Assume everything is wrong, and then figure out how.

I was reading the first part of Adam Smith’s A Theory of Moral Sentiments, and his description of how people relate to negative emotions intrigued me.

Smith makes the interesting point that when one is suffering misfortune, the reactions of other people to that suffering varies. Sometimes people will emphasize to a great degree; at other times, consider that suffering excessive. He explains that the reaction of others has to do with how the individual suffering behaves.

He gives the example of Socrates drinking hemlock, stoic and tranquil, while his friends wept for his fate. He contrasts this with, say, a man losing his family who becomes (in effect) chronically depressed and violent at times; people may say that he is over reacting.

My interpretation related this relationship to the idea of social diffusion of responsibility in Psychology.

Allow me to elucidate: Smith begins by claiming that people feel sympathy in proportion to the situation the other person is in, and not the intensity of their emotions. He claims that congruence between the sympathy extended, and the degree of suffering, signifies shared values and inspires confidences.

Consequently, a lack of congruence will cause strife; in essence, negative emotions on both sides which may drive the people apart.

He further makes the point that joy shared is joy increased, and that distress shared is distress relieved (people like unburdening themselves to their friends/etc).

In combination, it’s possible to interpret his theory as there being a socially acceptable level of emotional arousal for a certain set of stimuli, and people extending sympathy to match that level of emotional arousal.

With the Socrates example, it becomes that there is an “unmet need” of emotional arousal – below the socially acceptable level for state-ordered suicide – and so people are more “sympathetic”” to his plight, to "make up for his lack of emotional arousal.

Still a very rough notion, but interesting.

Good writing is difficult.

There are techniques, conventions, and styles to make most writing a “fill in the blanks” exercise. Most writing today is of this form – business writing being the most egregious example. Jargon is a result of the urge to make writing “easier” and “faster.” Certainly, jargon has distinct advantages – within a discipline, it communicates a great deal of information in a short space, once properly established.

But formulaic templates and jargon-istic writing makes for neither interesting nor particularly insightful writing. The business world is littered with examples of specious memos made possible by an overuse of the word “synergy,” just to name one. Academic writing, particularly at the undergraduate level, is similarly butchered in the name on convenience; students pen papers the night before, relying on the quintessential 5-paragraph essay template and a “fill in the blanks” mentality to flesh out their work.

This obviates the need determine the best way to present the information in an essay or document. Instead of examining the content one begins with and figuring out the form which most clearly, concisely, and elegantly conveys one’s conclusions, one can simply grab a popular template and shove information into it – throwing out the findings that aren’t accommodated by the template.

This is nothing more than a lack of creativity; a willful abdication of the responsibility to clearly convey one’s point in the name of convenience and speed.

I am, of course, guilty of this.