As George Washington left office he famously admonished the country to avoid entangling alliances abroad, particularly those of a military nature. Whether or not people took it truly listened, the message stuck. Even today, you can hardly have a discussion about foreign policy without someone bringing it up. It's especially loved by politicians - Democrats and Republicans equally - who like to throw it in each others faces when the opportunity arises. And of course, they're well aware of the irony in doing so because in the same speech Washington emphatically warned against the formation of political parties which had at that point not yet taken hold.

Unfortunately, this is what happens when we strip observations from their context or pick and choose what we want to believe. We're often left basing important decisions on ideas that are not even wrong.

That's all I can think about when I hear people talk about the paleolithic diets and hunter-gatherer exercise.

Put aside the dubious science for a second. That Greek hoplites on campaign, for instance, subsisted almost entirely on grain and rarely ate meat - god forbid, we'd ever be cursed with their fitness. (For fun put a picture of a Greco-Roman statue and an African tribesman side by side) It's an idea with a kernel of truth, stripped from its context and wrapped in contradictions. The real question is why?

What a relatively superficial problem to find with our modern lives. It's a shame too when there is so much in evolutionary psychology that can be used to make us better people. It can help us understand roots of things like jealousy, ambition, and fear. We can think about these deeply natural drives and how they've come to fail us in the world we currently live, not to selectively embrace and emulate the conditions that created them. And what's the goal here anyway? To not waste your time like the people who try to eat a balance diet and regularly exercise? Those idiots.

What the internet makes easier - and our culture encourages - is organization without sacrifice and beliefs that don't require much conviction. Oppose a foreign war: quote Washington but cling to your political party. Creating a new diet: use evolution, forget the naturalistic fallacy. It's the illusion of profundity without any of the risk. And I know it's cute to think of 'cavemen in New York City' but it seems more like an undermining contradiction than irony to me.

The problem is that these ideas ultimately consume so much of our time and energy for muddled results at best. They are lifestyles at the expense of life. Like there is something shameful about waking up as a regular person and dealing with the issues that we all have in front of us: pride, anger, lethargy, accumulation... Do you waste your time playing videogames? Do you have to drink to be comfortable around other people? Do you find yourself consumed by petty office politics and gossip? So much is ignored at the cost of hunting raw meats and bone marrow and so little is gained in return. (For that plug anything)

To me these theories mark the very real temptation to stay busy at the expense of real work. It's the trap of subbing meaningless discipline in for the kind that forces us to change and improve. All the upside of feeling accomplishment but without any of the risk that you might become a better person for the process.

The psychologist David Elkind published an interesting study in the mid 1970's. Adolescents, he found, believe in an "imaginary audience." Consider a 13 year old so embarrassed that they miss a week of class, positive that the entire school is thinking and murmuring about some tiny incident. Or a teenage girl who spends three hours in front of mirror each morning, like she's about to go on stage. They do this because they're convinced that their every move is being received with rapt attention by the rest of the world.

As strange as this behavior is, it's all very normal. In fact, it's an integral part of the development of self-consciousness. The child is becoming aware of their own powerful feelings about themselves and the newness of it often makes it difficult to discern where their thoughts end and other people's begin. If all goes well, they grow into and realize that, hey, maybe everyone isn't watching as closely as I thought.

But some psychologists have begun to notice that some people don't come to this realization. They carry this delusion forward and never shake off the imaginary audience. Emotions that are supposed to peak in 8th grade, stays with them and becomes an enormous part of their identity and ultimately, their narcissism.

There are a lot of parallels between this and how people behave on the internet. Liveblogging. Lifecasting. Oversharing. Alter-egos. Fameballs.

I saw a Facebook post the other day where a guy posted a link to a Haitian charity, which after being criticized by a friend, he responded that he'd be willing to "issue a retraction." I got the sense that I was the only witness to something very strange. Who was this intended for? What body would be overseeing this formal procedure? Why would he say that?

Schopenhauer had a name for this empty talk, he called it "fencing in the mirror." It's more common than you think. Consider all the times you've seen some blogger apologize for not posting recently - profusely addressing some concern that likely was never expressed. Or the Twitter updates to 38 followers, half of which are bots or uncaring companies. More realistically, maybe you've read too much into looks from a table of girls at a restaurant (a type I evolutionary error). Maybe you like like to roll down the windows in your car, turn up the stereo and know that everyone is just so impressed by your classic taste.

Have you ever seen a person on YouTube who makes elaborate, time consuming videos day after day to a few views a piece? This person who gets objective reports on the audience for their work - as close to zero as numbers get - continues, in their own mind, to capture its attention.

You can either live your life pandering to this empty room or you can be honest with yourself and admit how few people out there are actually watching. How there is really only one, maybe two people in your life that you need to impress. You look like a fool when you act any differently.

Think about it like this, how rare is it that a real public pulpit does someone any good? What on earth would you think that a fake one would be anything but worse?

I think when you're younger you see people who work real hard as being suckers. I remember when I first moved to Hollywood, I would leave every night exactly when my required time ended. I looked down on the people that were still there when I left. It's sort of a lack of perspective mixed with petulance and condescension.

And because you don't know any better, you start to think that the only thing standing between you and whatever you hope to accomplish is never giving into the life these people seem to have found tolerable. They don't know that things have changed. The 9-5 is over, unnecessary.

Look at the shit in this idiot's bio. It takes what we'd consider to be ordinary and lists them as accomplishments. He met Penelope Trunk! He shook Warren Buffet's hand! He hosted a charity mixer! He doesn't just want you to know this, he wants to be credited for it. Congratulated even. If only he could think for a second about:

A horse at the end of the race...
A dog when the hunt is over...
A bee when its honey is stored...

All this talk about blogs, and start-ups, and self-publishing and global micro-brands. It's a mask for a enormous sense of entitlement. In a weird way, it has created a culture of people I know who almost disdain work, or at least, anything that might be perceived as traditional kinds of work.

They want to have a blog where they can communicate with some imaginary audience. Or they're going to work at start-up and babble about equity. Or travel and live abroad. These all seem like normal teenage idealism, but to me they feel like schemes.

An interesting about recessions is that in them, people tend to be more likely to fall for scams and charlatans. Oh, I'm making a ton of money flipping houses. I support myself by playing online poker Uh-huh, and what do you think "I'm a social media strategist" is, or "I'm a location-independent freelance consultant." It's the same bullshit. It's the same lie.

As a human being, your job is to work. To show up. To learn. To contribute. Not to come up with excuses, surround them with buzz words and demand thanks for coming up with a new way of life. Because you didn't. You just found what weak minds have always gravitated to: a false sense of superiority at the expense of a real opportunity.

Your mind plays tricks on you. They brought me in because I'm the best. They want me to implement my way. This is foolish. This is ego-driven self-destruction.

Most of your impulses are bullshit. Most of your ideas suck. What you think is so important now will embarrass you not long from now.

Now that you're out of school and on your own, you need to carve a space where these failures don't define you. Where they don't provide ammunition for others to dismiss you. In fact, the most important thing a company looks for when they hire a young person is not his skill but his ability to maintain and utilize those skills within the existing order. Doing this depends on your ability to understand and appreciate the terrain - the realities of the environment you're hoping to succeed in.

Terrain takes a variety of forms. In social politics, Alinsky knew that tradition was the terrain. On the internet, it's the way that information is communicated and spread. In organizations, personalities are the terrain.

Understanding and internalizing these intricacies requires a certain type of patience and humility. The wherewithal to come in and say nothing. You have to subjugate what you want with how things are.

Michael Polanyi, the scientist and philosopher, knew that belief in tradition was the key with which scientists often unlock the greatest discoveries. Each advancement takes for granted those that preceded it - implicitly they value the current system by nature of expanding and altering it. Those without the ability to take certain assumptions as a matter of faith are unable to proceed in any direction. They're paralyzed by their own skepticism, like a revolutionary movie producer so distracted by the inefficiencies in union rules that he takes on the Teamsters at the expense of actually making a movie.

Thurgood Marshall had a mentor who refused to give him a job after law school. He told him he needed to get his "head kicked in" before he was worth anything to him. So Marshall left and was thrown around by racist judges and double standards and garbage cases. Through it he learned the secrets of the white legal system, secrets he later used to dismantle its many problems.

Consider a scientist who rejects Polanyi's notion or a more conceited Thurgood Marshall. Both are stopped short of contribution because of their inability to develop a foundation with which they advance their goals. They are like a young person too fragile to stomach and tolerate conditions they don't approve of.

The next time you find yourself in a new environment, dedicate weeks or even a few months to understanding the terrain. Give yourself time to be underestimated. Familiarize yourself with the system so you know what to do when you fuck up, so nothing is irreparable or permanent. Quieting your ego is not the same as changing your principles, in fact, it's the best way towards implementing them.

The first time a recovering addict thinks about relapsing and outsmarts the impulse, they've formed a additional layer of consciousness: a constant examination of why they might be driven to do something.

Most of us lack this. It's strange that in our most formative period we were not taught to think this way. Remember back to when you were a teenager. It was almost exclusively a matter of whether some was or was not allowed. Never: "why are you doing this?" "tell me what compels you to get so wasted?" "have you ever wondered why you want a 26 year old boyfriend?"

There is no prompting to question the desires themselves - only to check them against the posted rules and guidelines. This creates addicts. Addicts, losers, constant wall-crashers, the people who just can't seem to function like the rest of us. It strips you have the ability to notice patterns in your own behavior - to catch what strikes impartial observers as being obviously reactions or connections. Most importantly, you learn to make a habit of trusting "the little voice inside you" long before its developed a track record of success.

As a child, parents often recognize this duality. Excuse him, he's just upset because he hasn't had his nap yet. And later, in adulthood, we tacitly acknowledge it all the time. The serial single are supposed to recognize what causes them to submarine relationships and men are expected to resist the humorous temptations of their mid-life crisis. But where are these skills taught?

Certainly nowhere I've ever been. In fact, we pay lip service to the opposite all the time. Go with your gut. Do what feels right. Follow your own path. But we are the problem.

By definition, what addicts leave with is an ability that transcends the "self" in self-awareness. It is calling the credentials of your instincts into question - auditing them, forcing them to stand up under scrutiny. So while this might not technically be self-awareness, I think it is certainly a kind of self-respect. And do you really believe it's available only to people who have hit bottom?

Lately I have felt off. As I felt down, it often occurred to me how long it had been since I'd sat down and read philosophy. I knew I should fix this but I didn't. A new book would come and I'd immediately pick it up. I'd think "I spend so little time reading now, it would be shame to sit down with something I've read before."

It was a sham. What I was doing was distracting myself. This is what Steven Pressfield calls "the resistance." I made myself busy so that I would have no chance to feel better. I knew that philosophy requires work and self-criticism and one inevitable conclusion - that my problems were almost entirely my own fault. Their resolution requires an active process that only I can initiate.

Philosophy is the tool with which to do so. As one would say, doctors carry their tools on their person, or more ideally, a boxer's tools are his person. We should seek to do the same. There is no excuse for being too busy or too distracted. Nor is there any alternative.

I guess what I was trying to say here is that when you start to work in the real world, you see people rewarded for the worst stuff. Things like overcompensation, cluelessness, aggression, shameless self-promotion and so on. This is especially true in Los Angeles. And when you see that happen, it's easy to question the fairness of it all. What you have to remember that is you're not refraining from those behaviors out of some "strategy." You don't decide to settle on integrity or humility because it will work out better.

The people that find rewards in these types of behavior have accepted a certain alchemy in their soul. They've traded in their self-awareness: if they were able to see themselves half as objectively as they saw others, they couldn't live anymore. You could do this too if you wanted. In fact, it'd probably be easier. But you didn't choose to not be insufferable after weighing the costs and benefits - it was simply not an option.

When I read this, I am stuck by the extraordinary lengths that someone will go to avoid ordinary work. I see a young man congratulating himself for exploiting other people's labor. Economically efficient, sure. Laudatory? Hardly. Consider the irony in protecting the "value" of your time while you brag about how cheaply it can be replaced.

The same goes for most of you auto-responders, automators, travelers and remote workers. How much pride you take in skirting the effort of everyday life. How elaborate the systems you've designed to facilitate it. I'm impressed, recently, to see that this force was enough to propel two friends in a boat around the world. Literally.

I think the same when I read this. Now, I know Charlie and he is a great person (Jeff too). He does not, however, have a career. In no way is that a failure, but it is important to look at these things honestly. What he has done is manage to land a series of internships and freelance work that show incredible potential. He's young (like myself), ambitious and promising. But then again, this is what we should expect from intelligent, affluent, white college graduates.

What is it, then, that motivates us to be so quick to the trigger? Quick to reflect and congratulate ourselves? To wave the all-clear to those behind us when we are only in waist-deep? I'm not sure. All I know is that when I look back and find myself guilty of it I feel ashamed and disappointed. I am discouraged further when I see it incentivized by attention and emulation.

Let's be frank: life is defined by how much you do, how often you took the difficult road and were rewarded for it. It is not, and will never be, improved by how much you avoid and scheme and congratulate.

A while back a designer posted an unsolicited redesign of the American Airlines website. He wrote "I spent a couple hours redesigning your front page. This is what I settled on. Imagine what you could do with a full, totally competent design team."

The implication of the whole project, of course, is that American Airlines, a multi-billion dollar, multi-national corporation, didn't have a designer who could spend a day messing around with the buttons on their website. Of course they do. They probably have 50 of them. That is not the problem.

Naturally he missed many of the systemic issues in favor of aesthetics. For instance, the confirmation time after purchasing a ticket online from American Airlines is north of 45 minutes to an hour - a ridiculous lag for any real time transaction processor. Or, should their website even be a priority when they have old planes that could be made to feel new again with small changes to the entertainment consoles or their archaic overhead storage?

You leave the analysis struck not by its value but by the bitter, obnoxious condescension. American Airlines was never the issue, only ego. It does not come as a shock to find that the author is 22 years old.

Here's what I've learned: separate yourselves from these low-level Others by resisting the temptation to assume it is all very simple and straightforward. It is not. Don't fool yourself. The problem is rarely the fact that they didn't have you there to think about it for two seconds. What comes to mind after a cursory glance is an illusion - your young brain baiting over-extension. Deny this impulse and the attention it may offer. Focus on real strategy. On truly understanding what you're talking about. Leave the bullshit attitude alone because it doesn't get you anything but alienation.

Back in 2004, Demetri Martin wrote a week-long journal for Slate and briefly mentioned the time he decided to grow a mustache. What he admits is that despite really wanting to try one and hoping it would be well received, he'd walk up to co-workers and say, "I'm growing a mustache. Looks pretty ridiculous, doesn't it?" He was so uncomfortable with the thought of people not liking it that he went around and convinced them that they shouldn't.

It struck me that benign examples like this belie how powerful that emotion can be. This deep, churning insecurity propels people toward incredible ends. Afraid of what prying eyes may turn up, the mind exhibits unparalleled skill in delegitimizing, preempting and fending off judgment. But regardless of how it is channeled, disingeneousness leads to tainted, meaningless results.

It's a similar strategy used by a kid we all knew in high school, the one who grew his hair out funny. Maybe it was a mullet or an afro or dyed strangely. While everyone else is worried about their appearance, he stands alone because the issue is no longer on the table. See, it's meant to be funny. If he wanted to, he could do it like everyone else, he's choosing not to. But if he gets attention for it, say girls like to play with it, naturally he doesn't tell himself it's because of the joke and therefore not him. All of the upside, none of the risk.

What this really is, of course, is the ideal intellectual position. The idea of defending yourself against criticism while simultaneously declaring that it has no jurisdiction over you. The idea that "Hey, we don't care what you think about our personal lives, but there are tribes in New Guinea that have a totally different concept of gender."

It is a reaction that is deeply rooted in fear. It is what children do. As they develop into their teens, they "strike a pose that is simultaneously rebellious and lackadaisical." They've looked backwards and forwards and noticed a disturbing trend, that their responsibilities are increasing at a dramatic rate while the amount of fun, which seemed to be endless just a few years back, is showing signs of slowing down. At this point of optimal freedom and diminished accountability, they'd like to freeze, to "stay in place."

In a way, you could think of Lady Gaga as the queen of this movement. Self-discomfort is such a motive, driving force that it is what transports a person from here to here. Take away the trappings and the costumes, is there really any difference between her and someone like Britney Spears? She's part of the same machine. She uses the same songwriters, the same marketing, exploits the same stereotypes. But for some reason, she wants us to know that it's different. For her, it is ironic. You see, she used to do Iron Maiden covers at bars in the East Village. Does this mean something? Maybe it's avant-garde and provocative instead of trite and artificial. Or maybe it's all too confusing and we'll never know.

In any uncomfortable situation - of which, deciding the type of life you're to live is one of the most stressful - our doubts can push us to do anything, anything that creates certainty. Irony and absurdity can be ultimate diffusions of this tension, and so can aggression, posturing and non-engagement. Deciding to grow a mustache? Make fun of it while secretly hoping someone will tell you they like. Better yet, grow a comical mustache that nobody gets. If they can't tell if you like it, then they can't judge it. Crisis averted.

We now see this writ large. Instead of outgrowing it, we've embraced it. Think about the prevalence of irony in hipster culture. At the root of that irony is loathing. Loathing comes from ignorance and fear, two powerful feelings that associated with entering a new era. It is responsible for so much of what is wrong with internet culture. People yell and scream and rant on blogs because they're filled with doubts which they hope to god will never be illuminated. They follow this band for three months and drop it for another because loyalty requires sincerity and sincerity depends on honesty - risks with too much downside.

But where does this transference of insecurity take us? The result is a pass on the burdens of real life. It becomes easier to dig at the tenets of evolution and the human nature in order to concoct some scientific justification for a decision than to take a stand and deal with it. Of course individual choice can be judged. What a masturbatory discussion to even be having. In fact, in asserting that it cannot be, you're admitting that it often is and will continue to be but that you happen to not like it.

The solution is to not be so fucking hard on yourself. You become afraid of what people will see when they look at you only if you think their conclusions can change things. This is false. Ease up and look internally with calmness and dispassion. Think about your flaws as burrs or splinters that have been unnecessarily affecting your walk. Discard them and move on. Don't pick at them shamefully in the dark and overcompensate during the day. There's no need to use every issue as a cat's paw to scratch at yourself or some vague insecurity. It's okay. The only thing that's truly embarrassing is to become some preposterous douche you hardly recognize because you can't stand the prospect of being genuine and hated for it.

Look at the crap you tolerate from other people. For so many reasons: because they don't know any better, because they're a friend, because it's not worth making an issue. Now subtract out the offenses you've been guilty of yourself. Take what is left over and consider it equity you've stored up, what the world would let you get away with if you felt so inclined.

How much easier would it be going through life taking advantage of this buffer? We would have so much less to worry about with that sword cleared out from above our head. To live life like a profligate who understands they'd never let him starve.

Why don't we do this? Because we know that what he has coming to him is rarely poetic, rather everyday "a disease..a plague...a cancer," that eats away at them by giving them everything they've ever wanted. The torture of being awful but unaware of it. The butt of an unsaid joke. The silent example of what not to be.

When you look at what people do, how they act and take advantage of others, see what it does to them as people. Don't wait for karmic justice. It isn't coming. It's already there. You didn't choose this path because of the deterrents to the alternative. It was the remunerative incentives, the first of which was the capability for this introspection.

The most common type of email I get is pretty simple. It's normally a kid with a plan to be something - say, a journalist - but they look at it like it is only a matter of being crowned with that title. And they want to know what I think they should do.

The answer is to try to break it all down. If they stopped and looked at the histories of the people hoped to be, they'd see more than a long history of writing employment. They'd find a variety of jobs and intermissions and activities and experiences, many of which have nothing to do with writing but had everything to do with getting them to where they are. Rarely is the path to something paved in rote emulation of the end you have in mind; you don't write your way into a writing career, it is the child of having something to say.

Being a journalist, or whatever you hope to become, is a sum made up of many parts. Realize that the conglomeration of those parts is a long way down the road and focus on the pieces - the ones that you can do now despite lacking resources and access. A place to start? Judgment.

I religiously read Dear Prudence. I can never figure out how people find themselves in these situations. Adults, their whole life thrown off balance by some murky question of etiquette. Otherwise successful people perplexed as to how they seem to constantly alienate friends or family. It makes no sense to me - how are their lives like this?

What do they all seem to have in common? Comically bad judgment. And a lack of awareness that it may be the source of their problems.

When you make a decision, invest in a concept, make an assumption, your job is to listen to the response. To notice what kind of problems you seem to find yourself in and ask "Why does this keep happening to me?"

Some people don't do this. No matter how many times their sense of direction leads them right into a wall, they get up and question why it was there and then do it again. If someone were to explain to them how to go around it, they would interrupt and continue on down the same road, expecting different results.

Partly, it stems from a faulty notion that we are never the problem, when in actuality, we almost always are. We take for granted that our priorities are good guides and that our gut is properly calibrated and is to be trusted. As we ignore the feedback that may call this into question, it becomes more and more psychologically difficult to accept that it may consistently wrong. Like an addict, it reaches a point where that faith - despite the mounting evidence to the contrary - is all you have left.

The idea is to treat your instincts like a rifle scope - to be sighted and dialed in before use. The little voice in your head doesn't come fine tuned for any specific situation, remember it was designed for an environment far different than the one we live in. I don't think there is any shame in realizing that you tend to drift to the left or the right. Call it a fact, or a weakness, a disability or a muscle that can be strengthened. Just call it something and question it constantly.

A little over two years ago I wrote this post about driving that ended up being controversial. I was writing about this thing that seems to happen in LA where you find yourself in side street traffic and look up ahead and realize it is completely and needlessly the fault of one person. Now, I've learned since then not to get so angry about it but I still don't understand how it happens.

I mean, don't they notice? Don't they see that there are many people behind them and none in front? And if a car honks in frustration, how do they justify getting upset at them?

I still think its a good metaphor too. What kind of life is that? To be the person that prevents someone else from what doing what they want to do, even if you think that activity might be unnecessary or dangerous. You don't get anything out of it. There is no award for 'keeping those speeding teenagers in line.'

You could use a bunch of different examples to make this point. Etiquette in waiting rooms, or reclining the seat on an airplane are good ones but driving is my favorite. If people are trying to get past and you're the impediment, you should pull over—just as if your political views block reasonable requests from reasonable people, you should reevaluate how you came to those beliefs. You certainly shouldn't be offended that those people would have the nerve to be upset at you about it.

Survey the scene and ask if you're the problem. It's never fun to find out the answer is yes, but it's better continuing it any longer.

Alinsky said that a strategist is born the moment a child first learns to play his mother against his father. It takes awhile to realize that some people never learn this. In fact, most people never learn this.

Another way to put it: in a house where parents have unpredictable rages, children learn that there is a third variable in the right and wrong equation. They learn that handling their parents reaction is just as important as the other two. They learn that appearances matter.

An asset to a company or an organization is someone who can look at a set of circumstances the way that a manipulative child would look at a situation. To see it in terms of what they can get away with - what has the best chance of getting through without being caught. Because ultimately, bureaucracy behaves a lot like bad parents. It is unpredictable yet predictable, it gives you room to maneuver and negotiate despite being, essentially, a constraining set of barriers to action.

It happens so often. You leave something up to someone's judgment only to be surprised by the result: their decision was made without any mind to the world it was to exist in. An email that doesn't consider the reaction of the person reading it. An advertisement that makes sense by the numbers but not what those numbers ultimately mean. And so on.

Those kind of people are common. They advance to a certain level and like a version of the Peter Principle, stop when they can no longer figure out how to advance. Lacking the ability to see outside themselves, they are crippled and blinded, unaware of the reality of the environment around them.

The key is to understand how truly critical that third variable is. That appearances do matter. That the context of a situation is almost overwhelming the part you need to grasp and control. And if you're a young person, your ticket to skipping ahead lives in mastering that before you're supposed to. Because without it you're like everyone else and you'll have to do things by their schedule and that means waiting your turn.