KPAO by Dave Cortright

Humans are a “real-time operating system” at our core

In the world of computers, a real-time operating system is designed to process data and react to it in “real time”, with allowable delays not much more ⅒ of a second.

In many ways humans (and all other animals for that matter) operate using a real time OS. The world is full of threats and opportunities and we need to respond to the former for sure but also the latter as quickly as possible to take full advantage of situations to avoid harm and secure resources.

Humans have a unique ability to create models of the future and predict what might happen. In this mental state, we are no longer real-time, but instead are doing more traditional “computing”, coming up with answers, changing the model, feeding in new info, running things again… It’s easy to get caught up in this state and ignoring the real-time input from the world coming into your senses right now, especially now that we’ve created a world where in many situations threats are very unlikely to come up (e.g. in your home or at work).

But at our core in our lower level systems, we are still a real time operating system. Even when you are lost in your thoughts about the past or future, the lower level systems are still there chugging along keeping you alive and doing their best to prevent you from harm. When I talk about “present sense”, it is turning off the thinking brain and being aware of these systems as they are working. When I do it, I notice things like how I am holding my body out of balance, orthe subtle sounds around me, or the quality of the air I am breathing… there are dozens of things that are going on around you right now if you just take the time to be with them.

The Tsimane exemplify living life in the human EEA (environment of evolutionary adaptation)

Dr. Sanjay Gupta’s series Chasing Life has some great examples of ways in which people all over the world are living their lives more aligned with how we were designed to thrive. A tribe in the Bolivian rainforest exemplifies pretty much all aspects of it.

Dr. Gupta went there primarily to look at heart health, but their entire lifestyle contributes to their overall health. It’s a combination of several aspects of their life:

Activity/Exercise—“Nearly all of their waking hours, the Tsimane are standing or walking… those with the healthiest hearts in the world are constantly active but not intensely active. And they hardly ever sit.” Yes, this is what how we humans were designed to operate. Sitting, slouching, lying down… really any form of being sedentary are counter to our genes.

Community—“We knew the Tsimane lived in small extended family clusters of 60 or so people along the banks of the river… The social fabric of the Tsimane was strong, with lots of laughing, chatting and sharing. There is no doubt this socialization, and lack of loneliness, is also protective against heart disease, as we have seen in countless studies around the world…” One more point that isn’t explicitly called out—they spend pretty much all of their existence in the company of their “tribe”; there really is never any risk of loneliness or isolation.

Diet—“The Tsimane get most of their calories from carbs. Foods such as plantains, cassava, rice and corn make up nearly 70% of their diet… the food there is not processed or refined, lacking any added sugars or salts. All-natural carbs are the mainstay of the healthy-hearted Tsimane, along with around 15% fat and 15% protein. Additionally, the diet provides twice as much fiber as the standard American diet, according to an article in the Lancet medical journal. Their diet has lots of micronutrients, such as selenium, potassium and magnesium, coming from their farmed food.”

Rest—“As soon as the sun went down in the late evening, people retired to their huts, and within half an hour, I heard deep breathing and snoring all over the camp. Turns out if you don't have a device to stare at, you tend to sleep early and deeply.”

 

On Walden, and living a simple, secluded life in the woods—it takes a village

I remember reading Walden when I was younger and fantasizing about a simple life in nature. It sounded so romantic. After my girlfriend quoted from it recently (“to live deliberately”), I went back to see again with fresh eyes the components of his journey. The thing that strikes me is how much other people played essential roles in making his experiment a success.

First, the land on which he built his cabin was owned by his friend, Ralph Waldo Emerson. The supplies necessary for sustaining himself were procured “with the help of family and friends, particularly his mother, his best friend, and Mr. and Mrs. Ralph Waldo Emerson.” Even in the chapter entitled Solitude, he talks of his new companion, an old settler who arrives nearby and an old woman with great memory.

The very next chapter is titled Visitors. “ Thoreau talks about how he enjoys companionship (despite his love for solitude) and always leaves three chairs ready for visitors.”

Two chapters later is the Village—“Thoreau's reflections on the journeys he takes several times a week to Concord, where he gathers the latest gossip and meets with townsmen.”

Indeed throughout the book he has interactions with a number of others—John Field, hard-working Irish farmhand; William Ellery Channing; winter visitors including a farmer and a woodchopper.

For all his embraces and reflections on the simple life of solitude in the woods, he still kept up quite a social life with his friends and neighbors. He was by no stretch a hermit.

Conveniencing ourselves to death

I think the title of this post can sum up a lot of of the “progress” we have made throughout civilization. And I want to be clear there is a lot of good that has come from civilization; we wouldn’t have made the changes and kept them otherwise. However there is nothing that is all good or all bad, and there are unintended consequences to our choices.

An ancient and ubiquitous one is the chair. From a biomechanical perspective, our bodies weren’t designed to sit, or at least not to the extent we do today in modern society. We were meant to stand, squat, walk, and run. Chairs were not part of our environment of evolutionary adaptation. But how could something as innocuous as a chair be bad for us?

Because the convenience of a chair means we are no longer working our muscles to the same extent that we were before. The convenience is fine for a bit, but if you do it for too long (and I’d venture to say somewhere between 15–35% of your waking time is too much), then you are essentially deficit spending your fitness.

Anyone who has been to a music festival or gone to an amusement park can empathize. Here are things that our ancestors would be able to do easily (stand and/or walk around in the outside in the sun for most of the day). Yet we are exhausted after doing it for just a few hours. It’s because we don’t do that on a regular/daily basis.

Now of course you could say that we’ve evolved. We live in a society where it’s no longer necessary to have this ability. And that is true. But the truth is, our genes haven’t changed; we’ve only changed our environment. Our genes evolved to work optimally in an environment where our bodies are used in that way. Our ancestors never went to the gym or did pilates, but they were all in great physical shape. That’s because in nearly all aspects of their daily life they were using their bodies in ways that worked out their muscles.

Chairs with backs also allow us to slouch, which again might provide ease and convenience, but ends up reinforcing the wrong way to hold our bodies. Noëlle Perez Christians created a whole movement of yoga based on this fact.

There are many more examples of ways in which we have made our lives more convenient but the unintended consequences are overall bad for our health: transportation instead of walking, sit toilets vs squatting, and yes even single family homes vs larger multi-generational communities. None of these things are bad per se, but it’s important to be aware of the hidden costs and unintended consequences, especially when taken in the extreme.

Co-housing is one of the most promising ways to align modern living with Bowlby’s Razor

One of the biggest ways that modern society differs from hunter/gatherer tribes is that we live in much smaller, more isolated groups. The bottom 2 levels of Maslow's hierarchy can be had with minimal social interactions. You just need money and some perfunctory niceties.

And let me be clear, there are definitely advantages to living in smaller groups. With fewer opinions there is less conflict to be resolved.

However there are drawbacks too. When things go wrong and a household needs help, there aren't the close bonds with others that would allow others to easily step in and help out. People decreasingly know their neighbors, and that corresponds to decline in overall trust of people. We fear what we don't know.

The problem with trying to reverse social declines like this is that it takes both sides to engage positively. And the other problem that it requires work. We don't often spend much time outside in our yards anymore, so the odds of running into a neighbor by happenstance in the 15 seconds between the car and the door are increasingly small.

This is where co-housing is different. It started in Denmark about 50 years ago. This is a good intro (and there are many more clips out there). It balances the need for privacy (everyone has their own private residence) with community (shared meals, common areas for socializing, group consensus on managing the community). It ensures that everyone coming into the community is committed to being social and neighborly, and the design of the community allows more incidental connection with others.

Realistically we're not going back to tribal living. But the more we can mimic the core mechanics of a tribal lifestyle as co-housing is doing, the happier and more fulfilled we will be.

What the Gilroy shooter tells us about the root problem in our society today

Someone in the crowd shouted “Why are you doing this?”… The [shooter] responded, “Because I’m really angry.”

This is a good overview of the Dunbar Number, and—equally important—the levels of intimacy that make it up. Here's a kid who has anger but has no skills on how to manage it or talk about it with close friends or family members. So instead of it getting resolved in a healthy way—by connecting with another person about it, sharing it, and having them be compassionate and empathetic—it comes out as aggression. And in this case, violent aggression with a deadly weapon.

One concern, though, [with increasing trend of virtual interactions] is some social skills may not develop as effectively when so many interactions exist online. We learn how we are and aren’t supposed to act by observing others and then having opportunities to act out our observations ourselves. We aren’t born with full social awareness, and Dunbar fears that too much virtual interaction may subvert that education.

All too true.

Bowlby’s Razor gets to the essence of how we humans were designed to thrive

Bowlby’s Razor—The closer your lifestyle aligns with key aspects of our modern ancestors at the end of the Pleistocene, the healthier and more fulfilled you will be.

I’m still working on an optimal definition for this concept. That one will suffice for now.*

The insight that led me to this idea was the answer to the question, “What were we (humans) designed to do?” The high-level answer—for us but really all species on this planet—is to survive, thrive and reproduce. The process by which this all happens is of course natural selection. But a critically important constraint is the environment.

Psychologist John Bowlby coined the term environment of evolutionary adaptedness (EEA), which are the conditions in which a species lives and which applies evolutionary pressure. It’s not a particular place or time, but rather key aspects of the environment  The human EEA were the conditions of Southern and Eastern Africa during the Pleistocene era. The harnessing of fire was a critical turning point in our evolution, turning us from omnivores to coquivores—an animal that eats cooked food.

The key aspects of life for our modern ancestors that prove to be important for us as well:

• Have our basic physiological needs taken care of: oxygen, temperature, shelter from weather, food, clean water, sunlight
• Having good social connections of various levels—including a very close support clique—all experienced face to face
• Healthy resolution of social conflicts to ensure long-term success of the group
• Eating a limited-calorie diet of whole foods consisting primarily of fruits, vegetables, legumes and grains
• Moving your body during the course of daily chores and activities, especially walking
• Spend time outside in nature and exposure to sunlight
• Having a daily schedule that corresponds to daylight available; getting a proper amount of sleep at night
• Spending time being in the present moment experiencing the world through real-time sensory input and not thinking about anything else (some call this meditation, but I prefer “present sense”)

Evolution is a continuous process, but I believe the use of primitive stone tools (coincidentally about 2.5 million years ago, right at the start of the Pleistocene) marks an important milestone in our evolution. From that point our ancestors learned to control fire to cook food (unlocking more nutrients available to our bodies) and eventually language. Genetically modern humans first lived about 60,000 years ago, and they lived in bands of hunter/gatherers for nearly 50,000 before discovering agriculture, constructing stone temples and thus starting the modern epoch of humanity (what Kurzgesagt calls the Human Era, or HE).

But the critical thing to note here is that our genes have not changed in 60,000 years. There are three minor exceptions: resistance to disease, adaptation to local climates, and adaptations to new food sources (such as dairy). The genes we have in our bodies were optimized for the conditions that existed back then. If you believe it was possible for your genetically identically ancestors to live full, healthy, and fulfilling lives back then, then it logically follows that you can also have full, healthy and fulfilling life with only the things that were available to your ancestor back then.

I know this sounds crazy because the premise essentially eliminates all aspects of modern society as unnecessary for a fulfilling life: money, travel, possessions… And to be clear, I don’t think of this as black and white. Modern medicine, for example is a huge improvement over the days when a simple infection, broken bone or snake bite can lead to an early and potentially painful death.

Looking at modern society—aside from taking care of physiological needs—it’s almost as if we engineered an environment diametrically opposed to the key aspects of ancestral life.

• Many weaker social connections, fewer in the support clique, and most relationships at risk of disappearing at any time
• Lots of ways to distract us and isolate rather than resolving social conflicts in a healthy way
• A high-calorie diet of many processed foods
• Artificial light enabling us to have erratic and insufficient sleeping habits
• A growing number of careers that involve being sedentary (not moving) and inside (no nature or sunlight)
• Being in thought most of the time (living in the past or possible futures rather than the present)

* Here’s another attempt: Your health and overall fulfillment correlates to how well your lifestyle choices align with the key aspects of our modern ancestors who lived between 12,000–60,000 years ago.
—or—
Technically a razor is about cutting away the nonessential, so… Anything that did not exist 12,000–60,000 years ago when genetically modern humans lived is not required for (and in fact may be detrimental to) a healthy and fulfilling life.

The antidote to “Affluenza” is meaningful relationships

Just watched this 21-year-old documentary (1998) on consumerism. Interesting how—while the products and technologies have advanced—the underlying issues are still present and perhaps even amplified in our society. 

Interesting that they mention co-housing (in Portland).

David Brooks on the Weavers, the achievement fallacy, and the problem of disconnection in our society

David Brooks’ TED Talk is titled The lies our culture tells us about what matters—and a better way to live. It’s good and I recommend you watch it.

He’s getting at the core ideas I’ve been trying to present here, such as the achievement fallacy:

The first lie is that career success is fulfilling. I've had a fair bit of career success, and I've found that it helps me avoid the shame I would feel if I felt myself a failure, but it hasn't given me any positive good. The second lie is I can make myself happy, that if I just win one more victory, lose 15 pounds, do a little more yoga, I'll get happy. And that's the lie of self-sufficiency. But as anybody on their deathbed will tell you, the things that make people happy is the deep relationships of life,

And he illustrates the problem well:

I was detached. And at the same time, a lot of other people were detached and isolated and fragmented from each other. Thirty-five percent of Americans over 45 are chronically lonely. Only eight percent of Americans report having meaningful conversation with their neighbors. Only 32 percent of Americans say they trust their neighbors, and only 18 percent of millennials.

The fastest-growing political party is unaffiliated. The fastest-growing religious movement is unaffiliated. Depression rates are rising, mental health problems are rising. The suicide rate has risen 30 percent since 1999. For teen suicides over the last several years, the suicide rate has risen by 70 percent. Forty-five thousand Americans kill themselves every year; 72,000 die from opioid addictions; life expectancy is falling, not rising.

But then he goes on:

freedom sucks. Economic freedom is OK, political freedom is great, social freedom sucks. The unrooted man is the adrift man. The unrooted man is the unremembered man, because he's uncommitted to things. Freedom is not an ocean you want to swim in, it's a river you want to get across, so you can commit and plant yourself on the other side.

And I can't help but think of the quote by Christopher Hitchens: “What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.” I appreciate how David is getting at the issues and the solution, but the why is missing.

The why is because we are social creatures. We experience social emotions. And the only way to resolve those emotions and truly feel connected is by sharing them with other compassionate people. 

The most important TED Talk message: “Good relationships keep us happier and healthier.”

I’ve seen a fair number of TED talks, and they are consistently high quality with great messages. But on reflection I think this one on happiness by Robert Waldinger—Director of the Harvard Study of Adult Development—is the most important one. So much that I will include all of the transcipt of his summary of the finding. But please do watch the full video. It’s a most worthwhile use of 13 minutes.

The clearest message that we get from this 75-year study is this: Good relationships keep us happier and healthier. Period.

We've learned three big lessons about relationships. The first is that social connections are really good for us, and that loneliness kills. It turns out that people who are more socially connected to family, to friends, to community, are happier, they're physically healthier, and they live longer than people who are less well connected. And the experience of loneliness turns out to be toxic. People who are more isolated than they want to be from others find that they are less happy, their health declines earlier in midlife, their brain functioning declines sooner and they live shorter lives than people who are not lonely. And the sad fact is that at any given time, more than one in five Americans will report that they're lonely.

And we know that you can be lonely in a crowd and you can be lonely in a marriage, so the second big lesson that we learned is that it's not just the number of friends you have, and it's not whether or not you're in a committed relationship, but it's the quality of your close relationships that matters. It turns out that living in the midst of conflict is really bad for our health. High-conflict marriages, for example, without much affection, turn out to be very bad for our health, perhaps worse than getting divorced. And living in the midst of good, warm relationships is protective.

Once we had followed our men all the way into their 80s, we wanted to look back at them at midlife and to see if we could predict who was going to grow into a happy, healthy octogenarian and who wasn't. And when we gathered together everything we knew about them at age 50, it wasn't their middle age cholesterol levels that predicted how they were going to grow old. It was how satisfied they were in their relationships. The people who were the most satisfied in their relationships at age 50 were the healthiest at age 80. And good, close relationships seem to buffer us from some of the slings and arrows of getting old. Our most happily partnered men and women reported, in their 80s, that on the days when they had more physical pain, their mood stayed just as happy. But the people who were in unhappy relationships, on the days when they reported more physical pain, it was magnified by more emotional pain.

And the third big lesson that we learned about relationships and our health is that good relationships don't just protect our bodies, they protect our brains. It turns out that being in a securely attached relationship to another person in your 80s is protective, that the people who are in relationships where they really feel they can count on the other person in times of need, those people's memories stay sharper longer. And the people in relationships where they feel they really can't count on the other one, those are the people who experience earlier memory decline. And those good relationships, they don't have to be smooth all the time. Some of our octogenarian couples could bicker with each other day in and day out, but as long as they felt that they could really count on the other when the going got tough, those arguments didn't take a toll on their memories.

So this message, that good, close relationships are good for our health and well-being, this is wisdom that's as old as the hills. Why is this so hard to get and so easy to ignore? Well, we're human. What we'd really like is a quick fix, something we can get that'll make our lives good and keep them that way. Relationships are messy and they're complicated and the hard work of tending to family and friends, it's not sexy or glamorous. It's also lifelong. It never ends. The people in our 75-year study who were the happiest in retirement were the people who had actively worked to replace workmates with new playmates. Just like the millennials in that recent survey, many of our men when they were starting out as young adults really believed that fame and wealth and high achievement were what they needed to go after to have a good life. But over and over, over these 75 years, our study has shown that the people who fared the best were the people who leaned in to relationships, with family, with friends, with community.

So what about you? Let's say you're 25, or you're 40, or you're 60. What might leaning in to relationships even look like?

Well, the possibilities are practically endless. It might be something as simple as replacing screen time with people time or livening up a stale relationship by doing something new together, long walks or date nights, or reaching out to that family member who you haven't spoken to in years, because those all-too-common family feuds take a terrible toll on the people who hold the grudges.

I'd like to close with a quote from Mark Twain. More than a century ago, he was looking back on his life, and he wrote this: "There isn't time, so brief is life, for bickerings, apologies, heartburnings, callings to account. There is only time for loving, and but an instant, so to speak, for that."

The good life is built with good relationships.