Salem Heights’ blog

Watch this link to the end:

www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/11/08/60minutes/main3475200.shtml?source=mostpop_story

it's all about Affirmation.  Life's not about doing well, or doing what's right, or worthwhile... it's now about getting recognized for what you do, regardless of outcome.

Maslow's hierarchy can be summarized as Safety, Sustenance, Belonging, Affirmation, and Purpose.  Few people ever make it toe taking Control of your life.  Working by your principles for your best interests.  Most are stuck in and between Belonging and Affirmation.  Materially secure but immature people spend their whole lives worrying about acceptance: do they like me at work, do they like me at the bowling alley?  Once they're confident that they're in the group, they want affirmation.  They need to constantly be told that they're good.  That they're great.  But they don't necessarily want to do what it takes to be great.

This behavior is most evident in politicians and actors.  Their professional and private lives (private meaning public, but not while working) are centered around being acknowledged. 

Now (as 60 Minutes shows) we've created a generation of people who have been so constantly affirmed, that they have no motivation to take further control of life or community.

I, and I think all hetero men, find big boobs and big hair very sexy.  By sexy, I mean attention getting. Attractive for the purpose of wanting to have sex.  But personally, I find many girls very attractive who have neither big boobs or big hair (1).

1 - Special note: by big hair, I don't mean, Nashville, Dolly Partton, trailer park big hair.  I just mean thick long beautiful hair.

It's like nature decided that irrespective of all other features, if a woman has boobs, or hair, that's enough to make you believe she will produce good offspring.  I've actually heard some explanations from a fairly legitimate anthropologist, Desmond Morris.  He wrote "The Naked Ape."  He said that cleavage is supposed to remind men of a woman's posterior (2). And that in some ancient societies, babies clung to their mother's hair.  That's why thick, strong hair was important (they both sound bogus to me).

I don't have an answer, or even a guess.  It's just a question.

2 - second Special note:  The posterior is important because they all used to do it doggy, like the animals around them.  I learned this in the explanation of "missionary position."  When the Catholic missionaries (these are illegibly celibate men) came to the new world, they were disgusted by the natives doing it like animals.  They thought it Satanic.  So they taught them to do it like Europeans.  I have lots of trouble with the visual image of a priest first learning how people were doing it, then teaching them a different way.  Did they teach the guys first, the girls first, or at the same time?

Back to my dangerous musings as an anthropologist. 

So speaking in primal terms, people lived 35 or 40 years tops.  They "hooked up" in the late teens.  The whole reason for establishing a monogamous bond (marriage) was to have and raise children.  Unlike most mammals, the male couldn't just plant his seed at random and be on his way.  He had to stick around to provide food in shelter to be sure his genes survived.  And to be sure he wasn't being cockolded.

The point being, they didn't every spend too much time together after the kids were gone.  They were nearly dead.  And the male wasn't too crazy about staying around that long, thus the long tradition of mistresses and brothels.

Now-a-days, two people can get married, raise four kids, and be looking to 30 or 40 more years together.  They may have been brought together for the right reasons: a natural attraction to mate and produce children.  But that motivation isn't necessarily conducive to long-term interest and friendship.  As children leave their lives, husband and wives often share very few interests, leading to boredom or resentment.

The answer: a 20 year marriage contract.  Everyone signs up of at least 20 years; maybe 25.  On that anniversary, the marriage dissolves, a simple 50/50 split of assets and if still necessary, custody.  If BOTH parties agree, they can renew.  The renewal goes forever.  Getting out of the renewal, or the first contract requires the same messing divorce proceedings.  But the end-of-contract separation is relatively painless.  And knowing it was imminent would allow for appropriate financial planning.  And the children, now young adults, would accept the separation better, knowing it was pre-ordained, and common among other families.

Just a thought. 

Jay Leno asked, about five years ago, "Why do we only insist that our enemies have democracies, and not our allies.  Iraq, must become a democracy, but not Saudi Arabia, Egypt, or Jordan."  This thought was restated in a more serious source, the Economist magazine, "The only Arab government the has a rough, but functioning democracy is the Palestinians.

I used to joke that Communism was a great idea, except that it was absolutely contrary to human nature (people want to keep what they earn).  Democracies kind of the same way: the large majority of people don't want to participate in leadership.  They want some else to deal with it.  They don't want to be told to do things they don't want to do, but neither do they want the responsibility of guiding the community.  It is far more natural to accept the position of a King, or Chief, or boss, as long as you feel that leader has your best interests somewhat at heart.

Churchill said that democracy was the worst form of government he could ever imagine, except for all the alternative.  The success (it's a relative term) of democracies in America and western Europe is far more a function of wealth, than of the natural evolution of society. 

China is the interesting case now.  It has abandoned economic communism for the most part, turning people loose to do what they want, with great success, under a total dictatorship.  The problem in China is, how long can this be sustained without the sanctity of the Rule of Law.  China's vulnerable because the whole thing can be dumped at the whim of the dictator.

As it applies to Iraq, forget democracy for now.  Focus on life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness: make the people safe, let them live where they want, and do what they want, and create an environment where they can work and provide for themselves, and keep what they earn.  Do this as a benevolent dictator.   As they become wealthy and self-reliant, they will demand  control over their own lives.  At that  point the benevolent dictator backs away and a democracy takes hold.

But it's money first, democracy second.

How do wealthy parents use their money to the best interests of their children?  There's a continuum of options, on which it is impossible to declare the perfect spot.  Kids are different, parents are different, and the communities in which they live are different.  The basic conflict is between the parents' responsibility to make their children as self-reliant and personally responsible as possible, and their urge to give their children every comfort available.

The Continuum:
Give your kids nothing - ever:  At one point, Warren Buffett had not given his kids a penny.  His daughter was quoted as not being able to qualify for a home improvement loan to remodel her kitchen.  I think he's since softened on his stance.  There is a fairly widely held belief that college is more valuable if the student is made to pay for it.

Give your kids "adequate" assistance:  Pay for college, give them a modest car, but make them feel like they earned it.  The tough question here, what's adequate?  And, do you spend your life flying first class while your kids sit in coach (metaphorically and literally).  How do parents live in the kind of house and neighborhood the want and can afford, while enforcing some level of austerity on their kids.

Give it later: Try to raise them frugally, but have the trust fund waiting.  Do you tell them it's waiting?  If they're not raised with an understanding wealth and managing it, what will they do with it when they get it?

Trust fund babies: give them the money, but never give them the responsibility.

Live and let live: Let them live the way you live - skiing in Aspen, BMW, $300 jeans.  This usually leads to a sense of entitlement.  The feeling that when they grow up, they're supposed to live a certain way.

It's been my experience that anything that you give anybody (children, employees, spouses) that they don't feel they had to earn, that thing becomes a right. 

Any suggestions?  

Here’s where my wealth rantings will become not so intuitive.  Nearly all excess capacity is bad.  Too much house, too much savings, too much time; they’re all bad.

The problem is, there is a very small sweet spot between living hand-and-mouth, and having enough savings to be free of financial worry.  People are happiest when they have to work for what they need and are successful at it: they do not live in fear of not having enough.  This is a kind of imposed purpose.  Everyone needs purpose.  Once someone is secure in the basic needs of safety, sustenance, and affiliation, purpose becomes harder to come by.  Of course, most people in this position believe that the thing that would make them happier is, not having to work.

It is a rare exception to find a person who has so much self-motivation that he or she can lead a purposeful life, not driven by the need for income, or the need to have more income than their neighbors.

The problem with inherited wealth is that it removes all the imposed purposes.  People that create their own wealth usually retain the sense of purpose that got them that money.   But the people around them seldom benefit emotionally from having not to work.  If you don’t have to worry about food and shelter, the higher needs become more of an obstacle to happiness.  People first obsess on belonging:  “Do I have the right friends? Am I hanging out with the right people?”  This concern is the first thing that drives reckless consumption.  Their lives become built around form over substance.

Are you a registered organ donor?  Why or why not? 
Submitted by jacolily.

Yes, and I give blood frequently.  I believe in cremation, so if I'm going to be burned up, why waste the good parts?

What fruits and vegetables are in season where you live?  Have you incorporated them into your recipes?

Corn.  Though of course, corn is not a vegetable.  It's a grain.  Just as tomatoes are not vegetables, they are fruits.

I know I said I wanted to write about money, but here's a short digression.

I have to express a long held belief about love.  Most people equate love with passion.  The way two 20-somethings feel when they're having great sex and think they want to get married.  I write this off to mating drive.  This is evolution making sure the species is perpetuated.  This is why so many marriages turn blah after the initial rush of child creation has past.

Perfect love comes when two people share a passion.  And through sharing a passion, true love for each other emerges over time.  The best movie showing this is "Shakespeare in Love".  Shakespeare (Joseph Fiennes) and Viola De Lesseps (Gweneth Paltrow) are brought together and fall for each other because of their shared love of the theater.

There's an even more compelling real life story about how Carl Sagan (the Cosmologist) met his last wife, Ann Druyan.

www.wnyc.org/shows/radiolab/episodes/2006/05/12     the story is about half way through this podcast.

The moral:  don't pursue people, pursue interests.  And you'll find the right people.

Good luck.

This is the first in a series examining the relationship between money and happiness.

I touched on this before, but I'd like to go into it further.  Why, because I have lots of money and am very unhappy. 

Along with the basic money/happiness issue, I have questions and hope for feed back on issues of:

- Money and kids (parenting)
- Philanthropy vs. Inheritance
- Money and celebrities
- making money vs. having money
- the purpose of life
- roots and possible cures of poverty
- ...

The irony is, I am in the situation nearly al working Americans dream of:  I have enough money to live well (all inherited), health kids, free time, high-minded desires to do good, and I'm going crazy.

My first observation is, people need work. To some extent, they need to live hand-to-mouth.  People naturally need some savings (a safety cushion).  But it's very few people that can be completely self-motivated.  People who can jump out of bed every morning and look forward to do worthwhile things.

By the way, for the purposes of this discussion happiness is going to be defined as:  looking forward to getting up and starting your day.  This is distinct from a shallower view of happiness: always smiling, never sad, no problems, plenty of sex, etc.

I think the term "worthwhile" is important.  It should be considered in its broadest sense.  Making money is not the issue.  Mothering/homemaking is a totally legitimate, worthwhile life, if done well.  I say done well, as I know many stay-at-home moms who become obsessed with coddling their children, NOT necessarily to their children's best interest.

Give me your thoughts or questions, and I will endeavor to include them.