 
EVERYONE'S AN ASSHOLE

Except kids and seniors

A book of normal thinking  
by Jeremy Ian
© 2015 by Jeremy Ian

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted, in any form or by any means, digital, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior consent of the author.

Edited by Allister Thompson

Cover Design by Jeremy Ian

Interior design and layout by Emma Dolan

www.normalthinking.com

ISBN-13 978-1506101569

ISBN-10: 1506101569

Library of Congress and Library and Archives Canada Cataloguing in Publication data available upon request.

# CONTENTS

  1. Introduction
  2. About this Book
  3. Society
  4. Accept yourself
  5. Get more out of life
  6. Don't worry, be happy
  7. Just do it
  8. Be grateful
  9. If all your friends jumped off a bridge, would you?
  10. Be happy for the success of others
  11. A stranger is just a friend you haven't met
  12. At least you're not some starving kid in Africa
  13. Parents should be role models
  14. Two wrongs don't make a right
  15. Do unto others as you want done to you
  16. Be social (media)
  17. Share with others (online)
  18. Get over yourself
  19. Human Nature
  20. Find your life's purpose
  21. Make love, not war
  22. Money's the root of all evil
  23. It's better to give than receive
  24. Thank God
  25. It's good for the soul
  26. Happiness comes from within
  27. It's what's inside that counts
  28. Don't be so emotional
  29. If I were you I'd...
  30. Honesty's the best policy
  31. Don't be an asshole
  32. [Work

](../Text/Work3.xhtml)
  33. Success takes hard work
  34. Do what you love
  35. The cream rises to the top
  36. Things will turn around
  37. Education is the best investment
  38. Relationships
  39. Once a cheater, always a cheater
  40. Relationships are based on trust
  41. A good man is hard to find
  42. Don't settle
  43. If someone loves you, they'll...
  44. Someone will love you for who you are
  45. Just because you argue doesn't mean you don't love each other
  46. Look on the bright side of life

# INTRODUCTION

Another day, another lost job and failed relationship. Standard fare, I suppose, for many these days.

And just like many, off I went to therapy to see what, perhaps, I should fix about me.

"So tell me a bit about what's going on," starts the therapist.

"Well, my boss was an asshole, my ex was an asshole, and you know, it seems like everyone's an asshole these days," I replied.

Well, it was not long into the conversation before the therapist began to sound a lot like how our social media news feeds look. You know, what with all those inspirational quotes and daily positive aphorisms people keep posting that had him saying things that went something to the effect of:

"Happiness comes from within", "Learn to accept yourself", "Be more grateful", "Things will turn around" and best of all, "Jeremy, the world's not against you, you know?"

"Yes, it is," I said.

"Oh, and how so?" he replied.

"Well, Doc, isn't it true that our economy just wants one thing: to continually grow — which requires us to produce, spend, and consume non-stop?

"But of course, for it to do that it first needs to create the desire and want for more in us. And looking at how everyone's wanting more out of their careers, relationships, themselves — along with basically everything else in life — we're wanting more now than we ever have before.

"Well, you do know where stress comes from, don't you, Doc? It starts the moment we want — for when we want what we don't have, we create a mental gap between the two that causes tension. And that tension is stress.

"And wouldn't you know it, now our jobs couldn't be any more stressful, our relationships have never failed as often as they buckle under the stress, and therapists' offices just like this are filled more than ever with people suffering from low self-esteem, anxiety and depression — all conditions that are a direct result of too much stress.

"So by all means, tell me again, Doctor ... how is it that the world's not against us?"

He stayed silent.

There's not much anyone can say to that — along with the rest of what's written in this book.

# ABOUT THIS BOOK

Everyone's an asshole these days.

This thought is as obvious to you as it is me; otherwise, you wouldn't have picked up this book in the first place.

And if you're anything like me, you must roll your eyes nearly right out of your head at all these inspirational quotes, daily aphorisms, wise words of advice, motivational sayings and the rest of the positive thoughts that are clogging up our social media news feeds and pouring out the mouths of halfwits everywhere these days.

You know, the ones that go something to the effect of: it's better to give than receive, honesty's the best policy, do unto others as you want done to you, it's what's inside that counts, success takes hard work, along with the rest that would have one thinking the world is a friendly, fair and accepting place — when on the contrary, people are becoming a bunch of mean, disrespectful, unaccepting, narcissistic assholes.

Good intentions aside, these thoughts do more harm than good because they are false and cause people to become ignorant of reality.

Well, that's what I think, anyway.

And I'm guessing you do too. That's why I've written this book. Unlike all these quotes, sayings or other books that attempt to change your thinking, this one's been written to affirm it.

It's simply a book you can sit there nodding in agreement with as you read what I call 'normal thinking'. This consists of common sense, factual and insightful thoughts that show how society, human nature, the economy and our relationships make it so that many of these feel-good thoughts we hear and read can't possibly be true.

"Everyone's an asshole, except kids and seniors," for example, is a normal thought. And the qualifier at the end is an insight as to why it's true.

Now, of course, who am I, and what makes me an expert on what it means to think "normally"?

Well, after spending my early years in therapy for an assortment of anxiety- and depression-related issues, I started to suspect my problems were less about there being something wrong with me and more about there being something seriously wrong with the world in which we live. I was annoyed that I should be the one to fix problems I didn't even cause.

Later, after spending many years satisfying my curiosity in such fields as neuroscience, sociology, biology, psychology and even primatology, I've come to realize that my thinking was right.

So now I continue to go to therapy, seeing multiple therapists at a time, even, not because I need it but simply to challenge the so-called "experts" of the mind (much like I showed at the beginning of this book) simply for the purpose of refining and validating the thoughts I think now and have put into this book.

Just in case you're interested in checking to see if your thinking is normal too.

# SOCIETY
# "ACCEPT YOURSELF"

And what? Collapse the economy?

That's exactly what would happen if everyone accepted themselves, because acceptance is the exact opposite of what our economies want.

What they want is to grow, continuously and exponentially. So much so, in fact, that anything akin to a break or a breather is called a recession and is considered a very bad thing by businesspeople, economists and politicians.

And so in order to grow, people need to produce, consume and spend non-stop, which, of course, requires the desire — or want — to do so.

Now, just by looking at our record debt levels we can tell they're succeeding, since we now want more than we can even afford.

You can also look at our stress levels; it's hard to have a conversation these days without hearing how stressed out a person is. That should come as no surprise since the root of all stress is wanting.

Given that you can't have a want without a thought preceding it, it would explain why our minds are racing more now than they ever have before; clearly, thoughts of mortgages, gas prices, what to wear to work, who to follow on Twitter — along with the rest of the stuff modernity inundates us with — could never have occurred in the minds of our primitive ancestors.

Now, while constant, exponential growth is all well and good for our economy, wanting things all the time is actually the very opposite of what we really want. For every human being in the world simply wants just one thing:

To have.

Obviously.

Having is not just physically having what you want, but mentally as well. You could have all the money in the world, but if your mind isn't on it then you miss the experience of having it.

What does mentally having look like? It's wanting what you have. For when what you want and what you have are the same, in effect there's no wanting.

What does that feel like? Well, see for yourself. You can just look back to a time when you were really enjoying what you had. You'll remember the sights, the sounds, where you were, even the people you were with, but you won't remember what you were thinking.

Thinking would only have gotten in the way of enjoying the experience of that moment that was recorded to memory, which is why none of our fondest of memories ever start with, "I remember the time I was thinking about the time I...?"

And so if you're not thinking, it's not possible to be wanting. And if there's no wanting, you can't possibly be stressed. All that's left to feel is a deep sense of peace, and/or intense joy — which is probably the very thing you remember feeling in that moment.

You know what else wanting what you have is called?

Acceptance.

Often mistaken for putting up with or resigning yourself to something, acceptance is simply what happens when you want what you have — and nothing else. It's our mind's break from wanting.

Now, can you imagine what would happen if we all accepted more, be it ourselves, others or anything else in life, for that matter?

Our societies would collapse back to those of our primitive ancestors or modern-day indigenous tribesmen, those people that live in the jungle, who are debt-free, carefree, live naturally and simply and who are often given the compliment, "I can't believe how accepting they are," by people from modern society who visit them.

So of course, accepting ourselves is absolutely the last thing our economies and societies want us to do, because the more we accept, the less society gets what it wants.

"GET MORE OUT OF LIFE"

That's great. But how are we supposed to know when we've had enough?

I mean, you know when you've had enough food thanks to the fact that there's only so much space in your stomach, and you feel full. You know when you've traveled enough or spent enough time with friends when your energy is spent and it's time to go home. And you definitely know when you've had enough sex, because you're out of orgasms.

More of the above is all well and good because they're all natural and finite things. They have an end, and in that we find satisfaction.

That which is unnatural and unlimited, however, doesn't.

Take money, for example. It's an artificial resource in that it's representative of all our other resources. Add to that the fact that it's always being printed, and we put it in bank accounts only limited by the number of digits they can hold, making it unlimited in supply — it has no end. While we need enough to live on, money always seems to leave us uncertain as to whether we have enough, have saved enough, how much more we need, whether we have spent too much or have spent in the right places.

Then there are all the brand-name items that fuel our retail therapy sessions. A brand is simply an artificial representation of who we think we are. But also, since there's a seemingly endless amount of items in each category and always a newer item on the way out, one can never quite be sure if one has the right fit, fabric, color, version, style or if you should buy now, keep shopping or wait for the next one to come out.

Worst of all perhaps is all this texting, social media and Internet stuff — clearly an unnatural form of communication since real communication is mostly body language and voice inflection. But then, because there's an endless amount of messages and updates — only separated by an indeterminate amount of delay in between — one can't possibly be certain of the context of the messages, whether one has gotten one's fill of information and updates, whether one's message was received, or when the receiver will reply (if at all).

Anything that's unnatural and unlimited by design causes us to be uncertain about its use, especially because it has no end and we can't be certain of when we've had enough. This leaves us unsatisfied and always wanting more.

But why, if things like money, materialism and technology can't satisfy us, do they turn us into workaholics, shopaholics and text/Internet addicts?

Because our brains were not designed for a world of unnatural and unlimited wants. They were made for the world of the natural and finite.

When we want something, like food, for example, our stomachs let us know that we're hungry, but it's our brains that provide the motivation to go over and grab, say, an apple off a table. And they do this by releasing a chemical called dopamine, which excites us, creating the motivation to go and eat.

Once we grab the food, however, our brains stop filling with dopamine because the motivation is no longer necessary.

But let's say that instead of an apple, what you're really hungry for has four legs and is running in the opposite direction. What do you suppose happens to the production of dopamine now?

It spikes, often doubling, since naturally more motivation and excitement is needed to catch your meal.

So what's the difference between the fruit and the fleeing meal?

Uncertainty. That's it.

One's a sure bet, the other is trying to escape you, putting the possibility of a full stomach at risk.

What uncertainty does is make us want the things we want even more. And its effect on our brains is the reason why difficult partners are so exciting, why we get stuck in on-again/off-again relationships, why commissioned employees work harder than salaried ones, why playing hard to get works and why the saying "People want what they can't have" is true. When the things we want are unlimited and have no end, the uncertainty of that creates an addiction to them, causing us to want more, even when we have enough.

When it comes to getting more of anything that's artificial and limitless, we'd actually all be better off if there really was no more.

Now, of course there are those who would immediately point out how boring our lives would be without all our gadgets, retail therapy sessions, social media posts and the rest of the modern rewards we want.

But little do many know that boredom is actually a form of anxiety that stems from not being able to stand the sound of non-stop thoughts, and it wasn't even a word in the English language until the start of the Industrial Revolution — interestingly, the very birthplace of much of the stuff we're now addicted to.

This is not to say that people didn't get bored before, mind you, but it must have become enough of a problem that people had to invent a word for it. It's now such a problem that people can no longer enjoy a once-welcome break in the day, like taking a walk or sitting down to a meal with family and friends without at the same time tapping away on their devices.

The stupidity of our society is that it's created a world of things to want, as though we're designed to want to want.

We're not. We're designed to want to have.

Only in getting more of that which is natural and finite do we know when we've had enough, and we get to enjoy with satisfaction what we have.

"DON'T WORRY, BE HAPPY"

This isn't possible if what you have in life isn't what you want.

You know, like a decent job, a good income, connecting with your friends, a healthy relationship, along with the rest of what one needs in order to be happy.

Without it, you've unfortunately got some worrying to do since getting what you want takes wanting, which is stress.

Naturally, there's bad stress, which is all the wants we have fueled by negative emotions such as fear, frustration, anger, sadness, even boredom — all worth worrying about.

But even good stress, the positive kind we feel when we anticipate, desire and most of all hope for what we want, still contains a subtle underlying anxiety, which is worry; we worry about the successful attainment of whatever it is we're wanting because our future emotional state depends on it.

That's why hope feels exciting at best but never puts us at peace or brings us joy.

Naturally, how much you will worry depends not only on how many things you want, but also how much you're wanting them. For the further you are from what you want, the wider the gap between you and it, and thus the more stress you will feel.

Should that gap become too wide, however, you will come to the conclusion that what you want and need are too far out of reach — and hope can quickly turn into hopelessness. And now you've got depression to worry about because hopelessness is exactly what depression is.

Now, is it not true that we're currently living in a world where jobs are becoming scarcer and unstable? Is technology not disconnecting us more and more from the ones we care about? Are relationships not failing now more than ever? And is the gap between the haves and have-nots only widening? Is our society not putting a whole slew of things we need further out of reach?

Well then, no wonder people are so stressed out, anxious and worried these days — not to mention all the antidepressants that are flying off pharmacists' shelves.

True happiness is wanting what you have, which is acceptance, because when you have what you want, there is no gap, making it impossible to be anxious or stressed, leaving you to feel only peace and joy.

The only caveat to that, of course, is that you can't accept what you have when you don't have it.

So, given the way the world is today — for many, if not most people — unfortunately it's more like, "Don't worry about being happy."

"JUST DO IT"

Listen to advertisers? Unless it brings you the power, respect or sex you want — just don't.

Advertisers sell to our wants, not our needs. That's why you'll never see an ad that says "Eat a burger" or "Drive a car", but rather through a tag-line it says "Drive the ultimate driving machine" and "Have it your way" on your burger.

The "ultimate" and "your way" are the wants. And our wants are what we use to satisfy our needs in more convenient, efficient, customized and plentiful ways. Because of this, just as you can't separate the sizzle from the steak, or fuel-efficient from the engine, our wants are inextricably linked to our needs.

Therefore, if whatever you purchase doesn't satisfy the underlying need, you'll be left feeling disappointed, empty or regretful — also known as "buyer's remorse".

This is something many people feel, especially after buying products for the purpose of satisfying their need for social status, the human need to climb the social ladder. A need that, as we can see from the behavior of celebrities, brings us more of and better things that satisfy our other needs, such as for more money, more power and respect, and more of the best mating options, or preferred people to have sex with.

The BMWs, Rolexes, Apple devices, the designer shoes and handbags of the world are all symbols of status. They send an implicit message to others of our value in society — no matter how illegitimate.

And even though these things fulfill our need to get to work, to do work, tell time or clothe ourselves, if they don't at the very least bring us adulation from our peers and respect from strangers — or at the most hot sex from the people we want to sleep with, there's just no point in buying them.

"BE GRATEFUL"

Ever noticed that commissioned employees are more grateful for their paychecks than salaried ones?

How the food we grow ourselves is more gratifying than the food we pick out at the grocery store?

Or how we value the partners we pursue more than we do the ones who pursue us?

What should begin to become obvious is that the secret ingredient to being grateful is hard work; having to put time and effort into getting the things we want and need.

For pretty much all of our human evolution, hard work was exactly what we were used to doing.

Once upon a time, we lived in a world in which you'd have to make and mend your own clothes, grow your own food, build your own home and save your money before you could buy the things you wanted.

Back in those days, if you wanted someone to really like what you did and follow your lead, it meant having to spend years — decades even — perfecting a craft, achieving an accomplishment and really proving yourself to others.

Even the most trivial of things took more effort not too long ago, such as if you wanted to own the latest hit song. You either had to save your money to buy it or wait until it came on the radio so you could dub it to tape. And when you did, it truly was music to your ears.

That was also a time when getting a date took days, weeks, months of wooing. And if your love went unrequited, leaving you in some need for relief, you'd either have to be of adult age to drag yourself over to the video store to rent some pornography or stay up all night until the blue movies came on just to see a nipple. And after all that waiting, it sure was the sweetest nipple you ever did see.

Now, however, we live in a world in which homes and clothes are made just for you, there's fast food on every corner and a credit card in every pocket — relieving us of any effort or waiting.

Then there's computers and the Internet, which allow us all to download music, movies, porn, order clothes and even hook us up with dates — all with as much work as it takes to click a button.

Thanks to social media, you can be "liked" and "followed" in an instant, simply for reposting someone else's years of hard work and accomplishments in the form of a video, link or quote. Or in the time it takes just to turn the camera on yourself and smile.

We're now living in an instant gratification world, which is an oxymoron, of course, because it's a world that's removed much of the hard work it takes to get many of the things we want.

So how, or why, is anyone supposed to be grateful?

"IF ALL YOUR FRIENDS JUMPED OFF A BRIDGE, WOULD YOU?"

Why not? We kill pretty much everything else because of them, don't we?

Like killing our lungs or liver with smoking and alcohol, for example. Our friends start doing it, and we — just to be "cool" — start as well.

We're even cooler when we're standing in line outside a club in the dead of winter wearing next to nothing, risking hypothermia as we kill our body temperature just so we can look fashionable for others.

Then there's killing our single life, as many have experienced. As soon as one friend marries off and has kids, the rest are soon to follow.

Of course, we could blame everyone's biological clocks for all going off at the same time, but then social scientists have observed and even labeled something called "Divorcitis"; many will end their marriages just because their friends ended their own first.

Most fascinating of all, perhaps, is the way if one of our friends decides to start eating like crap and gets fat, there's a good chance we'll eat poorly and gain weight too. But this "follower" effect can be so strong that even a friend of a friend — a person twice removed — can impact our waistlines.

I suppose that one could be called "Fatitis".

The truth of the matter is we can't help but mindlessly follow others. We're hardwired to do so, as we can see by how our parents provide for us, friends support us, employers hire us, grocery stores feed us and retailers clothe us. We need others to survive.

We humans are members of a social species, and in order to keep us working together toward a common goal and to avoid chaos, we require a social glue. A set of rules, customs and beliefs that become the religions we follow, music we listen to, clothes we wear, even what and how we eat — all of which create what we call "culture".

Without it, we'd end up serving Froot Loops at dinner parties, showing up to work in our pyjamas, farting on first dates, or attending mosques eating pulled pork sandwiches, all of which would put our friendships, employment, chance of procreating and our lives at risk.

While in this day and age we can survive on our own, for most of evolution, if one was to go against the culture of the group, he would have been kicked out and left isolated; he'd either starve to death or be the meal that prevented something else from starving to death.

It's the unconscious fear of isolation and death, so deeply rooted in us, telling us that if our friends all of a sudden decided it'd be cool to jump off a bridge, most likely we would too.

"BE HAPPY FOR THE SUCCESS OF OTHERS"

Would you be happy if you were having sex with someone and only they were satisfied?

I mean, there you are hard at work, rubbing your genitals against theirs, and as soon as they orgasm, they just roll over.

It'd be unusual for you to be all that thrilled for them, because sex is always more enjoyable when both people cooperate, and both share in the pleasurable reward.

To cooperate toward a common goal and share in the rewards is the very nature of many animal species. Wolves hunt together, elephants herd together, chimpanzees defend their territory together, and once the kill is made and the territory is defended, all get to enjoy a piece of it.

We humans are designed to be no different. Except for just one small problem.

We don't get to keep the faucet of our friend's kitchen reno for recommending the contractor, we're not given the strap from the purse we just helped our friend select at the mall, we don't get a piece of the bumper of the new sports car our colleague buys with the promotion he got, thanks in part to our help on his projects.

There's never a sharing of a sleeve from a brand name shirt, the sole from designer shoes, and no one ever brings back some sand and a palm tree from their vacation for us to enjoy.

No, instead they just share the results of their success with us on Facebook and expect us to "like" it and be happy for them while we walk away empty-handed.

The whole point of cooperation is to help one another achieve our rewards, but because the value of our rewards is material, they cannot be physically shared, thus rendering cooperation virtually pointless.

And yet in this society we're still expected to cooperate with others, be it having our friends' backs, providing emotional support to family members or contributing with our coworkers as a team at the office.

Materialism goes against the very nature of cooperation, and so does being happy for another person's success when our cooperation goes unrewarded.

So, short of possessing an equal or greater measure of whatever the person we're supposed to be happy for has — unless we get a percentage of their pay raise, banister from their new house or screwdriver from their new toolset — it would seem perfectly normal to be envious and resentful of others.

Not happy for them.

"A STRANGER IS JUST A FRIEND YOU HAVEN'T MET"

Until they fail to hold open a door for us or cut us off in traffic. Then they're assholes.

With any stranger who offends or socially slights us — in even the smallest of ways — we immediately take their act and paint their entire personality with it. In our mind's eye they become rude, stupid people.

Yet should our very own family and friends make the same error, we just chalk it up as an innocent mistake or assume that they're having a bad day.

We harshly — and quite unfairly — condemn one person while excusing the other.

So it appears we're not all that friendly with strangers.

Tens of thousands of years ago, this made perfect sense, for way back then we lived in small tribal communities of no more than 150 to 200 people, consisting of only our closest friends and family (otherwise known as our in-group).

Anyone outside of that — a stranger, meaning from the out-group — was seen as a threat and considered quite dangerous; they would likely take away your territory, resources and even your life.

Back then, strangers, in our mind's eye, were all guilty until proven innocent. And while much has evolved societally over the past 10,000 years, our brains and their in-group/out-group biases have not.

Science has even shown this, as in cases when people are placed under a brain scanner and are flashed images of both familiar and unfamiliar people. A small region of the brain called the amygdala, the center for our feelings of fear and anger, lights up every time we see the stranger, not the friend.

This might explain why in large, overcrowded cities, people become more aggressive, more anxious and less empathetic.

Further studies have shown that we cognitively just can't keep track of more than about 150 to 200 people — a number that just so happens to be the average amount of friends people have on their Facebook list.

It appears we haven't evolved to live comfortably socially outside of our once small, close-knit tribal communities.

Definitely not comfortable enough to live in a world of eight billion strangers, all connected via the Internet, while packed into teeming cities.

Of all those people, only about a hundred or so can be our friends.

The rest of the strangers out there, as far as our brains are concerned, are enemies.

"AT LEAST YOU'RE NOT SOME STARVING KID IN AFRICA"

The one with a distended belly, with flies swarming his face? Or the one that lives minimally, naturally, amongst family and friends in a small tribe?

Which one is he?

There are still many kids over in Africa that live in small tribal communities, very much the same way we all did over 10,000 years ago, where, in all likelihood, their quality of life vastly trumps that experienced by most modern people, thus rendering useless such gratitude-inducing quotes.

Countless documentaries have been filmed that appear to show proof of this; footage of said children and adults shows them enjoying social bonding, laughing, singing and high spirits people living in big first world cities can only wish for.

One documentary that perhaps showed this dichotomy best is titled God Grew Tired of Us; it's about a group of young Sudanese men who fled the wars there and were given the opportunity to go to America and live the dream.

The film opens on the men and their families living in the most meager of conditions in a Kenyan refugee camp — again, singing and smiling and enjoying each other's company just as other documentaries show, which is no doubt in part because of the opportunity being granted to them. But just like other footage shot of African tribes — minus the flight to America — one can only imagine other factors are at work contributing to their satisfaction, along with the rest of the small African communities that appear to enjoy higher levels of well-being.

For starters, they don't have to wake up every morning and sit in rush hour traffic to go to jobs they hate, working with people they dislike for bosses they don't respect from the hours of eight to six, earning less than the worth of their efforts.

No, they work for themselves, alongside their family and friends, for only a couple of hours a day — just enough for their calorie requirements.

Next, they don't need to rely on emails, don't pay for texting and don't use social media to communicate and connect with one another. They're all within talking distance of each other, sharing live, genuine experiences.

And yes, while they're likely to be hungrier than the average "civilized" person and have to worry more about their next meal (when they do eat), it's not the mass-produced, GMO'd stuff we put in our faces that causes all sorts of illnesses such as hypertension, obesity, heart disease, adult onset diabetes, allergies and the rest that make many of us sick.

Now, of course, one could argue that they don't get to enjoy many of the luxuries, medicines and treatments that modernity affords us and extend one's life. But when it comes to quality of life, these Africans of which I speak have us beat hands down since there's little to no evidence to show that we humans have evolved much over the past 10,000 years. And we definitely don't evolve over the course of a single lifetime, as our foods, jobs, communication and much of society have.

Our muscles were not made for pounding away on keyboards and smartphones. They're meant for hunting and gathering. Texting and emoticons are not communication. Body language and voice inflection is. And chemicals and fillers are not what are stomachs were designed for. Natural, fresh and healthy food is.

We modern people are the ones forced to live outside of our biology, whereas these tribal Africans do not. Trying to live beyond our evolution has proved to be stressful, anxiety-causing, and even depressing — conditions, ironically, that a number of the Sudanese men started complaining of once they got to America.

As soon as the men from Africa started trying to acclimatize to working American jobs, spending most of their time away from one another in what's become a very socially isolating and unnatural society, many of them became stressed out, despondent and depressed.

No more simplicity, no more singing and laughing, no more quality of life.

But hey, at least they're not some starving kid in Africa.

"PARENTS SHOULD BE ROLE MODELS"

Would you ever follow financial advice from the bankrupt or take marriage tips from the recently divorced?

Not likely.

We listen to, follow and model our behaviors on those who have what we want.

So outside of the home, what do our parents have that we really want?

Starting right in preschool, it's our friends that provide the social connection we're after, or protection from bullies — not our parents. Once we start working, it's our bosses that hold our paychecks and promotions — not our parents. It's our partners that have the sex and children we're looking for — not our parents. And our ideas of success, fame and fortune — celebrities give us those. Again, not our parents.

That is why we model the way we dress, the music we listen to or even the way we speak (like texting and using emoticons) on our friends — not our parents.

It's why we model many of our behaviors after the culture of the industry we work in or attitudes our partners' hold — not our parents.

And it's definitely why we follow celebrities on Instagram, Facebook and Twitter. Again, not our parents.

Once we're out of the house, everything we want is in society. Therefore, society models our behaviors far more than our parents do.

Parents simply can't compete with the rewards we get from our friends, from work, our partners and especially the rewards we idealize because of celebrities.

In fact, many people's parents are underemployed, working dead-end jobs, have issues with substance abuse and have a dysfunctional marriage — or no marriage at all. All the things we don't want.

So parents shouldn't be expected to be role models.

Because they can't be.

"TWO WRONGS DON'T MAKE A RIGHT"

Is it more right to abuse others, or yourself instead?

After all, if you're not supposed to get revenge on those who have wronged you, that negativity has to go somewhere.

First it goes outward and on to others, to places such as the Internet (which, as we plainly see, is just teeming with hate) or a co-worker beneath you, or your partner, or a person in traffic — or some people come home and kick the dog.

This is called displacement aggression, which is the natural response to not being able to wrong the person who's wronged us, so instead some poor, innocent person (or animal) takes the brunt of that aggression, in effect turning two wrongs into three.

But when we can't send it outward because we can't find anyone online to flame, don't have a co-worker to pick on or (correctly) don't believe in hitting innocent animals, then that aggression has nowhere else to go but inward to get repressed.

So the more corporations steal from us, bosses mentally abuse/take advantage of us (and we're not allowed to punch them in the face, poison their coffee, or even tamper with their hemorrhoid cream without being criminally charged), it's no surprise we're seeing spikes in reported cases of depression since any mental health expert will tell you that in addition to being a state of hopelessness, depression is aggression turned inward.

Too many just have to sit there and take it.

Revenge is a natural, instinctual response that protects us (which is right) because it teaches others how they can or can't treat us while relieving us of the stress of having to carry around all that aggression (also right).

So, contrary to this belief, two wrongs absolutely do make a right.

"DO UNTO OTHERS AS YOU WANT DONE TO YOU"

Looks then like people really want their messages ignored, their comments blocked or to be unfriended for voicing their opinions.

Given the way people are behaving these days, we are definitely not treating others the way we want to be treated. Perhaps it's because the Golden Rule is no rule of human nature.

If you want to see what the rules are, you needn't look any further than the Internet, a place of online anarchy where there are no rules.

As any user might have observed, there are implicit rules of engagement that we follow, rules such as: Don't add strangers to your profile, Don't respond to messages if you don't want to, Don't like a person's updates if they don't like yours, and Unfriend/unfollow/block anyone with an opinion that differs from your own. In fact, send them hate mail and cyberbully them to teach them a lesson instead.

It's tit-for-tat, it's ignoring, it's territoriality, it's holding a grudge and getting revenge. These behaviors are hardwired into us and are the rules of engagement amongst much of the animal kingdom.

We're no different than apes, really. They don't allow strangers onto their turf, they don't turn the other cheek when slighted and no ape would ever think to say to another, "Thanks for reaching out. I'm terribly swamped at the moment, but I promise to get back to you as soon as I come up for air."

To get any animal to behave beyond its instincts — much like training a dog to sit on command — it takes plenty of conditioning, generations of generations of domestication. And again, we humans are no different.

For millennia, this idea of thinking first about how we'd like to be treated when treating others has been engrained in us by religion, enforced by our laws, and because for most of all of human history we lived offline lives, reinforcement of this civilized cultural behavior was easy; it's much harder to block, unfriend and ignore people when they're talking directly to your face.

However, the more we live our lives online, hiding behind screens as we communicate, where there's no moral authority, no laws or repercussions for unacceptable behavior, the less we continue to be conditioned and the more we seem to devolve back to behaving in an uncivilized manner, much like the primitive primates that we still very much are.

We are just like every other animal that does not treat others the way they want to be treated, but rather treats others the way others treat them.

"BE SOCIAL (MEDIA)"

Make a status update or tweet? Why? What's the problem?

I mean, people act as if social media is the greatest thing since sliced bread yet fail to realize that if there were no problems in the world, we simply wouldn't communicate.

No other animal chirps, barks, crows, roars, hoots or hollers just for the fun of it. There's a reason behind their vocalizations. They're looking for food, calling out to others, trying to mate, sending a warning of predators — essentially doing one of two things: trying to solve a problem or avoid one.

So why would we humans be any different?

Right off the bat we can see that most of what we speak or text is problem-solving or complaining. So that's pretty obvious. But what about the rest?

There's catching up and chitchat between friends, of course. But isn't that at its core really just about feeling connected and finding out what the other person is up to, which ultimately satisfies our curiosity and keeps us from loneliness?

Then there's all the friendly "Hi's", "How was your weekend's?" and "Thank you's" with acquaintances and strangers.

Surely they can see us in the room, can't they? No need for greetings or for a "thank you" since surely they know we're appreciative of whatever courtesy they extended. But of course, thanks to culture, if we don't verbally acknowledge and appreciate others we're seen as impolite and rude — and will have a problem that's best to avoid.

Even something as enjoyable as laughter is usually caused by someone else's problem, for the first rule of comedy is it's not funny unless someone gets hurt. Like people falling down, doing something stupid, insults and sarcastic comments — all things that happen at someone's expense that we find funny.

But rather than listing all the examples of how this insight into why we speak is true (that would take a book a month of Sundays long to finish) it's best to imagine a scenario wherein one would have absolutely nothing to say.

For example, if all of a sudden you were given a mansion full of money, including the partner of your dreams, on your private island with your closest friends, with the finest food and drink in unlimited supply — along with anything you heart desires the moment your mind thinks it — what then could you possibly have to say?

"Pass the caviar?"

You'd have it already.

Tell all your friends what you'd do with your newfound fortune?

You'd own it already.

Gossip about the latest celebrity scandal?

Everyone would already know.

Say "thanks" to the powers that gave you such fortune?

We've covered that one already.

You would have absolutely nothing to say because you'd have zero problems to solve or avoid. All that'd be left to do is quietly enjoy the feeling of having all your needs met by all that you have.

So given all the non-stop texting, tweeting, Instagramming, and status updating going on, it would appear social media is a world just full of people with problems.

"SHARE WITH OTHERS (ONLINE)"

Fact: Social media's addictive.

Fact: No one's ever been admitted to the Betty Ford Clinic for a sharing addiction.

So what is the addiction?

It would no doubt have to be trying to gain more social status (a measure of one's value within a group) since the more you have, the more respect and power you get, as well as people following you.

It's no different from getting to be the boss at work. Because he's got the most experience, skills, ability — all tangible assets essential to the success of the company — he gets the most respect, has the most power over others, makes the most decisions, earns the most money and gets to park in the most desirable spot in the lot. I mean, who wouldn't want to be the boss?

And so of course to become a boss, people must gain the experience, skills and abilities, competing against others in the company for a promotion, going from junior to intermediate to senior to vice president until they reach the top of the hierarchical corporate ladder.

This is, and has always been, the natural way in which status is achieved since the beginning of time, because only through climbing the ranks by way of showing tangible value does it bring stability to our social groups. If one could gain status for no real reason, everyone would think themselves worthy of being the leader, which would cause everyone to fight over who leads in the hunt for food or the protection of the group from predators, thus threatening the group's survival.

That's why at the office you don't see people getting promotions just because they make the best water cooler talk, can do the best impersonations of a colleague, dart the most pencils up into the ceiling, or any other arbitrary reason that doesn't have any value to the business. If they could, no one would do any work. Everyone would just spend their days performing their favorite parlor tricks because anyone could be promoted over anyone else because of anything.

No one would listen to anyone, they'd all just talk over each other because no one would think they should have to follow, only lead. And with that, there goes your hierarchy, your company's organization and stability, and everyone's job because it's not long before everyone's out of business.

Now isn't this somewhat similar to what's happening on social media?

Every time we post something on there, be it our new home, car, baby, vacation or what we just ate for lunch, we're essentially displaying something that reflects our value in the world, which is compared with and competed against by others in the network, with "likes" and "follows" acting as the promotion.

But oddly, the person who posts their brand new sports car (a very real and tangible symbol of one's wealth) can be trumped in "likes" by the person posting their less expensive but more environmentally friendly ten-speed bike.

Then there's the person who posts recent photos from their wedding, honeymoon and subsequent newborn baby (all tangible achievements in mating and procreation) but for some reason has less followers than the person who posts the most viral cat videos or sarcastic memes.

Best of all, a person who really has nothing going for them at all in real life can trump all sorts of people online just by posting a beautiful stock photo with some spiritual words of wisdom layered over top or of some famous dead person quoting something profoundly inspirational.

And if that doesn't work, you can always one-up someone simply by correcting his spelling or grammar.

On social media it's good causes beating cash, performing pets trumping procreation, viral videos and quotes topping the rest, and vice versa. There's no rhyme or reason to any of it, really.

Anyone on any day can achieve or lose more "likes" and "follows" over anyone else for just about anything. And it's no surprise that, just as you would see at the office, people on social media are for the most part just talking over one another, ignoring one another, with social networks on one platform dissolving and users jumping to the platforms where, instead of becoming your "friend", people are forced to "follow" your ever-so-important status updates.

You know, it's called a status update for a reason. It's not to make others aware of your whereabouts, and it's definitely not for sharing. That'd be someone personally tagging or messaging you.

No, it's simply to update your level of status in an attempt to climb to the top of your group.

But since social media has turned our social hierarchies into social hamster wheels where the status updating never ends — it's no wonder social media is so addictive.

"GET OVER YOURSELF"

Why? Anything you can know I can know better.

After all, we only know ourselves in comparison with others, for on a deserted island all by ourselves we'd be the smartest, strongest, most talented and best-looking people we know.

But we don't live there. And for most of human evolution we lived in small, collective, meritocratic and hierarchical tribes divided by physical abilities, because the world in which we lived was a very physically demanding place.

Because of this, you knew with complete certainty who could or couldn't catch the night's meal the fastest, defend the tribe the best, contribute most to the group, and who, based on physical appearance, was the best to mate with, all of which made it easy for you to understand where — and especially why — you stood in comparison.

Now, however, we live in massively overpopulated, non-meritocratic and highly individualistic societies where those at the top — everyone from our bosses to heads of government, corporations and, of course, celebrities — are there not because they can kill the most sabre-toothed tigers or impale predators with a spear from twenty yards away, but rather because of what they know, and for some because of how they look.

They are assumed to be the smartest, most knowledgeable, talented and most attractive people around.

There is, however, just one problem with this: Information is free. And so are lens filters.

Today there's nothing stopping anyone from going online and Googling their heads full of the very same information that those at the top of society possess.

And while people have always been able to access information thanks to schools and books, which have been around for ages, the Internet and social media have not.

What is social media, really? Nothing but masses upon masses of people who have downloaded a bunch of information and are simply regurgitating it back out onto the world.

It's people posting viral videos that they didn't shoot, writing blogs full of recipes or insightful advice that they didn't create or think up, fan pages full of other people's work and research they didn't do, Twitter accounts chock full of other, smarter people's inspirational quotes and wisdom, all of which gets filtered down and recycled amongst the masses, then becomes everyone else's social media statuses or fuel for their smartass comments.

And of course, let's not forget about all the Instagram accounts full of selfies with carefully placed camera angles and lens filters people wouldn't, and shouldn't, be caught dead without.

But the best part of it all is, just like the person who says "thank you" to the person who compliments them on the cut of their suit or attractiveness of their girlfriend, even though they had nothing to do with the making of their suit or their partner's looks, all the "likes" and "follows" allow you to take the credit since it validates you just the same.

Thanks to the Internet and social media, in a very short time we've gone from living in a physical, offline "I can/can't do that" world to an information-rich "I know/look like that too" one that creates a society in which it's very hard to compare ourselves to others; it's too easy for people to think themselves just as smart, talented and good-looking as those miles above them socially.

No wonder people can't get over themselves.

But then, when you compound all this with the fact that in today's economy so many are working jobs that are legitimately miles beneath them — if they're working at all — why would anyone want to get over themselves anyway?

# HUMAN NATURE
"FIND YOUR LIFE'S PURPOSE"

Would you ever drive a car because of where it wanted to go?

Of course not, that'd be silly. We created cars to serve our purposes, not the other way around.

So doesn't it only stand to reason that we would in turn serve the purpose of whatever created us?

That creator, of course, would be our genes. They designed us. And they're the ones that, as we can see by the fact that we look like our parents, our kids look like us, and theirs will them — as long as we have sex, they get to live on forever.

That's their purpose, which makes procreation our purpose.

It's almost as if we're the cars and our genes are the drivers. And when we reach our destination — which is another's genitals — our genes reward us with the best feel-good experience we'll ever have, perhaps only to be trumped by the most meaningful experience, holding the results of that sex, our newborn children.

Of course, not just anyone — or their genitals — will do. Our genes seek the best genes they can get because it ensures their survival.

Very much like the way we use the sticker value of a car to determine the value of the driver, our genes use the other person's social value to determine the worth of their genes. For much of human evolution, only the best genes that made one strong, smart and talented allowed a person to rise to the top of their society, affording them the most territory and resources and thus the ability to produce and support the most offspring.

It would appear, then, that the only thing one needs to "find" is a means by which one can increase one's social value and status.

Isn't it obvious that many of those people who believe their purpose in life is to use their god-given abilities to entertain or create — the artists, athletes, entrepreneurs and innovators of the world — once they become famous, they become equally famous for their groupies or ability to "make it rain" in strip clubs?

Isn't it fascinating that those who believe their purpose is to pursue their passions, fight for a cause, find a cure — you know, the activists, politicians, religious leaders and the like — are not only passionate about their causes (and theirs alone, because it ensures their survival) but also often seem quite passionate about their romantic affairs, sleeping with their secretaries, or oddly, a church full of choirboys?

And finally, who hasn't been on a date with the person who's convinced that their purpose is just to help others? We listen to them going on about their donations, volunteer efforts or relief work for the starving kids in Africa — all acts to achieve status by implication since naturally one must be above others socially in order to help them — which they use to try and impress their way into our hearts or pants.

Cynicism aside, this is not to say that all roads lead to the bedroom.

It'd be insane to suggest that some of our most inspiring activists, brilliant innovators and influential leaders had the conscious motive to go through all their efforts just to get laid. Clearly, it's hard to be fruitful and multiply when your culture, religion, environment or health is threatened. So we definitely need those who make it their purpose to fight for such causes.

And yet they and many others, unlike any other animal would, make the decision not to have kids. So how do they live on then?

Simple.

They make it their purpose to live a good life so they can live on in heaven (if they're religious enough), leave their mark on the world so they can live on in the minds of others long past their own death (if their ego is big enough), or care for some other group of people, animals or plants (if their maternal/paternal instincts are misplaced enough).

It doesn't matter. Whatever the purpose may be, the unconscious underlying motive is always to live on.

The meaning of life is simply to create more life. Even if it means doing so for others.

How can it not be?

It only stands to reason that if we don't create more life, there will cease to be any more life in which one can find any purpose.

"MAKE LOVE, NOT WAR"

Never mind the war part... if making love was an act of affection (or even pleasure, for that matter), why then is it so hard to come by?

Why do women have to be youthful, with full lips, fuller breasts, a narrow waist and wide hips (aka child-bearing hips) — all physical signs of fertility and fecundity — and essentially be a sex symbol in order for men to want to "make love" to them?

Why do men need to be intelligent, tall, strong, handsome, have stable jobs, make decent money and own a good pair of shoes — all symbols of the ability to earn/achieve status — to stand the best chance of getting a woman to "make love" to them?

In fact, for some women status is so important that just implicit signs of it, like confidence or being a "bad boy", can land a man in her bed since for most of evolution only those with high status had something to be confident about and the luxury of behaving badly toward others.

So why, if sex really just requires a penis and a vagina, is all this stuff required before one agrees to "make love" to another person?

Well, perhaps just as a penis still ejaculates each time during sex and doesn't come with a "just for pleasure" non-ejaculate option, or a vagina bleeds because it needs to get rid of an old egg and not because the woman doesn't want to "make love", sex is simply an act of biology for the purpose of having babies. A biology that comes with rules of engagement since for millions of years men had to compete against one another for resources, which earned them status, just for the privilege of mating with a woman, and resources were exactly what a woman needed to support her and her offspring. And the better that woman was able to show physical signs of being able to produce many healthy babies, the happier men were to compete.

While today's economy allows women to support themselves and condoms allow the pleasure of having sex without the results of it, as long as getting to sex is fraught with primitive requirements of engagement, I'm not sure why people say they are "making love".

They're just trying to make babies or simply simulate the act.

"MONEY'S THE ROOT OF ALL EVIL"

No, it isn't. Money's a means to an end, so how can that be?

Therefore, what's at the end of it is the root of all evil.

Evil people such as robbers, heads of corporations and political leaders, even, don't lie, cheat, steal or harm others because they need to put food on the table or pay the hydro bill. No, they do so because they want lots of money so they can buy stuff in excess, like fast cars or massive homes, or to gain power over others — essentially, all for more status.

So is status the root of all evil?

Well, in a somewhat shoddy attempt at deductive reasoning, a good question to ask yourself is: "Who isn't interested in status?"

Looking at the types of people that fill the retail malls and purchase brand name, fashionable, high-end items, they're usually people in their teens to early fifties, the very same demographic advertisers of status-driven items use and target in their campaigns.

If you take a look at a graph of those who use social media most frequently (home of the "status update"), the most active users are in their mid-twenties, with a precipitous drop on the far ends of the curve.

It would appear by these measures that kids and seniors have the least interest in status.

The next logical question would be, "Who's not evil?"

Well, an evil person, despite what some refer to as "psychopathic charm", is not typically your nicest, happiest, most satisfied person. In fact, they're assholes who are often aggressive and belittle others in an attempt to build themselves up, which again is all about social status.

Interestingly, if one Googles "life's happiness chart", a graph will show a U-shaped curve of the average person's level of satisfaction throughout their lifetime, showing how we start life really happy, dip into unhappiness in our late thirties and stay there until about our early fifties, by which time people's happiness starts to incline quite sharply.

Once again, kids and seniors are among the happiest and most satisfied of all people.

Kids are also naturally more forgiving, have less social biases or racial stereotypes and are extremely open and friendly. And seniors are notorious for being laid-back and very generous. While both can be very difficult, they're not typically considered assholes since their difficult behaviors are not those that attempt to put others down.

In fact, even the biggest of assholes, as you might have observed of the ones in your own life, once they start to age, mellow out and become happier.

Now, one could disregard the whole social media chart thingy since kids can't use a computer and seniors likely have no friends left alive to Facebook with. And one can definitely build the argument that both kids and seniors aren't burdened with the stress and responsibility of work or raising a family, which is likely why kids are happier, and as we age we calm down.

But as the famous author Kingsley Amis put it when at seventy he started to lose his libido: "Thank god! Now I realized I've been chained to an idiot for the last sixty years of my life."

Ah-ha.

Yet another thing kids and seniors don't share with anyone else, as neither can have, or has very little interest in sex.

When you take away the need for sex, much like the neutered family dog, you become less aggressive, calmer, friendlier and lose much of the drive to be an asshole doing bad things to compete for resources such as money.

Money's just a means to getting more status, but status is the means by which we get more sex.

Therefore, money's not the root of all evil.

The need to have sex is.

"IT'S BETTER TO GIVE THAN RECEIVE"

You can't upset an altruist, you know?

That is anyone who enjoys giving, doing so without looking to receive because such an act is a one-way transaction, thereby making it impossible to offend, frustrate, annoy, disappoint or sadden such a person.

For example, an altruist could kindly hold open a door for you, let you merge into traffic and wouldn't even bat an eye should you not at least wave in acknowledgement. They don't give for the attainment of social approval.

An altruist could send you a text or an email, do you a favor, lend you money even, and should you not respond or pay them back, you needn't worry about being unfriended, online or off. Altruists don't give to receive a good standing with those in their social network or to join a new one.

Being related to an altruist would be quite advantageous, for they could feed you, clothe you, care for you when you're sick and wouldn't even say "boo" should you leave them neglected in some senior's home in return. They don't give to ensure the survival of their own genes.

Dating an altruist is fascinating to say the least since they could drone on about how passionate they are about helping others, regaling you with their stories of volunteer work, generous donations and even the time they saved someone's life, and you could simply sit there nodding politely, dismissing it altogether or yawning rudely all the way through.

It'd be no bee in their bonnet. They don't give out of empathy to relieve guilt, or to score a prime spot in some afterlife, or to gain social status, and especially not to impress you so they can get laid.

Can you imagine such a person existing?

Not likely.

For if it's in the design of our genes to survive so we can mate and live on, then it's the design of us to give to receive since it's blatantly obvious no one else can survive for us, and definitely no one else can mate for us.

Only in receiving support from friends, social approval and social status can we receive a mate with whom we can procreate, thus receiving immortality in the process by way of our genes.

Altruism, therefore, is yet just another survival mechanism we use — be it baked into one's personality or by faking it — to get what we want by playing the "good guy" strategy, making us look like good citizens, good friends, good people to hire and the best catch to mate with.

Masking our selfishness through selflessness, that's what's really better about giving.

"THANK GOD"

For what? God created us to sin.

The Bible, of course, tells you a different story. In the book of Genesis it claims sin originated in the Garden of Eden when Satan came in as a serpent, convincing Adam and Eve to eat a forbidden apple, which got them kicked out of the garden, causing all of humanity to fall from a state of grace and into a life of cruel, harsh sin and repentance.

Talk about one bad apple spoiling the bunch.

But the story neglects to make mention of any forbidden bananas, because it just so happens that apes habitually commit the very same sins we humans do.

Apes such as chimpanzees and baboons are extremely wrathful, attacking and raping one another, also killing and cannibalizing apes from neighboring groups that encroach on their territory.

When it comes to lust, bonobos take the cake as they have enough sex to make a porn star blush. To them, sex is a social greeting, no different than our human handshake.

Monkeys are famous for being greedy, gluttonous and even slothful, as anyone who's ever visited a monkey forest reserve can attest. They'll steal the food right out of your hand, often eating themselves sick then lazing around until more visitors come along for the pickings.

And as far as envy goes, search capuchin monkeys reject unequal pay on YouTube to see how one experiment showed that when one capuchin was given the preferred grape reward while the other was given the less desired cucumber, the slighted capuchin not only refused to eat his reward but took the cucumber and threw it defiantly back in the experimenter's face.

Nowhere in the Bible does it talk about how apes, along with many other animals, for that matter, got punted out of the Garden of Eden for sinning as well.

There is, however, another story of the origin of sin, one that comes from the book of biology. A book that explains how over the course of millions of years we actually slowly evolved from the above-mentioned apes.

Evolution is the changes to an organism's genetics over successive generations. The genes are an organism's inherited traits, which act as the organism's instructions booklet. And the main instruction for an organism is that it replicate its genes (which in animals requires them to mate) so that it can pass on copies of its genes to future generations, thus furthering the process of evolution.

However, since an organism needs resources to survive and mates to propagate its own genes — of which both are in limited supply and in high demand — what appears to be sin is nothing more than survival tactics coded into our genes, embedding in us the instructions for how to compete for those resources and mates.

So what looks like lust is just our instruction to mate as much as we can with the most desirable mates we can find. What appears to be wrath is just our instruction to fuel our bodies to attack and defend against others for those resources and mates. Sloth is our instruction to conserve energy in times of scarcity. Gluttony and greed are instructions to take as many resources as we can in order to survive a scarcity. And envy is the instruction that neutralizes another person's greediness.

Those people, of course, with the genes best fit for survival will thrive, while the rest suffer and die off.

And so if any of this is true — or at least is more believable than talking serpents and bad apples — why then would anyone want to thank, pray to, worship or even believe in a god who by creating our genes created us to sin?

"IT'S GOOD FOR THE SOUL..."

... to show those wealthier than you just how spiritual you are.

Isn't that what all this spirituality stuff is all about anyway?

Those really into all that yoga, meditation, how to become enlightened self-help books and the rest of that spiritual stuff would absolutely disagree. They'd tell you that learning to live in the moment and letting go of your attachment to people and things is how one finds balance in this crazy, ego-driven world.

And they'd be right. All of nature strives for balance since we clearly don't like to be too hot or cold, too hungry or full, too busy or have nothing to do.

But we also don't like to go too long without material possessions, to fail too much at our relationships or to fail too much in our careers either.

That's why nature is about competition as well.

What better way for those who can no longer compete against their peers, and the rest of those in society that are happily married, happy at with their jobs and get to enjoy the finer things in life — essentially, the more materially rich — than to turn spiritual and compete by being the very thing that opposes it all: more spiritually rich.

Spirituality is the great equalizer in life's natural competition for resources, status and mates. That's why it's so appealing to the losers in life and why so many turn to it.

After all, it's awfully coincidental that virtually no one turns spiritual when things are going their way and they're getting what they want. Only when people become ill or lose their job or partner (as many did in the last recession) do you see an uptick in church attendance, meditation retreat participation and self-help book section sales, which have lately turned spirituality into a multi-billion-dollar industry. Ironically, the very materialism it opposes.

It would appear that what's really good for the soul is becoming spiritual and adding yet another chandelier to one's ego.

"HAPPINESS COMES FROM WITHIN"

To believe such a thing means you're either spiritual or have just swallowed an antidepressant.

The former is the kind of person who keeps perpetuating this false belief. As the thinking goes, it's our attachment to external rewards (people, material things and such) that cause all our misery, because once we lose them our happiness increases.

So instead, look inward at your true self, your inner being, spirit, soul, god essence, what have you, and there you'll find an endless reservoir of happiness to tap into.

Sounds all well and good until you realize the hypocrisy of it all.

For spiritual people are buyers of external happiness as well. No one, but absolutely no one, would ever buy into the idea of a spirit, soul or god without also being sold the heaven or reincarnation feature as well, both of which are outside of us.

What's really going on is not a look inward but rather a look toward a reward that comes after life. This feeling artificially boosts reward chemicals (such as dopamine), making the believer feel hopeful and excited.

This makes him no different to the person who relies on antidepressants for his happiness, which artificially boosts his feel-good brain chemicals in lieu of what causes many to become depressed: a lack of or absence of life's natural external rewards.

Things like fresh food, a comfortable place to sleep, a decent income, authentic social connection, social status, sex and/or children... these are the things that bring us happiness. And they're all external.

In fact, if you were to proclaim, "I'm just happy to be alive," then you would have external atmosphere and oxygen to thank for that as well.

For if you take away from a person the above-mentioned list (minus the air) and confine her in a room all by herself, you now have what is prison's harshest of punishments.

If happiness truly came from within, you could sentence someone to solitary confinement and he'd find a way to have the time of his life in there. Which, of course, he can't.

Happiness doesn't come from within, because the things we need to meet our needs are not within us. They're outside of us. They're external.

Therefore, happiness comes from without.

"IT'S WHAT'S INSIDE THAT COUNTS"

Then why is "What do you do?" the second most asked social question in the world?

The answer — our jobs — is clearly external.

You'd think it'd be: "What's your IQ?" or "What are your passions in life?" if it were really about what's on the inside. But no, we're so curious to find out what others do that we don't even need to be at a proper social gathering to ask. A dispute in public with a stranger will do just fine for a "Who the hell are you?" or if someone's really agitated, "Do you know who I am?"

No one's expecting to hear "Jeff" or "Sally" in return.

That's the answer to the first social question: "What's your name?" — and we often forget anyway, only to start referring to a person as "the waitress chick" or "that lawyer guy".

This shouldn't come as a surprise. Asking what a person does is how we determine their value and worth within society because we're a social species in which a person's social role dictates how much — or little — power and influence they have over others.

When one hears "I'm a doctor", "lawyer", or "iPhone inventor", we can't help but immediately think of this person as smart, talented and hardworking, all (for the most part) genetically gifted traits. We afford him the respect he deserves and continue the conversation with interest.

Conversely, when we hear "I flip hamburgers", "pour lattes", or "assemble iPhones" we think dumb, unambitious and lazy, also (for the most part) because of one's genetic traits. This person's lucky if we dignify his existence with any further response.

It's what's on the outside that's what really counts (like one's job) since that's what we use to determine what's on the inside. As for most of evolution, it was our insides — our genes — that determined our social roles in life, along with many of our successes and failures.

There is one slight problem nowadays with all this.

There is no doctor gene, lawyer gene, iPhone inventor gene, yoga instructor gene or "in between jobs" gene either. There are no genes for our modern jobs, only ones that make some better suited for them than others. And it's not like everyone's in the right job for them anyway.

But even if they were, our salaries would be either a gross over-exaggeration or under-appreciation of a person's true value since no one's genes are worth a million dollars, or worse, nothing per year, which many are currently making.

In fact, you could legitimately be one of the smartest, most talented and hardest working people around. But thanks to our modern economy, as long as your answer to "What do you do?" is something along the lines of, "Well, I work at the Apple Store," as far as many are concerned, unfortunately, your inside is still only worth what someone on the outside is willing to pay you.

"DON'T BE SO EMOTIONAL"

Do you have to think your way into being hungry, tired or wanting sex?

No.

Our needs that need satisfying automatically create feelings/emotions, and we start thinking about how we can fulfill them.

And is there anything we do, no matter how logical, that doesn't end in a need?

No.

We go to work and strategize our way through reports, meetings and emails so we can keep our jobs. This lets us buy our food and pay our rent.

Food and shelter are needs.

We calculate our taxes, making sure we pay the government, which keeps us from getting audited so we don't potentially get thrown in jail. This allows us to keep our freedom.

Freedom is a need.

We'll read the morning paper so we can satisfy our curiosity about the world and rationally discuss world events around the water cooler. This connects us with our colleagues.

Social connection is a need, as is satisfying our curiosity.

The highly logical mathematician or scientist thinks her way to solving problems so she can make the next great discovery and become recognized as a leading expert. This helps her sell a lot of books and gets her invited to lecture at the next TED conference.

Status is a need.

The med student studies to become a successful doctor so he can marry the woman of his dreams, buy a nice home and make very smart babies with her.

Procreation and parental investment are needs.

One can dispute the sequence of events or the motivations behind them. But what one can't argue against is that anything we do doesn't ultimately satisfy one of our basic needs, be it food, shelter, comfort, safety, freedom, understanding, social connection, social status and mating.

And so once we satisfy them, do we still think?

Do we think about food once we've eaten, think about sleep when we're well rested, think about booking a trip when we're relaxing on the beach at an island resort or think about finding a date when we're standing at the altar with the partner of our dreams?

No again.

If all your needs were met at this very moment, you'd have nothing to think about. And naturally you can't use logic without thinking.

It may be logic that leads us to reason. But it's our needs — which are emotional — that always start every logical thought and end it.

Humanity just seems like a logical species because we live in a world that's evolved from having us go and pick our food off a tree to having to go to school so we can qualify for a job so we can earn a paycheck, which we cash at the bank, taking the money to the grocery store so we can then finally pick our food off a shelf and buy it.

Essentially, our world has us going up our asses to brush our teeth on every need we must meet.

And everything we do is to meet a need, thus making everything we do emotional.

"IF I WERE YOU I'D..."

... do exactly the same thing.

For if you were me, you'd know that we don't have much free will anyway.

The annoying habit people have of telling us what they'd do in our lives if they were us is rather ridiculous because it assumes we're fully in control of our lives, free to decide and choose as we wish.

But if that were true, why then do we choose to cry, lose our temper, get stressed out, say things we know we'll regret later, overeat, suffer buyer's remorse, continue to smoke and drink even though we want to quit, get into bad relationships or stay in them long past their due — or choose to do just about anything else that's clearly unwanted or detrimental to our lives?

I mean, who in their free-willed mind thinks In about five minutes from now I'm going to say hurtful things I don't mean or For the next eight months, I'm going to continually think about someone I'd soon rather forget?

No one would.

You could argue that the above are more a matter of willpower, rather than free will. But free will implies that there's a choice, and if the only thoughts in your mind are, Hey, you asshole during an argument, or Sure, I'll take some cheesecake, even though you're on a diet — should no alternative thoughts occur (which is often the case), then what choice is there?

None.

We are not free to choose that which does not occur. And no amount of asking ourselves What was I thinking? changes the fact that we never really had a choice to make in the first place.

In fact, we're not even the ones making our choices because we're not the ones thinking. Our thoughts think us, which means our choices make us.

Science has known this since the seventies, when a scientist named Benjamin Libet (one of the pioneering experts in the field of human consciousness) revealed, using brain imaging devices on subjects who were asked to voluntarily move their hand while watching a clock to mark their intent to move, that activity in the brain signaled the hand to move up to half a second before the subjects were even aware of their intention to move it.

Later experiments by other scientists using more advanced brain scanning machines were able to predict the choice between two options a subject was asked to make, this time even seconds earlier.

Now, where's the free will in a brain that thinks the thoughts that make the choices we choose, even before we know it ourselves?

Certainly not as free as most who think they're thinking their own thoughts would like to think.

Just like the circulation of our blood or the beating of our hearts, our thoughts are no different in that they're automatically thinking and making choices for us — and with good cause. For if we had to author every thought, business meetings would take days instead of hours, we'd never make it alive walking across a busy street or have survived past the stone ages since back then, instantaneous decisions meant life or death.

We also have no control over what thoughts our minds make us think. Sure, we can be conscious of our thoughts and intentionally choose others that arise, but those very same brain imaging devices in the above experiments have been used to calculate that we think well in excess of over 90,000 thoughts a day. That's over a thought every second!

Unless you're aware of all your thoughts, which of course is impossible, what, other than the thoughts you're not aware of, is responsible for the choices you make?

Not the free-willed self you think you are when you are choosing.

Now, if at this point you wish to exercise your freedom by saying something to the effect of, "I can choose to keep reading or close this book and throw it in the trash. See, I'm free to choose," it'd only be because I challenged your sense of freedom in the first place, which would make me the cause of your choosing — not you.

It's as if you were to read the following words: dirt, wash and clean, then consciously complete the following:

S O __ P?

You probably filled in the blank to spell SOAP instead of SOUP, a word you'd likely have chosen to spell had the words you read prior been "hunger, eat and meal" instead.

This is an example of what's called "priming". Just as the ads we see influence our next purchase, Hollywood rom-coms alter the way we see our partners when we get home, a bad mood in the morning can affect choices we make late in the day or the events of our childhood still shape our behaviors well into adulthood, prior causes and conditions influence every decision we make.

If you are not aware of the background causes and influences that shape your decisions, then you don't know why you are choosing. And your thinking you have freely chosen is akin to a guy saying he chose to have an erection because he needed to point the attractive blonde in the right direction.

We think we're freely choosing our conditions when in actuality our conditions have already chosen for us.

So clearly, we don't have 100% free will.

Which then begs the question, How free are we?

Well, while we can of course gain experience, learn new things and become more aware of our thoughts — all of which give us more choices and the ability to choose them — free will, by definition, is the ability to choose unconstrained and of one's own volition.

We already know that many of our choices are not the result of our intentions, but intentions that arise within us. But much like puppets, where are we not constrained by laws, cultural rules and norms, and especially by our own biology? Like every other animal on this planet that's constrained by the need to survive, is there ever a choice we could possibly make that doesn't ultimately serve to satisfy one of our needs?

You'd be hard-pressed to come up with even a few — if any.

It appears free will is really just an illusion; we're less the free-choosing people we think we are and more like puppets that can't cut our strings.

And so, given all that, how can a completely different person, with a completely different set of experiences and information, living within a completely different environment, tell you what they'd do if they were you, when they don't even have the free will to choose what to do for themselves?

They can't, for if they were you, they'd be doing exactly the same thing.

"HONESTY'S THE BEST POLICY"

If so, wouldn't people prefer talking to texting?

Well, not if they wanted to ignore you, making you believe they're too busy, when in fact they just don't think you're important enough to dignify with a response.

Rest assured, if it were their favorite celebrity messaging them they'd respond faster than a New York minute.

Technology makes such a lie easy, as it does many others. Perhaps we're using it so much because it allows us to lie.

Maybe we're just like every other animal that uses deceit to survive, such as possums that play dead, birds that feign broken wings to draw predators away from their young, fish that have eye markings on their tails to avoid getting attacked from behind and non-poisonous butterflies that have poisonous coloring.

In fact, even things as small as parasites and bacteria use deception to trick our immune system into letting them into our bodies so they can run their course.

But best of all are apes. Out of all the wild animals, they perhaps lie the most often, as a language study at Stanford University showed when a psychology professor named Penny Patterson taught a gorilla named Koko sign language.

Not long after learning how to sign, Koko was one day left in a room by herself with a potted plant she was specifically told not to eat. But when Penny came back, the plant was gone. And when she asked Koko what happened to the plant, Koko simply signed that another researcher on the project ate it.

But even after Penny corrected Koko, informing her that humans don't eat such plants, only gorillas do, Koko just responded with "Some other gorilla ate it."

Further studies on non-human primates showed that one of the very first things apes do when they learn sign language is start lying with it.

Gee, now isn't that what we humans do as soon as we get a new communication tool?

I mean, where are all the "Unemployed for one year" anniversary updates on LinkedIn, or all the selfies of people being sad or lonely on Instagram, or pictures of people looking at pictures of people on Facebook? Such information would be a more honest account of many people's real lives.

And why are there so many dating profiles of women with high-angled, over-filtered photos, or of men wearing hats or with their heads cropped from the top up? It couldn't be because women need to look slimmer and more attractive and men less bald in order to get a date, could it?

It would appear we are texting, emailing, social media'ing and online dating less to communicate and connect with others but more to edit and sanitize our lives for them, portraying only the "best of" versions of ourselves while hiding away the flaws.

We're using technology to lie.

The truth of the matter is we're just like Koko, along with every other animal in nature that lies in order to survive.

If honesty were truly the best policy, we wouldn't survive more than five minutes at our jobs, in our relationships or in society because our bosses would instantly find out how big of an idiot we think they are, our partners would learn how much they disappoint us or how much we've cheated, and every car horn would go, "Get the fuck out of my way" instead of "beep".

All our new communication tools not only make it all the more easy to lie, but our preference for and overuse of deceit over face-to-face communication is a real testament to just how much lying is our real policy.

Not our honesty.

"DON'T BE AN ASSHOLE"

Do we call people who are giving us what we want names?

No.

When someone calls another person an asshole, is she not doing so because she feels respect, dignity and fairness are being withheld from her?

Isn't a controlling person someone who withholds freedom and autonomy from others?

Don't manipulators withhold honesty and straightforwardness?

And what's a narcissist but a person who withholds attention from others, keeping it all for his or her self?

Then there's idiots, losers, douchebags, all the people who won't do things in an intelligent, appropriate and courteous manner.

The names others call us are all because someone is keeping something from us. They are all in some way synonymous with or derivatives of selfishness.

Given that we're all inherently selfish, right down to our genes, how can others call us something that they are not?

They can't.

But people are blind to this fact because our brains selfishly hide this truth from our selves. They do this by taking much of the unpleasant truth in life, such as when people point out how selfishly we're behaving, and quickly hide them out of sight in the back of our minds, deep in our subconscious, while they keep many of the lies that work in our favor up front.

Our brain does this because at the end of the day it is nothing more than a survival machine, designed to serve and protect us. In burying truths in the subconscious and keeping lies up front, it makes lying to others so we can selfishly get what we want from them easier since we don't have to cut through a layer of truth. But just as beneficially, it protects us from ourselves because it would seem there is no survival advantage gained from knowing how flawed we are. This burying of harsh truths under the rug only serves to regulate our self-esteem and protect our ego.

This psychological processing creates the defence mechanisms people use to excuse their way through life. You know, like how a highly successful person won't admit "I just got lucky", a rejected dater will never say, "Oh well, it's my loss anyway", how in the face of scientific evidence of evolution a religious person will never think, Maybe there is no god, or anyone confessing, "You know, I am a real asshole."

Of those, people definitely don't want to know how flawed their personality is. And yet you could never call someone something without having firsthand experience of being it yourself.

It's not as if we carry in our back pocket a personality deficiencies dictionary. To call someone something you're not would be just like using a word you don't understand. You wouldn't know what you are talking about.

But one doesn't need a scientific understanding of the brain to see this. We can see it for ourselves every time someone floods the conscious part of their brain with alcohol or shuts it down with anger, for out their mouths fly all the nasty truths of what they really think of others. But pay close enough attention to others — especially to a friend, family member or even a date — and you'll see that everything they complain about most in others is everything they are themselves. Always.

Those who call other people controlling are controlling.

Manipulators always call others manipulators.

Stupid people, losers, douchebags always call others stupid, losers and douchebags.

And anyone who calls someone else an asshole is an asshole.

# WORK
"SUCCESS TAKES HARD WORK"

Then why do people badmouth their bosses or trash celebrities?

Wouldn't someone have to be out of his mind to put down a person who, if success takes hard work, is obviously more successful and thus harder-working and deserving of respect?

And if success takes hard work, why then do people always say, "It's not what you know, but who"?

Perhaps it's because clearly one cannot become a successful lawyer, banker, advertising executive or any other kind of high-earning success story simply by working hard in a vacuum. Someone first needs to give them the opportunity to work hard by letting them in the door.

If those opportunities are likely to go to people who are related, friends, friends of friends, people from the same alma mater, or by referral — which they often do, then no matter how hard a person works, he simply won't get the opportunity to work hard to become a success.

Why, if success takes hard work, do we always hear about being at the "Right place at the right time"?

Maybe it's due to timing that only a few who work really hard on their guitar playing and singing and take to YouTube are picked up by some music industry mogul and turned into successful celebrities overnight, instead of the other millions that try.

Same goes for the handful of dot-com start-up owners who — with similar ideas and technologies to the others — were able to become multi-billionaires, while the others had to go back to their day jobs.

Timing is everything since no doubt the dot-com billionaires of today would not be the successes they are had they been born fifty years earlier. Same goes for today's music moguls, rap stars and pro athletes, had they been born only a hundred years before that.

We don't live in the stone ages anymore, when success was primarily a result of hard work; back then success was pretty much a series of single linear events, like catching the night's meal, and the harder one worked at it, the more likely one was to succeed.

In today's world the road to success is a long and winding one with many complicated twists and turns, and even when you work hard to time things right, they still might not work out as planned.

Like the creators of the grossly successful search engine Google, for example. They thought the right time to sell their technology was when Google was still a small start-up, for the price of just under a million dollars. Had the company they were trying to sell to not refused their offer, the owners of Google would not be the multi-billionaires they are today.

Now don't get me wrong, short of being born into wealth it's extremely hard to become a success without working hard. But we could say everyone works hard.

The thirty-year-old sitting on his parents' couch playing video games all day long is quite possibly working just as hard as the dot-com millionaire. It's just that one is working very hard at making money while the other is trying to ward off anxiety and depression. It's quite likely the one making millions had the good fortune of being in the right place at the right time or knowing the right people, both of which has nothing to do with one's hard work but rather luck.

In a capitalist economy, in which there are nowhere nearly enough "successful" jobs to go around, it's luck, far more than hard work, that truly determines success.

To become successful in this era, you need to get very lucky.

Anyone who believes otherwise, that success is still the result of hard work, must by implication believe the opposite — that failure is a lack of hard work and thus somewhat deserved.

Best of luck trying to convince those who were born into poverty, with an intellectual impairment, a chronic illness or while on the road to success lost their job to a recession, to automation, to outsourcing or had a partner who bankrupted them financially (or even emotionally) along the way.

And even better luck — short of being a multi-millionaire or celebrity — answering the question, "Why didn't you work harder?"

"DO WHAT YOU LOVE"

Who, everyone?

Who's going to flip the burgers, pour the lattes, sweep the streets, assemble the iPhones or do the rest of the jobs people hate that make our capitalist economies go round?

Who are the many that must slave for the profits of a few?

Surely there's nothing to love about slavery, and slavery is exactly what employment is; no other animal on this planet has to apply for work or worry about being fired. They live as they are born: free. Whereas anyone who must depend on another person for his livelihood is, in effect, a slave.

The Jews in Egypt knew this, as well as Africans in colonial times and peasants in the feudal system. In fact, prior to the 18th century, most people viewed work as a rather unpleasant necessity of life, not something that was supposed to be enjoyed.

Only after the start of industrial capitalism — ironically — did people's attitudes toward work start to change, much in part because of the media and education system leading people to believe they should find work that fulfills them, makes them happy and that they'll love.

The irony is that everyone was told this, yet capitalism is a system that could never survive if everyone did what he or she loved.

So why bother with such inspirational advice in the first place?

Well, it would seem people are naïve.

They're naïve enough to believe we can all do what we love, when only a privileged few can truly benefit from capitalism. So naïve, in fact, that millions agree to work for zero security and benefits, for insanely long hours while being exploited as unpaid interns, all for the opportunity to work in an industry they love, such as fashion, the arts and media, to name a few, just so they can say they do what they love.

They trade profits for passion while those at the top for whom they work are the ones loving every minute of it.

They're the ones who really get to do what they love. The owners of the companies enjoy freedom, autonomy, and, of course, profits, gained from the labor of those they exploit.

They are people like the late Steve Jobs, someone who really got to do what he loved, so much so, in fact, that he made it the centerpiece of a commencement speech advising Stanford University's graduating class of 2005 to do the same.

A speech delivered to those truly privileged enough to reap the benefits of capitalism, for which he received a standing ovation — but one he could never go and give to his own factory workers slaving away in China assembling his iPhones since they'd stand up and walk right out.

"THE CREAM RISES TO THE TOP"

We wear seat belts when we drive, use advisors when we invest and condoms when we sleep with strangers, don't we?

Of course. Where there's risk, we seek safety.

So if we consider the cream of the crop, a person of high intelligence, in a highly unstable economy where jobs are scarce and no one's secure — why would anyone hire or promote such a person?

Intelligent people are competent, curious, independent thinkers and often very ambitious, which makes them a risk since they're a threat to the position of any hiring manager or a CEO's ego.

If the cream of the crop is at all creative, that's even riskier.

Creativity is an act of association wherein a person takes two common things and puts them together in very uncommon ways to solve a problem, much like the person who saw a rock rolling down a hill and thought "Wheel!"

New ideas, unfortunately, fail more often than they succeed because they're too new to come with a proven record of success, or too original for anything to compare them to. This is a risk the average person who is too closed-minded to think outside the box is willing to take.

Henry Ford summed these people up best when he was quoted as saying, "Had I asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses."

So in an economy in which safety, not risk, is what many companies want, why would the cream rise to the top in the corporate world?

In this economically unstable time, it's generally the people who fly below the radar, don't make waves, question or challenge the status quo that rise to the top.

They're lemmings, people who can't think for themselves and are happy to blindly follow the company and its culture.

They're ass kissers, people who suck up to the boss, making him or her feel like he or she is the smartest and most creative.

Companies pay recruiters handsomely to find them fart-catchers, people who will follow closely behind the ass of the boss they kiss, running with every idea he passes their way.

This is the cream that the corporate world lets rise to the top.

"THINGS WILL TURN AROUND"

Don't people get away with what you let them?

Kids will eat as much candy as they can take, people speed when they think no cops are looking and adulterers keep cheating until they get caught.

It's just human nature to keep taking while the getting's good.

So why then would heads of corporations stop outsourcing to third world countries for cheaper labor? Why would they start paying their employees what they're worth? Why would they stop disbanding unions and taking away pensions and continue to offer costly benefits and severances when they can hire short-term contract workers or interns for free?

Why would government officials, who are in cahoots with corporations, force them to change the policies that allow them to do the things they're doing, which is just driving a bigger wedge between the haves and the have-nots?

Unless human nature changes, the 1% is going to continue to get richer and the 99% — much poorer.

We're now starting to reach a level of wealth disparity that's very similar to that of pre-industrial times, when the nobility (kings, lords and other aristocrats that made up 1% of the population) owned 99% of the wealth, while everyone else (the peasantry) slaved away for next to nothing.

And what happened next?

The American Revolution, the French Revolution, the Russian Revolution — all filled with civil unrest, public chaos, violence and death.

Here's the other flaw with human nature: we have very short memories. It appears that all the people who, since the last recession of 2008 have been saying, "Things are turning around," despite the continual dissolving of the middle class, forget that every time the middle class disappears a revolution is soon to follow.

So unless human nature changes, which would reverse the trajectory we're currently on economically, we're headed for streets filled with pitchforks and burning wood, not a society in which things are getting better.

"EDUCATION IS THE BEST INVESTMENT"

The best investments are typically the ones nobody's talking about.

So says world famous investor Warren Buffett, anyway, whose contrarian approach to investing suggests getting out when everyone's getting in.

Given the amount of education required, new programs available, advertisements painting the town encouraging degrees and upgrading of skills (which is keeping more people in school longer, or continually sending them back for more), maybe education isn't the best investment after all.

In fact, just asking three basic investing questions might reveal how good an investment a post-secondary education really is.

Like for starters, what's the return on investment?

School programs are getting longer, books and tuition are getting more expensive, yet salaries are stagnant or shrinking. So a person is unlikely to make much profit, let alone pay back their loan.

Second, what's the risk?

Students are heading into an increasingly unstable and rapidly changing economy in which jobs are scarce, industries are overcrowded, positions are being outsourced, automated or are becoming non-existent since by the time many people graduate their skills are no longer in demand or are on their way to becoming obsolete.

Finally, does one even understand the investment?

Well, it's hard to understand why, when this thing called the "Internet" is giving away as much if not more information than what's in most college textbooks, school is getting more expensive, not less.

University is also, for the most part, just an act of memorization, with students cramming for exams then regurgitating the information back out onto a test. That's not real learning. Anyone who's been employed can tell you that learning starts on the job. I'm not entirely sure what the point of attending school is in the first place.

Most confusing of all is that many students need to be dragged out of bed to go to school by their parents, threatened to do their homework and grounded for all the classes they skip. It appears that kids hate school, which is fascinating considering that no other species of animal hates to learn.

In fact, every other animal on this planet is eager to learn how to do the things it needs to survive because that's what gets it rewards.

But humans, when it comes to school, not so much.

None of this makes any good sense, except to prove that the education system is severely flawed.

That, and it appears it's just not that good an investment after all.

# RELATIONSHIPS
"ONCE A CHEATER, ALWAYS A CHEATER"

So why then does the honeymoon period of a relationship only last about a year, whether you are a cheater or not?

Why is it that after that year, couples typically start fighting, whether one partner is cheating or not?

And why do relationships, on average, end after two or three years, regardless of whether someone cheated or not?

Doesn't it seem rather coincidental that the honeymoon period lasts about the time it takes to make a baby and that people separate after the period in which that baby needs the most parental support?

Well, if people started using the Internet to do some research (rather than to stalk their cheating partners) they would find the answers to these questions, which would also explain why it's not just cheaters who are likely to cheat.

A couple of Google searches easily explains why the honeymoon period of a relationship is so exciting and why your new partner seems so perfect at the start. It's all thanks to our brain's reward chemical (dopamine), which spikes massively at the beginning of the relationship and stays elevated in anticipation of the baby we're designed to produce, while at the same time blinding you to your partner's flaws, which is said to help keep couples mating.

You'll also notice that during that time you can't help but constantly think about and obsess over this person. This is thanks to a decrease in our brain's mood stabilizing chemical (serotonin). Typically low in people with depression and obsessive-compulsive disorder, the drop in serotonin in this situation is believed to keep us narrowly focused on one person so that we don't waste our energy and resources elsewhere.

And finally, that warm and fuzzy feeling you get when cuddling — especially after sex — is all because of spikes of our brain's attachment chemical (oxytocin). It's designed not only to bond couples but dulls our natural aggressive tendencies towards one another, as many who've used a pick-up line on a reluctant stranger can attest.

But then after about a year the excitement starts to wane and you find yourself obsessing less about your partner and more over all their annoying flaws you're just now starting to see, which naturally leads to arguments.

What's happened is that our brains seem to give us just enough time — approximately six months to a year — to produce a baby. Then, baby or not, those dopamine and serotonin levels go back to normal, which decreases the excitement while lessening the obsessing, leaving only oxytocin to act as a glue keeping couples together for the raising of that baby — should it have arrived.

Often not too long after that people start to crave the excitement that their current partner can no longer provide but only a new one can bring, and at that point couples start breaking up.

Given the biology of it all, it would appear that we're not designed for lifelong commitment but rather to simply come together for the purpose of producing offspring then moving on to do it all over again. If that's the case, it would also suggest it's not just those who cheat, but perhaps none of us are really designed for monogamy.

Just a couple more Google searches can confirm that this is exactly the case, as countless pages will come up showing how over 50% of people admit to cheating and only 3% of all animals are monogamous — and we're not one of them. Out of all 1,154 different cultures on this planet, only 100 practice monogamy.

We only seem monogamous because the bulk of the population is made up of the minority cultures and religions that believe we're supposed to be faithful and have conditioned us to be so.

Monogamy is just something we practice, with women doing it better than men, some men better than others. And a Google search can explain why that is as well.

But one shouldn't need the Internet to come to the common sense conclusion that if we're really just here to propagate our genes, and if relationships are a means to that end, then clearly our genes benefit far more if we continually seek genetic variety by mating with a different, better person after each offspring, rather than continuing to reproduce with the same mate.

When you look at it from that perspective, the real cheaters aren't the ones having affairs or logging on to dating sites mid-relationship but rather the ones who stay faithful, since they are cheating their own genes out of enhanced survival.

"RELATIONSHIPS ARE BASED ON TRUST"

Why don't we date the most trusted people we know — like our parents, siblings or close cousins?

Because they're a genetic mismatch and our genes have no interest in being copied into a disabled or defective person. Just the thought of being romantic with a relative should make one's stomach turn.

That's what typically happens when we try to get romantic with anyone who's a poor genetic fit or doesn't have what's called "chemistry". We find them physically unappealing, can't stand the way they kiss, dislike the sound of their voice and even the way they smell.

In fact, women going through couples therapy will often complain, "I can't stand the way he smells." This is a surefire sign that there never was any chemistry to begin with, and a lack of physical chemistry is one of the main reasons for marital dissatisfaction and cheating.

However, when there is chemistry, both people know instantly within a few seconds of meeting and are soon lusting after each other because they find each other equally very attractive, love the way the other person kisses, enjoy the sound of their voice and like their smell so much, it's as if they could fart in bed and you'd think yourself to be in the air freshener aisle of the grocery store.

That's chemistry!

That's the power of compatible genes since copying our genes with another person who best ensures the survival of our offspring is really what our bodies design us to want and makes chemistry the base of a relationship. Not trust.

Ironically, trust isn't even the next layer up because before we enter into a romantic relationship, we typically have to do this stuff called dating first.

Dating is when two people meet, showing up dressing unlike they normally do or not complaining or bad-mouthing others like they normally would. They avoid topics such as religion, politics and exes, and they definitely don't make any mention of financial troubles, mommy or daddy issues, or, most importantly, mental issues.

Dating is the act of omitting much of the important information one wants to know and really ought to know well before entering a relationship. It's two people showing up like the offline versions of their online Facebook profiles, all nicely edited and sanitized to win over the other person.

In fact, online is where most meet nowadays, a place where men are famous for lying about their height, incomes and lack of hair, while women lie about their age and weight.

So not only are relationships based on chemistry, they most often begin with lies.

Even if you believe that chemistry isn't the be-all and end-all (many people partner with those they're not physically into), it still begins with a lie since no one ever says, "You know, I find the sex quite dreadful here, but let's date anyway."

Now, of course, you can't sustain a relationship without trust. Nor can you without respect, shared values, common goals and interests and even some humor.

But in the beginning, if there's no lust, there's no relationship, no matter how much trust.

"A GOOD MAN IS HARD TO FIND"

No one complains about not being able to find a good video rental store or a complete Encyclopedia Britannica collection, now do they?

Not since the invention of the Internet, they haven't; it gives movies and information away for free, rendering those things extinct.

So what's all the complaining about over men these days?

Have men evolved much past being hunter-gatherers who competed and fought for resources and power (all symbols of status), which the most physically dominant ones won, thus earning the right to mate with the females?

Well, looking at competitive sports participation, violent video game revenues, over a million shirtless selfies posted on dating sites and the way men who don't have to try very hard for sex don't try very hard in their relationships, taking their women for granted, it would appear not all that much.

And have women evolved beyond being the nurturing life-givers who cooked, organized and mended for the tribe, all while raising the children, and the most beautiful, fertile, sexually desirable ones were fought over the most to bear offspring?

Not by the looks of all the food blogs out there, how you always hear of cat ladies and never cat men, or the way women still don't do the asking out on dates, and how the sexiest of them fuel the multi-trillion-dollar porn industry.

Men still seek sex symbols and women status symbols, because for most of human evolution men had to compete for resources and women needed to be provided for and protected while carrying their offspring. In turn, women provided care to the men and raised the offspring.

All that's really evolved is our economy.

Once, the most physically dominant were at the top of society and most valued. Now they are often too aggressive to work anything other than physical, low-status "blue collar" jobs. And that would be men.

Whereas the high-status "white collar" work, which is filled with lots of emailing, meetings and upgrading of skills, along with a multitude of other tasks, caters to those with the best multitasking and communication skills and better capacity to remember them all. This would be women.

While once women didn't work at all, they are now catching up to, or surpassing even, many men in pay.

In today's economy a woman can now get for herself what a man still works hard to earn so he can win her over.

It's almost as if as women going to work and being paid in money is like a man going to work and being paid in sex, which might explain why women, on average, report being happier at work than men.

It definitely explains why a good man is hard to find.

But not because men got worse.

Quite the contrary, in fact. Women have gotten a whole lot better. Thanks to our modern economy, women are still the sex symbols and now the status symbols as well. When a woman can get for herself what she once needed from a man, she simply doesn't need a man as much, rendering even the best of men little more than good sperm donors, arm candy and tightly sealed pickle jar openers.

That is, until something's invented to replace them for that as well.

"DON'T SETTLE"

No one settles on their house keys, you know.

It's not possible. You only get one key, which fits one lock, and there aren't any other options to choose from or other ideas of how a key should be, which prevents you from feeling like you could do better.

But when it comes to dating, unlike fifty years ago, when people's ideas of a partner were more modest (such as finding someone who was healthy, gainfully employed, who loved them), and when their choices were often limited to people their friends set them up with or who their boss just happened to hire, today many are looking for a partner who's going to be their best friend, inspire them and make them a better person, all thanks to lofty ideas set up by Hollywood rom-coms and relationship blogs. And thanks to online dating, you can search through an unlimited selection of singles from which to find such a person.

Now that we have all these ideas and options, we can't help but feel like we can always do better — because we can.

An abundance of choices causes us to maximize our options and minimize our tolerance for settling, because unlike fifty years ago when we could blame the friend or lack of options at the workplace should our partners not work out, when you have a seemingly endless amount of choice, you have only yourself to blame. For you know you could have made a better choice.

Our tolerance for settling becomes even lower because thanks to all this choice, we date more. And the more we date, the more positive experiences we accumulate, the result is we don't ever want to settle for less than that.

Much like not wanting to go back to the mailroom after working in the boardroom, we don't want to be demoted from the great sex one person gave us, the good laughs and friendship brought by another or the five-star treatment of expensive meals and trips yet another allowed us to enjoy.

But of course, the more we date, the more often we break up. Which means a person is accumulating more negative experiences as well.

Just as we won't go back to the restaurant that gave us food poisoning, we won't put up with anyone who slighted us with their temper, lack of ambition, cheating, whatever.

The more we date, the higher we raise the bar of our standards — both for the good and the bad. And it appears to be getting to the point where people's standards are so high, it's as if they're out there on the dating scene looking to "marry up", which means to attract someone who has more to offer than they do. But of course, no one wants to "marry down". That's settling.

These days people don't need to be told "don't settle". The amount of choice makes it so that they almost can't, which might explain why more and more people are living alone and single now than fifty years ago, when there was far less choice.

But for those that do end up settling, the irony is they end up settling even more.

For the more we date, the less one person can meet the standards set by all the others.

"IF SOMEONE LOVES YOU, THEY'LL..."

... do nothing.

Doing something takes a motive, a want. And little do people know that wanting is the opposite of love.

Most people think hate is the opposite of love. But that doesn't make sense because most people also seem to agree that "If you love someone, set them free". And since we don't hold on to people because we hate them but rather out of selfishness, love has a second opposite.

Then there's also a large body of people who would say indifference is actually the opposite of love since science has shown that regions in the brain associated with the state when someone is believed to be "in love" don't light up when they're indifferent.

But this makes no sense either, since indifference is the opposite of hate and selfishness.

However, hate, selfishness, indifference — all share one commonality.

When you hate, it's because you want someone or something to change or leave you the hell alone. When you're selfish, it's because you want more. And when you're indifferent, what's really happening is you have a preference — or a want — for something else. It's like when a homeless person asks for change and you show indifference toward them because you want to keep your money instead.

These are all just forms of wanting. And what's the opposite of wanting?

Acceptance.

So, unless you want to be in love with someone who doesn't accept you or you don't accept in return — since wanting is the opposite of acceptance and thus negates it, it also negates love.

Typically, love is thought to be so much more than just acceptance. Qualities such as honesty, trust, respect, commitment, compassion, forgiveness, peace and joy. But these are all qualities already baked in when one accepts, for to do any of the opposites — lie, disrespect, cheat, hold a grudge, stress — takes wanting.

When you stop to consider how many songs are written about love, how people spend a lifetime looking for it or a lifetime trying to get over it, it would appear that love is everything one wants. Therefore, once you have it, what's left to want?

Nothing.

Unless, of course, your definition of love doesn't include acceptance.

"SOMEONE WILL LOVE YOU FOR WHO YOU ARE"

If people love us for who we are, then why doesn't every person we know and meet love us all the same?

They don't, of course, because some love blondes, others brunettes. Some love free spirits while others love those who are grounded and stable. There are even those who only love Christians or Muslims, while others prefer atheists. And many won't even give you a second look unless you're gainfully employed, are in good physical shape, are fun to be around and have a full head of hair, along with whatever else they have on their checklist of things they want before they fall in love.

And the moment we get fat, boring, bald, become unfaithful or lose our jobs, wouldn't you know it, they dump, unfriend, block, drag us through lengthy divorce proceedings and legal custody battles and even hate us.

Where's the love now?

After all, it's the same person, is it not?

You could argue that they just showed us a different side of themselves. But if love is acceptance, since you can't accept what you don't have but want, it's therefore not people we love but rather what they give us.

It's kind of like how we all loved those candy machines as a kid. We accept the machine because it gives us the candy we crave.

We're all just a means to someone else's end — which is their wants.

Naturally, if this were true then the relationships in which we want less would mean there is more love.

Is it any wonder dogs are called "man's best friend"? All our pets want is for us to walk them, feed them, pet them and let them sleep, and they'll love us until the day they die. Our pets have essentially the same basic needs as humans, but none of the wants. No wonder people feel so much love for their pets.

Then there's our human best friends. What more, other than some company, support, for them to lend an ear and even the occasional dollar, could we want from them? It's no surprise that we are loved by our platonic friends and that our relationships with them last a lifetime.

But as far as our romantic relationships go (and the list of wants we have for them seems to be growing exponentially every day), while the love may be more intense, it's no wonder they are the shortest, often ending in an equal amount of hate. Nor is it any surprise that after a break-up many will look to their friends and think, Too bad I can't date you. If only you weren't unattractive, of the same sex, or gay. Or give up on dating altogether and resign themselves to getting a dog or becoming a "cat lady".

People are always saying "I love you" to each other. But that makes about sense as much as saying "I happy you" or "I sad you", which of course doesn't make sense at all.

You can't give your feelings to others; therefore, you can't love others.

Love is just what we feel.

When others are giving us what we want.

"JUST BECAUSE YOU ARGUE DOESN'T MEAN YOU DON'T LOVE EACH OTHER"

Can you be both happy and depressed at the very same time?

No.

What about feeling stressed out and at peace at the same moment, or trusting someone when you believe they're lying, or looking up while simultaneously thinking down?

No, no and no.

While we can walk and chew gum or drive while listening to music, our brains cannot hold opposing states at the very same moment. In fact, at any given moment we can only focus on one thing and at best must switch our attention rapidly to do what we often refer to as multitasking.

So how then can one argue — which is wanting someone to change whatever it is they're doing — and at the very same time accept it, which is not to want?

We can't. And so if love is acceptance, it's just not possible to love while arguing.

Despite what people married for over fifty years tell you or what romantic sentiments about love are written in a Hallmark card, love is not some everlasting, ongoing emotion that continually runs in the background of our minds.

Love is just like every other feeling; it's a moment-to-moment experience, and we're either in it or we're not. And the moment you find yourself arguing, stressed out or even wanting something, you're the furthest away from this thing we call love.

Now, usually at this point the following questions are asked...

"I love what I do. Are you suggesting that because I want something out of it that I don't?"

"Because I want to improve my life, it means I don't love myself?"

"Am I supposed to say 'yes' to everyone to show I love them?"

"Are you saying that because I want my parent who's ill to get better, it means I don't love them?"

And "Are you telling me that because I want my child to finish their dinner or put on their coat, it means I don't love them either? What are you, crazy?"

No to all.

How "love" became a word people haphazardly use to end a sentence like "Honey, can you bring home some milk? Okay, love you, bye" is a mystery to me. Even more strange is using it as means to guilt others, such as "How could you do this to me? I love you!" which is most frequently heard after someone cheats.

That's not love. And it's not romance either. Animals feel love and they don't stroll around in the woods holding paws.

Love is simply a feeling that you get once you accept. When you want what you have.

So what's there to accept about a life that needs improving? Nothing. It's dissatisfying until then.

What's there to accept about saying "yes" when you'd rather say "no"? Not much. That's irritating to you and boring to the other person.

And what's there to accept about a family member's illness or a child that won't eat or do anything else necessary for its survival? I can't think of anything. They're all situations that are rightfully worrisome, frustrating and very stressful.

So if there's nothing to accept, there's no love.

This of course doesn't mean you don't love the person or yourself. You can't give your love to others, and thus you can't take it away either. Love is simply what you feel once your life's improved, when you say "yes" and mean it, when the person you care for is better and when your kid's face is full of food and her jacket is on as she's heading out the door.

That's it. Everything before is wanting, and wanting is stress.

There are, however, times when on the way to getting what we want, we can and do experience moments of love, as in the case of those who love what they do.

The entrepreneur who plans, the artist who thinks for hours on end about the next big idea or the athlete who trains for years preparing for the big game, all will experience love when the plans are in place, the idea hits them and the training has paid off — and they're working, drawing, writing or playing in a focused stream of consciousness.

They're living in the moment, or what's often referred to as a state of "flow", or in in sports, "being in the zone". Despite their physical activity, their mind is at peace and their effort is joyful.

There's no anxiety, frustration, sadness, anger, boredom, anticipation or even excitement, for that matter. Those, along with every other emotion we feel, come out of a mind that wants.

Love, however, is the only emotion we feel when we don't want.

That's why we want it so much.

And we get it the moment we stop wanting what we don't have and start wanting what we do.

"LOOK ON THE BRIGHT SIDE OF LIFE"

You know, my ex-girlfriends and bosses used to tell me the exact same thing.

Very well, let me tell you about a time I once saw the bright side of life.

It was a warm, sunny summer day and I was out taking a walk in my favorite park close to my home. It's my favorite place, really, because I find it calms the constant ruminating my mind likes to do — especially when it's out of a girlfriend and a job.

So there I was, walking down my usual path when for no particular reason I decided to veer off course and head down by the stream.

As I stood there next to the water, watching as it rippled over the rocks, I remember looking up, and as the sun's rays cut through the trees and hit my eyes, my mind all of a sudden stopped.

No, I wasn't having a stroke or anything like that. My mind had simply stopped thinking, and for a moment it was as if I was one with nature, and everything else around me had never felt more alive.

It was as if the sun shone brighter, the air smelled fresher, the sky was bluer and the grass was greener. And I couldn't have been more at peace and full of joy.

I even distinctly remember saying to myself in that moment, "Ahhhhh... this is what life's all about." And then it was over as my mind started to think again.

I tell this story not because I'm some mental midget that takes "Look on the bright side of life" literally and has me going off to stare at the sun. No, I tell this story because I realized something very profound in that moment.

I saw that when I stopped thinking, I stopped wanting, I stopped feeling any stress, and all that was left to feel was peace and joy. I have also noticed that my mind only seems to do this when it's getting what it wants and is wanting what it has — kind of like other moments in my life, such as when I'm sitting down to my favorite meal, spending time with great friends or that moment after mind-blowingly amazing sex when you're just lying there in bed and it's as if time has stopped and nothing else in the world matters.

I came to realize that day in the park, in that moment, I experienced what we all call "love" truly is. Love is nothing more than what happens when your mind accepts everything as it is. That's it.

As I started to think again, I continued on my walk, and I started to wonder why I experienced that moment when I did, how could I have it again at will, and — most importantly — why moments of true love are so few and far between in life.

Well, I can't be sure why at that exact moment, and not some other, I was able to stop my ruminating and start accepting. I suspect, however, that nature is where we feel most at peace and, well, natural. And I also wasn't sure how to replicate the experience, for if I could I'd still be standing in the park and not sitting here writing this book.

All I did come to realize was this:

I would never have had that moment in the park if someone had told me my whole life that grass was orange, grew sideways and cuts itself.

See, it's bad enough that our society prevents us from properly satisfying so many of our needs. Worse is how it saddles us with all sorts of addictions. And worse still, all the stress, fear, anxiety, anger and depression it causes in us. When you add to that all these idiotic feel-good inspirational quotes and sayings (just like the ones that head the chapters in this book), they do nothing but prevent people from seeing life as it truly is, and thus accepting it.

Only because I was able to fully accept everything in the park that day — the bright sun, the blue sky, the tall trees and the green grass — could I stop thinking about it and simply accept and fall in love with it all.

But when we buy into all the abnormal thinking that's going on out there, it not only prevents us from accepting, it confuses us and fills us with false hope, all of which is stress, the furthest thing from love. What's worse, when the confusion never makes sense and the hope doesn't come through to fruition, anxiety and depression are soon to follow.

It's kind of how it is for the person who can't understand why they're "liked" by all their friends online, but by none offline. Or the poor soul who believes in a soul (or a god) and goes through life anxiously waiting for a miracle that never comes. Or there's the frustrated parent who can't understand why his kids turned out so bad when he's raised them so well. There's also the person who vehemently holds on to the idea that success takes hard work and that she should do what she loves, yet despite her best efforts is still unsuccessful in a dead-end job, and worst of all blames herself.

Conversely, there's the highly materially successful person who doesn't seem to get why his riches leave him unsatisfied. And let's not forget all the singles who don't realize that dating sites are about as useless as an ashtray on a motorcycle and yet blame themselves for being single — not the endless amount of highly narcissistic, mixed up gender role'd people who can't settle thanks to all the options. But perhaps worst of all is all those people who can't for the life of them understand how their partner can tell them "I love you" one day and the very next cheat or walk out on them.

It appears that the road to hell is truly paved with good intentions, or should I say — good quotes.

Thankfully, I don't have this problem. I just so happen to think the opposite of every inspirational quote and saying titling the chapters in this book.

For example, "Get more out of life"? No, thanks. Less is more. Especially when it comes to anything unlimited and artificial.

"It's what's on the inside that counts"? I think not; people clearly judge us by how good or bad our lives are. And so in turn, I simply turn around and judge people not on how they are when things are going good, but by how they are when things are bad.

Besides, it's not like "The cream rises to the top" or "Success takes hard work" anyway. Knowing this allows me to spare myself the unjust respect and praise so many give to those who just got lucky.

"It's better to give than receive"? That's not possible. We're all way too selfish for that. While this makes it hard to get along with others, it makes it very easy to figure out who others are. For as soon as one starts badmouthing — given that all the nasty things one can say are simply just derivatives of selfishness projected onto another — you get to hear them tell you exactly who they really are instead.

"Once a cheater, always a cheater"? Not true. Everyone's got in it them to cheat. And perfect, what better way to know when to move on when they do?

It's not as if "Relationships are based on trust" or "Honesty's the best policy" anyway. But this doesn't stop me from trusting people; I just trust that people will lie.

"Two wrongs don't make a right"? That's wrong. It's carrying the negativity and abuse of others that's not right. So I just send it back out. And while revenge isn't always possible (or legal), civil disobedience is — and more people should do it.

But wouldn't that make the world worse? Well, it doesn't appear that "Things are turning around" now, does it? And you know, I think that's great, because only when things really get bad do people start to wake up and make real changes for the better. As far as I'm concerned, bad news is the new good news.

But wouldn't a worsening world mean we'd all hate each other more?

Well, thankfully, that's not even possible. For if love is only something we feel when others are giving us what we want, then by that same token hate is just what we feel when others are giving us what we don't want.

So that's a relief since there go all sorts of long-standing resentments and grudges, and in their place, compassion and forgiveness. And not because an inspirational quote says so but because since we're far more like mindless machines and much less like the free-willed humans we think we are, I always know that "If I were you..." (or even the biggest of assholes out there) I'd be doing exactly the same thing.

This by no means excuses the bad behavior of others. Mind you, we're not all that responsible for our good behaviors either since a lack of free will cuts both ways.

But to expect anyone to "Share with others", "Be happy for others' success", "Do unto others as you want done to you", "Be grateful" or any of the other feel-good ideas about how people should behave — you'd have to be out of your mind.

For this world has become a highly individualistic and materialistic, grossly overpopulated yet extremely isolating, insanely competitive, non-meritocratic, status-addicted dysfunctional place that always has us wanting more, but never what we have, in effect turning this thing we call "love" into something we only say and rarely ever feel.

So I think it's perfectly normal for people to behave like a bunch of jealous, greedy, narcissistic, deceitful, ungrateful, angry, addictive, anxiously depressed assholes.

Well, everyone except kids and seniors, that is...

And you know... I find thinking this way makes life ever so slightly more acceptable.

That's what I think, anyway.

Don't you?

Well, if not, then perhaps you're one of those few people who've been lucky enough to get all that they want and need in life. And maybe you really enjoy all those quotes and sayings plastered all over your social media newsfeeds.

Well, like they say, "Ignorance is bliss". So by all means continue to "Live. Love. Laugh", "Be true to yourself", "Don't worry, be happy" but most of all: "Be grateful". For you just read a book written by an asshole and now know best how to deal with the ones in your own life.

However, if you've been nodding in agreement with most, if not all of what's written here in this book, then congratulations.

You're of sound mind and someone who thinks quite normally.
> You have just read a book of normal thinking.
> 
> Of course, there's a million more thoughts than just the 39 I've covered here. So if you have any questions, comments, concerns or compliments please feel free to email me at:
> 
> JeremyIan@NormalThinking.com
