This week I heard a psychologist on a documentary say “We translate perceptions and experiences of being better off than others materially, to being better than others. The mind makes that translation…” In Capital in the Twenty-First Century, a documentary based on Thomas Piketty's book, Psychologist Paul Piff, University of California at Irvine discussed an experiment in which pairs of participants played Monopoly modified with the flip of a coin at the start allowing one player to roll two dice each turn, (the other rolled only one), and the two dice player received twice the money for passing Go. And though the outcome, based on a coin flip, was a foregone conclusion, not one advantaged winner recognized this. Not only did they attribute their win to greater skill, the rich player was also more demonstrative, more rude, and he or she helped themselves to more pretzels than the poor player. When similar analysis has been carried out differentiating real-life actuality, researchers have found that when poor people were rich players, they were every bit as obnoxious as rich people who were rich players. So why do we humans seem to instinctively want to perpetuate and widen wealth gaps when we are one of the rich? How do we not account for and/or even see the coin-flip at the start? To me, these instincts appear to operate on multiple scales and in multiple arenas, and they appear to be more driven or as driven by power as they are by financial well-being. This wealth/power dynamic is interesting in that I see wealth as power, yet not all power, (especially not small-scale power), equates to wealth. So, as opposed to monetary wealth, is it this desire for power that blinds us to our personal coin-flip? And perhaps encourages us to pardon those who have received a more advantageous coin-flip? And is power actually control? And is control actually survival instinct individually interpreted as meaning or purpose?

These questions feel obvious. This thought feels redundant. Can I pull anything new from this week's consideration?

I still work from home 3 or 4 days a week. When I go into the office, I walk; about one hour, one way. When I work from home, I walk (about 25 minutes) to a coffee shop, sit down and drink down about one-third, then by 6:30, (or sooner if it becomes uncomfortably unsocially distanced), I walk home. This morning there was light snow, falling and on the ground. The air was clean and crisp and pleasantly cold. I am not a fan of winter, but on occasion, I can appreciate it. This morning, all things seemed possible. This morning I hopelessly hoped for a clean, crisp, pleasantly cold cluster of possibility to settle into other minds clearing out heated, instinctive, sometimes hateful efforts toward individual power, individual control, selfish survival; a clearing of the mind enabling recognition of the injustice set free by the mere flip of a coin. Now I sit here actively, (though likely still hopelessly) hoping for sweeping epiphanies recognizing the necessity of more widespread efforts toward compassionate power, considerate control and the survival of all Humanity.

Still not new. Regardless, the validation from like-minded thought is comforting; which (as I think about it) is not good. It is not good because comfort is an objective of individual power, individual control, selfish survival. And individual power, individual control, selfish survival blind us to coin flips and encourage us to widen wealth and power gaps. Awareness requires discomfort. Change begins with discomfort. Yet we seek comfort; relief in affliction; a state of ease and satisfaction. To comfort is to soothe, console or reassure. It sounds to me like (the verb) comforting is necessary for (the noun) comfort. Additionally, I interpret the verb as a transient, fleeting action, which I believe leads to a further implication that because comforting is momentary, comfort is also momentary. My natural state, (with no artificial encouragement), is discomfort. To be consistently comfortable I must be constantly comforted; and that comforting is not going to come frequently or fast enough from others, (unless you're the President of the United States), therefore I must constantly soothe and reassure my self myself; in every moment. This leads me to the realization that constant comforting is more comforting if I am constantly improving or getting better; and in our capitalistic world what better way to be better than to be better off. Not only better off than others, but also (and perhaps more importantly) better off than I was a few years or months or even moments ago. And it does not matter that I am better off because (or in spite) of others being worse off. What matters is that I am comfortable because I am comforted by my wealth and/or power relative to those more deserving of less; those on the wrong side of a coin flip that I have conveniently misremembered.

Awareness requires discomfort. Change begins with discomfort. Instinctively, once I taste comfort, I seek more comfort, and the more comfort I have, the less discomfort I see (and/or care about) in those around me, much less those who are less deserving and farther flung. Today selfish survival demands comfort; survival of Humanity requires widespread discomfort.

I don't feel finished but this week I started late and I am at deadline.