Question: Do You Consider Self-Denial Inherently Good or Bad?

Self-Denial is undeniably a strong force in the human experience; the question is, is it a force that is good or bad? Or is it something else? What impacts does self-denial have on our experience of the world? Or could it, in fact, be what allows us to be human in the first place?

Delay in Gratification in Children by Walter Mischel, Yuichi Shoda, Monica L. Rodriguez (PDF)

Denial: Self-Deception, False Beliefs, and the Origins of the Human Mind by Ajit Varki and Danny Brower

Pando Daily: Poverty and the “Just World hypothesis” by Nathan Pensky

RationalWiki: Just world hypothesis

Give It Up, A Strategy for Combating Hedonic Adaptation by Jordi Ouoidbach and Elizabeth W. Dunn

XO Jane: My Body Is Wildly Undiciplined And I Deny Myself Nearly Everything I Desire by Roxane Gay

Running Head: Self Regulation and Choice by Kathleen D. Vohs, Roy F. Baumeister, Jean M. Twenge, Brandon J. Schmeichel, Dianne M. Tice, and Jennifer Crocker (PDF)

Inhibitory Spillover: Increased Urination Urgency Facilitates Impulse Control in Unrelated Domains by Mirjam A. Tuk, Debra Trampe, and Luk Warlop

Time Ideas Blog: Lent and the Science of Self-Denial by Jeffrey Kluger

Hilariously awesome video of a Stanford Marshmallow Experiment re-creation:

All music in this episode by Kevin MacLeod (incompetech.com)

Today, we’re talking about etiquette. Specifically…

Show notes and links:

Reading, writing, and ‘rithmatic may be what most people think about when they think of school, but in many places education means much more. There has, lately, been a resurgence in schools including character education, social graces, and etiquette as a part of their teaching responsibility, adding to what used to be the purview of junior cotillions, finishing school, or parental insight.

In some countries, including traditional rules of social interaction as a part of the curriculum goes without a single question, because that is a part of educating students in how to interact with their world. Some colleges have even beefed up their offerings on etiquette in an attempt to help their students prepare for job interviews and business interactions.

So the question really boils down to – do you think this is something schools should be spending their educational time on? If you were ruler of all schools, would you require that your teachers spent time on helping the kids learn how to get along “properly”, or would it be all hard skills, all the time?

Today, we’re talking about taking some time off. Specifically…

Show notes & links:

Since the late 70’s or early 80’s, the idea of a “year out” or “gap year” has been fairly well ingrained in many places – though the practice does still remain quite controversial in others, for a number of reasons.  However, one thing is for certain – taking time off between high school and college is much less common in the United States. But should it be? I’ll let two of the comments that have already popped up on Facebook start the discussion:

Today, we’re talking about wages. Specifically…

Show notes & links:

What things cost in Ancient Rome

Now here’s a uniquely post-industrial age question. After all, the concept of a work-life balance didn’t even exist as a philosophical dichotomy until the mid 1800’s. And the idea of an hourly wage is also arguably new. From the 1884 tome “Six Centuries of Work and Wages: the History of English Labor” to the best known historical records of pay in ancient Rome, the fact is people were often paid on the basis of the number of customers served, amount wheat harvested, or number bricks fired – not by the amount of time it took them to actually do the work.

However, in the modern day, when we have clocks that are synced, hourly wages are the norm, and many jobs can now be done remotely. If you are one of the privileged that can do their job without being in a physical location, does “clocking in” and “clocking out” make sense? Or does a remote job mean that putting in the digital “face time” is not as important as doing as the Romans did, and getting paid on the basis of the work you complete?

Today, we’re talking about representation. Specifically…

Show notes & links:

The Media and Modernity (Stanford University Press)

Between 1930 and 1961, the Hays Code declared exactly what was and was not acceptable to be represented in American motion pictures. While the Hays Code has long since been dismantled, the tradition it enshrined — which had already and continues to be built on racism, classism, social stratification, and more — still has an impact. The public sphere is one where representation is extraordinarily powerful.

John B. Thompson’s Media and Modernity: A Social Theory of the Media, outlines the importance of fighting the “spiral of silence” and gaining visibility in that social sphere when he says:

Struggles for recognition have increasingly become constituted as struggles for visibility within the non-localized space of mediated publicness. The struggle to make oneself heard or seen is not a peripheral aspect of the social and political upheavals of the modern world; on the contrary, it is central to them.

Yet that visibility often does not come in the form of a fully fleshed out, entirely accurate or thoughtful representation. So, if forced to choose between no representation at all or a token representation that is likely stereotypical and inaccurate, could one really be better than another?

Today, we’re talking about honesty. Specifically…

Show notes & links:

This question has been one long debated in my own life – partially thanks to Cathy, my ex from long ago. Hi Cathy! Defining honesty in and of itself is a challenge that philosophers over the centuries have tackled many times, since the nature of truth and honesty are very closely intertwined.

There is, of course, the practical limitation. “Full” details is a practical impossibility, as few of us can remember every single detail about every single moment of our lives. What was the license plate of the car in front of you this morning?

And yet, there is a legitimate question of how many details must be shared to be considered “honest” about something. Some would argue as many as are necessary for the individual to get a sense of the scope. Others, however, argue that details merely illustrate, and illustrations aren’t a necessary part of the “truth”. And there may be times the larger “truth”, such as it is, requires leaving out details.

In fact, as philosopher David Hume put it, “That honesty is the best policy, may be a good general rule; but is liable to many exceptions: And he, it may, perhaps, be thought, conducts himself with most wisdom, who observes the general rule, and takes advantage of all the exceptions.”

Today, we’re talking about cultural touchstones. Specifically…

Show notes & links:

The Psychology of Prejudice: Ingroup Love or Outgroup Hate? (PDF), Marilynn B. Brewer

One of the most difficult parts of any sharing – between peoples, groups, or entire societies – is finding and creating a shared language. Fellow trekkies will understand this as the Tamarian language problem – just sharing the words and sentence structure does absolutely nothing if you don’t understand the meaning of the myths, legends, and cultural metaphors that make up a particular “language.”

So is it important for individuals from very different cultures to develop some kind of shared understanding? One argument would say of course, because a shared piece of context makes it easier to get along, or at least to begin the path of understanding.

Yet another argument would say that this shared cultural touchstone is, in fact, a matter of homogenization. That teaching the same things, or sharing the same experiences, reduces the ability of two different individuals to bring unique experiences and patterns of thought to a conversation.

Today, we’re talking about your private life. Specifically…

Show notes & links:

The Right to Privacy in the Digital Age from the United Nations Human Rights Office of the High Commissioner.

Why Open Government Data?

It can be really easy to forget that the very concept of a universal right to a private life is relatively new. In fact, in the five volume “History of the Private Life” from Harvard University Press, it’s pointed out that for much of human history, a true “private life” was limited only to those who could literally afford it. In fact, they argue that the right to privacy is the history of democratization.

However, in order to have a democratic society that represents its constituents well, a society must have data – some of which is what we call “private”, about constituents. Health data, financial data, or even demographic data all may feel private on the individual level, but on the larger, societal level, that data can be extraordinarily useful and even necessary.

So when privacy is a right laid out by the United Nations, yet so-called private data makes society better when shared, how should those elements be balanced?

Today, we’re talking about change, specifically…

Show notes & links:

The Confidence Code: The Science and Art of Self-Assurance—What Women Should Know (Amazon)

In my college freshman psychology 101 class – at 8 a.m. – I still remember the concept of cognitive dissonance sneaking in past that sleepy haze. It was an idea that resonated, because it gave an explanation for how someone’s belief could change from experience of behavior.

That psych 101 version of cognitive dissonance convinced me that all I needed to do to change something in my life was, put simply, fake it until you make it. Yet as authors Kay and Shipman highlighted in their book The Confidence Code, constantly acting as something we do not truly believe creates little except anxiety.

Yet, as many commenters have already pointed out, internal and external change are truly and fully intertwined – that change requires both in some mixture. And there may be situations where fake it ‘till you make it works, and other times we need the confidence of a deeply embedded belief in order to take action.

Today, we’re talking about self-denial. Specifically…

Show notes & links:

NPR, September 18, 2011: “Resistance Training for your ‘Willpower’ Muscles”

Denying yourself something – anything – seems to be in many ways a pastime. Going on diets, cutting out something bad for you, or even stopping yourself from punching others in the face, according to one comment. Yet is self-denial as a practice something more than self-control?

One book, in fact, argues that self-denial is part of what creates self-awareness. Our ability to deny the reality of mortality that we encounter every day may well be a part of what creates self-awareness in human beings. This may be a part of why self-denial is, in many ways, built into many religions.

Yet the willpower it takes to practice self-denial is, in and of itself, a muscle that must be exercised. One commenter pointed out that it’s much, much easier to tell yourself “not now” rather than “not ever”. At the same time, the Just World hypothesis warns us that making a moral judgement on the basis of an exercise that can – and does – wear out a mental muscle could be a dangerous road to go down.