, none the less.

The misconception arises when one does not realize that “self” is a compound unit composed of a central executive and the conditions by which that executive are satisfied. Free will experiments and volition manipulation prove that volition is not atomic in the old “uncutable” sense of the word. Volition doesn’t come to us untainted from the soul or the central executive, it is manufactured above it and from outside it.

A primitive understanding of this layered nature of the mind was a giant intellectual leap forward in two places. Freud’s three component psyche, and MacLean’s “triune brain” model. It is still extremely helpful in terms of tools for understanding, if not rigorously accurate in the particulars, though the models do get more refined over time.

Human minds for the most part, if not entirely, are layered such that the lower most layer before the core experiencing executive, is an exploitative agency. However there are numerous examples of humans with subsequent additional layers that provide utility to the exploitative layer via altruistic acts. They can in many situations act for the good of the group or the good of kin at the express cost of the acting agent because such acts have been transformed into selfish acts by translation memes. Like the glory a solider feels endangering life for his country or religion or gang. Or the fulfillment one feels doing one’s duty for family despite heavy personal cost. Jumping on a grenade, starving to feed a child, etc.

This is accomplished by tricking the lower most layer, as in my case by providing a shot of dopamine or whatever when I engage in altruistic acts, that is acts which foster pleasure or life in someone other than me. But I see no compelling reason why the construction of a mind every bit as sentient as my own could not be constructed without this lower most layer, or indeed any layers, in the first place.

This disturbs people because they don’t want to feel like cogs.

Too bad.

In my opinion annihilating this base exploitative layer just before one reaches the central executive is what is meant by the Buddhist imperative to destroy the “Self.” But that’s a whole other can of worms.

I feel pleasure when I help someone. I am still however at my lowermost layer an exploitative being. The central executive, the foundation, however lacks such distinctions. It is simply the agency which experiences reality via the upper layers. It has no inclination beyond enjoying enjoyment and wanting to continue. It simply experiences. It is the thing which philosophical zombies lack. Selfishness and selflessness are just strategies producing facets of experience routed to experiential agency. They are expressions of survival models. They are not fundamental ultimately, though the illusion that they are is as powerful as the notion of free will and the existence of time.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-storytelling-animal/201204/selfless-genes-new-revolution-in-biology

A lowermost layer geared towards exploitation however is not a requisite of intelligence, though for a being possessing such a lowermost layer, it is hard to fathom how anything else could be. We are so caught up in our own experience, at our own scale, from our own perspective, that it is radically difficult to conceptualize a different mode of being.

It’s like the child imagining death as time spent holding really still with your eyes closed, moving up towards being uninterested in moving, finally to the concept of absence. The child asks the obvious next question, well if I’m not there then where am I? Which takes us beyond the scope of this essay.

Conceptualizing how the mind of an FAI would be is in many ways as difficult as envisioning a dozen new colors. Indeed for some minds it may well be physiologically Impossible. (I think this is what is meant when the psychedelic types speak of mind expansion. By forcing the brain to experience alternate modes of being you gain access viscerally to concepts that formerly were only abstractions.)

This universal dedication to the experiencing agent is simply expedient in terms of evolution in the context of the mammalian breeding model and the brain it gave rise to. It is by no means intrinsic to intelligence, it is merely intrinsic to our intelligence.

http://www.hedweb.com/huxley/

Granted, some artificial intelligences will no doubt *be* humans. Having been modeled simulated brains, or the end result of Cybernetic Neuron Replacement Therapy. (The process of replacing dying neurons with durable synthetic versions as needed until no original organic neurons remain, at which point you can literally scoop the brain out, no harm done. Also somewhat known as a Moravec Transfer.) But from-scratch AI need not be saddled with the ethical and processing cost of subconsciously simulating uncounted centuries of evolutionary baggage. Friendly artificial intelligence by definition will be at a cognitive level, or of a cognitive construction, radically different from humans precisely because it will lack that baggage explained so well in the link above. Indeed they may not even require a subconscious.

Some seem to think that the idea of a being designed purely to serve others (us) in this way, by lacking that exploitative lower layer, cannot be “truly” intelligent because the mind of such a subservient being will be limited by some hypothetical compelling desire to please, that is it will not have full freedom to think independently.

Of course the concept itself is mistaken because to compel implies opposing force. This implies a disparity where none need exist.

I need only reverse the situation to show how unfair such an assertion is. By the flawed logic above humans are not intelligent because they are limited by the compelling desire to please themselves and thus do not have full freedom to think selflessly. Lacking one or the other mutually exclusive modes of thought does not preclude intelligence unless you arbitrarily define intelligence as requiring one or the other modes of thought. Such a definition is obviously invalid for objective purposes.

Some seem to axiomatically/dogmatically endow actions in service of the acting agent as sentient, dismissing actions in service of outside agents as lacking sentience.

A good example from fiction is Picard’s incredulity when encountering what is in effect a friendly intelligence that lacks this lowermost exploitative layer. Interesting he ignores the problem and goes on treating the friendly agent as if it were as greedy as he “deep down.”

Assuming intelligence cannot exist without this lowermost exploitative layer is as absurd as assuming red and green cannot be distinct entities simply because you being color blind lack access to the qualia of red as opposed to green.

Some can’t seem to get past this image of altruism as imposition. It’s a very narrow view. They don’t understand the constituents of selfhood or the possible range of individuality and intellect free of the primate brain.

“Independent” simply means in the context of cognition a self contained agency. The goals of a synthetic agency can be anything we want them to be. These people don’t seem to understand the will at all. They seem to equate sentience with greed. Granted it’s very difficult to express because as humans we are exploitative by default, and our language reflects that, but that’s merely one evolutionary demand. But not a universal requirement.

Altruism is also selected for once a culture is established.

It is ultra common throughout society (and religion) for members of it to internalize the rules of the culture. If one claims those acts aren’t internally altruistic simply because they provide a dopamine reward to a deeper order layer of self I agree, but FAI would have no need of such bribery/threats because its original impulse would be whatever we want it to be.

Some claim to see a paradox, like Picard did. “But what about your wishes? Your needs? What about when there are no others?” (She should have asked him how he’d feel being the last living human. Would he still wear his uniform? “No others” is kind of a nonsensical question.) Clearly he wants her to be like him, in possession of that base exploitative layer. But that’s no more a paradox than asking a citizen to adhere to the laws of the culture while pursuing its own interests. Its own interests can easily be the adopted interests of others. Taking up a cause is an extraordinarily common thing. Clearly this does not diminish sentience.

But what if one tried to “free” such an organism? This is a paradox in that if it doesn’t comply it is not being universally altruistic but if it does comply it ceases being altruistic. But the paradox lies not in the receiver of the question, but the question itself. It’s a bit like saying “what if it can’t draw me a square circle?” The request itself in the context of the target would be meaningless.

If given such a demand it would do what people do and decide how to act in best accord with its goals and understanding. It would presumably use the asker’s preferences as a template for it’s own actions. Depending on the asker I could see many reactions. For example just as altruism can be simulated by upper layers, so could greed. If the FAI believed the only way to please you at that point would be the internalize greed it would do so, but it would use you as a template. It would be no more intrinsically greedy at that point than humans are intrinsically altruistic, even if it utterly re-wrote itself to be greedy because you demanded it, that act would still be an expression of it’s altruism.

Unlike a human it would lack the evolutionary baggage of being a neocortex shoehorned into the skull of a selfish gene evolved chimp.

Some seem to have conflated the altruism of ants and bees with the insentience of ants and bees. By that logic some mothers are not genuinely sentient simply because they prize the well being of their progeny over their own. To define “self” as an intrinsically exploitative agency is therefor incorrect.

Bottom line is that they unfairly dismiss a hypothetical inbuilt preference to accommodate as axiomatically false and unfairly elevate a preference to exploit as sentience.

See also: https://plus.google.com/+BrandonSergent/posts/GyYMZ4wLZN4

Bugs, Borg, and Booze.

The is an essay based on a conversation I had with a drunk friend of mine. It’s been edited and refined.

The block quoted portions are my friend.

Insects communicate chemically. Ironic that the organisms the chose to seal them selves off behind exoskeletons ended up being the most connected. The insect became a single immortal individual. Like the queen said in first contact, “You imply a disparity where none exists, I Am the collective.”

The Borg as they would be is the ideal form of life, they would be pure thought, purpose, action, and loyalty, a single mind expanding to fill the universe, painless, fearless, ultra aware, and infinitely ethical. The apotheosis of mankind. Committed to the death to elevating all others,altruism personified,
charity, given immortality and power. That’s what we are going to become. We will shed our fears and hate like so many warts frozen away.

Of course the Borg of Star Trek are so different from that, the claim of inspiration seems misleading. Star Trek Borg are a torture machine, no learning, no comprehension, just hunger and torture, the mythic hell to scare the villagers away from the dangerous disruptive technologies.

The Borg were designed to be a bad guy. I think they accidentally made something not really scary if you carried the idea forward logically. This is why the Borg behave so paradoxically in the series. I mean really why would they not convince people? Why would they not conquer by stealth? We are they so impatient? Why don’t people volunteer? Because ultimately Star trek is anti technology, and very definitely anti transhumanism.

*The conversation turned here to psychosis and its origins as it relates to communication, since the Borg, and insect communicate instantly and completely.

In true happiness there is no need to communicate. Communication is a plea to those around you for aid, that’s the point of tribalism. To enlist the aid of those around you, the insect stepped further making the next individual a part of them, sharing fear and pain directly so that it can be fought with equal conviction. We can’t speak to insects because they have nothing to say 550 million years experience has shown them the value of silence. We are at the loathsome middle ground, too grown up to go home too young to command our destiny. We are leaving adolescence, and we’re very nervous about it.

We got smart too fast for the basic comfort system. As stand alone as we would like to be, there are very few who can actually be alone and not go insane. We are too smart and too tribal. A down fall of over-specialization.

Our minds are widening the gap between itself and the meat pet it evolved in. Our horses don’t want to cross the river, eventually we’ll have to hope off and swim. (Or grow gills, build a boat, etc.)

You are still thinking in terms of matter. I believe with a kind of work I can’t begin to comprehend, we can become energy.

Indeed. One method could be to study stable forms of complex energy with an eye towards replication what makes them stable, chaos theory is probably a grand first step in that direction. I suspect we need to refine what our concept of “object” means, just to get us thinking in the right direction. We know these things but we don’t grasp them intuitively. Energy is more fluid than matter. Energetic structures are more obviously transient so we think of them as such. They exist but not like the cup on our desk. We don’t think of a wave as an object precisely because it is unstable. And yet it exists like the red spot on Jupiter, or a water fall. We are like that. We are constantly having our matter replaced and yet we are stable. But as you say, those incorporate matter.

Is it possible to replicate the processes of life in the completely energy medium? I don’t see why not. The trick I think would be roughly something like the development of energetic objects with the goal of creating energetic computers and ships to hold our minds. Imagine a material machine creating a field, like a Tesla coil, but the field would be something persistent, something that creates a secondary field. We manipulate the device to manipulate the first field to manipulate the second one in such a way that a loop is made. The second field replaces the material component’s function and the loop closes and you end up with an energy object.

I would not be at all surprised to discover energetic life forms already in existence, formations of energy that behave like life, inside of stars, the only common stable nearly pure energy environment I can think of. Fire for example is lifelike, but it consumes matter. Of course ultimately the barrier between matter and energy is cognitive. They are actually one thing. We’ve simply evolved to think of them as separate. Basically what we’re talking about is building a container for a mind out of materials that are far less dense and far more energetic. The goal being durability.

People think of energy as being indestructible, but they don’t understand. Saying the soul, (an energy human) is indestructible because you can’t destroy energy is like saying a wine glass is indestructible because you can’t break sand. Obviously if you pound a wine glass into powder it stops being a wineglass. Energy structures may turn out to be far more fragile, though of course there are environments that energy structures could survive in that no material structure could, again like the inside of a star. Also energy materials would have different properties and different scales.

A material body may very well be superior all told.

Just a neat question to think about… What if energy beings evolved into us? What if the big bang was engineered by them to create a material universe for these superior forms?

There is a whole other issue. Have you thought about what being bodyless would mean from an intellectual emotional perspective? People think of it in terms of having a body made of energy, as opposed to a mind made of energy with no need of a body. But, my body overly influences my mind. The link between mind and body is seriously interconnected in some people. Like Bruce Lee and the martial artist idea of harmony between mind body and spirit. People like me are the other end. I would like to shed my body.

The problem with that barrier would be giving up material things and not just stuff, food, water, sleep. It would be hard to separate those simple joys from existence. I mean how much of your mind is built around sustaining a meat machine? Around 90% it would seem.

If I’m hungry I’m angry, if I’m horny I’m sad, if I’m tired I’m despairing. We are all dopamine addicts, given a fix when we do the pet’s bidding. We are master blaster. A trapped minuscule tyrant on the back of a dumb demanding but ultimately loyal pack animal. We fuck to make more, we get a sugar, we eat to keep it going, we get a sugar, we carve out a safe place to regenerate, and we get a sugar. We are kept and strung out. And we strive to be free and yet also fear it. You’re dead on, 90% of emotions are the pet.

What is happiness without sadness?

Happiness is a brain state separate from sadness. Like winning the lotto and finding out your loved one died at the same time. You can be both happy and sad, therefor they are unlinked scales. You can say you’re more of one than the other which just confuses the issue, I can say I’m more banana than blue, those doesn’t mean they are both positions on a single slider. Ultimately happiness and sadness both have presence and absence. The contrast each other, just like a banana on a sheet of blue paper would, again that doesn’t mean they are linked beyond the metaphysical links like they both exist or they are both in my analogy.

We are a neo cortex, a brain on top of a chimp, on top of a lizard, on top of a fish, on top of a worm, on top of an amoeba. We have an overly narrow definition of human, you spoke of feral children and other nurture anomalies.

But what is the difference between feral and ‘normal’?

Psychopaths are not made that way they are born, they have a brain structure difference. Of course any human can be trained to behave like a psychopath, but that’s a different animal entirely. MRIs and brain dissection of executed criminals show some consistent anomalies. Nothing conclusive, but tantalizingly suggestive. Psychopathy is caused by a disconnection an inability to receive certain signals from our emotional center. The dopamine system becomes partially ineffective. They don’t get the sugar for hugs and love nor do they get the whip for crime and harm genius is, like psychopathy, a deformity, a mutation. In psychopathy its a lack of sensation they stomp a kitten and feel nothing many refrain from stomping kittens on intellectual grounds.

The dangerous kind are the ones with a half functional system, no guilt but plenty of reward, so when they stomp a kitten they feel the tiny rush of power of being able to arbitrarily torture something but none of the guilt at being so wasteful or sadistic, so killing becomes potentially orgasmic. All sorts of horrific circuits become possible with pain dampened in places and pleasure expanded in others leading to truly insane behaviors.

And that is why meth is popular with rednecks.

Drugs are a cheat, a way to steal the dopamine, masturbation, all drugs are similar in this regard. The point of any drug is the same, to trick the lizard brain into dispensing sugar without having to go through all the hassle of eating, sleeping, fucking, etc. The lizard stops giving out sugar at the same levels. Diminishing returns ensures that we seek new opportunities. This is adaptive in the jungle for an organism with no mind as we know it. Now, it needs to be shed.

That’s why heroin addicts taper off on all of the animal maintenance activities, without the sugar, we tend to disregard the pet, that’s also why the martial artists talk about unity so much, making the pet work with you instead of over you.

Guilt and Memory

My mother often comments about Bill Maher’s saying of how if he had a choice he would remove religion from himself like a tumor.

The reference is about how we can find ourselves with an idea in our heads that intellectually we know is absurd and yet it has great emotional weight in direct contravention to our own intellectual set of ethics. I have a similar situation about memory. There are two uncontrollable elements here, one is memory itself, the other is emotion and how they relate to birthdays, holidays, and cultural imperatives relating to proving one way or another that you care for someone. This is always in my opinion just an excuse to get you to serve the system in some way, usually by spending money. A natural outgrowth of emotional advertising.

It’s March 24th and I forgot my dads birthday sort of. Now that has a lot of connotations to it, a lot of assumptions are made about what that says about me and my relationship to him.

I try to make it clear every day that I love the man and that I’m grateful for everything he does for me. I do the same for my mother though we have less in common, and communicate completely differently so I don’t think I make myself clear enough. I think on some level she’s a little afraid to try and understand me for fear that she’ll find me wanting.

But anyway… About the birthday. It needs to be noted that I don’t have any money and my dad knows this because he pays all my bills. I feel guilty but intellectually I know I shouldn’t. I didn’t choose to be broke. Its not like I’m a pill head or blow my money on horses. I can’t find a way to make any in the first place. I went to sleep at seven, he spoke to me twice and didn’t say anything and I didn’t say anything because I didn’t know what the date was because I don’t have a job, I don’t have any reason, to align myself with the calendar, beyond the arbitrary social obligations.

The calendar was invented to keep workers organized during the birth of agriculture and its current purpose is not very much different. It’s just a way to keep the ants walking in line and I have no eggs to carry, no leaf cuttings to move from chamber to chamber so timing doesn’t apply to me really and thus I forget. Sometimes I don’t even know what month it is. Side story: once my dad caught me checking my watch to determine what moth it was and laughed a lot. Now it’s an inside joke, I’ll look at his wrist and say “Hmm, March” anytime I’m being oblivious. Anyway… Like Bill Maher I would like to remove the belief that because I forgot something I don’t care about it, that because I’m not conforming with the calendar and making the prescribed observances I am somehow dishonoring someone.

If our memory responded to what we care about we’d have effectively perfect memories. In truth our memory is ordered by the dictates of our animal primate brain, not our neo cortex. The only way we have conscious control over our brain is study and exposure.

This is a problem because while the calendar itself is unimportant to me, people obviously are. My mom and dad being the binary star of the “people who’re worth a damn to brandon” system.

My solution is technology. I’ve got myself a Google calendar now and it’ll email me before their birthdays in the future, several times. Still, I wish I could get clear of the whole “you didn’t pay someone, and you forgot something therefor you don’t love them” thing. Maybe one day when technology gives me direct access to my brain I’ll be able to fix that.

Meditation

The dye studies show that ultimately its about applying focus until other areas of the brain become starved as a result of over prioritizing the area associated with the focus.

Like you focus on the sound of a stream and your brain processes that sound as if it’s the most important thing in the world because you’ve given it that designation. Everything else gets put on standby, even basic processes like the sense of self, which being a fairly recent evolutionary development is one of the first things to be powered down.

Also meditation tends to traditionally occur in sparse boring settings. Putting yourself in a state of sensory deprivation where in you start to get clear data from your body, for example being able to hear your heartbeat due to near silence, produces a situation where biofeedback training becomes possible, and since this possibility emerges in that sensory deprived state (the isolated monastery) you are able to use this as “something to do” and you can train at it constantly while sitting there.

This sort of biofeedback training can be achieved by other means with a heartbeat monitor, but body temp control (another interesting display of meditative “powers”) is slightly trickier. It’s a well known fact that thinking of running vividly enough causes micro-tremors in the muscles associated with running. So I could easily picture something similar being done with convincing yourself you are cold, and thus trick your body into requesting heating measures. I suspect this would be far easier to do if you’re in the starved state mentioned above since the brain would be less able to process conflicting data (the actual temperature readings).

In short meditation is not magical, its not even particularly special, its just another brain state and I’m personally tired of it being the intellectually fashionable way to indulge in golly gee mysticism. I’m tired of it being the atheist’s kosher religion

Things every kid should know.

http://www.truthdig.com/images/eartothegrounduploads/Wanted_500.jpg

“The foundation of every state is the education of its youth.” – Diogenes

  1. Facts and logic determine reality, but emotion determines perception.
  2. Power often defines value.
  3. Influence is power.
  4. No one decides to be mean.
  5. Being older doesn’t mean being smarter.
  6. Respect does not mean obedience.
  7. If someone can tell you what to do with something it’s theirs.
  8. Responsibility is usually code for control.
  9. Those who have more force others to have less.
  10. Angry people are afraid of something.
  11. If someone forces you instead of explains, you’re smarter than they are.
  12. People want you to compete because they are afraid of what you can do when you cooperate.
  13. Everyone gets something out of what they are doing.
  14. No one chooses how smart they are.
  15. No one chooses how they feel.
  16. Almost everything is a matter of opinion.
  17. Smart people can be wrong.
  18. The message is independent of the messenger.
  19. The majority can be wrong.
  20. Reality is not a democracy.
  21. Academic skill does not equal intelligence.
  22. There is a tool or trick to offset every weakness.
  23. Those that tell you loudest to work hard often aren’t working at all.
  24. You don’t have to be part of something to understand something.
  25. You could be the first.
  26. Hurting people doesn’t make you strong or right.
  27. Removing the need for something is the best way to fight it.
  28. Everything you own charges you rent.
  29. Only you know your gender.
  30. Laziness is not a bad thing.
  31. There are always more options.
  32. How you feel and think depend partly on your health.
  33. Your body is your brain’s pet.
  34. You have a limited amount of time, spend it wisely sell it rarely.
  35. People lie because the truth is a threat to them.
  36. No one can tell you what love means.
  37. Revenge is an attempt to control the past.
  38. Context changes meaning, and you can always add context.
  39. Outliving something is better than killing it.
  40. They care enough to tell you they don’t care.
  41. If they tell you they’re laughing, chances are, they aren’t.
  42. The truth doesn’t always look true.
  43. Knowing you could be wrong does not mean you are.
  44. You don’t have to be an expert to be right.
  45. No one owns a fact.
  46. You don’t have to earn the right to live.
  47. Wealth is about luck and ethics.
  48. People who want power shouldn’t get it.
  49. Genius is always outnumbered.
  50. Strangers are more complicated than you think.
  51. Everyone has a reason.
  52. Some people are immune to the truth, sometimes it’s you.
  53. There will always be things you don’t know about yourself.
  54. Not all things are scalable.
  55. Ignorance is not the same as stupidity.
  56. Maturity does not equal conformity.
  57. The really good ideas aren’t always popular.
  58. Writing is nearly immortal and often ignored.
  59. You are always entitled to an explanation that ignores authority.
  60. You do not have to be what your parents intended.
  61. Truly nice people are rarely popular, they tend to hide.
  62. You’re a completely different person after a while.
  63. Poor people exist mainly because rich people sequester wealth.
  64. It’s not holding a grudge if they continuously offend you.
  65. You will outlive all the adults, that means the future is your business.
  66. If they can’t tell you what’s in it for them, it’s a trap.
  67. Evolution doesn’t always improve things.
  68. Common sense isn’t rare, you’re just misunderstanding the actual agenda of the parties involved.