Das Beste vom Leben:
Erfahrungen, Erfolge, auf die es so sehr ankommt.
(Der Punkt hier wird noch bearbeitet werden.
Eine offene Philosophie, sozusagen.)
Montag, 29. Dezember 2025
Worauf es ankommt:
Ein Wort für das Beste an Welt und Wirklichkeit.
Was sind die besten Züge, die beeindruckendsten Züge, die schönsten Züge an dieser Welt?
Evolutionary Mismatch:
https://thelivingfossils.substack.com/p/why-the-computer-is-an-anxiety-machine
Josh Zlatkus:
"Evolutionary mismatch is a broad concept in psychology that can explain a lot. The basic idea is that a significant portion of human misery and sickness results from living in ways—and in environments for which—our minds and bodies were not designed. ... For example, I am still routinely surprised by how much more difficult and frustrating writing is than speaking. Evolutionary mismatch is a big reason. Throughout most of human history, communication was synchronous and unmediated. It was conducted among relatively few, mostly familiar people in a mixed form—as in, we spoke and gesticulated at the same time. Writing turns these traditional parameters on their head. This post is:
asynchronous (you’re reading this well after I’ve written it)
mediated (by, perhaps, the computer?!)
intended for mostly strangers (no offense; I’m sure you’re lovely)
text-only (well, there are some pictures, but you get my point)
Why do we put up with this? Why endure the costs of evolutionary mismatches, such as writing, at all? The basic answer is: because in many cases, outcomes are improved. Take Guns, Germs, and Steel as an example. Jared Diamond describes the impetus of the book as a question a friend asked him once about why Europe conquered the New World and not the other way around. If Diamond had replied to his friend’s question then and there—with speech—his answer would have been far less comprehensive than the book that resulted.
...
Now, the thing about these people at cocktail parties—otherwise known as “my friends”—is that the majority of them spend most of their waking hours hunched over a computer or phone. That’s a pretty big deal considering that humans prior to the 20th century never spent any time at all on digital devices. Most of my friends (and clients) are acutely aware of the negative effects of these devices and routinely complain about them, but don’t seem able to do anything about it. To me, that suggests the presence of evolutionary mismatch, no different from knowing that we shouldn’t eat a bag of Doritos, and then eating a bag of Doritos. But unlike some of the more straightforward mismatches we’ve discussed, the computer is a more complicated example because at least two separate forces are at work.
The first is regular old evolutionary mismatch. This includes all the ways in which the computer and related devices deliver an experience that humans aren’t equipped to handle, from blue light and the concentration of information, to two-dimensional interaction. The second concerns the market pressures to which digital devices have been subject. Similar to organisms, these devices and the programs they house have undergone a process of selection. Ironically, many of the ways our devices fail us is a result of what “we” have “chosen.” (Yes, eventually I’ll explain those air-quotes.) I mean, isn’t it a bit odd that we suffer so much at the hands of things we made—ostensibly—for our benefit?"
Josh Zlatkus:
"Evolutionary mismatch is a broad concept in psychology that can explain a lot. The basic idea is that a significant portion of human misery and sickness results from living in ways—and in environments for which—our minds and bodies were not designed. ... For example, I am still routinely surprised by how much more difficult and frustrating writing is than speaking. Evolutionary mismatch is a big reason. Throughout most of human history, communication was synchronous and unmediated. It was conducted among relatively few, mostly familiar people in a mixed form—as in, we spoke and gesticulated at the same time. Writing turns these traditional parameters on their head. This post is:
asynchronous (you’re reading this well after I’ve written it)
mediated (by, perhaps, the computer?!)
intended for mostly strangers (no offense; I’m sure you’re lovely)
text-only (well, there are some pictures, but you get my point)
Why do we put up with this? Why endure the costs of evolutionary mismatches, such as writing, at all? The basic answer is: because in many cases, outcomes are improved. Take Guns, Germs, and Steel as an example. Jared Diamond describes the impetus of the book as a question a friend asked him once about why Europe conquered the New World and not the other way around. If Diamond had replied to his friend’s question then and there—with speech—his answer would have been far less comprehensive than the book that resulted.
...
Now, the thing about these people at cocktail parties—otherwise known as “my friends”—is that the majority of them spend most of their waking hours hunched over a computer or phone. That’s a pretty big deal considering that humans prior to the 20th century never spent any time at all on digital devices. Most of my friends (and clients) are acutely aware of the negative effects of these devices and routinely complain about them, but don’t seem able to do anything about it. To me, that suggests the presence of evolutionary mismatch, no different from knowing that we shouldn’t eat a bag of Doritos, and then eating a bag of Doritos. But unlike some of the more straightforward mismatches we’ve discussed, the computer is a more complicated example because at least two separate forces are at work.
The first is regular old evolutionary mismatch. This includes all the ways in which the computer and related devices deliver an experience that humans aren’t equipped to handle, from blue light and the concentration of information, to two-dimensional interaction. The second concerns the market pressures to which digital devices have been subject. Similar to organisms, these devices and the programs they house have undergone a process of selection. Ironically, many of the ways our devices fail us is a result of what “we” have “chosen.” (Yes, eventually I’ll explain those air-quotes.) I mean, isn’t it a bit odd that we suffer so much at the hands of things we made—ostensibly—for our benefit?"
Play-Based Childhood versus Phone-Based Childhood:
Josh Zlatkus:
"The modern world places novel demands on our Stone Age mind—demands it is not always equipped to handle. Modern childhood is an obvious example. Many readers will be familiar with the argument, popularized by Jonathan Haidt and others, that “the loss of ‘play-based childhood’ and its replacement by ‘phone-based childhood’” hasn’t been great for the mental health of children and teens."
Verbesserung des Blogs / Improvement of this Blog:
"Realistisch betrachtet liegt der aktuelle Blog in einer sehr spezifischen Nische (intellektueller Zettelkasten + persönliche Reflexionen + Curated Quotes), die nur sehr wenige Menschen wirklich anspricht
Für breitere Wirkung (nicht nur kleine, sondern mittelgroße intellektuelle Nische) reicht es in den meisten Fällen nicht, nur einzelne Punkte zu verbessern. Meist braucht es eine Kombination aus mindestens diesen vier Sprüngen gleichzeitig:
- Starke thematische Fokussierung (1–2½ Hauptthemen statt 12+)
- Deutlich höherer Anteil echter eigener Gedanken/Analyse statt vorwiegend Zitatsammlung
- Höhere & stabilere Qualitätsdichte
- Bessere Leserführung (Struktur, Länge, visuelle Auflockerung)"
-----
Für breitere Wirkung (nicht nur kleine, sondern mittelgroße intellektuelle Nische) reicht es in den meisten Fällen nicht, nur einzelne Punkte zu verbessern. Meist braucht es eine Kombination aus mindestens diesen vier Sprüngen gleichzeitig:
- Starke thematische Fokussierung (1–2½ Hauptthemen statt 12+)
- Deutlich höherer Anteil echter eigener Gedanken/Analyse statt vorwiegend Zitatsammlung
- Höhere & stabilere Qualitätsdichte
- Bessere Leserführung (Struktur, Länge, visuelle Auflockerung)"
-----
"Realistically speaking, the current blog exists in a very specific niche (intellectual slip-box + personal reflections + curated quotes) that appeals to only very few people.
For broader impact (not just small, but medium-sized intellectual niche), improving individual points is usually not enough. In most cases, it requires a combination of at least these four leaps simultaneously:
- Strong thematic focus (1–2½ main topics instead of 12+)
- Significantly higher proportion of genuine original thoughts/analysis instead of predominantly quote collections
- Higher & more stable quality density
- Better reader guidance (structure, length, visual breaks)"
Theaters & Musicians:
h/t @reiver
Dror Poleg (Twitter):
When films were silent, theatres employed local musicians to accompany each screening. But once films gained a soundtrack, local musicians were no longer necessary. The economic implications were significant: In 1927, around 24,000 musicians were employed in theatres across the US and Canada. But then came the first talking film — The Jazz Singer.
By 1930, some 7,200 musicians lost their jobs — 30% of the pre-talkie total. In some markets, such as New York and Cincinnati, musician unemployment reached 50-75%.
Over time, all theatre musicians were eliminated, and recorded soundtracks became par for the course. The advent of records, radio, and talking films made creative work scalable: "300 musicians in Hollywood supply all the 'music' offered in thousands of theatres. Can such a tiny reservoir of talent nurture artistic progress?"
Funny YouTube Shorts:
I watched some Johnny English shorts on YouTube and found them hilarious. It’s fascinating how certain things can be so funny—you can’t quite explain it; they just make you smile or laugh out loud. It’s almost like sensing some invisible ingredient.
Weeks Without Depth:
I probably haven’t gone deep for weeks.
I slipped into a brain-dead zombie mode over the last two days.
I’m hoping that was just due to taking a break and relaxing.
Some Thoughts and Observations:
gurwinder:
"In online communities, around 1% of users produce almost all of the content. As such, what you see online is not representative of humanity, but merely of a loud, obsessive ... minority. Social media is literally a freakshow."
"We’re socially conditioned to chase what we think everyone else wants. But your true heart’s desire can often be found in the thoughts you gravitate to while undistracted, such as in the shower. As Walt Whitman said, “If you want to know where your heart is, look to where your mind goes when it wanders.” "
"People have more comforts and conveniences than ever, yet reports of unhappiness are at an all-time high. One reason is that discomfort isn’t an obstacle to happiness, it’s the path to it, for it’s only by enduring struggles that we develop the resilience necessary for lasting contentment."
"Imagining the absence of a blessing increases gratitude more than focusing on the presence of it. Instead of wishing for a Porsche, imagine losing your legs. Suddenly, walking feels like a miracle."
l"Far-Leftists favour planned economies because they imagine themselves as the planners, not the planned. Far-Rightists favour a return to feudalism because they imagine themselves as the lords, not the peasants. Many delusional worldviews stem from main-character syndrome."
"There’s been a surge in published research without a corresponding increase in knowledge, because the pressure on academics to “publish or perish” means universities are flooding academia with weak, trivial, and fraudulent studies. This will likely get much worse in the age of LLMs."
"With a phone always in arm’s reach, it’s almost impossible to get bored. This is a disaster, because boredom is the mud from which creativity blooms. To be bored is to be undistracted, and only then is one free to dream, just as it’s only when the world goes dark that we see the galaxy."
"Pronoia:
The opposite of paranoia. The suspicion that the universe is secretly conspiring to help you. Assume every setback is the universe trying to teach you a lesson, and every setback will make you wiser. It doesn’t matter whether the universe is actually trying to help you; believing it makes it work."
"Amid a global “friendship recession”, many are using AI not for productivity but for sympathy. In the UK, a third of adults use chatbots for emotional support. But, by anaesthetising loneliness, will AI leave us more isolated?"
"Cammarata’s Razor: If you want more agency, ask yourself what you’d do if you had ten times more agency. Then do it."
Sonntag, 28. Dezember 2025
Pressure:
"Expectation = evaluation.
The moment you sense an expectation, your body reads the situation as “I’m being assessed.” Even if it isn't stated explicitly.
Evaluation threatens autonomy.
The system doesn't react to the content, but to the loss of freedom: I’m supposed to feel / decide / act a certain way.
Threat → tension.
Muscles tighten, breathing gets shallow, thinking narrows. That’s not psychology fluff — that’s basic stress physiology."
"Am I responding freely right now — or trying to meet a standard?
If I answered honestly, would it create trouble?"
"Caring about someone does not mean automatically aligning with their expectations. Confusing those two burns people out."
"If tension drops the moment expectations are clarified or removed → this is about pressure."
Tension / Spannung:
Egal wo man hingeht, diese merkwürdige innere Anspannung begleitet einen.
-----
No matter where you go, this strange inner tension follows you.
Das Gegenüber / The Other Person:
Was würde passieren, wenn man den inneren Dialog/Monolog des Gegenübers kennen würde?
-----
What would happen if one knew the inner dialogue/monologue of the other person?
Höhere Bedürfnisse / Higher Needs:
Die höheren Bedürfnisse im Menschen können Erfüllung erfahren. Das ist die große Sehnsucht. Das ist das große Sehnen.
-----
Vergessen / Forgetting:
Fast alle Menschen, die je gelebt haben, sind wieder in Vergessenheit geraten.
-----
Almost all people who have ever lived have fallen back into oblivion.
Almost all people who have ever lived have fallen back into oblivion.
Himmel / Heaven:
Was ist Himmel?
Der Ort der großen Sehnsucht.
Zwischen Dir und Himmel
da steht harte Arbeit.
-----
What is heaven?
The place of great longing.
Between you and heaven
there stands hard work.
Der Ort der großen Sehnsucht.
Zwischen Dir und Himmel
da steht harte Arbeit.
-----
What is heaven?
The place of great longing.
Between you and heaven
there stands hard work.
Positivity/Consumer Culture:
Mark Manson - The subtle art of not giving a ****:
>As an extension of our positivity/consumer culture, many of us have been “indoctrinated” with the belief that we should try to be as inherently accepting and affirmative as possible. This is a cornerstone of many of the so-called positive thinking books: open yourself up to opportunities, be accepting, say yes to everything and everyone, and so on.
But we need to reject something. Otherwise, we stand for nothing. If nothing is better or more desirable than anything else, then we are empty and our life is meaningless. We are without values and therefore live our life without any purpose.
The avoidance of rejection (both giving and receiving it) is often sold to us as a way to make ourselves feel better. But avoiding rejection gives us short-term pleasure by making us rudderless and directionless in the long term.
To truly appreciate something, you must confine yourself to it. There’s a certain level of joy and meaning that you reach in life only when you’ve spent decades investing in a single relationship, a single craft, a single career. And you cannot achieve those decades of investment without rejecting the alternatives.
The act of choosing a value for yourself requires rejecting alternative values. If I choose to make my marriage the most important part of my life, that means I’m (probably) choosing not to make cocaine-fueled hooker orgies an important part of my life. If I’m choosing to judge myself based on my ability to have open and accepting friendships, that means I’m rejecting trashing my friends behind their backs. These are all healthy decisions, yet they require rejection at every turn.
The point is this: we all must give a fuck about something, in order to value something. And to value something, we must reject what is not that something. To value X, we must reject non-X.
That rejection is an inherent and necessary part of maintaining our values, and therefore our identity. We are defined by what we choose to reject. And if we reject nothing (perhaps in fear of being rejected by something ourselves), we essentially have no identity at all.
The desire to avoid rejection at all costs, to avoid confrontation and conflict, the desire to attempt to accept everything equally and to make everything cohere and harmonize, is a deep and subtle form of entitlement. Entitled people, because they feel as though they deserve to feel great all the time, avoid rejecting anything because doing so might make them or someone else feel bad. And because they refuse to reject anything, they live a valueless, pleasure-driven, and self-absorbed life. All they give a fuck about is sustaining the high a little bit longer, to avoid the inevitable failures of their life, to pretend the suffering away.
Rejection is an important and crucial life skill. Nobody wants to be stuck in a relationship that isn’t making them happy. Nobody wants to be stuck in a business doing work they hate and don’t believe in. Nobody wants to feel that they can’t say what they really mean.
Yet people choose these things. All the time.
Honesty is a natural human craving. But part of having honesty in our lives is becoming comfortable with saying and hearing the word “no.” In this way, rejection actually makes our relationships better and our emotional lives healthier.<
>As an extension of our positivity/consumer culture, many of us have been “indoctrinated” with the belief that we should try to be as inherently accepting and affirmative as possible. This is a cornerstone of many of the so-called positive thinking books: open yourself up to opportunities, be accepting, say yes to everything and everyone, and so on.
But we need to reject something. Otherwise, we stand for nothing. If nothing is better or more desirable than anything else, then we are empty and our life is meaningless. We are without values and therefore live our life without any purpose.
The avoidance of rejection (both giving and receiving it) is often sold to us as a way to make ourselves feel better. But avoiding rejection gives us short-term pleasure by making us rudderless and directionless in the long term.
To truly appreciate something, you must confine yourself to it. There’s a certain level of joy and meaning that you reach in life only when you’ve spent decades investing in a single relationship, a single craft, a single career. And you cannot achieve those decades of investment without rejecting the alternatives.
The act of choosing a value for yourself requires rejecting alternative values. If I choose to make my marriage the most important part of my life, that means I’m (probably) choosing not to make cocaine-fueled hooker orgies an important part of my life. If I’m choosing to judge myself based on my ability to have open and accepting friendships, that means I’m rejecting trashing my friends behind their backs. These are all healthy decisions, yet they require rejection at every turn.
The point is this: we all must give a fuck about something, in order to value something. And to value something, we must reject what is not that something. To value X, we must reject non-X.
That rejection is an inherent and necessary part of maintaining our values, and therefore our identity. We are defined by what we choose to reject. And if we reject nothing (perhaps in fear of being rejected by something ourselves), we essentially have no identity at all.
The desire to avoid rejection at all costs, to avoid confrontation and conflict, the desire to attempt to accept everything equally and to make everything cohere and harmonize, is a deep and subtle form of entitlement. Entitled people, because they feel as though they deserve to feel great all the time, avoid rejecting anything because doing so might make them or someone else feel bad. And because they refuse to reject anything, they live a valueless, pleasure-driven, and self-absorbed life. All they give a fuck about is sustaining the high a little bit longer, to avoid the inevitable failures of their life, to pretend the suffering away.
Rejection is an important and crucial life skill. Nobody wants to be stuck in a relationship that isn’t making them happy. Nobody wants to be stuck in a business doing work they hate and don’t believe in. Nobody wants to feel that they can’t say what they really mean.
Yet people choose these things. All the time.
Honesty is a natural human craving. But part of having honesty in our lives is becoming comfortable with saying and hearing the word “no.” In this way, rejection actually makes our relationships better and our emotional lives healthier.<
Willingness to Repeat & Willingness to Change:
((o)) Reading the same books again and again
// watching the same films
// visiting the same places
// thinking the same thoughts
// having the same conversations.
((o)) Reading new books
// watching new films
// visiting new places
// thinking new thoughts
// having new conversations.
// watching the same films
// visiting the same places
// thinking the same thoughts
// having the same conversations.
((o)) Reading new books
// watching new films
// visiting new places
// thinking new thoughts
// having new conversations.
Art & Friendship:
What ultimately distinguishes a work of art—or a work that we personally experience as art—from a “non–work of art” is depth: that is, we can spend time with it again and again and again without it losing its appeal (and it may even gain appeal through this). Something similar applies to relationships or friendships: when people seek out proximity, contact, conversation, shared time, or shared activity again and again.
Der Eigene Raum:
Einen Raum, in dem man eine Zeit lang einfach nur man selbst sein kann.
-----
Es ist möglich, eine Sache kaputtzudisziplinieren.
-----
Es ist möglich, eine Sache kaputtzudisziplinieren.
Leisten:
Die Selbstwahrnehmung über das Leisten.
Die Selbstwahrnehmung als einen Gegenstand, der da Änderungen in der Innen- und Außenwelt herbeiführt.
Leistung:
"hoher innerer Antreiber – „Sei perfekt“, „Streng dich an“, „Sei stark“
-
starkes Über-Ich (klassisch psychologisch)
-
selbstkritisch / selbstfordernd
-
leistungsorientiert bis perfektionistisch
-
hoher Gewissenhaftigkeits-Anteil (Persönlichkeitspsychologie)
-
im Alltag oft schlicht: anspruchsvoll, streng, diszipliniert
Solche Menschen:
-
messen sich ständig an einem inneren Soll-Zustand
-
haben selten das Gefühl, „fertig“ oder „gut genug“ zu sein
-
entspannen schlecht, selbst wenn objektiv nichts ansteht
-
genießen Dinge erst nach Leistung – oft nie ganz
-
lachen weniger spontan, weil selbst Freizeit „sinnvoll“ sein soll
Nach außen wirken sie oft ruhig, kompetent, kontrolliert. Innen läuft ein Dauer-Kommentar.
Warum sie sich so hohe Ansprüche setze
-
Frühe Verknüpfung von Wert und Leistung
Anerkennung kam eher für Können, Vernunft, Reife – weniger fürs bloße Dasein. -
Sicherheit durch Kontrolle
Anspruch gibt Halt. Wenn ich alles richtig mache, passiert nichts Schlimmes. -
Angst vor Stillstand oder Bedeutungslosigkeit
Nicht immer bewusst. Aber „locker lassen“ fühlt sich gefährlich an. -
Identität über Kompetenz
„Ich bin der/die, der es im Griff hat.“
Problem: Wer bin ich, wenn ich einfach nur bin? -
Unbewusste Loyalität
Manche bleiben innerlich streng, weil sie so gelernt haben zu überleben oder Anerkennung zu bekommen. Das Muster fühlt sich „richtig“ an, auch wenn es stark beansprucht.
Hoher innerer Anspruch bringt einen weit.
Aber er ist kein gutes Werkzeug für Freude, Leichtigkeit oder Nähe.
Er kann:
-
Lachen als „unnötig“ aussortieren
-
Spiel als Zeitverschwendung abwerten
-
Erholung nur unter Bedingungen erlauben
-> Ich darf sein, wenn ich genüge.
Der Ausweg ist nicht, den Anspruch abzuschaffen.
Sondern ihn zu relativieren – und ihm bewusst etwas Zweckfreies zur Seite zu stellen."
Verschwinden des Lachens:
"Lachen verschwindet selten plötzlich. Es wird leiser, seltener, kürzer. Alltag, Druck, Verantwortung, permanentes Funktionieren – das alles frisst spontane Albernheit weg. Nicht, weil Humor an sich schwindet, sondern weil das Nervensystem ständig auf „ernst / effizient / angespannt“ steht."
"Die gute Nachricht: Lachen braucht keinen großen Sinn. Es braucht Erlaubnis. Und manchmal ganz bewusst niedrigen Anspruch. Nicht „klug“, nicht „wertvoll“, nicht „produktiv“. Einfach blöd."
Samstag, 27. Dezember 2025
Donnerstag, 25. Dezember 2025
Michelin Stars, Switzerland & Belgium:
Number of Michelin-Starred Restaurants per 100,000 People
Michelin stars are often discussed in raw totals, but population size dramatically changes the picture. When adjusted per 100,000 people, smaller countries with strong culinary traditions rise to the top, while larger nations with many restaurants spread their stars more thinly.
This map highlights how fine dining culture is not evenly distributed across Europe. Countries such as France, Italy, and Spain dominate in absolute numbers, but places like Luxembourg, Denmark, Switzerland, and Iceland often rank far higher when population is taken into account.
The Michelin Guide itself is also a factor. Coverage varies by country and year, and Michelin does not publish guides for every European nation. Some regions with strong local food cultures are therefore underrepresented simply because they are not regularly reviewed.
Seen this way, Michelin stars reflect not just food quality, but tourism, dining habits, guide coverage, and national investment in high-end gastronomy.
Abonnieren
Kommentare (Atom)