Confession

I have a confession to make – I don't much like our species.

Concerning one's choice to be unhappy – part 2

a. This is the second part of my largely unsuccessful attempts to reflect on one's choice of being unhappy.
b. So -far in the previous posting I have suggested to the kind reader that
b1. faced with a crises one may choose to accept one's situation and find a way out of it (arguably through downgrading ones style of life), or to transport the blame (and solution) to third party;
b2. opting for the second choice he/she inevitably chooses to be unhappy (extrapolating important choices to third uninterested party tends to produce that result)
c. There were several suggestions of to why this happened with the ex-workers of Kremikovci, including
c1. cultural explanation suggesting that the ex-workers either have no capacity (should I say habit) to prioritize their expenses, or their expenses are social norm from which they may not escape
c2. psychological explanation underlining the concept of “freedom run”, where people prefer not to take responsibility, because there are afraid of the unexpected results.
d. Anyone with critical viewpoint could argue that I am over simplistic by actually suggesting direct link between unhappiness and expenses
d1. to those readers I would like to point out that the ex-workers demands are monetary – jobs and subsequent salaries, hence in this example the connection is unquestionable
d2. furthermore I am over simplistic
e. Now lets try to answer the question.
e1. the definition of unhappiness in this post does not suggest that individuals can not take certain pleasure – hence I could suggest that all ex-workers are hidden masochists ; though convenient I would pass this possibility.
e2. the cultural explanations also suggest that one strives to be like one's roll model (middle class citizen). This is possible, but the ex-workers were not at the top of the ladder while working, nor is the Bulgarian social landscape so uniformed. Should I remind the poverty of pensioners and the underdeveloped regions? Those are my arguments to suggest that there is no so strong social element to push for the unhappiness choice.
e3. therefore I will look closer in the psychological explanation, to remind they were
e31. non-linear rationality patterns prevent them from realizing the choice hence they can not act on it
e32. they realize a psychological need to be victimized and feel morally superior
e33. “freedom run” where the ex-workers are uncertain what they should do and leave union leaders to take decision, so they would not have to.
f. I will rather promptly dismiss the latter two (e32 and e33), without much of arguments.
f1. the freedom run is important, but the unhappy history of the labour union negotiations and government aid, plus the aggravated financial situation of Kremicovci make me feel much more sceptical about the chance that anyone would trust this could be viable solution (hence does not comply with the choice description in the previous post)
f2. the victimization of the ex-communist factory workers were carried out for about a decade and after all that time one needs to be fed up being morally superior and wishing being on the winning side for once.
g. I am ready to proclaim a winner in the contest of most ridiculous reasons – the non-linear rationalization. Lots of you (and I) though may not be entirely certain what that may mean.
g1. let me start with rationalization – usually it works like that: action A, realized in environment B will lead to result C, where A, B and C are explicitly, coherently and empirically connected in causal line.
g11. naturally miscalculations and wrong expectations may occur, usually due to incorrect valuation of factors (such as human irrationality). However the linear rationality is calculable and omissions are explainable.
g12. however there is an attempt to put the action in its context and predict the outcome, including through considerations about the others' motives and behaviour.
g2. non-linear rationalization on the other hands suggests that action A` will lead to result C`, without taking into account the environment. Such behaviour is observable in quiet many cases (unfortunately enough in this blog as well)
h. Well now I suggest that all the ex-workers have chosen to be unhappy because their logic pattern tends to make short cuts from action to desired result without evaluating all data at hand. Please note that this is quite cynical view since with one brash-stroke I diminish them as intelligent individuals and appropriate this to their free choice.
i. I do not know how comfortable I feel with such a conclusion, but it is a fact and I will let the kind reader make his/her own morals.
k. Thank you for taking the time and reading this post.

Concerning one's choice to be unhappy - part 1

1. This blog entry starts by the news of a big and completely insolvent metallurgical factory being closed (Kremikovci)

   1. From economical point of view it's been a long due decision

   2. Naturally the ex-workers are grumpy and are protesting. However they do it in quite emotional style, describing scenes of complete desperation.

   3. The issue I will attempt to discuss is why people choose to be unhappy, using the Kremikovci ex-workers as example

2. To make a reasonable blog the first order of businesses is to create definitions that will be used herein. Therefore

   1. Choice will be the situation where individual has two or more possible, credible and viable lines of coherent action that would lead to specific predictable outcomes.

   2. Unhappiness is used in this post as psychological condition where the subject experiences lack of motivation for daily activities, discomfort, anxiety over unfinished tasks (usually of monetary character), inability to influence key events in his/her life.

   3. People are biological units belonging to homo sapience sapience sub-species.

3. As pointed above (1.3.) it is my observation that the ex-workers have chosen to be unhappy.

   1. To illustrate it I will describe two mind sets toward the problem faced by the ex-workers (4 and 5).

   2. The economic and emotional problem which they are facing in many cases is painted as struggle to make ends meet.

4. One manner to face up to the problem starts with denial and continues with exportation of the action in third party. The monetary problems make it difficult to meet daily expenses. Hence the short cut “someone else is to blame – I am the victim”. The result is unhappiness.

5. I have always liked the line attributed to Socrates walking through the market - “How many thing I do not need...”, which is the essence of the second mindset. Being able to leave one's attachment to property (real estate or other) and concentrate one's efforts on important issues such as health (or lack of stress), good nutrition and flexible solutions search is beneficial. Should one decide not live over one's means quite many expenses become redundant (restaurants, mortgage/debt payments, transportation, etc.).

6. This post is not to advocate any Buddhist view of detachment, but to understand why would people choose to stay attached to things despite evident disadvantages of such choice.

   1. I actually feel the need to underline that the previous point (5) suggest balance between attachment to property and financial resources availability, not detachment.

   2. In the case of the ex-workers the great majority evidently has chosen to shift the main action outside them and wait someone to come and solve their individual problems (in this case the government, which they feel obligated to act to redress their gravenesses)

7. So to answer the question there are several option to choose from

   1. Inertia of routine life prevents ex-workers to prioritize their expenses, or

   2. Cultural issues (consumer society, nanny state) frame a model of over-excessive basic requirements (expenses), which the ex-workers try to cover, or

   3. Non-linear rationality patterns prevent them from realizing the choice hence they can not act on it, or

   4. They realize a psychological need to be victimized and feel morally superior, or

   5. We can observe “freedom run” where the ex-workers are uncertain what they should do and leave union leaders to take decision, so they would not have to.

8. Solutions may appear in the second part of this post. But that will come in a while....

9. Thank you for your interest.

blog 1: Concerning my disappointment with the Union, my three reasons to vote and my three reasons not to.

1.This blog will try to be above all short and to the point. There will be three points of this first posting
2.The first point is why I am disappointed with the EU
2.1. The Common market is not working properly.
2.1.1. There are still many problems in administrative convergence among different countries. The impediments of tax, cross-border service provision and market regulation are preventing the single market to work with its full efficiency.
2.1.2. The regulation in the common market concerning financial transactions is lacking (obviously there is financial crises in over-regulated sector).
2.1.3. There are still inappropriately transported or implemented rules by the member states and lack of effective control on the application by the EC (they overemphasise on transportation).
2.2. The Commission is not able to deliver on its ambitious EU goals
2.2.1. The Lisbon strategy is far, far away from completed
2.2.2. The carbon-trading schemes are ill-managed by member states (Bulgaria among others) and there is loose control by the EC
2.2.3. So far there is not great deal of common action in the fiscal policies among Member states, unlike the ambitious statements from last autumn.
2.3. The policy-decision process is vastly exclusive
2.3.1. Most policy decisions are made by the Council behind close doors. I do not claim that it is bad thing as such, but it is not transparent
2.3.2. On the other hand everybody is trying to assure us (the citizens) that the policy decisions are transparent.
2.3.3. Thirdly the access to the Commission agenda is based on national policy considerations and not European-wide policy goals.
3.The second is three reasons why I should not vote for European Parliament
3.1. Corruption and conflict of interests
3.1.1. Last summer there was an internal corruption report by the EP. It was not published, but swept under the carpet.
3.1.2. The amount of money regional governments and industries pay for lobbing (official figures), together with the huge number of lobbyists (the payroll alone is possibly larger then the EP budget) suggests that citizens and their groups would need to pay (over the tax euros) for their interests to be heard.
3.2. Marginalized role
3.2.1. The EP majority hasn't got single EU-wide policy that is different from the position of the Council. Evidently the EMPs are more interested in their national party positions.
3.2.2. The control over the Commission activities is fragmented and lacks vision about the desired results
3.3. No one back home (Bulgaria) is interested in my interests
3.3.1. The last time around all the candidates were campaigning under the banner of protection of national interests
3.3.2. The national interests is defended by the Government in the Council. I am interested in someone who would defend my interests on EU-wide issues (green energy, market regulations, etc.) - there wasn't anybody.
4.The third issue I wish to discuss with my kind reader is three reasons why I should vote in the elections
4.1. The EU cares about the well being of its citizens
4.1.1. In my opinion this isn't the case in my country, hence I am more affiliated with the Community and its institutions that the national ones.
4.1.2. United we stand (rich and helpfully prosperous), divided we fall
4.2. There are quite important decisions concerning the economy pending to the new EP
4.2.1. With the global economic crises upon us there would be various regulation that need to be implemented concerning derivatives. short selling, tax evasion, etc.
4.2.2. Using the dialogue instruments with the ECB the EP may serve as additional deterrent to exotic quantitative easing practices.
4.2.3. The EU Budget though modest should make progress towards more transparancy and helpfully the stamp of the Court of Auditors.
4.3. I hope (fools' hope that is) that this time the EMPs may change for the better
4.3.1. I hope they will make a stand to the other EU institutions and develop backbone
4.3.2. I hope they will make progress (real action, not PR) over their sleazy public image
4.3.3. I hope they will regulate the financial sphere reasonably.
5.Thank you for reading my blog