What was the REAL reason for Steve Jobs' Success?

I'm not a particular fan of Steve Jobs.  I doubt most of us would particularly like to work for the guy--he was supposedly vindictive, selfish, arrogant and demanding.  He shipped hundreds of thousands of American jobs to China, along with the technology, ripe for copying.  He showed a complete disregard for the Chinese workers at Foxcon.  He shut down all charitable giving.


 Yet his success in leading Apple cannot be denied. So what was it about him that made him so successful in so many people's eyes?

1) Luck? Was he at the right place at the right time? A perfect alignment of the planets? A temporary fluke that wouldn't have lasted much longer? Or was it actually the employees who were hidden behind Jobs' showmanship, i.e., a positive (often unsustainable) spiral where the Apple brand attracted especially loyal and creative employees, who made the brand even better?

2) Pluck and Drive? He wasn't born with a silver spoon in his mouth, or a college degree to use as a crutch. He seemed to be more aware of his own mortality than most people, and perhaps following is own admonishment "stay hungry, stay foolish", this gave him an extraordinary amount of "drive" and an impatience when he perceived that his time was being wasted.

3) Vision? Some "mystical, creative" quality that gave him a clearer vision of what what he wanted in a new product? A lot of people tend to believe this, but he obviously wasn't the only creative person at Apple. Anyway, this is an explanation that seems most often perpetuated by the media.

4) Pragmatic reasons?

a) He took a $1 salary and no stock options. So his employees couldn't accuse him of being driven by short-term profits (nor was he) to inflate his own stock options. Hard to have a bad attitude when you can't point a finger at the boss. 

b) He had "street cred"--he helped found Apple (not to mention two other companies). Again, hard for employees to accuse him of luxuriating well behind the battle lines while they do all the work. He earned his medals in the past, and he was not seen as demanding something unreasonable from his underlings. 

c) He was the consummate insider, not some outsider bozo hired by the board of directors, who had previously worked at a snack food company. 

d) He was not a bean counter. Instead of demanding the best product for a given cost target, he demanded the lowest cost for a product that fulfilled his vision and satisfied his demand for utility, quality and aesthetics. His products were not the lowest cost, but customers liked them and were willing to pay more. 

e) Having co-founded Apple and Pixar, he had enough respect and clout to be able to overcome "groupthink". i.e., sometimes it is said that a camel is a "horse designed by committee."

e) A radical "world view" of product development?   Jobs had a fundamentally different worldview when it came to product development--a worldview similar to his own hero, Edwin H. Land, the inventor of instant photography and leader of Polaroid. This was a worldview that was (and is) opposite that of most big companies.  An interesting NY times article describes it as follows:

The worldview he was describing perfectly echoed Land’s: “Market research is what you do when your product isn’t any good.” And his sense of innovation: “Every significant invention,” Land once said, “must be startling, unexpected, and must come into a world that is not prepared for it. If the world were prepared for it, it would not be much of an invention.” Thirty years later, when a reporter asked Jobs how much market research Apple had done before introducing the iPad, he responded, “None. It isn’t the consumers’ job to know what they want.”

Jobs says of Land "...he saw the intersection of art and science and business and built an organization to reflect that." Jobs did the same thing.  Land believed in the power of the scientific demonstration. Starting in the 60s, he began to turn Polaroid’s shareholders’ meetings into dramatic showcases for whatever line the company was about to introduce. Jobs did the same thing.


So what do YOU think was the reason for Steve Jobs' success?

"The Greek Financial Crisis" for Dummies

Little Greece has dominated the financial news.  Why?

The Greek tax collection system is broken. And the Greeks are notorious tax dodgers who simply don't pay their taxes and don't trust either their neighbors or the bloated government. They have already defaulted as a nation several times in their history.  The Greeks tend to see themselves as the victims of a new form of "German occupation" via austerity measures being imposed.  As a result of austerity, the Greek unemployment rate is 19%, up from 10% in 2009, and the country has plunged into a deep recession.  Nearly 50% of young Greeks are unemployed. Historically low crime and suicide rates are suddenly on the rise.  As of January 5, 2012, Greek 1-year bonds had hit an eye-popping 369% yield, making it virtually impossible for Greece not to default. The general public in the rest of Europe are completely unaware that they are paying these rates, and that this is why the EU is slapping on carbon taxes, new VAT's, etc. It is all going down this interest payment black hole. Who gets the cash? The very same bankers who cooked the books for Greek EU membership in the first place.  

Incidentally, Angela Merkel had previously worked out a scheme in which holders of Greek bonds—largely French and German banks—would voluntarily accept getting paid only 50 percent of what they were owed, with the voluntary nature of the agreement underscored by strong pressure from the French and German governments. A deal was done on those terms—partial EU bailout plus partial default plus everyone pretending there's no default—and then the details were kicked down the road. But the details haven't yet been nailed down, and in the interim many of the banks who owned Greek debt have quietly sold it to hedge funds, often based in London, who are less vulnerable to quiet regulatory coercion. And those funds are betting that if they "play chicken" and refuse to play nice, ultimately Germany will pony up the full bailout.  That's a dangerous bet, especially considering the mood of the German citizens who DO pay their taxes.

The real question is not whether Greece will leave the Euro and face an economic collapse and slow recovery, but when. Some predict this will almost surely happen within three months unless there is some dramatic (and unlikely) action to tighten the monetary union by Germany and the rest of Europe, coupled with even deeper austerity measures (equally unlikely) being effectively implemented in Greece.  The real concern of the other Europeans is not Greece's economic collapse, but whether it will cause a domino affect with other countries like Spain and Italy. And if this happens, some believe it will result in a complete unraveling of the Euro-zone economies, abandonment of the Euro, and a corresponding decline in Western civilization--an ominous prediction. Somehow, I personally would like to be a little more optimistic than this.  It's possible that what happens in Greece may finally scare the other countries into doing everything they can to avoid it, including possibly even agreeing to a tightening of the monetary union.  Greece's default might even be so highly anticipated now that it will be a non-event either way.

What if...

What if you had no money?


What if you ate only roadkill or french fries or tic tacs  or chocolate or potatoes or monstor munch or McDonalds food?  Or what if you had nothing to eat but bugs and weeds?


What if you forgot to pay your yearly fire protection fee one year, even though you had always paid it in the past?


What if you were a liberated woman who nevertheless wanted to marry a rich man?  Or a woman in a repressive society who just wanted to stay alive?  Or a woman who willingly or unknowingly fell in love with a terrorist?


--What if we had no power to contemplate and alter our own emotional and logical interpretations of the experiences we encountered in our lives?  Would our personal histories be predestined and inevitable?


--What if you found yourself in a vicious cycle of wanting to do something you thought you could do, but not being able to motivate yourself to do it?  Or vice versa?  Would you continue to persist in this state, or would you moderate your goals, or would you get some assistance, or would you blame something/somebody else and stop trying?


What if all our microprocessors, computers and internet suddenly stopped working?  Would this plunge us back to the early 20th century?  Or to societal collapse and an interim dark age of fear, confusion, mass starvation, disease, violence, flight from cities and serfdom?


What if every nation stopped the practice of secretly helping its enemies' enemies conduct war, thus eliminating proxy wars?  Would this help or hurt the cause of peace?  What if only some nations stopped this practice, but not all?


What if you really wanted to know yourself or someone else...what questions might you ask?

A Global Chess Game...

Throughout history, the world could be seen as a chess game--each country had it's own interests as well as its fears about the intentions of other nations. In general, no one nation has explicitly claimed to have a goal of "world domination".   However, this was nevertheless seen as a transparent goal of Nazi Germany, Communist Russia and China, especially during the reign of Mao. However, even these countries based their own strategy on a perception that they needed to counter a perceived threat by the U.S. of world domination. While we in the U.S. might laugh at this view, the "desire of the U.S. for world hegemony" is not even questioned in most parts of the world. The unfortunate truth is that every country pursues a strategy based more on threats they perceive abroad than on a specific home-brewed "world domination" agenda. Even if an economically dominant country is not threatening its neighbors, it can still be seen as seeking "hegemony" and thus provide any regime an excuse for building up its military and spreading paranoia among its population. The sad part is, that strategy then looks to other countries very much like a world domination strategy, and it feeds on itself. Every country thus aims to "do unto others before they can do it unto us."

For this reason, I hesitate to characterize every major world power as having a "global domination strategy". However, every major power does have a strategy for preventing itself from being dominated. At the end of the day, these are effectively one and the same strategy.

Some people wonder if we are approaching Armageddon. I wonder about this myself. However, I realize that world powers have aligned themselves against each other and engaged in wars since the beginning of time, so yes, the end of the world might be nigh, or no, it might not be. The purpose of this post is not to alarm anyone, but rather to assess the strategic positions of the major powers and what might happen. Hopefully this remains merely the interesting intellectual exercise it was meant to be.


CHINA

China's strategy, according to the viewpoint of a visitor to China is to dominate the world economically rather than militarily. It is more than happy to allow the U.S. to weaken itself with foreign wars and debt accumulation while it gains in economic strength and technical prowess. It knows that, with 1.34 billion people, it will win an economic war, and it intends to dominate in computers and the internet, LEDs, Solar power, Wind power, high-efficiency, energy-saving technologies, and, according to its 5 year plan, cloud computing, bio-technology, high-end manufacturing including aerospace, smart grids, advanced materials and composites, and electric cars. China already has the fastest supercomputer in the world, and it already leads the world in clean technology. It graduates 8 times the number of University science and engineering students as the U.S. 

In preparation for a U.S. currency collapse, China is using its dollar reserves to buy up real estate and natural resources around the world--everywhere but the U.S.  In 2006, an article described China's vision to be the "powerhouse of the world" by 2050. Other articles state that China will achieve economic world dominance by 2016. A 2010 WSJ acticle stated this will happen in 2012. (Yes, 2012.)  I suspect that if our currency devalues, China's real economic output will quickly dwarf our own.  To put all this in a historical context, this will not be the first time China achieved technological and commercial preeminence---this occurred during the Tang Dynasty (618 to 907); at the time of Marco Polo's travels (1271-1295; especially compared to the middle ages in the West) and the Qing dynasty (1700's).  

Our U.S. government's view is (not surprisingly) more focused on China as a military power--they are vastly expanding their military, and this is seen as a means to exert more control over their own people, over the region, and over the world. This more paranoid focus on their military is nevertheless based on much evidence, and some people believe China's plan for world domination is still consistent with that of Mao's plan, albeit more sophisticated. For instance, one view is that China has been winning the war for global domination using Sun Tzu's "conquer without a fight" strategy, i.e. by fighting a cyber war of computer system attacks, engaging in national and corporate espionage, and exploiting Intellectual Property through reverse engineering or outright counterfeit. 

In terms of war game strategy, my guess is that China will refrain from outright war, but will naturally wait for the next major world crisis to shield it from scrutiny, during which time it will use more ham-fisted and threatening tactics to further consolidate its political control in the region.  If  there is a certain measure of urgency in China's strategic plans, it is because the Chinese have their own problems brewing on the horizon, and these will eventually catch up with them and possibly derail their progress.  (An impending demographic crisis as well as other problems in China are already outlined in an earlier post.)  China will also be very suspicious of any U.S.-led initiative against North Korea, its most important ally and economic partner.  On the other hand, Wikileaks cables suggest that China is privately distancing itself from the North Korean regime, which senior Beijing figures regard as a "spoiled child".  Based on the types of rumors seen, China would probably prefer to see a North Korean coup by someone who would quickly align themselves with China, rather than an outright reunification with South Korea. After all, a North Korean meltdown, in Beijing's eyes, might otherwise send a hoard of refugees into China and might also pave the way for a unified Korea under Seoul, with its strong alliance to the U.S., thus ensuring the loss of its buffer state.  The only thing the U.S. can be sure of, is that China will not cooperate in any initiative involving North Korea.  China is now the most starkly capitalistic country in the world, and moreover, they do not follow the same rules of moral conduct--such as a concern for human rights--that we do.

UNITED STATES

The U.S. is following a global trend in the world, where nationalist paranoia, religious zealotry, atheist fervor and isolationism are gaining traction.  Unfavorable demographic trends such as the aging of the baby boomers and a predominance of births to the poorest, least educated segments of society are also beginning to show their effects.  Add to this a growing divide between the rich and poor, increasing hostility towards illegal immigrants, and economic disintegration, and you have a toxic recipe for government breakdown.  The first major sign of this breakdown is the lack of political unity and political will to stop spending 175% of what our government takes in in taxes--or to increase taxes to cover the shortfall.  (This is analogous to a household with an annual income of $55,000 per year, spending $96,500—$41,500 more than they make!)  Disillusionment with political parties in general are resulting in fewer moderate candidates and more populist "banana republic" candidates running for office with promises such as "I'll bring back $2.00 gas".

Because of its domestic problems and its recent disastrous wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the U.S. will shift to a more isolationist stance in the world--just when its leadership is needed the most.  The U.S. is too broke to fight another ground war in the interest of nation-building.  Major intervention in the affairs of other countries such as North Korea and Iran will, by necessity, involve more unconventional warfare--i.e., cyber warfare, targeted assassination by drones, more robots and even....possible nuclear strikes.  Instead of outright war between Russia, China and the U.S., there will be a renewed "cold war" using these stealth technologies.


The moral leadership of the U.S. (as seen by other nations) has been severely eroded as a result of lack of habeas corpus at Guantanamo, secret waterboarding torture locations, the previous administration lying regarding their own intelligence on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, and the U.S.'s reluctance to sign the Kyoto protocol.  As a result, the U.S. will have a very difficult time maintaining support from our allies for any sustained ground war effort--it may be easier and more effective to let the European Union or some other regional power serve in such a leadership role.  This will naturally upset many Americans who still believe the U.S. is the best and most moral country on earth.

From a war game strategy standpoint, the U.S. military likely understands that if we become involved with one country, several other countries will take this as their cue to make trouble as well.  So, for instance, if North Korea initiates a conflict, Iran will deem this the perfect time to invade Iraq, bomb Israel, attack the U.S., or engage in other mischief.  Likewise, Pakistan may have mischief up its sleeve as well.  Military trouble always comes in bunches--we must be prepared to deal with at least two or three crises simultaneously.  This happened very frequently with the Roman empire--it's the oldest concept in warfare.  Both North Korea and Iran are potentially at a flashpoint.  The most immediate problem is how to deal with these countries' provocations without starting another proxy war, or precipitating a flood of refugees.  The U.S. may be forced to respond (or to participate in a response) if Iran follows through on its threat to close the strait of Hormuz, through which 40% of the world's tanker oil passes.  This will be an excuse for Russia to advance its troops through Georgia, as they have already massed their troops along the Norther border of Iran.  An attack on Iran is an attack on Russia and an excuse for them to make a land grab.  Likewise, the U.S. may be put in a difficult situation if North Korea attacks another ship or something in order to demonstrate that the new leader is to be reckoned with--any substantial response by the U.S. could be openly or secretly countered by the Chinese.

NORTH KOREA

According to a think tank report, North Korea has a 1 million man army, a record number of tanks, warships and air defense artillery...It also has MIG29's, submarines, and nuclear weapons, with both a plutonium and a uranium enrichment program.  Kim Jong-un, who is heading a third generation of dynastic rule in the North, will stick to his father’s militaristic approach.  The North has threatened to turn the South’s capital, Seoul, into a “sea of fire” on numerous occasions, and continues to repeat this threat.

National Geographic has a video that gives an idea of what it's like to live in North Korea, with its description of concentration camps, government minders, a "god King", pervasive fear, brainwashing and hatred of the Americans.  


War game strategy is likely to be the personal strategy of the 28 or 29 year old Kim Jong-un, perhaps in "consultation" with his obsequious advisers, who will not dare to give a differing opinion.  So there is no particular logic that we can use to determine if, what, when or why Kim Jong-un's military does something in the interest of peace or provocation or outright war.  However, assuming (or hoping) he is has relatively coherent thinking ability, he will quickly realize that any all out war, while possibly doing much damage to South Korea, would  not be winnable at any cost.  As long as he is relatively sane, his strategy might be to continue a cycle of periodic provocations, followed by insincere negotiations, retrenchment and more provocation--in the hope that he can keep keep up the illusion of diplomatic engagement until he has a sizable nuclear arsenal.  As a god-king, he might find it difficult to continue to restrain himself indefinitely, though.


In the final analysis, North Korea is still a pawn of China.

RUSSIA


Vladimir Putin's overseeing of the return of order and stability, his legal, financial, educational and social reforms, his no-nonsense approach, his reasonable views on a variety of subjects, and his presiding over a period of increasing prosperity had won him popularity in Russia.  Of course, oil and gas projects were primarily responsible for the robust economy, other industries being anemic.  Alcoholism is unfortunately still rampant, and 100-150 thousand people have emigrated from Russia each year in recent years.  A wikileaks cable indicated that a Spanish prosecutor and an expert on organized crime alleged that Russia was a virtual "mafia state", with extensive mafia ties to the Federal Security Service (FSB) as well as the Kremlin itself, which Putin most certainly controls.  Wikipedia says Putin is alleged by credible sources to be the richest man in Europe, with successive off-shore funds and accounts in Switzerland, Zug and Liechtenstein worth multi-billions.  He denies this.  His "official" net worth released during the legislative election of 2007 is the equivalent of $150,000, with $80,000 in income in 2006.


Putin has undoubtedly done some good things for Russia.  However, during the last 12 years, he has also implemented his own scheme for turning Russia back into a soviet-style dictatorship--whether this really was his own secret plan for self aggrandizement, or whether he saw this as the only means gaining sufficient power to push through his reforms.  In any case, he has eliminated or  emasculated most political threats to his absolute power--i.e., the oligarchs Berezovsky, Gusinsky, Khodorkovsky, all local governors (who are now appointed by him), the Russian Federal Council (now a puppet body), all TV stations, and nearly all opposing political parties except (shrewdly) a leftist party.  He now has a virtual puppet government that does his bidding.  Arrests of dissenters and denial of free assembly are characteristic of his administration.  There's just one remaining problem:  those protesters still in the streets.


Putin's United Russia party recently gained a slim majority in the last election, allegedly with the help of rampant voter fraud, and he is now back in power, having replaced both himself and Medvedev's offices with himself.  Except now he is dealing with increasingly large crowds of protesters who are disputing the election and saying it is time for him to step down.  So far, Putin's attempts to deal with the crowds has been clumsy.  He told the people that the protesters were like pawns being moved around by their "American partners".  He also claimed Russians needed "nationwide psychotherapy" to instill people with confidence in the future.  He also jailed leftist protest leaders like Sergei Udaltsov.  Fortunately, he knows better than to fire bullets into the crowds--this would irreparably damage his legacy.  He also knows that these protests are the last major obstacle to his complete domination of political power in Russia.


While it might be foolish to try to read Putin's mind, one might guess that whatever Putin does on the international stage will be part of his scheme to fully consolidate his power as a dictator.   In his narcissistic  mind, he is perhaps the last and best hope for Russia's ascendancy--its saviour--and he wants to complete the job of "making Russia great", especially if it will place him into the pantheon of the world's greatest leaders.  He has cultivated a macho, take charge, superhero image in the media, which might smack of Teddy Roosevelt were it not for his dictatorial style and the self-promoting nature of his photo ops.  Perhaps Commodus would be a better comparison in this respect.  In any case, Putin likely does not trust anyone else to lead Russia, and he already has virtually the power of a dictator.


So the world is left with few good options to contemplate.  If Putin remains in control, he may shift further to despotism, using secret imprisonments, assassinations or purges to further consolidate his power.  On the other hand, he may focus more on continuing his reforms and perhaps even promise to restore some greater level of democracy in the future--although this might be wishful thinking, as it would be rather unique in world history.  In order to consolidate his power, Putin may attempt to divert attention to some international crisis--if necessary, of his own making.  A crisis always serves to rally the people around their leader and to set aside aside grievances--he may hope.  He has already sharply criticized the U.S.'s placement of missiles in Europe, and he could escalate this war of words.  He could take a more strident position against the U.S. regarding Iran, a trading partner, and this most likely be his excuse for a military campaign.  Anything to divert attention from his own "internal affairs" and rally the nation behind him.  The sad part of all this, is that Putin might actually be the lesser of two evils.  If Putin were to step down or were assassinated, who would replace him as a virtual dictator?  A left-leaning ideolog?  A member of his own "mafia" or security apparatus who might have fewer qualms about silencing dissent?  By systematically dismantling democratic governmental and media safeguards, Putin may have painted himself, his government, and the Russian people...into a corner.


Last year, Russia surpassed the United States in the dirty business of arms deals with other countries.  Russia increased arms shipments to countries like Iran, Venezuela and China.  These are sophisticated weapons like surface-to-air missiles, tanks and the like.  Sooner or later, many of these weapons end up in the hands of organizations like Hezbollah.  Russia also sells gas, oil and nuclear technology, as well as many other, more mundane products to these countries.  Countries like Iran would prefer to buy better, more up-to-date technology from the West, but sanctions prevent them from doing this and drive them into Russia's arms.  Russia has exploited this phenomena for years.  The common desire to limit the power and influence of the United States also makes for some strange bedfellows, with countries like Russia, China, Iran and Venezuela involved in mutual trade and diplomacy.  Increased trade with Europe has nevertheless made Russia more receptive to the West and  its concern about Iran's uranium enrichment program.  In September 2010 Russian President Dmitry Medvedev signed a decree banning the delivery of S-300 missile systems, armored vehicles, warplanes, helicopters and ships to Iran. This may cause the loss of $13 billion in arms sales to Iran and force Iran to depend on China for arms in the future according to Igor Korotchenko.  More likely, Iran's own missile systems are sufficiently advanced that this won't be necessary.




IRAN


Iran is a pariah as a result of the latest international sanctions, and it is under considerable pressure.  


Iran's strategy, in a nutshell, has been this: 
   (1) They want to convincingly display the ability to make a nuclear strike on the United States at least once.  In order to do this, they must develop enough nuclear-tipped missiles stockpiled in enough places that the U.S. and its Western allies will not be able to destroy them before it is too late to prevent a strike.
   (2)  They want to heavily influence Iraq, Syria and other Islamic states in the Middle East and Africa, not only for the purpose of maintaining control by Shia Islamists loyal to them, but to develop a powerful pan-islamic federation dominated by them--something that has been their dream for many years.


Russia will also attempt to use Iran as a pawn for its own interests.  Therefore, any military confrontation between the U.S. and Iran could be extremely dangerous.




SUMMARY


It appears that countries like Iran and Venezuela are Russia's pawns.  North Korea and some other neighboring countries are China's pawn.  Afghanistan is Pakistan's pawn.  Syria and Iraq are becoming Iran's pawn.  It would be extremely difficult and challenging, if not impossible, to take any effective military action against a country like Iran or North Korea without igniting another proxy war like we currently have with Pakistan.  The building of arms in all these countries also means that it will become increasingly difficult to avoid a provocation leading to war.

Liquid Happiness...

Modern science has encouraged us to think of the human body—and even our mind--as a fantastically complicated and beautiful “machine”. After all, the brain's geography can be intricately mapped out with different areas corresponding to different tasks--some for unconscious bodily functions, some for processing of sensory information, and some for various categories of conscious reasoning and memory recall. On top of all that, our brain is somewhat plastic in nature. Neurological research indicates that experiences can actually change both the brain's physical structure and its functional organization.

But what about our feelings and emotions? Well, it turns out, our feelings and emotions are represented as a complex and continuously changing recipe of neurochemicals that our body produces and secretes at appropriate moments to our brain synapsis. The idea that our emotions can be thought of as combinations of neurochemicals “poured from a bottle” naturally seems a little unsettling, though.

“HAPPY" NEUROCHEMICALS
There are a range of different happy feelings that we humans aspire to. They are a result of "happy" or "motivational" neurochemicals that our body secretes, that affect our brain in particular ways. Examples of these substances are endorphins, dopamine, oxytocin and serotonin, among others. Endorphins cause euphoria and mask pain, dopamine craves novelty, excitement & achievement and spurs us to action, and serotonin makes us "feel on top" and may regulate our emotions (the lack of which may cause depression), while oxytocin can increase trust, empathy, generosity and human bonding. The effect of these substances on mood is complicated and depends on the situation. For example, oxytocin can also increase feelings of envy and schadenfreude, which are seen as negative emotions. It also has a role in sexual activity and during childbirth, so while these substances have a documented affect on our mood, they may also perform other physical functions as well.

Certain drugs can enhance the way these substances work, or can trigger more of these substances to be secreted in the brain. Some neurochemicals can be independentaly produced and then intravenously or intranasally injected into the body and thus add to the level of neurochemicals already produced by the body—an example being oxytocin. Of course, misuse of such drugs or substances can result in addiction, with bad consequences. Similarly, exposure to pornography or to unlimited amounts of high-calorie junk food or to any other activity that results in lots of these neurochemicals (such as dopamine) being emitted (or their effects enhanced) can likewise result in addiction, again with serious consequences. This article explains the effects of dopamine and oxytocin on sex and romance, and why “moderation” can actually be a good thing.

These “happy” neurochemicals are not the only substances that get secreted at appropriate times in our body. For instance, our body also produces other natural substances that stimulate us, give us extraordinary strength and speed, and in some cases put us in a “fight or flight” mode. These stress hormones include corticotropin releasing factor (CRF), cortisol, and norepinephine (noradrenaline), among others. The long-term activation of the stress-response system — and the subsequent overexposure to cortisol and other stress hormones — can disrupt almost all your body's processes. This puts you at increased risk of numerous health problems, including heart desease, sleep problems, digestive problems, depression, obesity, memory impairment, eczema, etc.

Yes, there is a dark side to all this--addiction. Our brain's "happiness receptors" just aren't designed to be stimulated all the time. Instead, what results is a vicious cycle of craving, over-stimulation, consequent further de-sensitization of the dopamine receptors, followed by a let-down and a subsequent craving for even more prolonged, intense or novel experiences in order to get the same level of stimulation. In the process, our brain also "re-wires itself" to habitualize the behavior and make it even more difficult to resist the temptation.

The brain mechanisms that utilize both our "happiness" and "stress" neurochemicals can become overworked and fail to do their job properly, resulting in depression, mania and anxiety. (Depression may result, for instance, when our efforts to pursue future perceived happiness instead stress us out, and yet this causes us to work at it all the harder, to no avail.) Apathy is a common side affect of deseases such as Parkinsons that damage dopamine-producing neurons. Obsessive-compulsive symptoms in patients with encephalitis also point to damage in the dopamine neurocircuitry in the brain caused by an infection. It becomes clear, then, that sustained mental health requires an intricate, exquisitely-balanced interplay of all these physical mechanisms, each of which must not be overworked, infected, diseased or genetically defective.

To summarize: substances produced and secreted in our bodies for particular purposes and at particular, limited time intervals (a) motivate us to exert energy and to do things, (b) give emotional meaning and reward to our experiences, (c) focus our energy when immediate action is required, and (d) greatly enhance our ability to survive and procreate.

CONCLUSIONS:
So is there a point to all of this? I'm not sure. Even though the pursuit of pleasure is “wired into us”, perhaps it's nevertheless unhealthy and abnormal to be too happy or sad, at least for an extended period of time. You can't buy happiness, as they say. Somehow, we already knew that the poor family living in that mud hut in Peru was likely to be just as happy as we.

However, there must be a fairly wide margin between how happy or miserable we can be, on average. Following self centered happiness objectives or even attempting to "self-administer" happiness is a self-defeating--if not outright dangerous--effort, in light of how our brain works. We tend to do poorly when it comes to making ourselves happy. Perhaps lasting happiness can only be experienced as a side effect of how we see the world, of our own labor, and most of all, as an indirect result of making other people happy--which is something we DO know how to do pretty well. (But we already knew that, too.)

But how important is happiness, really?  I've slowly learned that happiness and/or sadness is simply a condition we're put in (often by ourselves)--and it doesn't necessarily define our character or give our life meaning.  What's in my brain--my understanding of the the world, of life, of human experience, even the degree of respect I have for myself and my endeavors--has far more meaning to me--and it far transcends anything that happiness alone could give.  We see people often who are so engaged in noble pursuits that the idea of chasing happiness itself is to them a silly concept, hardly better than pursuing misery.  (I'm convinced there are even more people who stupidly pursue misery than happiness.)  Happiness and sadness are merely part of the human condition and are best seen as having little significance compared to other, more meaningful things.  Some, like John Stuart Mill, have argued that pleasure and satisfaction are ultimately the result of a clear conscience and the sense that one is a good person.

Is this all there is to it, though?  I'm not so sure.  I believe in the concept of grace.  Grace is something that makes it easy for us to do good, makes us want to do things we know are good, even if they might otherwise strike us as drudgery, distasteful, humiliating, boring, overly challenging, or otherwise not in our normal human definition of pleasurable.  It is analogous, perhaps, to gladly doing something that honors the memory of a loved one, or someone we have a high regard for and want to emulate.  A work of love that goes beyond mere duty.

I can't think of anything else "profound" to say, so I'll quit here.  (at last)

Anatomy of a Scam

ANATOMY OF A SCAM


Ever been snookered?  Read this.

1.   Most scams fall into one of three broad categories of intent:  (a)  Attempt to sell you something worthless or have you invest in something worthless  (b) Attempt to steal money or valuable information (such as personal information)  from you  (c) Attempt to influence you to make particular political, cultural, medical/health or financial choices that are ultimately beneficial to their interests but not your own.


2.  Scammers use one or more of these 9 techniques:
   a)  misrepresent who they are
   b) "earn" your trust during an initial period
   c) create illusion of credibility by association with "experts", famous people, government agencies, or offer a web link to the patent office or some other site to prove their legitimacy
   d) testimonials, testimonials, testimonials -- gullible people are attracted to them like moths to a flame
   e) appeal to one's worst instincts--pride, vanity, greed, fears, prejudices, or prurient curiosity
   f) appeal to your kindness, generosity or sense of responsibility
   g) take advantage of your desperation; hold out hope when no one else can offer it to you
   h) create alarm, and tell you what you need to do "before it's too late"
   i) Offer a 100% iron-clad, no-questions-asked money back guarantee (that's not)


3.  Examples of such scams:  
   (a) Pay a small advance fee that is inconsequential compared to the money you will receive later
   (b) The classic "bait and switch"
   (c) The Perpetual motion/energy machine (often a "hot" startup company)
   (d) Fountain of youth found
   (e) Something for nothing (i.e., lose weight without dieting, build muscle without working out)
   (f) Make or save gobs of money
   (g) Save your life or improve your health when the doctors can't
   (h) Claim your prize or accept your award (that's the bait; the hook comes later)
   (i) "We want your valued opinion on this topic" (along with your valuable personal information)
   (j) "We want YOU to profit from this fantastic investment" (really?)
   (k) "There may be a problem with your account, can we verify some information?"
   (l) "A virus has been detected in your computer..."
   (m) "We can fix your credit no matter how bad it is."
   (n) "You're getting screwed by ______ !  We can help you fight back!"
   (o) "...this shocking video clip demonstrate why you need our product.  Not appropriate for all viewers"
   (p) Use adjectives rather than stating actual quantities or levels;
          Example:  "Eliminate the shockingly high cancer risk from your cell phone by using..."
  (q)  Avoid technical explanations by using the word "proprietary", "top secret", "patented", etc.
         Example:  "... our proprietary, patented product..."
   (r) Give the vague (and false) impression that the product's efficacy has been proven
         Example:  "...proven to be the best in the industry in test after test!"
   (s) Use weasel words like 'and/or', 'up to', 'as little as', 'as much as', 'similar to', etc.
         Example:  "Tests show that harmful EMI/RFI is reduced by as much as 87%."
   (t) Claim that someone else (the government, the oil companies) wants to suppress this information
         Example:  "Cell phone companies want to keep this harmful radiation a secret."
   (u) Use patriotism, religion, or ideology to mask an appeal to the victim's darkest fears and prejudices
         Example:  "When terrorists infiltrate the U.S. and wreak havoc, will you be prepared?"


As an example here's a link to a particularly egregious scam (it might be down by the time you click on it.  Also, be careful not to click on any of it's links):   http://www.hojomotor.com/vid
  
4.  Investment scams are only a small subset, but they deserve some additional characterizations:
   a)  "This is a golden nugget that most people have not yet discovered.  A rare opportunity."
   b)  You're a senior citizen in the Midwest and they got your name from another scammer--paydirt!!
   c)  "This is ready to take off.  Production will start next month.  Better act fast or you'll miss out!"
   d)  "The concept was developed last month, production ready next month."  (Not multiple years?)
   e)  Didn't already spend $80 million in R&D.  (Why not? What is this, a hot dog stand?)
   f)  "Approved" by prominent individuals, experts, or government agencies
   g)  Conspiracy theory to explain why G.E. or Chevron hasn't already bought up the company.
   h)  Fake Pollyanna "press releases" masquerading as news articles (No development challenges?)
   i)  No clear technical explanation.  Made up technical terms and jargon.
   j)  Words like "proprietary", "patent pending", "new technology", "quantum leap", "breakthrough"
   k)  Obscure discussion boards of people interested in technology but who don't have technical expertise
   l)  Technical questions brushed off with assertions that the technology will shortly prove itself.
   m) Lack of, or faked credentials of the inventor/developer, or credentials in a different field
   n) Dead ends encountered when one thoroughly checks out and attempts to visit the company.
   o) Company based in Nigeria, Florida, Greece, China, Thailand, Barbados, or some such place.
   p)  Again, testimonials--crazy, but many people will still evaluate a product/company based on this
   q)  You can invest as little as $250.  You can sell and make a big profit whenever you decide to!
   r)  Finally, the most common scam is not a scam at all:  the majority of small start-up companies go belly-up, despite the best intentions of the company, its workers, its stock promoters and its investors.  Small start-up companies are a bad investment choice for the small investor.