I read this book many years ago and it made a big impression on me.
His view is that normal, rational, intelligent people... can have fictional stories in their heads about how things work. It takes energy and focus and research to fix these wrong stories, so often we live with them or don't recognize them.
Many times I've been casually talking with someone, say something, then realize that doesn't make any sense. My wrong story made sense in my head, but not when I speak it out loud.
By practicing the scientific method, we can gradually weed out the wrong stories in our heads.
Now I'm going to re-read `The Demon-Haunted World`
I believe we all carry massive mythologies that are tough to displace.
My Kagi-fu fails me. Its by an environmentalist who says any, say "avoid poisoning fish" advice stands against a massive "the line must go up" mythology. He compares it to the geocentrism of the Church; how the Sun, Moon and starts rotate around us and provides for humanity; and how heliocentrism also had to stand up against this massive mythology.
Depth psychology would suggest that mythology is an emergent phenomenon of the psyche; there is no removing it.
Better to understand that it is there and how it works. It is precisely due to this myth-making faculty that in the absence of a legit mythos (i.e. that of Christianity, which was the dominant cosmo-conception / worldview in the west for most of our history) the vacuum of power that is left by the absence of a God figure will be replaced by the nearest approximate/surrogate the psyche can find. This is how we elevate celebrities like Trump to the status of a God-king who can do no wrong.
I feel like the current generation of young people don’t have anyone like Carl Sagan to bring a sense of wonder to science and exploration. It makes me sad.
> "I feel like the current generation of young people don’t have anyone like Carl Sagan to bring a sense of wonder to science and exploration. It makes me sad."
The closest I've seen in modern times is maybe [Neil DeGrasse Tyson][1].
Your reply is not very HN, but you have a point. Many things cannot be settled with a scientific argument because we rarely disagree about the mass of an electron or the spectrum of Helium. In our daily discussions, almost nothing can be decided by science. Most of it boils down to different values, and different ways to think about the world (Weltanschauung). Finding common ground in those cases is hard work which requires inderstanding, openness and fairness of both sides. Or the acceptance of authority.
I have a foreboding of an America in my children's or grandchildren's time — when the United States is a service and information economy; when nearly all the manufacturing industries have slipped away to other countries; when awesome technological powers are in the hands of a very few, and no one representing the public interest can even grasp the issues; when the people have lost the ability to set their own agendas or knowledgeably question those in authority; when, clutching our crystals and nervously consulting our horoscopes, our critical faculties in decline, unable to distinguish between what feels good and what's true, we slide, almost without noticing, back into superstition and darkness.
Chapter 13:
One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It's simply too painful to acknowledge, even to ourselves, that we've been taken. Once you give a charlatan power over you, you almost never get it back.
Chapter 25:
In every country, we should be teaching our children the scientific method and the reasons for a Bill of Rights. With it comes a certain decency, humility and community spirit. In the demon-haunted world that we inhabit by virtue of being human, this may be all that stands between us and the enveloping darkness.
My only question is was this slide orchestrated or is it the natural tendency of humanity to slip back to ignorance when all their needs are met, like the Eloi in The Time Machine? Someone made lots of money from this slide, I just don't know if it was random chance or a scheme that worked.
This quote has always stuck with me and I think about it often, perhaps one of the main quotes that have steered my life.
“The main thing that I learned about conspiracy theory, is that conspiracy theorists believe in a conspiracy because that is more comforting. The truth of the world is that it is actually chaotic. The truth is that it is not The Iluminati, or The Jewish Banking Conspiracy, or the Gray Alien Theory. The truth is far more frightening - Nobody is in control. The world is rudderless.”
The answer is more often than not alternative c) all of the above.
Development may be a random walk, but there are plenty of people with interest in a certain outcome, and when they get the opportunity they will take it and try escalate the process. That's true in most things.
I also tend to believe that it is not a coincidence that so many societies right now flirt with authoritarianism, for example. We influence each other, even more so now that information is global and electronic.
The "crystals and horoscopes" part is such a cheap jab that's going to alienate a lot of the population. Astrology is a harmless introspective process for most people, they just like having a framework to characterise their beliefs and feelings. You find very few people who feel that it's prescriptive and limits their life.
Contrasted with very rational people who are chasing magical, unmoored valuations in the stock market for instance. We buy and sell equity based not on future cash flows, but on confidence there will be a bigger sucker down the line. This untethering of "value" from any productive work is a greater contributor to the hollowing out of the US economy than anyone buying a piece of amethyst.
Some research in neuroscience suggests that potentially the majority of our actions happen primarily in the limbic regions of the brain and then later our pre-frontal cortex makes up a logical story for why we acted this way. This is really trippy and can cause you to rethink your own sanity if you think about it long enough. It’s quite possible I don’t know why I do much of what I do… but I am good at making up a story to explain to keep me sane. Crazy to think about.
I think that may be something that LLMs are lacking. They've got the make up a story bit but not the limbic system.
I've got a theory that the experience of consciousness is down to something like that - different systems in the brain interacting, like it being a bit of the brain that brings together info from the senses and memory recall and thinking outputs and then makes up a story/model of it.
"While asleep I had an unusual experience. There was a red screen formed by flowing blood as it were. I was observing it. Suddenly a hand began to write on the screen. I became all attention. That hand wrote a number of results in elliptic integrals. They stuck to my mind. As soon as I woke up, I committed them to writing..."
> Back when I was at university, a friend mentioned to me that he wanted to read The Demon Haunted World by Carl Sagan. I had been a fan of Sagan since my teenage years, but had put off reading that book. Asking him if he’d read any of Sagan’s works, he said “No, but this book is often present in skeptic reading lists.”
> Many years later, I finally read the book. I’m surprised with it being recommended by skeptics, as it has a lengthy criticism of skeptics.
...
Quotes taken straight from the book:
"And yet, the chief deficiency I see in the skeptical movement is in its polarization: Us vs. Them—the sense that we have a monopoly on the truth; that those other people who believe in all these stupid doctrines are morons; that if you’re sensible, you’ll listen to us; and if not, you’re beyond redemption. This is unconstructive. It does not get the message across. It condemns the skeptics to permanent minority status; whereas, a compassionate approach that from the beginning acknowledges the human roots of pseudoscience and superstition might be much more widely accepted."
...
"In the way that skepticism is sometimes applied to issues of public concern, there is a tendency to belittle, to condescend, to ignore the fact that, deluded or not, supporters of superstition and pseudoscience are human beings with real feelings, who, like the skeptics, are trying to figure out how the world works and what our role in it might be. Their motives are in many cases consonant with science. If their culture has not given them all the tools they need to pursue this great quest, let us temper our criticism with kindness. None of us comes fully equipped."
It is indeed a great book. I would caution folks here that it is not particularly representative of Carl Sagan's books. If you loved/hated this book, it doesn't mean you'll love/hate his other books.
I have no idea why you'd be surprised the skeptical community adores this book, its basically the clearest statement of the core fundamental principles, a plea to be open and empathetic is not hostile. It's just wisdom, and the majority of people who think of themselves as skeptics believe that its important. At the same time, sometimes you want to be around people who share and build community with the same ideology as you which should be perfectly ok.
> I have no idea why you'd be surprised the skeptical community adores this book,
The details are in the blog post. Basically, every skeptic community I've looked at has espoused the very behavior that Carl Sagan criticizes in the book. Very dismissive and arrogant folks. There's a reason he explicitly calls out the skeptic community.
I did put this disclaimer though - I don't want this discussion to degrade into a no true Scotsman fallacy:
> Or at least, visible and vocal skeptics I run across on the Internet. An argument could be made that these are the minority and not really representative of the majority of people who ascribe to skepticism.
Sagan really nailed something that needs to be said around certain human beliefs with these specific arguments.
I happen to follow the history of supposed UFO encounters as a personal hobby since years ago. I personally try to view it with a solid dose of careful qualification and skepticism that avoids preconceived biases and this means reading both the reports themselves, their analysis by those who are convinced they were somehow paranormal or inexplicable at least, and analysis by skeptics and people who style themselves as debunkers.
To start with, from the two extremes representing on the one end UFOlogist types and on the other end, hard skeptics and the above-mentioned self-styles debunkers, there's no shortage of emotional reaction, irrational thinking, preconceived notions and confirmation bias.
As for me, while I can't absolutely claim my own objectivity to be perfect and free of biases of one kind or another (by definition this is hard because if one were capable of such a thing, they wouldn't have a bias in the first place) I try to keep an open mind that's not dismissive of those who sincerely and with no evident reason for lying or hallucinating, claim to have seen strange things in the skies, but also try to recognize that people do misinterpret things, especially if they're not trained observers, or sometimes just lie.
However, what I have noticed from many in the skeptic community in particular (and from the debunkers especially) is exactly the thing that Sagan notes. A harsh, extremely condescending attitude to any suggestion that any strange UFO sighting type incident be anything but perfectly explicable. More damningly, because they go into analyzing any such thing with a mind that's already decided on such things not being possible, by default they always feel they must debunk. It has basically become for them a default response.
In some UFO sighting reports, where the details truly are baffling and even include very trained, sober observers (Air Force pilots, police, scientists etc), I've seen reviews by skeptics in which the contortions they make to justify the event as some mundane thing are almost more absurd than simply admitting that X group of people saw something that can't be explained (without having to say that this means it was a UFO by the way).
This is not skepticism. It is instead a dogmatic logic, one based on emotion and irrationality disguised as hard boiled seriousness and being combined with a distinctly arrogant attitude around professing to be the one who is really the rational thinker, it comes across as even more absurd.
From UFO investigators, the same happens in the other direction of course, but on the other hand, I've frequently seen reports in which they themselves have the flexibility to say that some particular case was indeed mundane. I have yet to see a serious skeptic, say, a Philip Klass type, who ever admits something to be inexplicable no matter how hard they need to stretch reasoning to avoid doing so. In some cases, some of them also simply delve into outright character assassination and claiming a witness to be an idiot or implying that there's something wrong with them.
Again, Sagan's warning about compassion comes to mind. On this, he really nailed it while arguing for the importance of skepticism.
Why is the book so expensive (in Britain)? I found a picture online of the back cover showing ISBN 0-7472-5156-8 and £7.99, but the prices I see for ordering it now are ... discouraging.
The 25 chapters are mostly independent and some of them are updated versions of something published earlier. Obviously the chapters complaining about the state of science education in the USA in the 1990s are less interesting for a European reading today. For me the most interesting chapters were 4-15 and 24, about witchcraft and human gullibility, for example.
I find the cheerleading for science in the initial chapters rather tiresome. That's just a personal reaction. I don't think the author is in any way "wrong". I suppose it's partly because it's something I feel I've grown out of. I read a lot of science popularisation when I was young, and I studied sciences, but in my old age I usually prefer literary fiction. I can't help feeling that "Science works!" is a very dull claim in view of the fact that anything that works gets accepted as "science". And the much vaunted "scientific method" is really just common sense, isn't it, really? Can that be taught? I have my doubts. Interestingly, his chapter 18 on !Kung San hunters somewhat makes that same point ...
A nit: He repeats the tired old myth about rhino horns being used medicinally to prevent impotence. More credible writers on that subject[] say they are used for jewellery, knife handles and the like.
[
] "Last chance to see", co-authored by Douglas Adams, perhaps? I can't remember whether it's mentioned in there but I'd recommend that book in any case.
I once lent my copy to a friend of a friend prone to conspiratorial thinking, who professed to be open-minded and interested in my viewpoint. A few years later, after many reminders, he returned it to me. I asked him what he thought of it. He said he never read it, but it made for a great paper weight. This was the first of many realizations for me that magical thinking cannot be altered with logic.
I like how everybody thinks this applies to others and they should change.
When in fact this entire genre should be read and addressed exclusively for oneself.
It reminds me how I was passionately discussing sth like this with a (former) friend and it seemed we agreed on the principles. When suddenly through some offhand remakr or turn of phrase it turned out he was thinking of others while I was thinking of myself
Meaning, he thought how easily others were misled (naturally, he himself was perfectly immune, his worldview correct) while I was talking about how I needed to protect myself from being seduced by agreeable nonsense.
Again, this genre applies to the reader, it is not a lecture material for you.
We have no business judging others`s beliefs when we have enough trouble keeping our own sane.
What we can do is short or bet against them if we are so convinced that we are right. Place your bets and stick to yourself. If you are as right as you are convinced, you should do well over time. Physical and economic reality >> fantasy and cope.
> We have no business judging others`s beliefs when we have enough trouble keeping our own sane.
Assessing other peoples’ beliefs and ideas is, in my experience, one of the best ways to stay sane and learn. Ideas are ultimately independent of the people that hold them. I feel like it is people with unfounded ideas (religions, historically) that try mightily to stop other people from critically assessing them.
> We have no business judging others`s beliefs when we have enough trouble keeping our own sane.
A kinder way to say "judging" is perhaps discrimination. As humans we must discriminate between the good and bad opinions of others, and even good and bad people, or we are doomed.
If you were to learn only from your own mistakes, or try to pretend that there is no such thing as a bad person, you would live a short and brutal life of victomhood.
> We have no business judging others`s beliefs when we have enough trouble keeping our own sane.
I agree with you except for this part here, because what other people believe can, and does, materially impact you when they vote. There's an incentive to try and influence others' beliefs when they're harmful to you or your communities.
> What we can do is short or bet against them if we are so convinced that we are right. Place your bets and stick to yourself. If you are as right as you are convinced, you should do well over time. Physical and economic reality >> fantasy and cope.
In a world with bad faith & ill-informed missionaries (meme-ssionaries?) this is an inadequate political/societal perspective. We should all have the humility to be wrong but the conviction of our current beliefs and tomes that represent them
It's more you can't get someone to change their thinking by giving them a book if they don't want to change or read the book. My mum gives me books on the Baha'i faith but that doesn't work well either because I'm not interested. It's more about whether the person is motivated to change than about logic I think.
Logic itself is a kind of magical thinking. There's no way to get from logic to epistemology, and yet people think they will get to epistemological high ground if they keep to a logic asceticism strictly enough.
It's not a nice thought - how much of human thinking is just down to wiring. Pre-set connections somewhere in the big switchboard of human mind.
How much of whether you're right or wrong on a given issue is not down to knowledge, intelligence or rigor - but to pre-set biases that happen to be set the right way or the wrong way. How the same knowledge and intelligence that can guide you to truths can instead lead you to be more entrenched in wrongs, and just how hard it is to know the difference.
You can try to be better than that, but even if you do, you aren't going to escape your own nature. And most people don't even seem to try.
Readit News
His view is that normal, rational, intelligent people... can have fictional stories in their heads about how things work. It takes energy and focus and research to fix these wrong stories, so often we live with them or don't recognize them.
Many times I've been casually talking with someone, say something, then realize that doesn't make any sense. My wrong story made sense in my head, but not when I speak it out loud.
By practicing the scientific method, we can gradually weed out the wrong stories in our heads.
Now I'm going to re-read `The Demon-Haunted World`
My Kagi-fu fails me. Its by an environmentalist who says any, say "avoid poisoning fish" advice stands against a massive "the line must go up" mythology. He compares it to the geocentrism of the Church; how the Sun, Moon and starts rotate around us and provides for humanity; and how heliocentrism also had to stand up against this massive mythology.
Sacred Economics" and "The More Beautiful World Our Hearts Know Is Possible"
Better to understand that it is there and how it works. It is precisely due to this myth-making faculty that in the absence of a legit mythos (i.e. that of Christianity, which was the dominant cosmo-conception / worldview in the west for most of our history) the vacuum of power that is left by the absence of a God figure will be replaced by the nearest approximate/surrogate the psyche can find. This is how we elevate celebrities like Trump to the status of a God-king who can do no wrong.
I feel like the current generation of young people don’t have anyone like Carl Sagan to bring a sense of wonder to science and exploration. It makes me sad.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sean_M._Carroll
The closest I've seen in modern times is maybe [Neil DeGrasse Tyson][1].
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neil_deGrasse_Tyson
This quote has always stuck with me and I think about it often, perhaps one of the main quotes that have steered my life.
“The main thing that I learned about conspiracy theory, is that conspiracy theorists believe in a conspiracy because that is more comforting. The truth of the world is that it is actually chaotic. The truth is that it is not The Iluminati, or The Jewish Banking Conspiracy, or the Gray Alien Theory. The truth is far more frightening - Nobody is in control. The world is rudderless.”
― Alan Moore
Development may be a random walk, but there are plenty of people with interest in a certain outcome, and when they get the opportunity they will take it and try escalate the process. That's true in most things.
I also tend to believe that it is not a coincidence that so many societies right now flirt with authoritarianism, for example. We influence each other, even more so now that information is global and electronic.
Contrasted with very rational people who are chasing magical, unmoored valuations in the stock market for instance. We buy and sell equity based not on future cash flows, but on confidence there will be a bigger sucker down the line. This untethering of "value" from any productive work is a greater contributor to the hollowing out of the US economy than anyone buying a piece of amethyst.
Apart from that, I read “crystals” and “horoscopes” in a more metaphorical sense here.
I've got a theory that the experience of consciousness is down to something like that - different systems in the brain interacting, like it being a bit of the brain that brings together info from the senses and memory recall and thinking outputs and then makes up a story/model of it.
- Srinivasa Ramanujan
> Back when I was at university, a friend mentioned to me that he wanted to read The Demon Haunted World by Carl Sagan. I had been a fan of Sagan since my teenage years, but had put off reading that book. Asking him if he’d read any of Sagan’s works, he said “No, but this book is often present in skeptic reading lists.”
> Many years later, I finally read the book. I’m surprised with it being recommended by skeptics, as it has a lengthy criticism of skeptics.
...
Quotes taken straight from the book:
"And yet, the chief deficiency I see in the skeptical movement is in its polarization: Us vs. Them—the sense that we have a monopoly on the truth; that those other people who believe in all these stupid doctrines are morons; that if you’re sensible, you’ll listen to us; and if not, you’re beyond redemption. This is unconstructive. It does not get the message across. It condemns the skeptics to permanent minority status; whereas, a compassionate approach that from the beginning acknowledges the human roots of pseudoscience and superstition might be much more widely accepted."
...
"In the way that skepticism is sometimes applied to issues of public concern, there is a tendency to belittle, to condescend, to ignore the fact that, deluded or not, supporters of superstition and pseudoscience are human beings with real feelings, who, like the skeptics, are trying to figure out how the world works and what our role in it might be. Their motives are in many cases consonant with science. If their culture has not given them all the tools they need to pursue this great quest, let us temper our criticism with kindness. None of us comes fully equipped."
It is indeed a great book. I would caution folks here that it is not particularly representative of Carl Sagan's books. If you loved/hated this book, it doesn't mean you'll love/hate his other books.
The details are in the blog post. Basically, every skeptic community I've looked at has espoused the very behavior that Carl Sagan criticizes in the book. Very dismissive and arrogant folks. There's a reason he explicitly calls out the skeptic community.
I did put this disclaimer though - I don't want this discussion to degrade into a no true Scotsman fallacy:
> Or at least, visible and vocal skeptics I run across on the Internet. An argument could be made that these are the minority and not really representative of the majority of people who ascribe to skepticism.
I happen to follow the history of supposed UFO encounters as a personal hobby since years ago. I personally try to view it with a solid dose of careful qualification and skepticism that avoids preconceived biases and this means reading both the reports themselves, their analysis by those who are convinced they were somehow paranormal or inexplicable at least, and analysis by skeptics and people who style themselves as debunkers.
To start with, from the two extremes representing on the one end UFOlogist types and on the other end, hard skeptics and the above-mentioned self-styles debunkers, there's no shortage of emotional reaction, irrational thinking, preconceived notions and confirmation bias.
As for me, while I can't absolutely claim my own objectivity to be perfect and free of biases of one kind or another (by definition this is hard because if one were capable of such a thing, they wouldn't have a bias in the first place) I try to keep an open mind that's not dismissive of those who sincerely and with no evident reason for lying or hallucinating, claim to have seen strange things in the skies, but also try to recognize that people do misinterpret things, especially if they're not trained observers, or sometimes just lie.
However, what I have noticed from many in the skeptic community in particular (and from the debunkers especially) is exactly the thing that Sagan notes. A harsh, extremely condescending attitude to any suggestion that any strange UFO sighting type incident be anything but perfectly explicable. More damningly, because they go into analyzing any such thing with a mind that's already decided on such things not being possible, by default they always feel they must debunk. It has basically become for them a default response.
In some UFO sighting reports, where the details truly are baffling and even include very trained, sober observers (Air Force pilots, police, scientists etc), I've seen reviews by skeptics in which the contortions they make to justify the event as some mundane thing are almost more absurd than simply admitting that X group of people saw something that can't be explained (without having to say that this means it was a UFO by the way).
This is not skepticism. It is instead a dogmatic logic, one based on emotion and irrationality disguised as hard boiled seriousness and being combined with a distinctly arrogant attitude around professing to be the one who is really the rational thinker, it comes across as even more absurd.
From UFO investigators, the same happens in the other direction of course, but on the other hand, I've frequently seen reports in which they themselves have the flexibility to say that some particular case was indeed mundane. I have yet to see a serious skeptic, say, a Philip Klass type, who ever admits something to be inexplicable no matter how hard they need to stretch reasoning to avoid doing so. In some cases, some of them also simply delve into outright character assassination and claiming a witness to be an idiot or implying that there's something wrong with them.
Again, Sagan's warning about compassion comes to mind. On this, he really nailed it while arguing for the importance of skepticism.
The 25 chapters are mostly independent and some of them are updated versions of something published earlier. Obviously the chapters complaining about the state of science education in the USA in the 1990s are less interesting for a European reading today. For me the most interesting chapters were 4-15 and 24, about witchcraft and human gullibility, for example.
I find the cheerleading for science in the initial chapters rather tiresome. That's just a personal reaction. I don't think the author is in any way "wrong". I suppose it's partly because it's something I feel I've grown out of. I read a lot of science popularisation when I was young, and I studied sciences, but in my old age I usually prefer literary fiction. I can't help feeling that "Science works!" is a very dull claim in view of the fact that anything that works gets accepted as "science". And the much vaunted "scientific method" is really just common sense, isn't it, really? Can that be taught? I have my doubts. Interestingly, his chapter 18 on !Kung San hunters somewhat makes that same point ...
A nit: He repeats the tired old myth about rhino horns being used medicinally to prevent impotence. More credible writers on that subject[] say they are used for jewellery, knife handles and the like.
[
] "Last chance to see", co-authored by Douglas Adams, perhaps? I can't remember whether it's mentioned in there but I'd recommend that book in any case.Consider that out of print hardcover first printings might ask a premium & if you have a local bookstore that you might want to support.
When in fact this entire genre should be read and addressed exclusively for oneself.
It reminds me how I was passionately discussing sth like this with a (former) friend and it seemed we agreed on the principles. When suddenly through some offhand remakr or turn of phrase it turned out he was thinking of others while I was thinking of myself
Meaning, he thought how easily others were misled (naturally, he himself was perfectly immune, his worldview correct) while I was talking about how I needed to protect myself from being seduced by agreeable nonsense.
Again, this genre applies to the reader, it is not a lecture material for you.
We have no business judging others`s beliefs when we have enough trouble keeping our own sane.
What we can do is short or bet against them if we are so convinced that we are right. Place your bets and stick to yourself. If you are as right as you are convinced, you should do well over time. Physical and economic reality >> fantasy and cope.
Assessing other peoples’ beliefs and ideas is, in my experience, one of the best ways to stay sane and learn. Ideas are ultimately independent of the people that hold them. I feel like it is people with unfounded ideas (religions, historically) that try mightily to stop other people from critically assessing them.
A kinder way to say "judging" is perhaps discrimination. As humans we must discriminate between the good and bad opinions of others, and even good and bad people, or we are doomed.
If you were to learn only from your own mistakes, or try to pretend that there is no such thing as a bad person, you would live a short and brutal life of victomhood.
We must judge kindly, but we must judge.
I agree with you except for this part here, because what other people believe can, and does, materially impact you when they vote. There's an incentive to try and influence others' beliefs when they're harmful to you or your communities.
In a world with bad faith & ill-informed missionaries (meme-ssionaries?) this is an inadequate political/societal perspective. We should all have the humility to be wrong but the conviction of our current beliefs and tomes that represent them
Logic itself is a kind of magical thinking. There's no way to get from logic to epistemology, and yet people think they will get to epistemological high ground if they keep to a logic asceticism strictly enough.
How much of whether you're right or wrong on a given issue is not down to knowledge, intelligence or rigor - but to pre-set biases that happen to be set the right way or the wrong way. How the same knowledge and intelligence that can guide you to truths can instead lead you to be more entrenched in wrongs, and just how hard it is to know the difference.
You can try to be better than that, but even if you do, you aren't going to escape your own nature. And most people don't even seem to try.