Functions of Running

Punched in 10.8km over two runs at 8.5 minute pace. Poor, but a good start for the first day back on running. Now to double the pace. 

Surreal. Literally on the roads where I started running in primary school. New training route. Tripped once on uneven sidewalk. Situational awareness not quite on point.

I learnt that running and driving seem most similar to me in terms of how much data is run through short-term memory. Highly visual, a lot of situational awareness loops. Hormonal cascades follow. Can't get that in a swimming pool or on a treadmill, I guess.

Road running in quiet areas creates a high ratio of activity in the sensory sit-ops loop, to the activity in the scientific methodical loop. So it provides one with good stimulus for scientific thought. I see how it fits together very well, now.

This season of running is my first, under a dietary regimen. I think breaking up daily distance into multiple runs per day makes sense in terms of reducing stress. I have some AMS, but that could just be fascia. Short-term memory baseline actions-per-minute are up, perhaps due to hormonal stimulation. But it's hard to say, without technical observability, what is endocrinal, neural, or vascular.

Toxicity : Cybernetics and Evil

Toxicity is subjective. What is clear is that [ not everyone ] thinks that [ everyone who could possibly exists ] belongs in the their own ideal society.

A majority of people seem to idealise an exclusive society. Good in, bad out. The problem then arises when people don't agree on what is bad, then we have war.

Some believe that the ideal society allows everyone including those who would seek to destroy that ideal. I am in this group. For me, civil society is about moderating two rates of control, the rate of admission for factors of mutation, and the rate of reproduction of mutations which jeopardise the enterprise.

It's just cybernetics.

Pathological Regret as a Cognitive Error

Regret is the association of present pain with the expectation of future pain, based on the false association of a past pain with the present pain, but without addressing the present pain directly. Once diagnosed, it becomes fairly straightforward to redirect attention to the present pain, and once the present pain is resolved, the association between past pain and present pain is realised as a false association, and the expectation of future pain can be dealt with rationally according to a theoretical risk management framework.

//

Reflecting on how I deal with pain.

I grew up with parents who were quite sensitive, that is to say, pain averse, often dramatically pain averse. So, it is a performance I am quite learned in. However, I also found their whinging to be quite annoying, and their low pain tolerance to be quite wimpy. They tended to interpret pain as a matter of illness, rather than merely as an ambiguous signal of more complex physiology.

( Perhaps I just imagined that they were whingy and wimpy, whereas it has been a projection of my own whingy wimpiness. I don't intend to press the remaining parent to find out. )

One of my favourite gym poster aphorisms has been, "pain is weakness leaving the body". I believe the most pain I have been exposed to as an adult is urethal catherisation. These two ideas don't necessarily fit together.

I remain privileged enough to deal with pain mostly at arm's length. It is physical conditioning that keeps me distracted by pain in the present. That is a rich man's game.

Dating "Attachment Styles"

😛

A match asked me to identify myself within the popular framework of "attachment styles". I said, I view myself as Secure, but would generally be viewed by others as Avoidant because I am a fussy shopper. They asked what fussiness has to do with it, so I elaborated.

If you segment the population into quartiles of equal size, then I am probably in the Avoidant quadrant - but then so is everyone who is higher-functioning without social norms. However, the framework does not purport to segment the population by any sort of quantity, because it makes no pretense to social science - the framework is basically a toy language, such as astrology is a fun, non-scientific toy language.

From the point of view of someone who is independent of most social norms, 70-90% of the population is in the Anxious or Disorganised buckets, and would so be too expensive to casually date in a "crutched-coupling". Of the remaining 10-30% who are not so costly to babysit, we would then look at the other dimensions of opportunity cost ... are they sexually, verbally, financially, healthfully, culturally, or otherwise stimulating? Moreover, if they are not too expensive to babysit, and if they are sufficiently stimulating, are they they so performant in these dimensions that you would engage in (a) an exclusive relationship with them, or (b) a long-term contract with them? (Noting that a. and b. are independent variables.)

It's just basic portfolio management ... keep your risks diversified, unless you are willing to blow up your balance sheet. Blowing up smaller balance sheets can be fun, as long as the holding entity's balance sheet, or other mandates remain secure.

🙃

Statistical Addendum : after about five minutes of reflection on what I just wrote, it occurred to me that probably, the general populations of  each quartile are more balanced in size ... but the general population is not very attractive/stimulating on average. 

However, if we stack rank the population by how attractive/stimulating they are, the more attractive/stimulating ranks are also more likely to be Anxious or Avoidant ... probably due to the motivating factors driving individuals to possess attractive/stimulating traits. In short, Secure or Disorganised people are less likely to be attractive/stimulating, because they're also generally lazy or incompetent. Avoidant and Anxious people are more likely to be attractive/stimulating, because they are less happy with their environments. 

This is an old idea, as far as I'm concerned, but I felt it needed to be attached to the initial note, as a point of clarity.

Saturated Fatty Acid : "C15:0"

I've been curious about the role of butter in diets. I've not been sure if it's just the saturated fatty acid (SFA) content ( ~50% ), which affect metabolism via testosterone and other androgens. 

Anyway, today I learnt about this SFA enumerated as "C15:0" ( here's an enumeration of SFA lipid numbers from 3 to 40 : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_saturated_fatty_acids ). Apparently it's present in butter at about the same concentration as in human breast milk ( about 0.5% ), and may have some essential contributions to physiology.

Since I have been ( scandalously ) ignoring the stick of Lescure in my fridge, I am going to start adding this to my diet at the rate of about 10g/day.

Saturated fatty acid "C15:0" :

1. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9135213/ 

2. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-64960-y

Fundamental Motivations

I think the most difficult part about working on civilisational progress, as a person who has a low esteem of civilisation's current state ... is that you don't share the more common motivation, that individuals and groups of people should improve because they are great. On the contrary, the only thing that motivates me to improve individuals and groups of people, is the notion that they currently work like shit.