His vision is that of harmoniously disagreeing with the doctrine of religion, but not so much with what religion is trying to achieve. Quote: “One could have so called ‘spiritual moments’ without belief in spirit.”

This reminded me of another TED video, one I saw a few years ago, of Richard Dawkins arguing for a Militant stance towards Atheism. You can find that video here (http://www.ted.com/talks/richard_dawkins_on_militant_atheism.html). His presentation is much funnier that Alain’s, the jokes being mostly disrespectful of relegion, e.g. “We’re all atheists about most of the gods humanity has ever believed in, some of us just go one god further”. With Militant Atheism Richard basically encourages atheists to stop being polite and come out and say so.

I see arguments for both approaches. I love the idea of learning from religion, and using its methods, without supporting the doctrine. At the same time, I also think atheists should not always politely disagree, but when appropriate confront the religious dogma.

Either way, the lesson from these two great presentations is I think for religion to open up [to criticism], and atheism to lighten up [with criticism].

What do you think?

What struck me most in that video is something that I’ve heard and read before, namely that research shows that highly educated people are not “happier” than people who have not “learned” as much. Outward signals of intelligence are often different from reality. In my view, current educational systems simply do not contribute to us being wiser and happier. Montaigne was keen on an intelligence in the form of wisdom. And for that, he believed, not any kind of formal education was needed. According to him the secret lays humility, modesty, and an acceptance of one’s own intellectual limitations.

To explain the title of this blog post; why learning “VS” wisdom? Because what we are mostly taught in high-schools and universities does serve a purpose, but not the purpose of being wise and living happily. Alain asks the question why not teach kids and young adults stuff like: How to live well with other people? How to confront one’s anxiety? Ho to deal with death? Or even how to end a relationship? All aspects of life that we are SURE to face.

Alain argues that educational systems today make some people feel stupid when they’re not, and makes other people feel clever when they they’re really not. He also argues that exams, the way we are tested in educational systems, unjustly stresses learning factual information more that wisdom; and presents a few open questions that a student would have to answer on a wisdom-exam:

1. What should one do when anxious?
2. What is a good parent?
3. How can one tell if one is in love or infatuated?
4. Should one worry what other people think?

There is nothing more miserable and more proud than man …

Check out Alain’s videos HERE. And in case you’ve read this whole blogpost, I’d appreciate it if you’d pick a question from the above 4 and answer it as a comment below..

1. Throw out nonessential numbers.
This includes age, weight and height. Let the doctors worry about them. That is why you pay ‘them’.

2. Keep only cheerful friends.
The grouches pull you down.

3. Keep learning.
Learn more about the computer, crafts, gardening, whatever… Never let the brain idle. ‘An idle mind is the devil’s workshop.’ And the devil’s name is Alzheimer’s.

4. Enjoy the simple things.

5. Laugh often, long and loud.
Laugh until you gasp for breath.

6. The tears happen.
Endure, grieve, and move on. The only person, who is with us our entire life, is ourselves. Be ALIVE while you are alive.

7. Surround yourself with what you love ,
whether it’s family, pets, keepsakes, music, plants, hobbies, whatever. Your home is your refuge.

8.Cherish your health:
If it is good, preserve it. If it is unstable, improve it. If it is beyond what you can improve, get help.

9. Don’t take guilt trips.
Take a trip to the mall, even to the next county; to a foreign country but NOT to where the guilt is.

10. Tell the people that you love them, at every opportunity.

Aside from Buddhism, I’m not aware of any relegion that allows the challenging of it’s assumptions. Religous leaders present universal truths without room for criticism. And they continue to directly and indirectly influence violance and discrimination without ever being held accountable for it.

A line from the article: “Keeping religion immune from criticism is both unwarranted and dangerous. Unless we are willing to expose religious irrationality whenever it arises, we will encourage irrational public policy and promote ignorance over education for our children.”

What are your views on religon?

And as always in life I think, when one focuses on something or awaits something, they tend to notice so much more of that same thing. Through a freind I came across a number of short documentaries of Alain de Botton, a happiness philosopher. You can watch these Guide to Happiness documenataries here.

Why Positive Psychology? Well, personally I think in the long term, it could be the solution to pretty much all the misery currently present in the world.. Just imagine incorporating Positive Psychology in education, or teaching kids and young adults how to be happy…!?

Take a look at this article, mentioning how the Dalai Lama invited a Positive Psychology scientist for a discussion. These are some of the quotes from the article:
“We’re really intrigued with his research that shows students can learn how to relax so they can focus more on learning.”
“Davidson’s center plans to begin training local fifth-grade teachers next fall to cultivate skills like patience and relaxation among their students.”

I ran into this article that perhaps does do just that. It seems that people who are consistently (a term also extensively discussed in the book Influence) involved and devoted to a cause or a group, tend to unconsciously deactivate certain parts of their brain when listening to a figure from that movement or group. And it is exactly these parts of the brain that are mainly responsible for the vigilance and skepticism when judging the truth and importance of what people say.

So, I suppose we should be careful judging figures we are devoted to, and taking decisions on account of what they say… Or…?

Basically the article suggests that we can enhance our self-control and become less sensitive to discomfort, simply by performing good deeds, i.e. by helping others.. They call this effect moral transformation, and have done interesting experiments. Check it out here.

Nice line from the article: “Gandhi or Mother Teresa may not have been born with extraordinary self-control, but perhaps came to possess it through trying to help others.”

And a really interesting one: “perhaps the best way to resist the donuts at work is to donate your change in the morning to a worthy cause.”

So, if you want more willpower and physical endurance, why not try this – help others!

At the moment, the discussion about the evolution of (human) cooperation is on a rather theoretical level. The main aim is to understand under which circumstances individuals tend to cooperate with each other and to which extent they behave selfishly.
Using a game theoretic model, a new study showed that rewards are very effective in increasing cooperation but, ironically, increased cooperation makes rewards expensive. At some point punishment becomes more efficient.

I loved reading this article as it reminded me of the conclusions I drew in investigating the role of trust in strategic alliances through game theory. What role can incentives and punishement play in trust and reciprocity. The dynamics are quite interesting. You can check out my thesis here…

Still, I’d like to share with you this article (Obama’s nuclear policy takes one step forward and two steps back) as there is a paragraph in it that reminded me on how dependant our actions are on the reciprocity factor.

On one hand Obama managed to bring down the U.S. and Russian nuclear arsenal from just above 20000 to just below 20000 nuclear warheads. In my view an effort that’s symbolic at best. On the other hand he provided $8 billion in loan guarantees for the building of nuclear reactors in the U.S. (for the purpose of generating power domestically), and proposed another $40 billion more.

Why such a decision? Here’s a line from the Scientific American article above: “Obama has been pro-nuclear-energy since his days as an Illinois state senator and U.S. senator, when he accepted donations from the giant Illinois-based nuclear utility Exelon.”

Two top Exelon (nuclear plant corporation) officials, Frank M. Clark, executive vice president, and John W. Rogers Jr., a director, are among Obama’s largest fund-raisers. So. Would that have something to do with the decisions he’s taking?

I believe that many politicians have great, clean, and visionary ideas when they are young and not in power. But by the time they actually make it to power, they will have received so much support (mostly in terms of I’ll scratch your back and you promise to scratch mine), that they become puppets, not directly of the people they are indebted to, but of their own feeling to reciprocate to the wishes of their (by then) friends..

Is that what politics are? The art of compromising at the cost of ideology, authenticity, and vision?

Fascinating thought… How would you arrange/plan/dream your life if you knew you’d live to be in good shape at 90?

Better question yet: How should the institutions around us, guiding and supporting us in our lives, change??