Gas Lighting – Vice-Signalling And A Lack Of Self-Respect

There is an innate tendency for people to seek out information that validates their beliefs and to resist information that does not confirm what they believe to be true, and when given access to all of the information of the world via the Internet, there is no reason for someone who is motivated to believe something to ever to be exposed to anything that contradicts it.

The truth does not matter when it can be ignored.

Author Reading Blog Post

The concept of gaslighting was first introduced in the 1938 play “Gas Light” by Patrick Hamilton, which was made into a movie a couple of time. The story is set in 1880 when houses are artificially illuminated with candles for the lower classes and gas for the middle and upper classes. The husband and wife, main characters, live in a big house that is lite with gas. Their relationship is not a good one. The apartment above remains vacant after the murder of a rich lady who had a lot of expensive jewelry. The husband spends the evenings searching an upstairs apartment for the jewels but he doesn’t tell his wife where he is going or what he is doing. Of course, he uses the gas lights when he searches the upstairs apartment, which causes the lights in the rest of the building to glow more dimly. His wife hears sounds coming from the apartment and notices the lights getting dimmer but when she asks her husband about these things he tells her that they are not happening. He does it so frequently and so convincingly that she begins to doubt her own experience of reality and starts to question her sanity.

This is the origin of the term “gaslighting” and it is a powerful way to manipulate other people. It is a long game and it tends to work more effectively on people who have a connection to or a reason to care for manipulator. The effects are cumulative and will only occur after repeated exposure. In general, it works because someone lies so convincingly and so consistently about a subject that the victim begins to doubt their own experiences. It will not work when the person knows that they are being lied to, either because they have proof of the lies or they have other social proof that their experience of reality is actually true, and it cannot be said that a person who is motivated to believe the other persons lies is suffering from gaslighting.

Recall or consider the Asch conformity experiment that asked subjects to answer a question about line length. Subjects were placed into groups with other people who were, unbeknownst to them, confederates and working with the experimenter. The group was shown two pictures, one with a single line drawn on it and one with three lines drawn on it. They were then asked to select with line in the second picture matched the length of the line in the first picture. When the subject answered first or when the previous answers did not agree, they would always answer correctly. But when they answered last and there had been complete agreement on a particular line, they were more likely to offer-up the same answer. This is not a case of gaslighting even though most of the subjects did, at least some of the time, go along with the answers the rest of the group gave. These subject consciously made the decision to conform and give the same answer as the rest of the group members. At no time did they question their belief that the group was answering incorrectly. They simply made the decision to go along with the group to avoid the negative feelings associated with standing alone. This is a critical distinction because it illustrates the importance of the relationship between the perpetrator and the victim. In Asch’s study, the subject doubted the sanity of the other group members, with gaslighting, the victim doubts their own sanity.

The play came out in 1938 and for a few decades nothing much came of it other than it being a moderately interesting evening of entertainment and a decent thought experiment in terms of “what would you do” in a similar situation. However, during the 1960’s, 70’s and 80’s, the term began to build-up steam and started to take root in mainstream consciousness to refer to any deliberate actions that were taken to undermine someone’s perception of reality. It is now widely accepted as a manipulation tactic used by narcissists, sociopaths, and people who wish to destabilize another person’s view of what is real.

The timing of this is not much of a surprise either. We are now living in what many consider the post truth era. This is a time in which the truth is much less important than being right or being believed. It happens to coincide with the elimination of tight social groups and the formation of virtual social groups that coexist around a shared interest in a particular subject or way of viewing the world. This creates a powerful selection bias effect that convinces each member of the group to believe that their point of view is much more common and much more significant than it actually is. Consider the current political climate. While it may seem like the world is very polarized, it is about as polarized as it has ever been. The distribution of political leanings maps perfectly onto the normal distribution curve that is highest in the center and drops off on either side. Most people are moderates and are very tolerant of the other moderates. They just go about living their life and accept that other people will have views that are different from them. Those who do not agree are not wrong, they are just people who have a different perspective. If we assume that the middle is made-up of the one standard deviation above and below the mean, we need to accept that this will amount to 68 percent of the population. If we assume that it is made-up of two standard deviations above and below the mean, we need to accept that this will amount to 95 percent of the population. Either way you look at it, the middle is MASSIVE while the fringes are tiny.

However, our large population and the Internet has given us the ability to seek out, find, and connect with like-minded people about any subject, regardless of geographic location. The ability to broadcast anything in real time has given the small numbers of fringe members the ability to echo and amplify their message creating the illusion that there are more of them than there are. Compounding this illusion is the relative ease at which people can disregard information that does not support their point of view. There is an innate tendency for people to seek out information that validates their beliefs and to resist information that does not confirm what they believe to be true, and when given access to all of the information of the world via the Internet, there is no reason for someone who is motivated to believe something to ever to be exposed to anything that contradicts it.

The truth does not matter when it can be ignored.

This was not the case until very recently. When the population was low and the ability to find and connect with people who shared your particular perspective was severely limited, we had no choice but to listen and coexist with those who were near us in a geographical sense. Our views were balanced and tempered by the exposure to other people who held a slightly different perspective of the same subject. We needed to get along with them because they lived close to us, so we learned how to tolerate other points of view and likely learned things from the people who differed from us giving us a better understanding of facts, evidence, and the truth. Gaslighting was rare when we were exposed to a variety of people who had a diverse collection of perspectives.

Gaslighting has really taken off over the last 10 years because the ability to self-select the information we consume and the groups to which we identify as being a part of. And it is a real problem.

In fairness, I don’t really care what adults do so long as it doesn’t impact the freedom, safety, and liberty of other people. My view is that the human brain is an amazing thing that has a massive storage potential in terms of memory and it is innately coded to assimilate sensory information in a way that allows it to create mental processes to perform powerful and arbitrary tasks. The world would be a much better place to live if everyone used their brain to its potential by bringing in the most accurate information available and then allowing it to write the code to handle the process of living more effectively, but this isn’t what people are going to choose to do. If you’re over the age of 25, there is still hope for you because the brain maintains its powerful abilities for the duration of life, but you are your own problem now. You are an adult and you have every right to choose the life you are going to live.

It is a problem for the people who are not adults because they are in the process of learning how to be adults and they have always existed in the post truth world that favors virtual interactions with little social cost over the face to face interactions that reveal other human beings to be a slightly different version of the same thing they are.

Gaslighting in this context is much easier to accomplish and a lot more damaging in terms of long term consequences. Younger people do not have the life experience that contributes to knowing much about anything. Most of their time has been spent getting up to speed with the skills most of us take for granted – the 80% of the skills that all human beings have in common. Moving, talking, learning how to read language, learning how to interact with the physical objects in the world, etc. consume much of learning opportunities in the early parts of life. Young people are also much more open and just accept what they hear as being the truth because they don’t have a choice. Their lack experience with almost everything means that in order to learn anything they have to assume that what they experience is the truth and are at the mercy of the intention of the people they encounter.

In a way, this is worse than conscious gaslighting. With gaslighting the person knows the truth and is being manipulated into thinking that maybe their view of reality is suspect. It’s not a great situation because being taught to doubt your experiences of reality can create a habit or behavioral pattern of doubt. However, the cause of the problem is the misplaced trust in someone who is willing to weaponize this trust as a way to take something that they want. With young people, there may not be any knowledge or notion of the truth. Their first experience with the truth will be the implantation of a lie that serves only to manipulate them and to give-up whatever the liar wants from them.

Consider what gaining knowledge about a complex subject is like. Imagine the totality of what is known about something would fill-up a fifty page notebook – both sides, single spaced, in the times new roman font at a size of 11, with one inch margins top, bottom and sides. This is about 70000 words assuming 1400 words per page – 700 on the front and 700 on the back – and is a considerable amount of information and it will take a number of years to learn.

Now think about what happens to the person on their first day when they are exposed to the subject. There is a moment when they go from not having the notebook, meaning they do not know that there is a subject, to them getting the notebook. This moment is important because it serves as the introduction to both the fundamentals of the subject and the fact that the subject is a thing that can be known that they do not know much about. They are very vulnerable at this point because all they have is an almost completely blank notebook with very little typed-out. It might have a title and a few sentences, but most of it is empty and there are no page numbers. There is no way for them to know how long the book is because they know almost nothing about the subject other than the title. At this moment in time, and for a few pages at least, they have no choice but to type-out EVERYTHING they hear about the subject and commit it to memory because unless they start filling-up the note book, they are never going to know anything about it.

This empty notebook phenomenon isn’t isolated to young people, although it is much more prevalent with them. We can be exposed to a completely new subject at any time in our life and when it happens, we are just as vulnerable as the young person is to disinformation, lies, or biased / unbalanced information. There will be an almost complete transcription, word for word, of everything that is said for a few pages and this information will make-up the foundation of the persons understanding about the subject. Ideally, the authors of these foundational sentences will be honest brokers of the truth and will make it clear that what they are sharing is only a tiny portion of the totality of the subject. This was much more likely in the past, when the teacher was someone from the immediate community and the information was shared or taught via a face to face interaction. There was also a long term relationship or connection between the student and the teacher meaning that the teacher would likely play a long lasting role in the process of education about the subject and if so, they would be around to see the positive outcomes or the consequences of what they taught. When dealing with smaller social groups, there is a cost to lying or setting out to manipulate and that cost is paid by both parties creating a disincentive for the teacher to act selfishly.

We now live in a world that looks nothing like that. Balance doesn’t matter because of the size of the population. Interactions are transactional and manipulation frequently goes unnoticed and even when it is, it is very often unpunished. People can get away with saying whatever they like, with little disincentive for deviating away from the truth and the potential for big reward by presenting biased, incomplete, or wrong information as fact. The inevitable outcome to this is an abundance of people who have the first 20 pages of their notebooks filled with garbage, propaganda, or conditional facts, that serve only to benefit the person who exposed them to the stuff in the first place. This leads the owners of the books to be certain about things that are wrong, and to contribute to the potential gaslighting of the people who are close to them. This isn’t exactly their fault, they have never been exposed to both sides of the story and since they do not know enough about the subject to know how long the book is, they have no basis for believing that there is a lot of stuff that they don’t know and have yet to learn or that what they have been taught was bullshit and existed only to control them in some way.

It gets a couple of steps worse though. As much as I have contempt for people who manipulate others just so they can get what they want, I can at least understand their motives. It’s sneaky and awful, but their intentions leave clues and are very simple to figure-out once you start to consider the possibility that they are not acting selflessly. The moment you begin to follow the money or the payout, their reasons for doing what they do are obvious. These folks are bad, but they are predictably bad and bad in very specific ways. The people who cause me the most consternation are the ones who are gaslighting but for no reason obvious reason. These are the ones who could and should be acting differently but are just not taking the time to be careful or educated enough to actually be helpful to other people.

If it isn’t clear the type of person or things I am making reference to here, consider what gets posted to most twitter accounts that is of a derogatory nature. Almost everything that anyone does makes logical sense to them, although it may not be based on reality. If someone doesn’t have the right information, there’s a much better than random chance that they will get something wrong. But having the power to broadcast is much simpler than the world is, leading everyone to have an almost equal voice. Most of what people say is going to be wrong under certain contexts and anyone who understands the subject only under those contexts has the power to point out just how stupid the person is for making their statement. The truth is that both people are correct, except person A doesn’t have the same content in the first 10 pages of their notebook that person B has, and neither one knows how long their notebooks are. All they know is that what they know is all there is to know so anyone who disagrees with them is insane.

There is no possibility for balanced perspective or for learning. The only thing that comes of it is an argument or fight between two people who know only enough to be dangerously ignorant and absolutely certain that their point of view is infallible. The only thing that stops it from being gaslighting is the complete lack of respect or connection between the two people who are trying to convince the other that they are wrong.

The collateral damage is anyone who happens to respect and trust one of the participants who doesn’t share their point of view. These people end-up getting steered away from their perspective as they become convinced that it is incorrect REGARDLESS of how they came to hold the point of view. Without realizing that they are being impacted by someone who has very little understanding of the subject, they flip the switch on what they know is fact and turn it into fiction. They have learned a new piece of disinformation and the wedge of doubt has been hammered into their level of certainty that the person who taught them the thing in the first place was correct or that they should be trusted in the future. This has potential long term negative effects in that it can whittle down the number of people that the young person considers sources of truth.

Again, when this concerns adults, I don’t care all that much. Everything I am saying here is well documented and available to anyone who cares enough to seek it out. For adults in western society there is no longer such a thing as ignorance, there is only willful ignorance (a legal term) or ignorance through laziness (a narrative colloquialism). They have the opportunity to acquire whatever information they need to make an informed and well educated decision, so any failure to do so is purely the result of an unwillingness to put in the effort.

Willful ignorance in contemporary law, and its historical counterpart willful blindness, refer to the action of deliberately not learning the facts in an effort to avoid future accountability or prosecution. For example, someone agreeing to drive a car across the border only to claim that they didn’t know that there was contraband in the trunk. While it may very well be true that they didn’t know that there was anything illegal in there, they are still responsible for crossing the border with it because it is reasonable to expect that someone should know what is in the car they are driving OR that they should have been suspicious about the request. Willful ignorance is also one of the main reasons why there are so many signs at airports telling you to NOT check any luggage that you did not pack yourself.

Not knowing something, when you reasonably should have known or when you actively avoided finding out, opens you up to criminal prosecution. It is very serious and on the same level as having taken the actions with full knowledge – the willfully ignorant is as guilty as the person who planted the drugs, the main difference is that the person who planted the drugs isn’t sitting in the police station or border security holding cell. The only possible defense to willful ignorance is plausible deniability which holds that the person was far enough removed from the information that it is not reasonable to believe that they would have actively had to take steps to avoid knowing it. Consider a long haul truck driver who has picked-up a sealed load at a distribution center that turns out to have drugs hidden in the cases of coconut milk. It is not reasonable to expect them to check the entire load, particularly when it has been pre-cleared and has a customs seal.

This concerns gaslighting because gaslighting is intended to make the victim doubt the validity of what they know to be true or to doubt what they believe about reality. While lying will be a component to it in most cases, the perpetrator does not necessarily need to lie or to even know what the truth is. All that is required is the intention to cause doubt or psychological uncertainty and to take actions to create this outcome. This is important because honesty and truth telling are the antidote to gaslighting. The truth is the objective definition or description of reality, therefore anytime someone tells the truth, they are making factual claims about what is real. Someone who consistently tells the truth can be counted on when doing an ecology check to vet the quality and accuracy of another’s assumptions or claims. Truth teller will shamelessly state that they do not know when they do not know. In fact, their locus of control is completely internal meaning that they care a lot less about being believed than they do about telling the truth OR NEVER telling a lie.

This is the essence of my beef with the post truth era and with people in western society who say things that are not true. It isn’t that they are making their own lives more difficult, they are adults and are responsible for making their own decisions, and I don’t care all that much about their experience of life. It is that they are making other people’s lives more difficult. They are, by my thinking, willfully ignorant and therefore a step above complicit in allowing the truth to fall by the wayside; particularly given the ease at which the truth can be uncovered via the Internet.

This begs the question, are they gaslighting? Well, consider the fact that telling the truth is the antidote and the only way to immunize others from it, anyone who is lying might be gaslighting. It then comes down to their intention when they talk – are they saying what they are saying to cause the listener to doubt their view of reality? The answer here is less straight forward, but in a world were learning the truth is a matter of putting in a little bit of effort and were avoiding the telling of a lie is simply a matter of saying “I don’t know,” we’d be foolish to extend any charity towards someone who is willfully ignorant and vocal. They are choosing to lie when saying nothing, admitting that they do not know, or when finding out the correct answer are available options.

It comes down to why someone would do this, and this is why I consider it to be gaslighting. They want other people to believe that they know what they are talking about and that they know the truth. Neither of these things is true, therefore they are trying to convince the listener to believe that reality is different from how it actually is. When they could simply announce that they do not know or that they are putting forward a guess or an opinion, or when they could hold off on saying anything until they know the answer, they are making the decision to speak in an attempt to manipulate the person they are talking to.

It is dangerous because it might work. The listener may view them as an expert and a source of truth. They may start to disbelieve something that is true. They may even stop listening to someone who is an honest broker of the truth simply because the other person doesn’t soften any of their statements with words like “opinion” or “I think.” And any of these things make the future of the listener much more difficult because they have promoted a gaslighting liar into their circle of influence and demoted a mentor or truth teller out of this circle. The only possible outcome here is a degradation in the quality of their view of reality.

Again, NONE of this is necessary. All of the answers are available to anyone who is willing to put in the effort to find them. Yet it is happening more now than ever before which is making a lot of things worse for young people and the adults who are afflicted with this pathological and chronic willful ignorance.

The Internet is both the cause of and the solution to the pandemic of gaslighting. The truth is out there, readily available to anyone who is willing to take the time to find it. But there is less of an incentive to put in the work to learn how to get along with people we do not agree with, now that we can self-select our social groups and the information that we consume. We are beginning to see the negative outcome of this now that people who are less tolerant to having their ideas challenged and are less willing to value different opinions have a platform for vocalizing their disdain and irrational phobia of the people who hold incompatible perspectives.

My view is that gaslighting is an indication of a lack of self-respect and it amounts to vice-signalling. Laziness is a vice, so anyone who is willing to avoid putting in the effort that is required to find answers in favor of saying whatever they feel like is making a strong clear statement about how much they value their brain and their wisdom – not enough to do an Internet search and manage their way through whatever discomfort new information triggers inside of them.

Vertigo And How It Reveals The Priorities Of Sensory Input

A few years ago I found myself suffering from vertigo for a few weeks. It past, and since then it has returned a couple of times for a day or two. That first bout was intense and it complicated my life considerably. Fortunately it was just benign paroxysmal positional vertigo (BPPV) which can be helped with some very specific head movements that help to reposition the otolith (crystal-like substances) to their normal position in the utricle (a part of the inner ear). Basically, to help with balance, spacial awareness and proper body orientation, the vestibular system in the ear contains crystals that move freely in the fluid. Given that the crystals have a higher density than the fluid, they sink causing them to stimulate hair cells. When the head moves, the crystals move, being pulled downward by gravity, resulting in them stimulating different hair cells. This way the brain always knows what way is down and it always knows what way the head is orientated relative to the pull of gravity.

With BPPV, the crystals become dislodged and move into one of the semicircular canals. As a consequence to this, the brain has extreme difficultly interpreting the information that is coming from the vestibular system because it is scrambled / ambiguous – whereas the crystals would normally stimulate a lot of hair cells in one area that corresponds to down, the absence of the crystal means there is less stimulation in a specific direction, and more stimulation in general. The brain assumes it is orientated in many directions at once, which isn’t possible, and this causes the symptoms of vertigo. While not exactly the same thing, about one third of people who experience weightlessness will suffer from a type of motion sickness that is believed to be caused by the elimination of down. The crystals float which isn’t necessarily a problem. However, when the person changes direction, the crystals impact the hair cells in a different way than normal – the force vectors are direct (straight) and not impacted by the pull of gravity (forward or back with a downward angle). The brain adapts to the change very quickly and the motion sickness disappears after a day or so.

Fortunately for me, the resetting movements seem to help. The nausea, which had been very strong the first week faded and just went away. What remained was an intense dizziness when I move my head suddenly, or when I would lie down or stand-up. I went to the doctor and he said that it would normally pass after a few weeks. If there was a virus going around that was causing it, my body would take care of it, and if it was BPPV the movements would take care of it. He didn’t know, but since there was no obvious pathology in terms of my ears being injured or infected, there wasn’t much anyone could do. Welcome to middle age was about all his smile said.

His answer was par for the course and about what I had expected. So as unsatisfying as I found it, I didn’t have any choice but to accept it, get back to life and wait for natural healing to occur. And of course this meant that I would be hyper aware of whatever was going on and whatever changes occurred until I was back to normal.

This was for me the most interesting part of it. Step one was to learn about what was causing the vertigo (the explanation outlined above). Step two was to learn about other ways the system might break down even when it was working fine (the zero G motion sickness stuff). The final step was to be curious how my brain would adapt to deal with what was going on. If the brain of an astronaut took a few days to adjust to the changes in sensory input coming from their vestibular system when “down” was eliminated, what was my brain going to do in response to the scrambled input it was getting? No matter how bad I felt or whatever interpretation I was giving to my experience, my brain was going to try and make sense of the input it was getting, simply because that is what brains do.

Since I wasn’t feeling nauseous any more, life was just more difficult. It would have been nice and of course I would have liked to not be dizzy anymore, but that wasn’t going to happen simply by wishing it away. There was a tiny chance that I would never return to normal, a thought that I didn’t like but had to entertain if I was going to be pragmatic about things. IF this was going to be the rest of my life, WHAT did I need to do to reduce the dizziness? Doing something about it was important for reasons other than the feeling it created, the bouts of dizziness were mentally draining. It takes a lot of effort to remain standing when it feels like you are tumbling through the air. The sensation doesn’t match reality and the amount of work that is required to reconcile the conflict and make the accurate determination that I was standing upright was exhausting. The exhaustion was a symptom of the work being done, and when all is said and done, it’s exactly what I needed my brain to do. It was now on me to help it out as much as I could.

A long time ago I watched a BBC program about the functional plasticity of the brain. It covered the Innsbruck Goggle Experiments of Theodor Erismann (1883–1961) and Ivo Kohler (1915–1985). In their studies, they gave the subjects glasses that flipped all of the visual information and made it upside down. The subjects were then asked to wear the glasses during all of their waking hours for the next few weeks as they went about their lives. As you would expect, that first few days were very challenging for the subjects. They had a lot of difficulty interacting with the world. While they were able to pick things up, they had a lot of problems moving their hands into the right position to grab the objects. Moving objects were nearly impossible to track at the beginning and were impossible for them to touch. Walking was extremely difficult and no one was allowed to drive.

But very quickly the subjects began to get the hang of it. After a few days writing became easier, they figured out how to locate and manipulate objects, and moving around stopped being a trial and error type experience. After 10 days, one of the participants was able to ride a bike without falling and without fear of running someone over or riding somewhere they didn’t want to go. It was remarkable to watch their progress and notice the daily improvement in acquiring functionality and then automating it after some period of time.

When the study was over and they were allowed to remove the goggles, they did not immediately return to normal. They found it difficult to interact with the world again, not nearly as tough as they had found it when they put on the goggles, but it wasn’t automatic and unconscious. But after about half an hour, things just seemed to pop into place and their pre-experiment proficiency was restored and everything seemed to return to normal.

In my own life I have experienced a similar type of thing, just a lot less intense or overwhelming. Any time I buy a new bike, my brain is forced to adjust to the new geometry and riding position. For the first few rides I am a little shaky and need to take it easy to make sure I don’t fall, but after a week or so it doesn’t feel odd and I have no difficulty maneuvering the bike on rough terrain and over logs. When I get back onto my old bike, it feels strange for a few minutes but I adjust to it very quickly.

There was no reason to believe that I would not be able to adjust to the miss signals that my ears were sending to my brain. All I would need to do was interact with the world for a period of time and my brain would do the rest. But I was in a hurry because I needed to get back to working at full speed and the vertigo had reduced my output significantly. I felt certain that there were a few ways to speed the process up and have a suspicion that my brain had already figured some of them out and was changing my behavior to take advantage of them.

The dizziness wasn’t there all of the time, and it was much less intense at night when I was in bed than during the day. Frankly, I don’t have any idea what dizziness is other than a physical sensation, but the fact that darkness seemed to reduce it is significant. Also significant is the fact that I have never felt dizzy when I have been dreaming. Even the weirdest floating and spinning dreams I have ever had did not have any impact on my sense of orientation. Dizziness then is caused when information from two separate sensory systems doesn’t reveal the same thing. When it’s dark, there is no visual information to conflict with the vestibular information and when I am dreaming, there is no vestibular information to conflict with the visual information. Putting it all together, I started closing my eyes when I felt dizzy and then began to close them before I moved my head too much. This took care of a lot of it. While it felt like I was moving a lot more than I was, I was able to make enough sense out of things to know where I was and where down most likely was.

The next piece of it came automatically, and it was unrelated to my present situation. I do the dishes at home and for some reason, when I’m moving about the sink, I keep one foot on the ground and kind of hook the other foot on the underside of the cupboard. I do this mainly when I need to reach away from the sink and don’t want to take a step. No idea why I do it but it’s a thing that I do, and carried over into other areas of my life. In the case of my vertigo, I found myself doing it even when I wasn’t reaching away. It seemed that I was it doing to to ground myself or to provide more sensory information to my brain to give it something else to work with since it could no longer rely on what was coming from the ear. Once I noticed that the foot information seemed to help, I started to use my hands and elbow to provide more clues. Normally I wouldn’t touch the work table when making panels, but I found that when I placed a free hand on it I instantly felt more certain about the position of my body. If I started to get dizzy when I was walking down a hallway, I would just need to reach out and touch the wall to stabilize things.

There was a certain level of deliberateness to all of these adjustmenta I was making, but it didn’t take very long before I automated doing them. I don’t like being dizzy or the sensation of tumbling when I’m not, so making these feelings evaporate very quickly acts as a strong incentive to reward the actions that eliminate the feeling. In a way, I was powerless to NOT do these things once I discovered that they did something that was positive or eliminated something that was negative.

These work-arounds are very effective, and they made the process of healing from whatever caused the vertigo a lot less challenging or dramatic. Close my eyes or touch something became my reactions to the feeling that I was about to get dizzy.

In a larger way, this whole thing tells a very interesting and important story about how we make sense of the world, deal with ambiguity, and go about adjusting to changes in how we received sensory information or adjust to changes in the quality / accuracy of that information.

First off, it’s just electrical impulses triggered by the stimulation of a sensory cell. The location of that cell, along with the part of the brain that initially receives the signal will determine a lot about the nature of the stimulation, but the brain is not dependent upon the specific signal coming from a specific location in order to make sense of the world. Particularly when it comes to body position. Sure, the first place it will get info from is the vestibular system in the ears. If these sense organs are there and functioning correctly, the information streaming in is very useful and rich. It tells us where down is, and therefore any direction. It tells us that we are moving, accelerating or decelerating, and it gives us an idea of where our head is in relation to any other part of our body that is sending in tactile information. It does this regardless of light condition.

But a lot of this information is available through different modalities. Just because the brain is used to getting it from the ear does not mean that it cannot process visual data to extract the same information. This won’t work in the dark, but when it is bright enough to see something that we are able to place spatially, the brain can take some time to reprocess the information to figure out where we are, what position we are in, and if we are moving. It isn’t perfect – recall any time you were on a stationary train and the train beside you begins to move, or a time when you were on a spinning ride, and everything else is spinning at different speeds – but it works very well under most circumstances. In fact, the brain relies on a combination of the two in order to get a more exact idea of where the body is and what it is doing.

The same applies to the tactile information that the brain is working with. While it isn’t nearly as effective at determining movement or direction, a guess can be made that we are moving when the skin that is facing the same direction begins to send in a signal that corresponds to there being a slight breeze. Orientation can be guessed by two simultaneous touches of something that is stationary because the brain knows where the tactile information is coming from and can compare it to an internal map of where those locations are. Orientation can also be predicted because gravity pulls the skin down, along with all of the tissue and fluids, so the brain is aware of a change in shape and will be able to predict down based on this.

Under normal circumstances, the brain takes it all in and ignores whatever it doesn’t need. Under challenging circumstances, it will do the best with what it has. When one modality is down, it will rely on the information provided by other modalities. And we are free to give it more information any time we like. So long as it is congruent with the interpretation the brain is making, it will be largely ignored. But when there isn’t sufficient information naturally, we can provide more by looking, touching, or hearing.

The opposite it also true. When there is an in-congruence or ambiguity with the sensory information that is flowing in from the senses, we can eliminate it by stopping the data flow from one of the sources. When my ear was telling my brain that I was spinning but my eyes were saying that I was stationary, closing my eyes eliminated the conflict. It went with spinning, which wasn’t a problem because the sensation wasn’t very long lived. There were no crystals to be pulled down and trigger a massive stimulation of the hair cells, so the movement of the fluid that was the result of me turning my head stimulated all of them a little bit. The thickness of the fluid meant that the movement does not continue for very long. As soon as it stopped, my opening eyes would reveal information that was aligned with what the vestibular system was sending.

The worst of the vertigo faded away and hasn’t returned with the exception of a few moments when I haven’t been getting enough sleep or get a little run down. There moments are tough when compared to the day before when I didn’t have vertigo, but they are nothing in comparison to my first experiences with it. In fairness though, I’m not certain that I have ever returned to a vertigo free state. It seems likely that I have, but it is entirely possible that my brain just figured out how to process the sensory information my body generates in a way that allows it to make enough sense of the world to get by. Regardless, I’m grateful for having had the experience because of what adjusting to it forced to learn and figure-out. The human brain is fantastic at adjusting to whatever the world throws at it and adapts automatically and quickly in order to get the needed information from what source can provide it.

Trick To Uncover A Cognitive Bias – Change The Name Of The Subject

As the world becomes more polarized, we are being faced with an increasing number of subjective or biased perspectives. While it is always true that any statement that a person makes will be, by definition, subjective, it is not always true that these subjective statements will fail to be objective. The truth is the truth, so regardless of someone’s lived experience or pre-existing bias, if they speak the truth, their subjective statements can be viewed as objectively true. Facts used to be very important and people used to pride themselves on speaking only the things that they knew were true and would take steps to avoid saying things that they knew were not false or to find out what the truth was before they said anything. “I don’t know” was not a badge of shame because it was assumed that people wouldn’t know everything and that was fine.

Things have changed recently with the propagation of the Internet for three big reasons. The first reason is because almost all of the information that is known to humanity has been posted to the Internet. With the exception of state secrets and proprietary information, knowledge can be tracked down and consumed when someone is willing to take the time to find it. The post Google Expert – Noun? Not Verb? – Second Run At It makes reference to this and points out some of the things that can go wrong when someone doesn’t take the time to gather enough information to provide a complete picture of what is going on.

This takes us to the second and third big reasons why the truth is not the imperative that it used to be. These two are related, and they are a consequence of our aversion to experiencing discomfort. In order to actually gain knowledge and eventually a clear understanding of the truth about something, we need to consume a lot of information and this will include an abundance of information that doesn’t align with our world view. Remember that we are seeking to become subjectively objective which means that we will need to consume information that doesn’t directly map onto our life experience and that may be the exact opposite of it. Human beings place a much higher value on the things that they have experienced and on the things that they have known for a long time. This basically means that we are inclined to place a greater weight on our existing knowledge than on something new. This won’t matter much when the new information supports what we already believe and it will quickly be integrated and stored into long term memory.

However, when faced with information that is incompatible with our world view, we will experience discomfort. The exact source of this discomfort is not entirely clear but it probably has something to do with the fact that anything that challenges our world view actually causes us to become uncertain about the future given that our ability to make accurate predictions about what might happen is reduced. This discomfort serves as a disincentive for both the accepting of the conflicting information as fact and in seeking out more information; in theory there is a disincentive for surfacing information that is in conflict with what is already known and assumed to be true, but since there is no guarantee that any piece of new information will confirm what is already known, the pain associated with exposure to conflicting information serves to close a person down to ALL information.

So while the Internet represents the opportunity to gain knowledge, wisdom, and the truth about almost any subject, it is also a source of discomfort when new information does not align with existing understandings. This is the source of the third problem the Internet has caused when it comes to becoming a dogmatic broker of the truth. There is just so much information out there that it is impossible, without putting in deliberate effort, to get a balanced exposure to allow for a comprehensive synthesis of the truth. Unless you are willing to endure and in fact set about to experience the discomfort of being challenged by things that do not align with your present world view you can spend all of your time consuming things that actually agree with your point of view.

This is where we are today. We have access to all of the world’s knowledge. But the world is complicated and it takes a lot of effort and time to learn enough to actually know what the truth is. Every step along the way will be a challenge because as we integrate new information, we become certain about its accuracy, which will make the new piece of information increasingly harder to accept because as we move forward towards wisdom we track in on more and more of the exceptions to the rule. Since each one of these exceptions will trigger feelings of uncertainty, each one of them serves as a type of punishment for continuing along on the journey. The opposite feeling as available when we consume something that aligns with our world view, and the Internet is absolutely stuffed with sources that support anything as being the truth.

It is the relationship our brain has with these sources that is actually the problem with seeking out the truth. On one side we have sources that will lead us towards the truth because they present a part of the picture that we do not know yet, but consuming these things hurts. On the other side we have sources that support our existing view and are therefore rewarding to consume. Our brain is innately programmed to seek out information that confirms what we already know and to avoid things that question it. If you want to feel good, you’re going to avoid the things that challenge you, and this means you are not going to be putting in the work that would move you towards knowing the truth.

This is the source and nature of the confirmation bias, which is a cognitive bias that sees us seeking out sources that agree with what we believe and to be overly critical about sources that do not confirm what we already know to be true in order to dismiss them as being invalid.

All of this is very interesting and worth knowing, but for the purposes of this post it is just set-up for what comes next. How do we identify when this cognitive bias is occurring and is there any way to identify when we have accidentally tracked into something that serves only to confirm what we already believe? The word “accidentally” is very important in the previous sentence because it implies that you are an honest operator who is motivated to become a broker of truth for its own sake. If you are not interested in the truth or are deliberately choosing to consume something that you know or have reason to believe is biased or serves only to support your existing point of view, you have not accidentally tracked in on anything. In this case you either know better or simply do not care about cognitive bias. With those who know better, hopefully you are consuming it for the sake of balance and NOT because it feels good to have your opinion validated over and over again. With those who do not care, as you were.

The method outlined below for testing whether or not you are committing the confirmation bias, works most effectively when dealing with issues that have a subject that is a real person. This person can either be the person who is saying the thing or they can be the person that the thing is being said about. Given that most things are either written by people or are about people, this method can be used with almost everything.

The only other criteria that will need to be satisfied is that you will need to have a good mental idea about two other people or a clear understanding of two other subjects. The two people or subjects will need to be one that you like and agree with and one that you do not like and do not agree with. For example, if you are someone who is left leaning politically, you will need to have a strong right leaning subject – a person or group and if you are right leaning you will need to have a person or subject that is left leaning. You will need to have two, one on the right and one on the left in the event that you are neutral.

Once all of these conditions are met, you go about your life consuming whatever it is you choose waiting for a chance to try this method out. The moment you find yourself agreeing strongly with what you read or hear or strongly disagreeing with it, you pause for a moment and then switch out the subject and replace them with the one you have thought-up and reconsider your feelings had this person said it or had the thing been said about this person. Take a moment to allow your feelings to surface and then compare these feelings to the ones that you had before. It’s difficult to say what you are looking for but when it happens you’ll be aware that something very valuable has been revealed.

The reality of life is that the truth is the truth regardless of who says it. A factual statement should not be any more or less believable when said by or about someone you like or dislike.

I’m not a big fan of Canada’s Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. He’s a little more to the left than I land politically and the job of being the leader of a country is impossible; I wasn’t a fan of Stephen Harper either, Canada’s last PM, I thought Obama was a very good statesman but not entirely aligned with my view of how the world should be, I can’t understand what Trump is talking about most of the time but accept that he’s connecting with people in a way that allows them to feel heard and that some of his policies are exactly what are needed to accomplish what he’s trying to do. So there are four people, one very right, one middle right, one middle left and one more to the left. When I am considering something someone is saying about a Justin Trudeau or Trump policy and I’m not sure if my thoughts and feelings about it are making sense, I substitute one of the other names in, or their political party and take another run at it to see what my brain comes up with.

If we take the US trade war with China as an example, it’s clear that this is Trump’s trade war given that Obama didn’t take the same actions as Trump and that Canada has more or less regarded China as a trading partner in good standing for a long time. So consider the tweets:

Donald J. Trump
Verified account @realDonaldTrump
May 14, 2019 06:16:58 AM

When the time is right we will make a deal with China. My respect and friendship with President Xi is unlimited but, as I have told him many times before, this must be a great deal for the United States or it just doesn’t make any sense. We have to be allowed to make up some….

.…. of the tremendous ground we have lost to China on Trade since the ridiculous one sided formation of the WTO. It will all happen, and much faster than people think!

When I try-on Obama saying something like that, I notice a few things. The first is that I am a lot less dismissive of it and I try to understand what it might possibly mean. Specifically, what is in the statement that is true that I am not willing to consider when it comes from Trump. This makes me aware that I do not take any time to consider what Trump says because I don’t have an easy time understanding it. These tweets are not hard to understand and I do not disagree with the main thrust of what he’s saying, although I do not believe that it is the fault of the WTO or that China has set about to hurt the US through their trade actions. It’s just a difference in opinion. He is right to suggest that, when compared to before China become a part of the WTO in 2001, there has been a change in the nature and size of the trading relationship between the US and the world and China and the world. But of course this happened, things change over the period of almost 20 years.

The consequence of this exercise is that I realize that I don’t really spend much time considering Trumps tweets and that I have to accept that he is at the very least, latching onto a valid point to help sell or move his message. And this is where it seems to go off the rails. The next sentence “… the ridiculous one sided formation of the WTO” would not have been spoken by Obama, or either one of the Canadian PMs mentioned above. It uses victim language that places the US on one side and at least China on the other. I accept that Trump cares only about the US but his words read as though the world is a massive zero sum contest and that China gaining MUST be a US loss and therefore something that needs to be corrected.

And this leads me to my final conclusion. Trump’s Twitter account is a very subjective and biased source of information. It makes sense for me to consume it from time to time so that I can get some insight into what he is thinking, but the act of changing the subjects proves it to be a biased source simply because other world leaders, even those on the right, would be very unlikely to say many of the things that he says. It is not the truth and is therefore not objective in spite of the fact that some of what it contains can be supported by evidence.

Try it out. Pick your people / subjects and consider the following quote:

“Who cares about winning? We should focus on serving.”

Imagined as something Trump said makes me laugh. The only context that allows it to make sense is in a legal sense as in someone being served papers and paying a settlement to avoid trial and therefore the chances of losing.

Imagined as the other three people and I have no difficulty believing that any one of them could have made the statement. All three of these leaders seemed to have a “together we can do it” type of approach to their jobs. It seems more probable that it was something that Obama or Justin Trudeau said than Stephen Harper, given that it isn’t how he spoke vs. how he acted.

It is a statement that I don’t have any problems getting behind in terms of believing that it is true and that it represents a better approach to living than win at all costs. This is the primary reason why it I have such difficulty pretending that Trump said it. He seems to care more about getting what he wants, and while he may have an honest belief that what is good for him is also good for the country, he doesn’t even play lips service to the notion that serving is more important than winning let alone considering the possibility that winning doesn’t matter at all if people are suffering.

It was a Trudeau quote.

Two things need to be said here. The first is that with very polarized statements or very polarized subject-people it can be extremely tough to run the mental process of considering the statement from the opposite point of view. That’s understandable but no reason to avoid putting in the effort. In fact, it’s just more evidence to validate that there is a real need to put in the effort to try it out because any failure to do so will result in the ignoring of valuable information and knowledge. While it does make sense to consider the source of any statements to uncover any potential conflicts of interest that they may have, a conflict of interest does not necessarily mean that the statement is false. People who know what they are talking about or who are experts in an area may have positioned themselves to benefit from the truth simply because they understand the subject well enough to make a living doing the right thing. In these cases, disregarding what they say for the sole reason that they stand to benefit from having you believe it will be a mistake.

Recently we had a water pipe burst due to the extremely cold weather. It was annoying, but not really a surprise. We had been planning on replacing the pipes and to move them away from the outside walls and closer to the middle of the house. When the plumber came to deal with the frozen pipe he made the decision to cap it and shut down the water to that area of the building. This didn’t matter much because the pipe brought water to a second bathroom that we could go without using for a while. The pipes were copper so he cut them and soldered them and that allowed us to turn the water back on in the rest of the house.

I asked him about moving all of the pipes and he wrote-up a quote. He was going to use PEX which is plastic as opposed to copper. When I asked him why, he told me that PEX was cheaper to buy and much faster to install, meaning that they would be able to complete the job in a day vs. two or three days. The quote was for the job as opposed to time and materials meaning that the faster they do it, the more money they make. This forced me to consider things from a different point of view so I asked him about the benefits of PEX over copper. He said that he’d do whichever I asked for but that PEX was a better choice in this situation because it can expand slightly and this meant it was more resilient than copper in the event that the pipe temperature dropped below freezing. This mattered because the building that was getting the work done is prone to the occasional power failure which shuts down the HVAC system given that the gas furnace won’t turn on unless air can be circulated through the heat exchanger. If we used copper and there was a power failure, there was a chance that the internal temperature of the building would drop below freezing which could result in ruptured pipes. They would be easier to fix because they would no longer be buried in the walls, but that doesn’t matter very much when water flooding into the basement. PEX is not better than copper and it can still rupture, but for our purposes it is the better product to use.

Before we agreed to get the work done, we asked a couple of home inspectors what they would do in our situation. These people had nothing to gain from the decision we made and were, for all intents and purposes, objective. While they we more confident with copper given how long it has been the standard way of doing things and PEX is about 2 decades old meaning the first generation of fittings are starting to fail, they agreed with the plumbers rationale for suggesting PEX. Even if the plumber stood to gain from using it instead of copper, it was the correct solution in this case. This is more or less the same thing as switching the subject – different subject-people said the same thing lending support to the plumber’s statements.

This means, in general, a conflict of interest is NOT necessarily a show stopper when it comes to listening to what people have to say. While it can serve as an incentive to have them lie or to have an extremely biased point of view, an expert is going to have figured out how to benefit from telling the truth.

This brings us to the second thing that needs to be said. Your goal is, or at least it should be, to uncover and learn the truth. This usually means doing a lot of work because the world is complicated and things are not always as they appear to be or how you believe them to be. By switching subjects, you are doing a type of dialectic analysis that will only help to clear the fog surrounding an issue. Even if it turns out that your initial assessment was correct, the exercise of considering things from a different point of view will reveal information that you didn’t have before. Worst case is that you gain a greater insight into why something is the way it is. Best case is that you collect more information about the subject and this will help to generate a more complete understanding. No matter what way it turns out, taking the time and putting in the effort to switch the subject will go a long way in helping you uncover an unconscious cognitive biases and allow you to think about something more objectively.

Very few human beings think in completely logical and objective ways so it is safe to assume that there is something biased about your thinking and to take some steps to prevent this from taking an unnecessary toll on your life. To this end, if you find yourself dismissing something you hear simply because of the source, or accepting something because of its source, switch the subject to the opposite type of person and see it you would make the same decision. If you would, great, you are probably thinking clearly. But if doing this changes things at all, step back and reassess what is going on. Take the time to think things through and to find out what exactly is fueling your biased decision making.

Fifty Years Ago – Excitement, Fear, Bravery And The Moon Shot

On July 21, 1969 Neil Armstrong and Buz Aldrin walked on the moon. Neil took the first step at 02:56:15 UTC meaning the date was July 20th in North America, it was a little before 11 PM EST. This marked the actualization of a goal publicly stated by JFK on September 12, 1962 during a speech at Rice Stadium in Houston, Texas. The length of time between that speech and the first manned moon landing was 2503 day or 6 years, 10 months and 8 days.

That September day in 1962 was not the first time that President Kennedy had talked about sending a man to the moon. He had made a similar proclamation to Congress on May 25, 1961, which was less well received. At the time, a small majority of Americans were not in favor of the mission. It was an ostentatious goal that was guaranteed to be very expensive. The view was that the money would be better spend on addressing domestic issues. In the strange way that history seems to frame things, everyone was correct and wrong at the same time.

It was very expensive, and it turned out to be much more expensive than the initial estimates. A case can be made that it would have been better to spend the money on fixing domestic issues, at least in the short term, but the long term domestic benefits of the program far out wayed any short term cost. The money was spent throughout the country and the Apollo Program had at one point 400000 Americans working towards its completion.

In the 2500 days between the Rice Stadium speech and the launch of Apollo 11 the impossible was done over and over again and the world would never be the same. The fields of computer science, chemistry, engineering, manufacturing, behavioral sciences, and organizational behavior were either invented or advanced in the course of the endeavor. These discoveries were shared with humanity once the goal was achieved and the strategic importance of keeping them secret was gone. This changed EVERYTHING.

2500 days seems like a big number until you realize that the difference between life in 1962 and 1969. At the time Kennedy made the speech, the US had launched 4 manned missions, two of which were orbital and accounted for 6 laps around the earth, 3 each with Mercury Atlas 6 and Mercury Atlas 7. The other two were suborbital flights and were basically ballistic launches. So much work needed to be done, so much science needed to be discovered or invented, and there really wasn’t any reason to believe that what he was putting forward as a unifying goal was even possible. More science needed to be done and more technological advancement needed to be achieved in the next 2500 days than had been done or achieved in maybe all of the days before that moment. Nothing like a stretch goal and a strong national desire to beat the Russians to make the impossible possible!

I used to talk to my father a lot about the space race of the 1960s. He would speak about the level of optimism about what was possible and a collective awe every couple of months when a new space mission would demonstrate that another impossible problem had been solved. There was amazement with Mercury when the US was taking the first steps, a growing confidence with Gemini when the US was working out the kinks, and an absolute certainty that the future was going to be amazing, and completely different from the past, once the US got through the set-back of Apollo 1 and the deaths of Gus Grissom, Ed White, Roger Chaffee, and Apollo 8 orbited the moon in December 1968.

These conversations were always exciting for me because I wasn’t alive when it was all going down and my dads enthusiasm when talking about what it was like during that time made his stories very easy to listen to and hear. He had a good memory for the details and had been powerfully impacted by the events that seemed to change the world every few months. It was clear to him that the space race was going to have a big impact on every other area of life and he was curious enough to try and figure it all out before it became obvious to everyone else.

More than almost any other event or series of events, I would credit the moon shot and the impact it had on my father for how he decided to raise his children. He was amazed and he normalized amazement to us. The source of the amazement was modeled to be the achieving of the impossible through effort, collaboration, trial and error, learning and the application of the lessons. A process repeated over and over again until the imagined idea becomes a lived experience by a human being. Problems had a solution and if enough people worked at it, sharing their discoveries and adapting their approaches base on the new information, an answer would be found.

He was always keen to use the word “we” when it came to problem solving and making life better. When I was very young I took it to mean myself, my brother, my dad, my mom, and a few people who were close to us, but there was a moment when he expanded my understanding of the word to mean “all of humanity.” While the Russians had not yet landed anyone of the moon, they had contributed considerably to the space race and without these contributions the entire thing might not have happened when it did. He was careful to re-frame our thinking away from the Russians being the losers of the moon race and on humanity being the beneficiaries of the successes of the Americans.

JFK cited the difficulty of the goal as being the thing that would move the American people to work together in a collective effort to make it a reality. Maybe it was his experiences in WW2, maybe it was the collaborative efforts of being 1 of nine children, maybe it was the result of his time at university, maybe it was just the way his brain worked, but he was absolutely correct. The space race and the moon shot he announced in 1962 did serve to unite the American people generally and the work force specifically to do things that had never been done before and have not been repeated in the 50 years since. There is no ignoring the progress that was made in the 2500 days before he spoke at Rice Stadium, but his speech served to punch this progress into a gear so high and for a sustained period of time that our species hasn’t been able to match again.

I still believe that my dad was right to teach my brother and me that “we” could do the impossible so long as the individual people were willing to do their part, learn from their and other peoples mistakes, and adapt to the lessons. It was done once and there is no reason to believe that this potential has evolved out of us. But I’m less certain that it WILL ever happen again. We are the same but different from the post WW2 people. Genetically we’re the same, but operationally we are very different.

We are as afraid as they were, but we do not have a common enemy to unify against or a shared view of evil to work hard to prevent from being a thing again. We are afraid of ideas and feelings now, and not necessarily bad ideas or feelings. Life has become so easy that it is as though we have run out of things to fix and have instead broken off into factions and made the decision to view the other factions as the problems that needs to be solved.

Kennedy didn’t make the Russians bad, evil or wrong. He didn’t spend much time talking about them in terms of the space race other than to say that they would continue to do what they were doing and that meant that the US had to do the same. He was able to get the public to accept that the Russians were there and would always be. And in doing so he was able to free-up the minds of the public to do what they needed to do.

This might be the greatest lesson from the entire thing. We only have a finite amount of resources so we need to be strategic with how we invest them. Cultivating and maintaining a sense of fear about something that isn’t going away is one way to use them, but it doesn’t allow anyone to make the most of what they have. When he set the goal of going to the moon and effectively told the country that the Russians were going to try to do the same thing, he basically said “be scared, and do it anyway.” It was a request to be brave and to work hard, and the message landed perfectly. 2503 days later two men walked on the moon. Whatever threat the Russians had been had not altered the course that Kennedy had plotted, it had not stopped the Americans from doing the impossible, and it had not materialized triggering a global catastrophe.

Author Reading Blog Post

The text of this speech appears below:

We set sail on this new sea because there is new knowledge to be gained, and new rights to be won, and they must be won and used for the progress of all people. For space science, like nuclear science and all technology, has no conscience of its own. Whether it will become a force for good or ill depends on man, and only if the United States occupies a position of pre-eminence can we help decide whether this new ocean will be a sea of peace or a new terrifying theater of war. I do not say that we should or will go unprotected against the hostile misuse of space any more than we go unprotected against the hostile use of land or sea, but I do say that space can be explored and mastered without feeding the fires of war, without repeating the mistakes that man has made in extending his writ around this globe of ours.

There is no strife, no prejudice, no national conflict in outer space as yet. Its hazards are hostile to us all. Its conquest deserves the best of all mankind, and its opportunity for peaceful cooperation may never come again. But why, some say, the Moon? Why choose this as our goal? And they may well ask, why climb the highest mountain? Why, 35 years ago, fly the Atlantic? Why does Rice play Texas?

We choose to go to the Moon! We choose to go to the Moon…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 we intend to win, and the others, too.

John F. Kennedy, 1962
Audio File of this portion of the Rice University speech by JFK 1962