Introduction
We rarely have a platform or an opportunity to share some of our core beliefs and views on life and reality. So, we thought it would be insightful to pose a series of interview-esque questions in rapid fire which mirror our IRL conversations. The short-answer format encourages a straight forward answer while also giving an opportunity to share how we arrived to those conclusions. The three of us: Quinn, Mike, and Daniel, while similar in many ways, differ in our backgrounds, education, religious views, and political leaning. These differences allow us to arrive at varied conceptions of the world. We answered these questions separately to prevent any bias, leakage, or interference with pure thought and introspection. We hope readers will enjoy the perspectives and appreciate the spectrum of thought they will see, from three 25 year old males from Jacksonville.
Table of Contents
Question 1 Give up dessert or alcohol for the rest of your life?
Question 2 What is your thought on productivity and "grind culture"?
Question 3 What is your thought on destiny and coincidence? Do we have free will?
Question 4 Can hard work beat natural ability?
Question 5 Are there really high-functioning individuals among us that could be diagnosed with a "mental/social disorder"?
Question 6 Do you believe in a personal god? As in one that hears our daily thoughts, prayers, and intentions?
Question 7 Is there a biological underpinning to supernatural belief?
Question 8 Do you believe in ghosts, spirits, or related phenomenon?
Question 9 Have humans made contact with aliens now or ever throughout history?
Question 10 Are there things humans will never understand or grasp?
Question 11 Are humans capable of creating a moral value structure in the absence of religion? Are they capable of putting religion aside and doing so in 2021?
Question 12 What is the optimal role of government; how much is too much and how much is too little?
Question 13 Should abortion and capital punishment be absolutely illegal, absolutely legal, or is there a middle ground?
Question 14 What specific components are necessary for sexual relationships/partnerships to succeed?
Question 15 What brings you more satisfaction, lifting or running?
Question 16 Is America the best place to live?
Question 17 What do political conservatives get right, what do they get wrong? Same question for political liberals?
Question 18 What steps does humanity need to take if they are going to be multi-planetary? Is this a goal humans should be striving for at all?
Question 19 If you had things your way, what would your optimal day/week look like?
Question 20 What is the meaning of life?
1. Give up dessert or alcohol for the rest of your life?
Quinn: This is an easy one for me. I’ve given up alcohol for large swaths of time, throughout my young adulthood with relative ease. Granted those were abstinence-by-demand rather than by choice, but all the same, low impact. Lent is about the length I can give up dessert though. To me, dessert is one of the sweeter things about being alive. No pun intended.
Daniel: I thought about this even though it sucks. But I would give up dessert. Although dessert is one of my favorite things, alcohol comes out on top. Alcohol has many more dimensions than dessert: the social and the psychoactive aspects. Plus, it can double as a dessert.
Mike: Dessert. For one, I do not indulge in the so-called pleasures of eating dessert. Also, alcohol has a more versatile use in life: it can be used to casually drink with friends and reminisce; it can be used in a seductive manner with a female due to the different effects of liquor and wine have; it can be used as a means of power based on the setting of a meeting and the type of liquor you order. Alcohol’s multi-functional purpose is the reason for why I would choose it. However, one must not neglect the arguably more serious repercussions of excessive alcohol use compared to the excessive use of desserts. Yes, one can lead to obesity, which can be deadly in and of itself, but alcohol can effect much more than just oneself. Drunk driving can kill multiple lives and your own. So, they both come with very serious repercussions; however, this question is based on my own life, and I factor in my self-restraint and discipline as the reasons for why I would choose the risk keeping alcohol in my life over dessert.
2. What is your thought on productivity and "grind culture"?
Quinn: Productivity and the “grind culture” have been romanticized. I have very mixed feelings on them pertaining to the well-being of your standard adult. Those with exceptional passion, focus, ability, and the personality suitable for sustained effort and heavy sacrifice, are the people that wind up far outpacing the general population in productivity. Then they, without acknowledging the above components, preach the upside of the “grind” to everyone else. The media picks them up. YouTube picks them up. Books are made and documentaries are filmed. And very unattainable goals become standardized for people without the aforementioned qualities to attain those goals. Everyone can improve their productivity. There are seasons for “the grind”. And there’s heavy upside to investment in yourself, your business, your skills. But beware of the sacrifices that will come. Think on what those sacrifices might be. And then decide for yourself what the right balance is.
Daniel: I think our current culture values industriousness, efficiency, and wealth. Productivity and hustling are staples in today’s world. I first was exposed to this hyper competitive world when I enrolled at the University of Florida in 2016. Like most things, a balanced approach is best. I think I’ve swung too far on the “grind train” before being kindly reminded by a close friend that productivity is not all there is to life. Simple, yet easy to forget. As I’ve gotten older, I also realized that more important than working long, hard hours is to be efficient. Working smarter not longer to reach the same goals. I think is the key.
Mike: Grind culture has its benefits and flaws. The benefits are that it drives human innovation because of a competitive culture within the workforce of trying to be better than someone or something else. The negatives are that it has created a divide between human interaction/relationship building and success. Society has almost made these mutually exclusive. It’s almost like if you want to be at the pinnacle of success, then you can’t create meaning relationships because (1) you won’t have time for them, (2) they will get in the way of your trying to achieve your success, and (3) you can’t trust people’s motives. However, I think these don’t have to be mutually exclusive. I think strong relationships are what you need, because moments of weakness do happen, and people close to you may be able to point out your “blind spots.” Nevertheless, I think grind culture is a flawed culture because the more you work doesn’t mean you’ll be creating quality work. Working like crazy reduces productivity and creates the risk of more errors in your work. The reason is because you will be trying to work on less sleep which will lower your mental capacity to function optimally, and you will be taking on unwarranted stress which will slow you down and affect critical thinking skills. More and more studies are coming out showing that a shortened work week or firms with a reasonable work/life balance are actually seeing an increase in productivity and quality of work product. But we have to make sure that we aren’t caving to the social pressures of higher pay and less work, because even though I am calling for a better work/life balance, I do not want a society that lacks competition and innovation. There is a delicate balance of work/life balance that others and I have not been able to clearly articulate as to what would be best for people.
3. What is your thought on destiny and coincidence? Do we have free will?
Quinn: See my blog post on Marcus Aurelius and Stoicism. The real question required to answer this question is #6, so I’ll save some of my answer for that question. In the absence of God, there is no “manifest destiny”, but there is perhaps a better way of defining destiny. To me, destiny is the route of life, taken from an infinite decision tree of routes, at the apex of a parabola whereby the x axis is your past, and the y axis is your future. The apex, the route which you take, optimizes both those things. In a sense, “it’s what you’re meant for.” People take one look at your route and say, ah yes, that makes sense. In the presence of a God, free will becomes a theological discussion. In the absence of God, free will is more of a biological discussion today. In my opinion, the prefrontal cortex, and the phenomena of consciousness, proves that humans have at least some level of free will. We can deny our biology. We can make counter intuitive decisions. We can sacrifice for others. Any and all of these may go against the ability to procreate or even the ability to live, and therefore prove at least some level of free will.
Daniel: I’ve vehemently fought believers in karma and destiny. I used to think they were irrational. To my surprise, it is rational/normal to assume agency where there is none. In other words, humans love ascribing meaning and intent where there is none. It is the way the brain is built. I also realized the human brain doesn’t really understand statistical probability very well. Your friend calling you the second you think of them, although rare, is not impossible. Especially when we have billions of humans making millions of calls every minute. There is no evidence yet for destiny or things that are “meant to be.” Life is a series of trillions of coincidences and random chances. It’s beautiful.
Mike: This is a question I have put a lot of prior thought into. As a Christian, do I have free will or am I predestined? First, if God knows everything that is going to happen to you in the future, then one would presume he knows whether you’re going to Heaven or not, which means you are predetermined. But I believe we have free will, but not total free will. I believe God is able to remove himself while still knowing the future. Think of this like a scientist would create multiple paths for a rat to get to the cheese or the path to no cheese. The scientist knows the outcome of every route, but he has no control on which path the mouse chooses. So, in this sense, the mouse has free will, but the multiple paths have already been thought out. Relating this back, I think humans have free will over their paths, but the final outcomes, determinative on which paths we choose, have already been decided.
4. Can hard work beat natural ability?
Quinn: Hard work can beat natural ability. But natural ability that works hard, can’t lose. Natural ability is hard to define. Because generally there is more than one ability that allows for skill at doing something. For example in swimming, big hands/feet as well as broad shoulders aid in surface area. You can have one, both, or neither. Hard work is easier to define. Its f(x) = x*y where f(x) = skill level, x = effort, and y = time. You will most likely have some natural ability at almost everything, to a varying degree. You will also most likely have some level of free time, to devote to a skill. The optimization of this free time through effort creates a function, f(x) which directly outputs skill to the inputs of effort and time.
Daniel: Quinn might disagree with me on this, but I think natural ability tends to have a leg up on hard work. Well, it depends. Natural ability falls on a bell curve right? So, the elites in the 80th and 90th percentile will almost always beat hard work. However, with enough hard work, in some domains, it is probably possible to at least compete with those in the 60th and 70th percentile. So, to the answer the questions, sometimes. But where it matters most, natural ability probably wins most of the time.
Mike: I would say hard work most of the time. Hard work is a mindset that will help carry you forward in your career and your relationships, because you know how to implement systems that will make you better every day. Natural ability is the threshold to where hard work usually is trying to get to. Now natural ability combined with hard work is at times something that can’t be beaten, but those two don’t always go together because many people with natural ability coast through life due to never having to put in the extra time and effort to achieve the same results hard working people achieve.
Quinn: Absolutely. Although, the way we talk about our mental status is strange to me. Sexuality is accepted as non-binary. Gender is considered fluid. And yet when it comes to mental status, there is either “normal” or “disordered”. ADHD is too much energy and too little focus. Asperger’s is too much intellect and too little social skills. Depressed is too much sadness and too little happiness. Ashkenazi Jews are famous for their extremely high intellect, at the cost of genetically inherited disease. It’s time we accepted that there are individuals with insanely high IQ’s that are not necessarily disordered, but instead, less adept at socialization. It’s a trade-off. Just as those with ADHD are perhaps less adept at sustained periods of focus but more adept at extroversion and mechanical skills. The individuals in our society with IQ’s above 145 are likely going to experience a degree of this tradeoff. They are likely to run our companies and invent new products. They are likely going to outwork us. It’s important to understand them, what they possess, what they lack, and what they’re capable of, as it is important to understand ourselves. It would lead to more realistic goals and less time wasted (the trade-off).
Daniel: 100%. In fact, I think there are both sides of the spectrum among us: high-functioning and low-functioning variations in intelligence, social acuity, and temperament. The manifestations of their variations from the norm are subtle enough that they go undiagnosed or unnoticed. On one end, we all have one or two acquaintances that in passing we call a “bitch, crazy, or just plain unstable.” We chalk up their behaviors as personality traits. But I genuinely believe they could have benefited from early mental health intervention. On the far end, we have those individuals who never quite sit right with us socially. They struggle to make and maintain connections but excel in others ways. They are bright and intense. Luckily, they live in a world that values introversion and intensity. So they generally do well for themselves.
Mike: Yes. I’m not sure how common it is but there are definitely people who are or can be diagnosed with some type of disorder, but still function higher than most people. I feel no need to elaborate more on this.
Quinn: When I look up the definition of believe, there are contradicting meanings. One definition says, “To consider to be true.” Another definition says, “To accept the word or evidence of.” Another says, “To have firm conviction of.” Another states, “to regard as fact.” And finally, another says, “to hold the opinion of.” How then do we answer the question of believe? Going with the first underlined word, consider; “To think about carefully.” Yes I have thought about the existence of God very carefully. Moving to the second underlined word, accept; “to recognize or receive.” Yes I have recognized and received things in life that could be formulated as part of the abilities of an all-powerful deity. Conviction, “the state of being convinced.” No I am not convinced of a God. Fact, “objective reality.” This is impossible to say. There is no objective evidence for or against the existence of a God. Finally, opinion; “belief stronger than impression and less strong than positive knowledge.” I cannot be positive of the existence of God as previously stated, due to the lack of objective truth and evidence, but I can say that there is more than just impression (“an especially marked and often favorable influence or effect on feeling, sense, or mind”). As stated, there have been times in my own life and in the life of others, expressed to me anecdotally, where what appears to be evidence of a God is presented as more than simply the ‘influence of feeling’. Therefore, the answer to the first question of ‘belief in a personal God’ should be, “belief is the too vague, but all definitions considered, I don’t know.”
Daniel: No. And what I personally believe matters little. For questions or claims of the universe, objectivity, or reality, we should refer to a more reliable method of finding those answers. Personal desires, whims, our guesses shouldn’t be part of this conversation. As far as we know, there is little good evidence for personal god that is omnipresent and omnipotent. Miracles and answered prayers goes back to lack of intuitive understanding of statistical probability and witness biases. One probably has to buy into one of the major religions to also have a belief in a personal god.
Mike: Yes, now that may of course be because I am a Christian, but I do believe in that; otherwise, the whole purpose of the Bible is pointless. Because individual prayer and devotional time is how you create a relationship with God.
7. Is there a biological underpinning to supernatural belief?
Quinn: There certainly appears to be. But not a Universal or Singular biological underpinning. For example, biology extends to the study of all living organisms. It’s not clear that all living organisms have supernatural belief. At least they don’t express it through language or ritual as humans have done since ancient times. So, to start I would say that there is a uniquely human underpinning to supernatural belief. Going off that, as shown in studies we are capable of experiencing what we would regard as supernatural experiences through the influence of hallucinogens. This means that there is a linkage between compounds in nature and our neurophysiology/neuropharmacology in creating the feeling of supernatural experience. However, humans have reported supernatural instance without the influence of hallucinogens, whether through conscious experience or unconscious experience via NDE or Dreams. This shows that there are multiple derivatives for supernatural experience. Additionally, if you accept the assumption that our psychology is a product of our biology, you could explore the psychological underpinning. Humans have psychological motivations to provide a substructure which answers major problems encountered through their lives. Belief in the supernatural has always accomplished that from very simple examples such as ‘drought is caused by an angry deity’, to more complex examples such as ‘the evidence for a monotheistic deity is found through universal geometry and singularity with regards to the explanation for the precondition of the big bang and the emergence of time’.
Daniel: Richard Dawkins and others have talked about the “God Gene.” Propensity for religiosity has also been studied and it revealed that religious belief can be genetically inherited. In our past, being superstitious and religious was an evolutionary advantage. It makes sense that those genes successfully were passed down through the generations. Since the beginning of time, humans have worshipped Planets, the Sun, other humans, plants, animals, etc. We are superstitious creatures weary of walking under ladders or spilling the salt. We see patterns and meaning where there are none. Some even see the face of jesus in a pancake or gravel. Studies done by Skinner even demonstrate that pigeons can show superstitious behavior, looking to repeat patterns that coincidentally got them food dispensed. Miracle or a superstitious mind? I’ll play it safe here and say the human brain can be unreliable. Hard yes to the answer.
Mike: No. A study to find the “God gene” was conducted by a man named Dean Hamer. Hamer conducted this study and allegedly found that there a gene that predisposes people to have a stronger chance of believing in God. However, this study was never able to be duplicated, and in fact, Hamer received a lot of backlash from the medical community for publishing a study that could not be replicated or even had any scientific backing. Hamer also conducted a study on whether there was a “gay gene” and this study again proved Hamer’s incompetence. Naturally speaking, I do not believe there is any biological backing to believing in God, but I do believe people gain a curiosity of a God because of the flawed nature of humans and insignificance of life as a conceptual matter. Reasons are the pillars of the mind and there seems to be no reason as to why a Universe even came to existence; it may make scientific sense, but from a reasoned purpose viewpoint, it doesn’t make sense. So, this lack of reason for why anything exists creates the curiosity of creation from a higher being, not a predisposition.
8. Do you believe in ghosts, spirits, or related phenomenon?
Quinn: See #6. Belief is too vague a term, and the question lacks specificity as to which phenomenon should be discussed. Let’s go with ghosts. There is certainly substantial anecdotal evidence for ghosts. I personally have never had an interaction with something traditionally considered a ghost. But if there is indeed a biological underpinning to supernatural belief as discussed in #7, then it’s possible that is the explanation for overwhelming anecdotal evidence. To be fair, the case for something resembling a ghost or spirit is actually stacked in the favorable column, for now, due to our lack of understanding of reality. Here are the stipulations as to why I say that. Consciousness is far too complicated to be understood. The transaction of thought and emotions between humans is not well understood. Defining the quantitative and qualitative properties of thought and emotion as well as separating them into phenomena and matter are major considerations for neuroscience. Finally, physics is at a standstill with regards to the interaction of particles and elements of matter and nature/expansiveness of that matter. Examples include quantum entanglement, higher dimensions, string theory, the multiverse, and black hole singularity. If a multiverse, in which the frequency of vibrations of strings of energy determines the number of dimensions and laws of physics, is possible, then the spirit of a deceased human in the form of residual energy left over from hypothetically quantitative properties of consciousness is equally possible.
Daniel: Anyone who’s spent more than 5 min with me, know that I think & talk about this daily. We all love the saying, “keep an open mind” but I respond with, “not so open that your brain spills out.” I don’t see credulity as a virtue. I also don’t think most people haven’t really sat down and gave these topics real thought. They usually just repeat what they’ve heard someone else say. Even my dad loves to ponder about “forces unseen and unknowable.” As of now, there is no convincing evidence for ghosts, spirits, or any energies. So, I think we have larger, more visible fish to fry.
Mike: Yes. I have first-hand experienced something of which I would consider demonic. This was the first time I was able to confirm my belief in spirits. Now I am sure there are different definitions of the three terms, but in the general sense, I do believe there are spirits among us. The impact they have on our lives is a different question. I do not believe they influence us in any way or have any other purpose.
9. Have humans made contact with aliens now or ever throughout history?
Quinn: Another question with overwhelming anecdotal evidence. The best answer I’ve ever heard for the existence of aliens is from Neil Degrasse Tyson. He said that when we think of the existence of aliens we think of right now. If you add a time factor to the Drake Equation, which in my opinion proves the statistical likelihood of aliens, and you consider the number of catastrophic events in Earth history as a median amount, you can conclude that if there is, was, or ever will be aliens to exist then we most likely will not exist in synchronicity; millions of organisms and civilizations forming and perishing over the 13+ billion years of our Universe spanning infinite time and space. That being said, to quote Elon Musk, “if aliens are visiting Earth, they are some subtle aliens.”
Daniel: I think humans wish and hope we’ve made contact with aliens. I think we enjoy the speculation and drama around it. Or maybe just wishful thinking in general. Like the question about ghost, there is no convincing evidence we have made contact with aliens. Yet, people are willing to believe in the conspiracies. Along with related sightings of Bigfoot, leprechauns, and vampires. Moreover, if aliens could travel to Earth interstellarly, do you really think they’d let us know they were here? Or their ship would break down? So while it’d be cool if there was intelligent life, it most likely has not made contact with humans. We may be alone. Hard pill to swallow.
Mike: Probably not. I feel like it doesn’t make any sense for aliens to only show up at certain points in human history and never show themselves again. Also, I think it is a useless premise that they are trying to remain hidden from us. If they have made contact with humans before, that means they have known about us and possibly have been watching us, so it wouldn’t make sense for them to not make any more contact due to not knowing the nature of us humans, because they would know. And there is only speculation around the idea that humans have made contact with aliens before but no hard proof.
10. Are there things humans will never understand or grasp?
Quinn: Present day humans, yes. It’s impossible to know what future humans will understand and grasp. But current humans with our current faculties, yes there are many things we’ll never truly know. Things such as the nature of the Universe, the nature of consciousness, and what happens after we die. In essence, we are not well enough equipped yet to understand the nature of reality. If we don’t become multiplanetary, then we’ll parish long before we are equipped to understand that.
Daniel: It’s easy to say yes right off the back to this one. I feel like people relish in saying yes to this. Not sure why. I love the quote by Robert Ingersoll, “ignorance worships mystery; reason explains it.” There’s been a lot of things humans never dreamt of understanding like particle physics and evolution. I have a suspicion there is a biological ceiling of understanding inherent in the brain due to how it evolved. I think we are far from that limit and will eventually come to know everything. At least, I hope we do.
Mike: I think a couple of things. What is the purpose of the universe and what is the meaning to life? We also may never figure out how to create something that can travel at the speed of light. Purpose and meaning are questions that science can’t answer, so people have a hard timing grasping the concepts. Sometimes we won’t have an answer for things, but that is what makes the journey of life interesting.
Quinn: I think the evidence is clear, humans weren’t capable of creating a sustainable moral value structure without religion in the past. It was a rocky journey to get here, but the societies and way of life that succeeded and are around today adopted mostly Judeo Christian value structures. They are far from perfect, in fact our history is brutal and religion has been used as a means of war more than any other means like resources and territory. But they are more perfect than any time in our history, and this is largely due to the adoption of moral value structure stemming from the Judeo Christian way of life. The counter argument to this is the polytheistic and quasi-theistic doctrines of Asia, including Daoism, Buddhism, and Hinduism. They created long lasting societies, still around today, in the absence of Judeo Christian substructure. Their moral value structure is not without flaw but it is mostly peaceful and certainly sustainable. As for the second question, are humans capable of disregarding religion and creating a modern moral value structure without it, there have been thinkers who’ve pondered this. Nietzsche was one of the major philosophers on this topic, but I think Jordan Peterson’s critique of Nietzsche is where I stand as well. He said that Nietzsche was wrong about being able to create your own values. In an interview with Mark Manson on the Mikhaila Peterson Podcast he says, “You wouldn’t be able to violate your own conscience if you could create your own values.” He goes on to say that if you were fully capable of creating your own values your conscience would never object, but we find very rapidly that we we’re not satisfied, we experience guilt and shame. Now one could say this is because you are comparing your new created values to the ones you were raised on, most likely Judeo Christian values, and therefore your conscience is a product of those values, not of objectivity. That’s fair. But in order to start with a clean slate, we’d need to discard our current moral substructures. The problem with that is that it ignores our own evolutionary development in which the survival of the fittest ideas/doctrines/value structures have led to this moment. Millions of years of fighting, surviving, suffering, and observing have led to the successful moral structure that exists today. It’s a folly of human hubris to imagine we are capable of genesis in 2021. The best we can do is innovate, not invent.
Daniel: One of best resources for this question is Sam Harris’s Moral Landscape. He talks about morality without religion and how science, the biology of happiness, can serve as a better guide than religious text. The bible, when not talking about virgins, sodomy, and human sacrifice is mostly irrelevant. The fourth commandment is, “remember the Sabbath.” So put your swimming trunks and sunscreen on if you haven’t been chilling on Sundays because you have a one-way ticket to eternal damnation. There is a clear path based in human psychology to moral value structures outside of outdated religions. Anyone who believes we need to seek value structures outside of oneself to behave well toward each other, probably sees humans as fundamentally flawed. However, I don’t see us setting religion aside any time soon. It is biologically inherit crutch we aren’t ready to let go just yet.
Mike: This is a very difficult question to answer. It truly turns on whether you believe in God or not, because if you do not, then you already believe that people are the ones who created the moral code today. But, if you believe in God, then you believe there is a higher being that has created a moral code. It’s an interesting concept, especially thinking about whether we are innately born with certain evils – such as lying and deceiving. Another interesting concept is how, without a God, humans were able to determine that something was evil/bad. For someone to be able to create a moral framework from scratch means that person is able to decide what is good and evil. And what is good if you don’t have something to already base it off of. Humans have the gift of conscientiousness, so maybe over time they can decipher between the two, but what would compel someone to come up with a moral code? Why were actions humans did considered bad instead of good? I think for humans to have originally been able to create a moral framework, there needed to have been an innate concept of good and bad prior to conscientiousness. Otherwise, the creation of a moral framework is hard to conceptualize.
12. What is the optimal role of government; how much is too much and how much is too little?
Quinn: As an American I tend to think that the founding fathers of this country thought deeply about this question, as they fled a monarchical structure, hundreds of years old, that hadn’t progressed, suppressed liberty and freedom, and created stratified fortune and misfortune. They created the Constitution, which attempted to fix those issues and create infrastructure for them never to return. I am a constitutionalist with regards to my views on government. I believe in separation of powers, limited federal government and maximal state autonomy. The optimal role of government is to protect the citizens. That is the Social Contract that Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau pondered on. We as individuals create governing bodies for the people, by the people, to enact laws, raise militaries, and govern according to our demands. Being that the government is for the people and by the people, things we agree on in a democratic manner, such as protections for common goods to prevent the Tragedy of the Commons or paying for public goods to prevent the Free Rider problem or even social welfare programs to account for extremities in the bell curve which address natural unemployment are within the scope of this government that our founders envisioned. They’re rational, positive externalities. The role of the government remains limited even with these concessions. As long as there are separations of power in the form of checks and balance, and as long as we use a constitutional lens for our judgement, we can maintain the limited power.
Daniel: Hard question in a short format. I think the answer to how much, is an-ever changing answer as times and society change and develop. In general, individual human’s incentives are not great for the entire society. Government needs to intervene on the extreme ends of human malice and carelessness. On one hand, and true free capitalist market would usually entail hard swings and corrections at the cost of middle and lower class welfare. On the other hand, too much government is inefficient and stifles incentives for individuals to accomplish great things. Less may be more here in the long-run.
Mike: The optimal control of government is where the government has a duty to the people of its country to act in a reasonable manner to protect them, build a stable infrastructure, and keep order within the republic. The government should have no right to invade privacy without just cause, no right to take an excessive amount of taxes, and no right to dictate what people say or believe in. The government needs to act like an agent of the people to a certain extent, but it also needs to hold its ground when the people are egregious in their demands. Statistics and studies should always back up what the government is doing, and the government should have to publish every one of these studies to the public. I also believe there needs to be an aspect of the government that withholds information to the public to protect them from foreign invaders, such as national security information. The government should not be the end-all-be-all of authority, but it should have the authority to create a structured and safe society.
Quinn: In the spirit of consistency, I believe two things. The first is, legality of abortion and capital punishment should be determined by the states. This allows for the people of an area to use their moral judgement in determining what should be legal and what should be illegal. If the citizens of Arkansas vote for abortion to be illegal and the citizens of California vote for abortion to be legal, over a 10 year period the nation will be able to determine, based on the environment of each state, their moral landscape, their unemployment rate, their poverty and homelessness, their high school graduation rate and more, which state made the right choice. Obviously not all of those things can be attributed to abortion being legal or illegal, but if a state has autonomy to determine social issues like abortion, capital punishment, same sex marriage, and marijuana, then over time states will begin to reap the results of their policies or suffer the consequences of their policies. This is capitalism. The second thing I believe is that both are a termination of life. There is a strong counter argument to be made about sentience with regards to killing a baby or an adult, if that adult does not present signs of sentience, then is it okay too to kill an adult who has lost cognitive function in a bad car accident, or an adult who has advanced Alzheimer’s? No. We must be consistent. That is why you have to let people use their own moral compasses to decide for their locality whether something should be illegal, legal but not funded, or legal and funded. People should vote for whatever lets them sleep at night and if they can’t sleep at night, they should be able to move to a place that allows them that peace of mind. That’s freedom.
Daniel: Damn Quinn for combining abortion and capital punishment in the same question. Capital punishment should be legal, I guess. We really don’t have better options. Until we advance neuroscience enough, this may be the best resort for our most violent offenders. I’m mostly agnostic on it. The question around abortion really lies on how we as a society want to define “life.” Personally, I’m okay with abortion because I don’t think there’s a great argument for a fetus being “alive” the way we use the word colloquially. That may sound a bit cold, but I think making rational decisions is best when making decisions for an entire civilization. Emotional thinking has been shown to sacrifice the lives of many for the subjective few. In conclusion, I think the better we understand consciousness and where it begins neuro-chemically, then the abortion debate will come to a quick end.
Mike: Capital punishment should be legal. Even though I am not a huge fan of humans playing God and determining that someone’s life should end, I do believe there are certain instances where taxpayer dollars should not go towards a person in prison, so that person should serve the ultimate punishment – death. Now there would have to be some strict guideposts to help courts determine what crimes are of the nature to be sentenced to death instead of life in prison. This is so courts aren’t given the freedom to pick and choose the death sentence as it sees fit. Abortion should have a middle ground. I think in the case of incest, rape, or the mother’s health, then abortion should be legal. It is a very dense topic that deserves more than a couple of sentences, but the determination of what “rights” are and the framing of the argument of whose “rights” are being violated have played big roles in the how people view abortion. There are counterarguments to every stance on this issue, and this may be an issue that never fully gets resolved. It may just get a constant back-and-forth depending on what party is in office.
14. What specific components are necessary for sexual relationships/partnerships to succeed?
Quinn: I wrote about this in my essay, “On Sexual Intimacy”. That essay covered a portion of my whole view on relationships, but essentially my thesis is as follows: 5 steps must be achieved to create a successful sexual partnership. The 5th and final is sexual intimacy. Sexual intimacy is what separates companionship from sexual partnership. You can achieve companionship with a close friend or relative. You can only achieve sexual partnership with a child bearing partner and therefore it is the final puzzle piece for a child bearing relationship to succeed. The 5 steps are baseline attraction, familiarity, psychological intimacy, emotional intimacy, and sexual intimacy. Baseline attraction creates a connection, familiarity fosters the environment for intimacy to form, psychological intimacy aligns thoughts, ideas and goals, emotional intimacy aligns feelings, fears, and histories, and sexual intimacy concretizes emotion and psychology and accepts the preconditions of child rearing, which is the practical goal of a sexual relationship. Now of course this 5 step approach is non-exhaustive of the total repertoire of ‘things’ a relationship needs to survive, for example, honesty and loyalty, but I believe those softer attributes are built into my 5 steps. Honesty is determined somewhere in psychological intimacy. Loyalty is found typically in emotional intimacy. Kindness and depth should be discovered through familiarity and possibly all the way up to the point of sexual intimacy. The hardest and most esoteric of all is commitment. Your trust in the commitment of a partner is something only faith can address. You will never know for certain if a person will stay, so you must take that risk. You must have faith that they will stay.
Daniel: I’ve often mentioned to Quinn this “X” factor that I can’t quite define or describe. He laughs because I’m usually not mystical. In my experience, the formula for successful sexual relationship is a mixture of mutual physical and emotional attraction, comfort, vulnerability, practice, and host of subconscious connections we aren’t really privy to. That subconscious factor is my best shot at explaining the X factor. I think we have proclivities and turn-ons that are not conscious and were inscribed at a deeper levels than awareness. Either through past experience, childhood, and pop media it instills in us a mold that only certain individuals fill.
Mike: The initial one is attraction. We must initially be attracted to someone to talk to them and want to take it further. After that, it is truly about being committed to keeping that attraction alive and understanding that a relationship with someone you truly love is the most vulnerable position a human can be in, willingly. This allows for the growth of one another if each party is willing to accept constructive criticism from the other person and willing to push the other person to be their best, even if it is uncomfortable to do that because of the possible resistance. I think communication is another huge aspect, because in the world of expectations, you can’t expect someone to do the things you want him/her to do if he/she doesn’t know you expect those things from him/her. Also, communication is key because it can force someone to articulate how he/she is feeling and understand why he/she is feeling that way, because if one never communicates the way he/she feels, then that person may only know of the pain and not the cause of it. The last big thing is setting barriers for oneself. The human eye is the doorway to the mind, so be careful what you feed yourself. Do not gaze too long upon something that can create doubt within your relationship, and do not let the thoughts of that gaze fester within your mind for that where action begins to get formulated.
15. What brings you more satisfaction, lifting or running?
Quinn: I wrote this question and I can’t even answer it lol. I’ve written about the separate effects that running and lifting have on me. In my essay “On Mind Wandering” I talk about the meditative effects of running due to the struggle for oxygen and the consistency of the activity. And in my essay “Iron Therapy” I discuss the confidence boosting and deeply biologic elements associated with lifting. It sounds cliché but my answer is that “it depends on the day.” I picture a Saturday afternoon, its 12:30 PM and the sun is out. The temperature is 65 degrees. A light breeze persists. I put on my white Brooks Glycerin’s and I head out for a 5 mile run. The runners high I feel immediately is priceless. The numbness in my legs that arrives when I finish is indescribable. Then I picture a Friday evening, its 5:30 PM and the sun is setting. There’s dinner and drinks scheduled later with a group of friends. There’s a girl there I’m excited to see. And my buddy is headed over as we both finish up work. We’re going to get a hard lift in. We get to the gym, drink our Saiyan Cocktail ™ and begin with squats, move to deadlifts, then bench, pull-ups, shoulder press, dips, and preacher curls. The struggle we mutually share is enlightening. The pump at the end is intoxicating. So, I can’t decide.
Daniel: Running is suffering. Competitive running is suffering x10. The window for satisfaction is short lived in running. Lifting is suffering, too. But it can more satisfying in the moment of practice. Seeing the weight and feeling the burn is great. So I think long-term, running can be more satisfying from an accolades perspective (assuming participation in races). But day-to-day, nothing beats the feeling of lifting heavy at the gym and seeing weekly progress. Sprints focusing on one or the others for months at a time have proved successful.
Mike: Lifting. Trying to extinguish all doubt from your mind before hitting a heavy set of any type of lift is something I love doing. You convince yourself that you can hit this weight and do more if necessary. I assume the same can go for running, but the idea of moving weight that is pushing back against you and conquering it is something that gives me true pleasure.
16. Is America the best place to live?
Quinn: Across all dimensions, America is objectively the best place to live. Especially when you factor the history of humanity in. When you look at median income, freedom indexes, crime and safety, cleanliness, happiness, economic and political stability, and opportunity, America takes the cake. It might not be number 1 in all of them, but like the CrossFit Games, you just have to have the most points to win. Obviously I worry that this may not be true in 10-20 years, but I do believe it to be true now. I’ve traveled to Argentina, Colombia, New Zealand, Australia, England, Ireland, Switzerland, Germany, Austria and Canada. All of the above have unique qualities which make them desirable but at the end of the day, America wins. Like everything in life, there are tradeoffs. In Columbia I was struck by the tradeoff of community for opportunity. In New Zealand I was struck by the tradeoff of beauty for prosperity. In Argentina I was struck by the tradeoff between culture and stability. America is balanced. It is vast. You can find opportunity, culture, community, beauty, stability and prosperity. Best of all, you can create the right mix. America is the best place to live. For now.
Daniel: I haven’t lived anywhere else. At the surface, I want to say yes based on two things: the diversity of thought, people, and geography in the U.S. I have friends from all ethnicities and walks of life. You can probably find that in U.K. as well. And I think Australia .The second reason is that from an innovation stand point, the U.S. still leads the pack with the largest most successful companies in the world. That could be changing. But for the most part, for a variety of reasons, you have the best shot of starting a successful company in the U.S. Now for quality of life? You are probably better off in other countries. I’ll leave at that some I’ve been in the U.S. my entire life.
Mike: Hard to say because I have never lived anywhere else. I love living in America, and I think it is a place you want to be if you want to be successful in a career. It has environmental beauties, opportunities with career choices, and amazing cities to live and raise a family in. If you compare America to other countries, we may lose to various countries on different factors, but if you are comparing the totality of the factors weighed against the totality of factors in other countries, then I would say America is the best.
Quinn: Have to try to be unbiased here. I heard Eric Weinstein describe it best on Glenn Beck’s podcast, he claims that right now in America we have a linear spectrum with the ends being MAGAstan, WOKEstan. MAGAstan and WOKEstan are competing for distance in that middle, trying to capture everyone in between, and just like the Universe itself, have accelerating redshift, pushing the ends further. I’ll speak to the traditional definitions of conservatism and liberalism. Traditional conservatism stands for limited government, limited taxation, Judeo Christian moral structure, free market economies, and peace through strength military policy. Traditional liberalism stands for equality of opportunity, care and empathy for the less fortunate, protection of common/public goods, and limited constraints on social policy. Traditional conservatives understand well that humans thrive with maximal liberty, freedom and competition. They are right about the dark side of humans, the benefits of tradition, structure and strength in combatting that. Historically, they neglected the stratification of wealth as a problem and they perhaps thought the market and charity would solve society’s ills. Traditional liberals understand that the success of everyone requires some sacrifices. They also understand that complex competitive structures produce winners and losers and that we have a duty to fairness and equality. Where they go wrong is in their misconception of the inherent evils in neglect for tradition and strength, as well as the extent to which the government should exercise control in solving society’s problems.
Daniel: To give insight to my thoughts on this question, it is the last one I’m answering in this list of 20. I am not well versed in politics and I find it tedious to think about. I understand it one of the most important aspects of my life. Okay, now on to the question. Conservatives have a healthy fear of large government and the wastefulness of ideological policies. However, conservatives are horrible at controlling their narrative and public appeal. They don’t do well at connecting with the individual, especially the younger population. They also don’t do a great job at ostracizing the far-right individuals that cause a lot of the misconceptions about conservatives in the first place. Be it on purpose or by happenstance.
Liberals fail to realize that one cannot always create national and economic policy based on the ways thing “should be,” and unabated empathy. They get really caught up in identity politics and trying to be the good guys. Ironically enough, they are 10x more divisive than the right. Liberals have a zero-tolerance policy for disagreement. One is immediately labeled an evil conservative if you aren’t 100% on-board with the left. However, the left is better at leveraging social media to control their image and narrative. I think it is also virtuous to care for the underserved and the marginalized. They also tend to be secular, which I think is important for the separation of church and state.
Mike: The thing conservatives get right is holding firm to laws and policies that have been proven to work, and they don’t usually waiver from the people arguing for newly updated laws and policies every four years, because they understand that people generally don’t have the knowledge of how changing these laws would affect Americans. Conservatives also care about making sure the government isn’t the overseeing Czar that heavily taxes people. I am a believer that true freedom comes from the ability to grow the economic ladder. Money gives you opportunities to do various things, which is what I view as freedom. Liberals get right the idea of creating a backing. Liberals are very good at making people feel like they are oppressed and, therefore, want to be liberated. They are very good at getting people to fear something or believe in something without understanding any consequence of the policy or law.
Quinn: Humanity should strive to be multiplanetary. We are explorers at our core. Cooper says it best in Interstellar, “We used to look up and wonder about our place in the stars, now we just look down and worry about our place in the dirt.” It’s true. 1969 Apollo 11 landed on the moon. 1977 the Voyager Golden Record was sent out into space. 1990 Carl Sagan produced the Pale Blue Dot. We enjoyed 30 great years of interest in space and since then it’s become a subsection of society. People laugh at the idea of building bases on the moon, establishing a Space Force, and colonizing Mars. They bicker about the gender of Mr. Potato Head. They spend money and time announcing the creation of maternity flight suits for the US Military. They complain about being oppressed inside the Royal Family. It’s time we returned to Space with the full weight of humanity behind it. It’s time we returned to curiosity, real progress and actual exploration. It’s time we challenged ourselves with a noble goal. If humanity is to prevail against the forces of catastrophe which plague every rock orbiting every sun in every solar system in every galaxy in the universe, we must expand. As JFK said, “We choose to go to the Moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too.”
Daniel: The way Musk puts it, being a multi-planetary species is a hedge against an unforeseeable global event. It shocks me when people say ask why we are devoting resources to leaving Earth, when Earth is in dire need of saving. What about all the hungry starving people? How selfish is it to launch rockets when people are dying by the thousands? I understand the argument. Again, this may be the emotional thinking fallacy. But what scenario would you prefer: a catastrophe happens on earth with all of us on it while trying to fix world hunger? Or the continuation of the human race while some people still starve? I think intelligent life is worth preserving. And the road to utopian paradise may not be the straightforward one the social-fighters often think.
As far as steps, a reliable way to travel to Mars & the moon is a good start. I think we all know that by now. Maybe one we don’t talk about often is the right culture and collective desire of humanity. Being inter-planetary may be one of the greatest feats humans have ever accomplished. We need everyone on board to support this mission. I think a greater shift from superstition, astrology, and religion to science, logic, and evidence will help support this goal.
Mike: The next step is probably to get more appropriations from the government. Extra money provided for by the government will provide more funding for research and development within private corporations and NASA. Also, we will need to experiment with creating civilization there. We are starting to get a lot of information regarding the soil, the climate, water, and more; it is time to start testing our creations on Mars.
19. If you had things your way, what would your optimal day/week look like?
Quinn: As I’m actively working on this I want to briefly describe what process it takes to obtain the ideal day/week and then I’ll actually describe mine. First, think hard about what elements the ideal day/week possess. These could be activities, locations, times, possessions, etc. Then think about what barriers you can actively work on removing to get you closer to those elements. Make a short term plan of removing barriers and putting yourself in a better position. Then make a medium term and a long term plan. It may involve a new job, a new city, new friends, new skills, more free time, more money, etc. Then continuously audit your improvement or failing with regards to your plans. My ideal work day looks something like this; wake up feeling rested, have some time in the morning to read or exercise if I desire, have a short commute or no commute at all, to a location where I very much enjoy my work, at a company I very much enjoy working for, be able to finish work at a reasonable time between 4 and 6, be in close proximity to a great running route/track or gym, have the energy and stamina to exercise for at least an hour, come home to a location that is designed and suited for me, and then have the option and time to do what I please at night, whether that’s watch TV, play chess, read, write, play music, or enjoy the company of loved ones. Notice nothing too specific there. A weekend of my choosing contains much of the same elements I had above except without the necessity to work. Instead I have both the proximity and ability to do things like carting, hiking, skydiving, seeing movies, hanging with friends and family, exercising, and spending time how I want to with whom I want to.
Daniel: My first thought is that I would like more discretion over my schedule. I work from 9-6 with little room for flexibility. I’d be ideal to be able to step away for a couple of hours easily. So an ideal day would be the following: 3 hours of deep thinking/working in the morning. Maybe then answering emails and communicating socially. Space for meetings and collaboration. Stop at 3 for exercise and eating. In the evening, use another hour two of sharp thinking and reading. Stop with enough time to socialize and have some down-time. On a weekly basis, they’d be some momentary stark change in environment or travel.
Mike: The ideal week for me consists of two types of weeks – the ideal work week and the ideal non-work week. The ideal work week would consist of a lot of high pressure, high stress negotiations and meetings to make sure a merger, acquisition, public offering, etc. goes smoothly and in the best interests of the corporation I am affiliated with. High pressured situations give me an energy that can only be tapped when I’m in that type of situation, but it seems paradoxical because that situation gives me a calmness. The ideal non-work week would consist of some type of travel across the world – whether it be in the U.S. or another country. I want to experience the beauty of this Earth before I die.
20. What is the meaning of life?
Quinn: So far as I can tell, there is no good answer for this. Maybe one day I’ll have a better answer. What I do know, is that life is complicated and unpredictable. It’s challenging. It’s also beautiful and unimaginable. In my limited experience, I’ve found people, places, and things that give me meaning. Elements of life that make me feel like I’m in the right place at the right time, doing the right things. I’ve also found the opposite. I take the Jordan Peterson approach to life in some ways, a practical philosophy. Find meaning in adopting responsibility; family, career, discovery, improvement, achievement, and ability. A responsibility to your family, your community and yourself, to be capable, reliable, compassionate, and wise. To me, a good life is found by optimizing the things that bring you meaning and reducing the things that suck away meaning. In a Captain Jack Sparrow-esque soliloquy, life’s meaning is in finding meaning, the meaning is the long, arduous, winding road of life.
Daniel: Philosophically, there may be no meaning. I think we need to learn more about the universe to understand how to ask this question better. I’m an atheist, which means a lack of belief. So as far as I know, there’s no deeper meaning or spiritual goal. On a practical level, Jordan Peterson says the goal of life is not happiness but rather to find meaning (fulfillment). I endow my life with meaning, therefore my life has meaning. Sounds redundant, but I think a lot of people search for meaning externally. Hence, why religions & cults do so well. Which I think fucks us all in the long-term. Combining the philosophical and practical approaches: Foremost, we must fundamentally find meaning in our immediate/personal lives. That’s the first layer needed before we start asking larger questions. We need personal stability. Then if we have bandwidth left, we must contribute to society and community so that we can give humanity a fighting chance at posing larger questions about our universe. If we can maintain some fucking stability for long enough, maybe we can figure out what the meaning for all of this is, globally. If we do that, then it could help us understand our own personal meaning of life.
Mike: There is no single definition. It seems to be more of a person-by-person answer. I would assume it is to find what makes you happy and what you are passionate about and try to live a life that fulfills those goals. But even if we were to find the meaning of life, would that change anything in our lives? Another question to pose is whether people can find purpose without knowing the meaning of their life. Because if you find purpose, then haven’t you found the meaning to your individual life?
Notes on the Authors
Quinn Heinton: Author of the blog, Everything Under the Sun, since 2018. He currently resides in Winston Salem, North Carolina, where he works as a Financial Analyst for Amazon. Quinn graduated from The University of Florida with a Bachelor’s Degree in Finance and a Master’s Degree in International Business. He is an avid runner and weight lifter, cinephile, amateur chess player and has interests in cosmology, politics, and automotive racing.
Daniel Alvarez: Author of the blog, No One On Earth, since 2018. He currently resides in Jacksonville, Florida, where he works as an HR Analyst for Johnson and Johnson. Daniel graduated from the University of Florida with a Bachelor’s Degree in Psychology and a Master’s Degree in Management. He is an accomplished runner, weightlifting enthusiast, bibliophile, and has interests in investing, atheism, and the space industry.
Michael Scarneccia Mike is a law student studying Corporate Law at the University of South Carolina. He currently resides in Columbia, South Carolina where he was a former quarterback for the Gamecocks. He graduated from The University of South Carolina with a Bachelor’s Degree in Finance. He will be interning at Nexsen Pruet in summer 2021. Mike is an athlete, avid reader, devout Christian, devoted boyfriend, and has interests in soccer, politics, and traveling.
Comments
Post a Comment