Resistance to Authoritarianism

For the first time in the 248-year history of our country, we’ve elected a president who vows to be an authoritarian. Never before have we seen such a public flouting of the norms of liberal democracy.

This isn’t hyperbole. Trump has promised to use military force against political opponents and deport millions of immigrants using that same military that he routinely denigrates. He’s vowed to fire career public servants in favor of cronies, obliterate the independence of the Department of Justice, dismantle the Department of Education, and push his own inane public health conspiracies, while undermining the research mechanisms that support our health infrastructure.

“But it’s the economy, stupid.” His proposed policies, particularly the tariffs, would dramatically boost inflation, increase the average cost to families, and prompt retaliatory trade wars with China and long-standing trading partners. Undermining that health infrastructure—especially by platforming anti-vaccine conspiracy theorists—could prompt new outbreaks of previously eradicated diseases (which has a cost, as we see in our current economic climate in the aftermath of COVID-19). The border policy, including the wall and mass deportations, would cost taxpayers hundreds of billions (to say nothing of the immeasurable cost to families).

So who benefits? As always under these systems, the loyalists: Trump-affiliated businesses and sycophants. This is the core of Project 2025: dismantle the civil service, replace scientists and regulatory authorities with mouthpieces, and turn the DOJ into an interior ministry to harass the leader’s enemies.

Corruption will mushroom. David Frum points out that “autocratic populists around the world—in Hungary, Turkey, Venezuela—have assaulted institutions designed to provide accountability and transparency in order to shift money and influence to their friends and families, and this may happen in America too…as loyalists take over regulatory agencies, filling not only political but also former civil-service jobs, American skies will become more polluted, American food more dangerous. As a result of this massive shift in the country’s bureaucratic culture, Trump-connected companies will prosper, even as America becomes less safe for consumers, for workers, for children, for all of us.”

Foreign Policy will warp as well. Ukraine faces a rough future given Trump’s admiration of Putin. Expect Netanyahu to immediately cozy up to Trump—it’s his only option. Politicians with authoritarian impulses in other countries will follow suit, emboldened by Trump.

In our own society, one can expect a reenergized response from the extreme right—the militias, white supremacists, etc.—who feel that they’ve been vindicated, and radicalization on the extreme left as a result. No one can divide like Trump.  

SO WHAT DO WE DO?

I can only answer this personally, in an incomplete way, with an appeal to my little network: resist in whatever way you can.  

My own career shift was prompted, in part, by a recognition of the power of popular art. Toni Morrison said it best: “This is precisely the time when artists go to work. There is no time for despair, no place for self-pity, no need for silence, no room for fear. We speak, we write, we do language. That is how civilizations heal.”

I believe that art can shift culture. I’ve seen the impact movies can have on awareness of atrocity crimes and human rights violations. I felt we needed a resistance story, and I wrote a movie, principally about resistance to authoritarianism, sexism, and the worst impulses within all of us to abandon our collective sense of humanity. I will make that movie. We’ve come close, and I hate that it’s more relevant than ever, but there’s hope buried in there, and it’s my own little effort to yell about what I think matters.

This doesn’t need to be direct. Maybe your art gives our souls the relief of a good belly laugh. Maybe you work to keep people safe. Maybe you teach history or advocate for education policy or just do your best to make sure your loved ones are insulated from harm. Whatever effort you can provide, we need it. Resist becoming passive.

I still keep a toe in the lawyer camp. I’ll join any effort I can to help and to block the harmful policies en route. And for my lawyer friends, one thing is certain: Trump will be surrounded by a circus of incompetent people. That’s the chink in his armor. These people can be beaten; in court, in Congress, in the court of public opinion (so long as Trump doesn’t get there first—he tends to burn folks around him pretty quickly). Yes, it’s frustrating seeing the rule of law erode, but that means we have to continue to fight for the respect it deserves. 

Resist the impulse to deal in recrimination. We’ll want to go over everything with a fine-toothed comb: the democrats’ strategy, the Harris campaign, changes in key demographics that shifted to support Trump against their own interests. This may be useful to learn, but not if it devolves into further division and extremism. Progressives can eat ourselves alive with blame and internal division. Now is not the time.

And my final plea is to find community. Engage in grassroots organizing. Find associations of like-minded people and join them, particularly if they are advocating for those most harmed by Trumpism. The freedom of assembly is one that Trump supporters have used well, and it’s a sign of a healthy republic, especially if it’s in opposition. Resist the impulse to give up and withdraw.

An uncomfortable truth is that more than half of the electorate was not turned off by Trump’s abhorrent personality, his convictions, his failures, or even the warnings of those who had worked closely with him the last time around. There’s an undeniably sexist and racist component at play here, and it’s a reflection of the deepest problems in our society. I’m trying to remember that most of his supporters are not bad people. To my mind, they primarily wanted change: change of economic circumstance, and freedom from all the things they were told they should fear. They fell prey to the authoritarian handbook—point at the outsiders, blame everything on them, and then lie, lie, lie. I have a long cultural memory of this pattern as a Jewish person, but also, as an American, enough latent patriotism to remember that our country, flawed as it has always been, was founded on principles of liberal democracy. Those principles are fundamentally in opposition to authoritarianism. We stood for them once, and each of us, in our own way, small or large, must push for them again. In other words, resist.

Raiders of the Lost Ark: The True Story of the Ark of the Covenant and the Power of an Idea

TUESDAY, 18 FEBRUARY 2020, WEST HOLLYWOOD, CA

We were on the eve of a pandemic. My friends in public health were worried, San Francisco had been hit hard, and the general feeling in LA was one of apprehension.

I had been on a deep dive in the adventure genre for a few weeks. I wanted to write my version of an adventure story, complete with serial-style cliffhangers, but for the long-form TV format. I wanted an awesome woman to lead it, and I wanted to avoid some of the “pitfalls” (sorry, couldn’t resist) of the genre; no gratuitous grave robbing of cultural heritage, no essentialized depictions of generic “natives” going crazy, etc. In retrospect, I must have been craving a bit of escapism, but the seed of the idea came years earlier. Perhaps twenty years earlier. Or so I thought. I was off by a few decades.  

I grew up LOVING Indiana Jones. Raiders of the Lost Ark—a little 1981 movie, with story by George Lucas and Philip Kaufman, written by Larry Kasdan, and directed by Steven Spielberg—absolutely captivated me. So much so that my most prized possession as a kid was my bullwhip. My dad brought it back from a business trip in Texas, and I spent HOURS cracking it (hitting myself at first—Indy doesn’t do that much, but damn does it hurt), whipping it around tree branches and swinging from them (yes that’s actually possible), and likely terrifying the neighbors.

As a kid, did you ever think of what you’d grab if your house burns down? That ONE THING? My answer—always—was my bullwhip. I figured it would help us survive the ensuing adventure scenario, which somehow involved jungles and traps and…hey, I was twelve. As a side note, I was convinced that everything would catch fire at some point. Every schoolkid in the 90s learned excessively about stop, drop, and roll—how to put yourself out when (not if) you catch fire. We’d even practice it. This was a vital lesson to learn, so of course it was going to happen, and a bullwhip is what you really need afterwards. Anyway, when it happened, I’d put myself out, grab my bullwhip, and swing out of the house into the adventure.

I wasn’t the only one fascinated with the bullwhip—George Lucas was too, and Steven Spielberg all but insisted on the Indiana Jones character in this new adventure movie using it to whip a woman towards him (yes, problematic, and as one who spent enough time accidentally whipping HIMSELF with a bullwhip as a child—OUCH). I knew this, because on this Tuesday in 2020, I was partway through a 90-page transcript of a five-day story conference in which Lucas, Spielberg, Kasdan, and later Kaufman discuss ideas and outline the details of their movie. (1) Yes, I’m such a nerd that I HAD to read the full transcript, (2) I’m convinced that all good screenwriters are serious nerds in at least some way, and (3) it’s incredible insight into the creative process of some of the most brilliant creators of all time, on one of the most successful films of all time. HOW COULD I NOT?

A commonly discussed bit of wisdom is that Philip Kaufman had the original idea for the Ark of the Covenant as the objective in the movie. The Nazi interest in the occult, and the mythical power of the device made for a great mcguffin (Hitchcock’s term for an objective that the protagonist and antagonist are after). This was confirmed by the story conference document, but when I learned where Kaufman got the idea, I stood up and YELLED, then, as any writer does, composed a carefully crafted message to my family. Our excitement comes out in words on the page, ok!?

To understand this, I have to take you back several decades, to around 1955. 

1955, CHICAGO, IL  

Dr. Raphael Isaacs, my great grandfather, was Director of Hematology at the Michael Reese hospital in Chicago. He was a nationally renowned blood specialist; earlier in his career, he pioneered a treatment for the deadly disease pernicious anemia, employing a desiccated hog’s stomach to successfully treat patients. While at Reese, he specialized in leukemia research and treatment, focusing on the role of radiation in causing the disease, and seeing patients with blood disorders. He was a brilliant man of science.

He was also a student of the Bible, and on long walks with his son (my grandfather, Roger Isaacs) he began to form theories—based on his research—as to how phenomenon described in the Hebrew Bible might be explained through physics and chemistry.

One such theory centers on the Ark of the Covenant. At this point, any Raiders fan can hear the expositional scene in which Indy explains to the Army intel guys:

Dr. Isaacs’ theory was that the Ark, a golden box with twin-cherubim perfectly positioned at each end like radio antennae, actually looked and operated a lot like a communications device; it was essentially a radio for communicating with God. The more that he studied it, the more convinced he became of his theory. Eventually, he published a monograph on this and a few other theories with his son.

This theory is fascinating, imaginative, and particularly considering the source, unique.

So you can imagine my delight when I read the following from Philip Kaufman on page 84 of the Story Conference transcript, discussing the genesis (sorry again) of his idea:

“a thing that I, you know, have been thinking about for maybe twenty years since a doctor — my mononucleosis doctor — when I was in college, a famous blood specialist – and he had written – with another doctor — an article on the Ark of the Covenant and how he felt it provided a means of communication with some other extra-terrestrial or God-like or whatever…[p. 84].”

He goes on to discuss how his doctor described the Ark as essentially a radio, with the cherubim as a key component.

Hmmm…the Ark, as a means of communication akin to a radio, with cherubim as a key component in the early theory, imparted by a famous blood specialist in Chicago? Too much coincidence is no coincidence at all. There is only one reasonable conclusion: Dr. Raphael Isaacs provided key story inspiration to Philip Kaufman for the Ark of the Covenant in Raiders of the Lost Ark.

Here’s the description, delivered by Belloc, in the movie:

RIDICULOUSLY COOL, RIGHT!?

But that’s not all. Here is, for me, the most important part.

My grandfather, Roger Isaacs, would pick up his father’s research, and over the course of the next 40+ years, develop it considerably. The result was a book called Talking with God. His comparative study of ancient languages and etymology is currently challenging traditional interpretations of biblical terms, and his use of science—including physics, chemistry, and medicine--offer a new and compelling angle on ancient texts.

As anyone who has worked on an expansive piece of research and writing can attest, once you complete it, you want it to mean something. To have an impact. My grandfather’s book is certainly accomplishing that, but I got to tell him that these ideas that have meant so much to him helped to inspire a group of filmmakers to make one of the most impactful movies of all time. Raiders is fun, yes, but it also captured enough imagination to prompt a dramatic uptick in the number of people choosing to become archaeologists—fantastical traps or not—not to mention spawning an entire genre of reimagined serial-style films.

My grandfather is humble man. Erudite, but not prone to boasting. More humble perhaps than he could be—he is a skilled scholar, he survived injury in the Battle of the Bulge in WWII, built one of the first PR companies in Chicago, and went on to help, for example, Jack Kennedy with his Presidential campaign. He’s a great jazz drummer. And at 95, he’s sharper than I am. But he’s not prone to hyperbole at all. I can only remember one instance of it. His response when I gave him the news:

“Well, I’d say you made my week, but I think you just about made my life.”

And that made mine as well, Grandpa.

We reached out to Philip Kaufman, and he wrote to my grandfather with a warm, generous recount of his memory:  

“I met your father sometime in 1955 when I was a student downstate at the University of Illinois. He had previously diagnosed my mother as having the then little-known and usually mis-diagnosed blood condition called mononucleosis.   He discovered I, also, had mono and generously took the time to show me my blood slides on his microscope, pointing out the battles between white and red cells, etc.  I remember him as a rare, kind human being, ‘old-school’ in the best sense of that phrase, who took time and care to explain ‘how things worked’ to a then 19 year-old patient.   

For some reason he began telling me about his theories about the Ark.  I was somewhat familiar with the Ark through conversations with my father’s uncle Morrie, a revered Hasid.  Uncle Morrie had told me accounts of the Ark and shown me a book of his on the Pentateuch with surprisingly extensive commentaries in English about the Ark’s structure, composition and extraordinary powers when carried into battle.   Your father’s theories about the Ark’s telecommunications potential (even suggesting that You-Know-Who with Almighty Powers might be listening on the other end of the line) were even more spellbinding, exciting...and fun to a 19 year old enthralled by his mono-doctor’s theories on mono-theism […]

Your father was, as you know, a remarkable and generous man.  The young man he told his theories to remembers him well.  And when the Ark is finally found—or maybe carefully reconstructed by some genius or robot from the extensive instructions laid out in the Pentateuch—tell your family to take off their shoes, step inside, brush aside the silken curtains, etc., give loving noogies to the golden heads of the cherubim, and say a few profound words of thanks: your father probably will be listening on the other end!”

This meant the world to Grandpa Roger and to our family.  

As for me, it’s hard to do much better than that for motivation. I built my version of an adventure story world, and had a blast writing the pilot. Early readers have loved it, and if we can find a home for it, I’m hoping to see it on screen in the not-too-distant future.

The lesson this drives home? Share your ideas. Even if they seem fantastical. You never know whom you might inspire.

Impeachment 2.0: Opening Arguments

Impeachment Day 1 in the Senate was an incredible display of contrasting styles of legal arguments. Check out the opening statements. On one hand, you have House Impeachment Manager Raskin's opening. It was clear, concise, and supplemented with helpful visuals. It was organized around a single theme: the ridiculous and dangerous idea of a "January exception" in Presidential conduct subject to impeachment. This would be an exception applicable in the most desperate time for a sitting President during which the temptation for misconduct is particularly high. Mr. Raskin provided useful examples to bolster his position on legislative intent. He didn't even miss the emotional appeal; the video was powerful, well edited, and makes a link in the viewer's mind between the President's words and the actions of his followers on January 6th.

On the other hand, you have the opening presented by Trump's attorney, Mr. Castor. It was freewheeling, rambling, and bizarre. He began with an old-timey tone, spent considerable time looking back at his own loosely connected memories, and then moved into a long-winded section that seemed aimed at buttering up the Senators with descriptions of how great they are and how important the body is. I tried to follow the reasoning--there was an odd definition of manslaughter vs. murder, a few shades at a vague 1st amendment argument, some anger about interpretation of the 14th amendment, and finally an admission that he threw out his prepared remarks because--and I'm not making this up--the House Impeachment Manger did a good job with his opening. Mr. Castor even tossed in the aside that, hey, you could just arrest Trump--HIS CLIENT--for his crimes. Why bother with impeachment?

I don't envy the Trump team's task. They have a reprehensible client, and they face a steep challenge in an inherently politicized process. That said, they accepted the challenge, and the money, and the spotlight.

There are a wide range of styles that could be considered competent. See if you think this is one.

House Impeachment Manager Jamie Raskin Opening

Powerful Video played during House Impeachment Manager's Opening

Trump's Attorney Bruce Castor Opening

January 6th, 2021 - Violent Insurrection at the Capitol

Abraham Lincoln addressed the danger that white-supremacist mob violence poses to our political institutions in his Lyceum Address in 1838; it erodes everyone’s faith in our system. It’s almost entirely applicable today:

“I hope I am over wary; but if I am not, there is, even now, something of ill-omen, amongst us. I mean the increasing disregard for law which pervades the country; the growing disposition to substitute the wild and furious passions, in lieu of the sober judgment of Courts; and the worse than savage mobs, for the executive ministers of justice. This disposition is awfully fearful in any community; and that it now exists in ours, though grating to our feelings to admit, it would be a violation of truth, and an insult to our intelligence, to deny. Accounts of outrages committed by mobs, form the every-day news of the times...

Such are the effects of mob law; and such as the scenes, becoming more and more frequent in this land so lately famed for love of law and order; and the stories of which, have even now grown too familiar, to attract any thing more, than an idle remark...

And not only so; the innocent, those who have ever set their faces against violations of law in every shape, alike with the guilty, fall victims to the ravages of mob law; and thus it goes on, step by step, till all the walls erected for the defense of the persons and property of individuals, are trodden down, and disregarded. But all this even, is not the full extent of the evil. By such examples, by instances of the perpetrators of such acts going unpunished, the lawless in spirit, are encouraged to become lawless in practice; and having been used to no restraint, but dread of punishment, they thus become, absolutely unrestrained. Having ever regarded Government as their deadliest bane, they make a jubilee of the suspension of its operations; and pray for nothing so much, as its total annihilation.

While, on the other hand, good men, men who love tranquility, who desire to abide by the laws, and enjoy their benefits, who would gladly spill their blood in the defense of their country; seeing their property destroyed; their families insulted, and their lives endangered; their persons injured; and seeing nothing in prospect that forebodes a change for the better; become tired of, and disgusted with, a Government that offers them no protection; and are not much averse to a change in which they imagine they have nothing to lose. Thus, then, by the operation of this mobocractic spirit, which all must admit, is now abroad in the land, the strongest bulwark of any Government, and particularly of those constituted like ours, may effectually be broken down and destroyed--I mean the attachment of the People.

Whenever this effect shall be produced among us; whenever the vicious portion of population shall be permitted to gather in bands of hundreds and thousands, and burn churches, ravage and rob provision-stores, throw printing presses into rivers, shoot editors, and hang and burn obnoxious persons at pleasure, and with impunity; depend on it, this Government cannot last. By such things, the feelings of the best citizens will become more or less alienated from it; and thus it will be left without friends, or with too few, and those few too weak, to make their friendship effectual. At such a time and under such circumstances, men of sufficient talent and ambition will not be wanting to seize the opportunity, strike the blow, and overturn that fair fabric, which for the last half century, has been the fondest hope, of the lovers of freedom, throughout the world.”

Which country?

5 NOVEMBER 2020 - 10:00AM PST - COUNTRY: [UNDEFINED]

The leader of the country—a cruel, self-centered dullard, propped up by dynastic money and corruption—attacks democracy in an effort to stay in office.

A walk along the streets yields little to see. Storefronts are boarded up, and roadways are cordoned off in anticipation of election violence. The graffiti on the boards hints at a desperate call for recognition and equality—a sign of the racial and ethnic division the leader sows.

Large fences are under construction around the leader’s residence, once a symbol of the people, and at the country’s border, once a symbol of acceptance. Nearby, thousands of children are crammed in jails, guilty of being born to those seeking the hope the country stood for.

The deadly disease hit a record on election day: more than one hundred thousand new cases. The leader politicized disease response. Better to lie and obfuscate than be threatened by something as puny as a virus. Optics and ratings are more important than lives and reality. Science is the opposition’s game. The leader prefers bluster. Damn the people. Let them die.

Like so many countries flirting with authoritarianism before, raw power and fear are the currency that matters. Open contempt for democracy, laws, institutions, and truth is acceptable.

Nearly half the country wants more of this. Votes continue to be counted, despite the leader and his party’s attacks. They threaten the counters and push challenges through the court system. The country hangs on a knife-edge. Which way will it go?

Q and A: What's wrong with ACB?

Lots of exciting work on the latest script—for which I’m truly thankful—and an insane year in general has meant blog posts are few and far between. All good—they’ve never been anything else. Here’s a quick, unpolished Q and A prompted by an old friend reaching out. She posted a funny meme lamenting the impact of Amy Coney Barrett’s confirmation as a Supreme Court Justice. It was met, almost immediately, with a question of flimsy logic:

Q: “Why is [Amy Coney Barrett], [a woman] who has been incredibly successful and had a family, literally what feminists have been fighting for, not celebrated?”

A: Oh you sweet summer child.

It’s because her viewpoints are regressive, and arguably against the progress that feminists have fought for. Her legal opinions and remarks on reproductive rights—an area that fundamentally affects women more than it affects men—have clearly and consistently been along the lines of curtailing those rights. The same could be said for her positions and legal reasoning on marriage equality.

To be clear, she’s unquestionably intelligent, but the line of legal reasoning that she subscribes to is originalism, which is a belief that judges should interpret the words of the Constitution as the original authors intended when they were written, and not take into account any degree of social progress (such as progress on women’s rights, civil rights, etc). In practice, as with her predecessor Scalia (for whom she clerked), this has been used primarily as an intellectual means of deciding cases along the most conservative lines, and when faced with the real impact of those decisions, simply saying that the legislature should clean up the mess. Most serious legal scholars don’t agree with the outcome there. For example, when the constitution was written, women couldn’t vote, and black slaves were considered to be 3/5ths of a person for the purposes of representation in that same legislature. Clearly we don’t conduct our society that way any more, and even the founders knew that social progress should be a natural part of the system. So it’s a bit ridiculous to decide cases that way—it makes one think that it’s the outcome she’s after, rather than the strength of the reasoning itself. And as those outcomes are anti-feminist on a regular basis, we aren’t big fans of her. Feminism is allowed complexity; it doesn’t just mean “women in high positions.”

There is a lot more to say on this; schools of thought on legal reasoning, the impact of her nomination and the tactics used to create the current makeup of the court, and what progressives should do to minimize the impact of Senate confirmation of a Justice against the will of the majority of Americans are all topics worth deeper dives.

For now, I’ll end with my hope: that this is the last grasping talon of a dying regime rooted in discriminatory thought, and that next week, both the executive and legislative branches will better reflect the promise of America and the thought process—based on tolerance—of the majority of its people.

Double Dutch is in development!

Back in late July, I received notification that a feature I wrote, Double Dutch, advanced to the Quarterfinal round in the Academy’s Nicholl Fellowships in Screenwriting.

Through a truly odd series of events, it landed on the desk of a brilliant A-list director, and to our delight, she loved it. She took it to a producer friend of hers, and he and his company loved it as well!

I’m not counting my chickens here—many projects get stalled at this stage—but it’s SO exciting to know that others are similarly moved by this story of bravery, empowerment, and humanity.

And that meeting, in which someone is truly excited about a shared vision for a movie? Yeah, that’s why we do this.

Q and A: US Law and COVID-19

As we all grapple with the pandemic, questions naturally arise as to our legal rights, and what authority our governments have in response to COVID-19. This will be the first of a two-part series: part one will be a brief discussion of some thoughts about US law and COVID-19. Part two will be a more in-depth discussion of international human rights law as it intersects with the global response to the virus.

A friend recently had some questions on a facebook post about our domestic response to the virus. I’m reproducing the exchange here. Note that it’s off the cuff; there are many dimensions in the US context not discussed, and it will be interesting to see how much of this plays out. Still, I hope the initial thought process is interesting.

Question:

I am so relieved that state and local officials are finally making these very tough calls to restrict social interaction. It's obviously the right thing to do, and the only way we are going to limit the death toll of this pandemic.

I am also curious to know your thoughts on this from a legal standpoint. Is this even constitutional? What about the rights to assemble, move freely, etc.?

My wife and I are limiting ourselves to interacting with only two other people for the foreseeable future. But that's (so far) voluntary on our part. Is it legal for governments to require this of individuals?

Answer:

It’s a great question, and one that I had a lot of interaction with when I was primarily focused on global health and human rights work. Focusing specifically on the US context:

First, government officials do have pretty extensive authority to implement public health measures to stop pandemics. Some of the laws and regs are listed here. They are considered part of the policing power, but that’s not the only source of authority, and the Supreme Court recognized it in part in Gibbons v. Ogden re: interstate commerce, and explicitly for quarantines in this case. That one had a fairly strong statement: “the power of the States to enact and enforce quarantine laws for the safety and the protection of the health of their inhabitants […] is beyond question”. But note: it says ‘states’ (more on this below).

Functionally, that means a wide range of things can happen in the name of public health: travel restrictions, mandatory vaccinations, seized property, quarantines…etc. But the odd piece about all of this is that most of the decision-making actually falls to the state and local public health departments, who receive guidance from the CDC and federal government but have somewhat strong local authority. Mostly, congress has chosen to keep it that way (and it was challenged with a few other epidemics we’ve faced over the years). This translates to a complicated and inefficient patchwork of local responses, but other than at the border, the federal government and CDC are not in charge. It’s a bit odd, and it does make a coordinated response challenging with good leadership in the executive branch, to say nothing of leadership that happens to be too busy nursing a narcissistic personality disorder to react with any sort of sane decision-making. On that note, because there is heightened federal authority at the border, that’s where we could see some more drastic measures from Trump (and possibly re: interstate commerce and travel). It is his favorite focus after all, and we’ve already seen some of it.

Now of course, there are constitutional limits. The very important rights you bring up, in the US context, mostly fall under deprivation of “life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” That’s probably where we’d see challenges. Without going too far in depth, the government can’t arbitrarily deprive one of liberties, but also, there isn’t an explicit right to do whatever you want in the midst of a public health crisis. If you are quarantined, for example, that’s not an automatic arbitrary deprivation of liberty: there must be a sufficient process to determine that the quarantine is necessary. And here’s where it gets wonky. People are familiar with the “danger to self or others” standard; that could be argued. We gave the executive branch a little more authority in the wake of 9/11; that line of law could come into play. At some point, cases will end up in court, but there is precedent for most of these public health measures so long as they aren’t arbitrary.

My sense is that even with cases that do challenge these measures, as long as they aren’t crazy, judges will likely defer to the public health authorities. So domestically, if the case can be made that these restrictions are in the interest of public health and not unreasonably restrictive, they’ll probably be deemed ok. So your specific scenario: the limitations you and your wife have implemented are smart from a public health standpoint, but could the government order a two-person interaction limit with otherwise healthy people, and arrest you if you break it? That seems unreasonably restrictive. Could they order a quarantine if you’re diagnosed? Likely yes. Of course, the check on something wild is the courts (and in a fringe case, a constitutional challenge is totally possible). If this feels messy, that’s because it is. The rules aren’t super clear, and courts could end up all over the place until the Supreme Court steps in, and I think it would end up the same way: largely deferring to the public health authorities.

Now I’ve already written a novel, but as it’s my true area of focus, I just have to note that there is also an entire framework of international human rights law to which the US is either bound or must not undermine, which also comes into play re: health, rights to freedom of assembly, movement, self-determination, due process, bodily integrity, etc. [This will form part two!] For the most part, the above inquiry should satisfy that, but the international standards are a bit different and more extreme measures may violate human rights law. We saw a great deal of that internationally in the 80s around the HIV/AIDS crisis, and the upshot is that one MUST respect human rights in public health responses—both to increase the efficacy of the response, AND to increase respect for human rights. This can be complicated—e.g. criminalizing transmission pushes people underground and disincentivizes testing—but as a general rule, respect for human rights and good public health go hand in hand.

Restrictive abortion laws undermine public health and human rights

A few years back, I was working full-time in global health and human rights, often in the areas of sexual and reproductive health, equality and nondiscrimination, and helping to improve national health systems as they relate to international human rights law. Most of this work was in partnership with fantastic organizations in developing countries—these orgs were trying to make progress in the face of restrictive policies, corruption, and blatantly discriminatory legislation. Odd, then, that Alabama, Missouri, Georgia, and potentially other US states are facing these exact challenges, and that the health data and human rights arguments we’d use in developing country contexts are applicable here.  

It’s a slightly different perspective than I’m seeing, so here are a few thoughts.

The public health and human rights rationale for safe, legal abortion care is overwhelming.

Let’s talk about unsafe abortions

Worldwide, about 25 million unsafe abortions occur every year. This is mostly in developing countries (though it may be worth adding a new category for developed countries regressing under idiots).  

Restrictive abortion laws—similar to the recent Alabama bill—are associated with high rates of unsafe abortions. Here’s the key point from a recent study by the World Health Organization and the Guttmacher institute, published in the Lancet:

“In countries where abortion is completely banned or permitted only to save the woman’s life or preserve her physical health, only 1 in 4 abortions were safe; whereas, in countries where abortion is legal on broader grounds, nearly 9 in 10 abortions were done safely. Restricting access to abortions does not reduce the number of abortions.”

Again, on that last part:

Restricting access to abortions does not reduce the number of abortions.

Restricting access to abortions does not reduce the number of abortions.

Restricting access to abortions does not reduce the number of abortions.

All it does is make them less safe.

This is a preventable cause of maternal mortality and morbidity. The consensus on the public health impact of unsafe abortions has existed since at least 1967, and is supported in study after study, and numerous declarations and resolutions signed by nearly every country in the world, including the United States. Speaking of those…

Let’s talk about human rights

Here’s a non-exhaustive list of human rights—rights that the United States is obligated to respect, protect, and fulfill—that are hindered by such a law: the right to equality and nondiscrimination; the right to life, liberty, and security of the person; the right to autonomy and bodily integrity; the right to the highest attainable standard of health; the right to decide whether to have children, the number and spacing of children, and the information and the means to have children; the right to be free from torture and other forms of cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment; the right to enjoy the benefits of scientific progress; and the right to privacy.

Conventions and treaties under which these rights fall include the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), International Convention on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), and more.

The right to life

We could analyze every one of these rights at length, but let’s take a closer look at the right to life, as that seems to be misused in this context with alarming frequency. The following is from General comment No. 36 (2018) on article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights—to which the United States is a State Party and is legally bound--on the right to life:

“restrictions on the ability of women or girls to seek abortion must not, inter alia, jeopardize their lives, subject them to physical or mental pain or suffering which violates article 7, discriminate against them or arbitrarily interfere with their privacy. States parties must provide safe, legal and effective access to abortion where the life and health of the pregnant woman or girl is at risk, and where carrying a pregnancy to term would cause the pregnant woman or girl substantial pain or suffering, most notably where the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest or is not viable.

In addition, States parties may not regulate pregnancy or abortion in all other cases in a manner that runs contrary to their duty to ensure that women and girls do not have to undertake unsafe abortions, and they should revise their abortion laws accordingly. [9] For example, they should not […] apply criminal sanctions against women and girls undergoing abortion or against medical service providers assisting them in doing so, since taking such measures compel women and girls to resort to unsafe abortion.

 States parties should not introduce new barriers and should remove existing barriers that deny effective access by women and girls to safe and legal abortion, including barriers caused as a result of the exercise of conscientious objection by individual medical providers. States parties should also effectively protect the lives of women and girls against the mental and physical health risks associated with unsafe abortions.”

The right to health

The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, in Article 12, recognizes the Right to the Highest Attainable Standard of Health. CESCR General Comment No. 14 includes, in direct interpretation of the normative content of the right, “the right to control one’s health and body, including sexual and reproductive freedom, and the right to be free from interference.” Also in relation to Article 12, “A major goal should be reducing women’s health risks, particularly lowering rates of maternal mortality […] [t]he realization of women’s right to health requires the removal of all barriers interfering with access to health services, education and information, including in the area of sexual and reproductive health.”

In 1999, the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women recognized the barrier posed by “laws that criminalize medical procedures only needed by women and that punish women who undergo those procedures.” The US has signed but not ratified CEDAW—which means it still must not violate the spirit and purpose of the treaty. 189 other countries have ratified.

Regional recognition

Regionally, the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, in the additional Protocol on the Rights of Women in Africa, recognizes abortion under health and reproductive rights in Article 14. A number of cases in the European Court of Human Rights have found breaches of article 8 (respect for private life) of the European Convention on Human rights based on the states’ restrictive abortion laws (e.g. Poland and Ireland; Tysiąc v. Poland, RR v. Poland and ABC v. Ireland.) There are numerous decisions before international human rights bodies affirming such rights, and of course, a vast array of cases in national court systems.

Simply put, overly restrictive abortion laws directly violate numerous human rights, and indirectly jeopardize realization of other human rights.  

Why does this matter? Isn’t the whole idea of the law just to challenge Roe v. Wade in the US national court system?

The public health rationale is self-evident. Even those claiming moral opposition must concede that if the abortion is to happen anyway, it’s preferable that it happens under safe conditions. We have good data on this from numerous countries. 

As for international human rights law and treaties, these can be considered (at minimum) persuasive authority should the US Supreme Court end up hearing one of these cases. More importantly, a country violating human rights law in no way invalidates the underlying human rights norms and principles, in much the same way violating a law in a national system doesn’t invalidate the law. The United States was instrumental in constructing the human rights system; it would be a shame if we allow bad data, sloppy thinking, parochialism, and short-sighted value signaling to undermine the health and human rights of half of our population. Internationally, reproductive rights, and women’s rights in general, operate as a sort of canary in the coal mine for a state’s human rights and well-being. Those most restrictive tend to lack in human development, health indicators, and economic growth.

A favorite attorney saying is that if you’ve got the facts, pound the facts. If you’ve got the law, pound the law. And if you’ve got neither, pound the table. With the health rationale, and the legal rationale—domestic and international—we’ve got facts and law. Pound away.

Sources:

https://www.who.int/news-room/detail/28-09-2017-worldwide-an-estimated-25-million-unsafe-abortions-occur-each-year

https://www.who.int/reproductivehealth/publications/unsafe_abortion/9789241548434/en/

https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/70914/9789241548434_eng.pdf;jsessionid=4E275BFFFC96A4D531B3AA6B03B08534?sequence=1

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(18)30624-X/fulltext

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/langlo/article/PIIS2214-109X(18)30029-9/fulltext

http://indicators.ohchr.org/

UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR), General Comment No. 14: The Right to the Highest Attainable Standard of Health (Art. 12 of the Covenant), 11 August 2000, E/C.12/2000/4, available at: https://www.refworld.org/docid/4538838d0.html [accessed 17 May 2019]

https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/HRBodies/CCPR/CCPR_C_GC_36.pdf

https://www.reproductiverights.org/sites/crr.civicactions.net/files/documents/CEDAW-C-50-D-22-2009%20English%20(clean%20copy).pdf

https://www.guttmacher.org/fact-sheet/induced-abortion-worldwide

On the Pittsburgh Tree of Life Synagogue Attack

Eleven people were murdered—for being Jewish—as a man shouted “all Jews must die.” Seven of them lived during the time of the holocaust, and subsequently saw the rise and re-emboldening of anti-semites here in the US. “Some very fine people,” I believe the neo-nazis were called in Charlottesville, amidst their chants of “Jews will not replace us.” With a 57% rise in anti Semitic incidents in 2017 alone, the pattern of escalating violence and harassment against Jewish people—and really all otherized groups—continues at a sickening pace.

It’s Trumpism. It’s not direct—and for him, anti-semitism may not be a closely held belief. But it’s mainstreaming anti-intellectualism and embracing conspiracy theories, both old-world and new. It’s a churn of first-family and Fox-family supported conspiracies about George Soros that directly parallel some of the oldest anti-Semitic tropes on the books. It’s dog-whistle political messaging: proudly claiming the title nationalist. It’s a blatantly anti-semitic campaign ad. It’s “America First” as a slogan, the historical roots of which Trump may not understand, but which Bannon almost certainly did, replete with inextricable ties to anti-semitism. It’s snide comments by Trump Jr. about collecting more shekels, intended or not. It’s addressing a room full of Jews as “negotiators” and “dealmakers” while focusing entirely on their money. It’s tepid (but ultimately forced) disavowal of white supremacist David Duke, and silence in the face of a wave of harassment against Jewish journalists aimed at their Jewishness. It’s labeling those running on neo-nazi messaging as alt-right—the same folk employing Nazi salutes and chanting “Heil/Hail Trump” at rallies--including at least one Trump campaign delegate. It results in a massive increase in the amount of white supremacists and neo-nazis on the ballots this year. It just happens to be my people that were killed this time around, but as usual, we aren’t the only ones under the crosshairs. As a response, we’ll see a key group of elected officials offer condolences and prayers to the families of those massacred during prayer. Those same officials will use this as an opportunity to further stigmatize mental illness, while cutting funding for mental health and burnishing their A+ ratings from the NRA.

We find ourselves now dealing with the consequences of Machiavellian political messaging, and this is the point: political messaging matters. It’s not intellectually honest to hold Trump accountable for the individual actions of one of his followers, but he is responsible for the movements he and his party helped create and embolden, and the overall political messaging they oversee. In Viktor Frankl’s descriptions of life in Nazi death camps in “Man’s Search for Meaning”, one of the most important lessons is that while we can’t avoid suffering, we can all control the decisions we make on a day-to-day basis—both in coping with suffering, and living a meaningful, moral life. So we must decide. Every individual must decide whether to be a force against this—or complicit in its advancement. I wish it weren’t so. I wish we could aim for the middle and find “common ground” here—but there is nothing inherently good about the space between Trumpism and anything else. We must decide to reject Trumpism as an aberration; it should be a four-year embarrassment for conservatives, progressives, and humans. We must decide that we’ve given this “philosophy” enough air-time; it’s morally unsound and leads to division and violence. We must decide to forgive those who were misled, but not those who are consciously misleading. We must decide to channel the grief and indignation we feel, not only by voting on Nov. 6th , but each time we have an opportunity to reject this cyclical nastiness. In the end, it comes down to many individual choices. We must decide to reject hatred of difference.

You're Average and That Makes You Beautiful

Think of someone particularly attractive. This could be your love, a friend—perhaps a famous actor. Now think of telling that person that they look average. Not a good opening line, right? As terms of endearment go, “that’s my wife, isn’t she average?” won’t win many points. But if you have an attractive wife, it would be accurate.

That’s because in general, an average of several individual faces, when combined, is perceived as more attractive than the constituent faces. As far back as the 1880s, Sir Francis Galton used composite portraiture—a technique in which multiple exposures of different faces were composed on the same photographic plate—to create a sort of blurry average of the faces. He and his colleagues were surprised to find that the combination face was, well, hot. Hotter than the individual pictures.  

About a century later, this effect would be tested in more depth and at with more rigor using computer composites. Relatively simple programs allowed us to create clear digital averages with many more constituent photos, and test attractiveness in studies with statistically significant numbers. Try it out for yourself here. Across nearly all of the studies, images of faces manipulated to make features closer to average were judged more attractive.

A common and likely inaccurate belief is that symmetrical faces are more attractive. To an extent, we do like symmetrical features, but symmetrical features clearly aren’t everything. If I had perfectly symmetrical green Nike swooshes for eyebrows, it wouldn’t look good. This is actually fairly obvious if you think about it; anything in the extreme, such as eyes so close together they are nearly touching, would strike us as off-putting regardless of the symmetry. The effect of averageness is isolated from symmetry even in less extreme examples. A 2004 study demonstrated that the effect of averageness in determining attractiveness of female faces was independent of any effect of symmetry on the perceived attractiveness of faces. Full PDF here.

As it turns out, averageness really does correlate with attractiveness. A University of Toronto study tested this in an interesting way, using multiple headshots of the same person, with different distances from eyes to mouth, or differences in space between eyes. The person was at her most attractive when the space between her pupils was 46% of the width of her face from ear to ear, and when the distance between her eyes and mouth was 36% of the length of her face from hairline to chin. While these specific numbers may not mean much, perhaps the most important finding is that those ratios are essentially the same as an average female face. For a real-world example, Jessica Alba meets this average criteria.  

So what is going on here? As with almost any accurate scientific statement, we can’t be 100% certain. But the strongest explanations tend to cut two ways. The first has to do with evolutionary pressures—essentially, in choosing mates, we tend to favor characteristics close to the mean. This exerts directional selection pressure against more extreme characteristics. Over time, less average characteristics would be selected out, as they are perceived as suboptimal on an individual basis.

The second has to do with cognitive fluency; this theory holds that average faces are closer to what we picture in our mind when we think of a face, so a prototypical member of a category strikes us as more familiar and is effectively easier to register through our visual system. This line of thinking led to the idea that part of it may be the “exposure effect”, in which we trust things we’ve seen more often (think of any multinational brand—Coca Cola, McDonalds, Toyota). At least in this application, exposure effect doesn’t seem to be the key, but that doesn’t rule out cognitive fluency playing a role.

There are neural correlates as well: activity in certain parts of the orbitofrontal cortex increases with increasing attractiveness of faces.  

Whatever the explanation, this average-is-attractive idea is consistent. One study suggests that computer-manipulated averageness makes birds, fish, and automobiles more attractive.

There is, however, a wrinkle to this. It turns out that average faces are attractive, but very attractive faces may not be average. In perhaps the strongest study on this topic to date, Perret et al. decided to test the averageness hypothesis by experimenting with three composite groups: (1) an average of 60 faces, (2) an average of the 15 most attractive of those 60 faces, and (3) a hyper-attractive composite, which was a version in which the “attractive” qualities were exaggerated on the digital image. Number 3--the hyper attractive exaggerated face—was judged the most attractive. The implications are fascinating because that face is explicitly not average—it is exaggerated (though it appears slight when you look at the study images). So the takeaway is that average certainly may be attractive, but very attractive may not be average.

Limitations (i.e. that’s cool, let’s complicate it)

I should note a few observations in research in this area. First, the volume of research focused on what we find attractive in women is much larger than that focused on men. Second, the vast majority of both bodies of research tend to take a heterosexual perspective in judging attractiveness. While a female-as-attractive, heteronormative perspective is probably not surprising, it’s still a real limitation. I’ve highlighted that which I could find in the next two paragraphs for men and same-sex relationships, but note that the number of confirming (or contradicting) studies is smaller for these two sections. 

Many of the studies have been about women. What about the guys? Is this some weird affirmation of the male-gaze thing? Are average male faces attractive too?

Not quite, kind of yes, and we aren’t sure. Both averageness and symmetry tend to increase attractiveness for everyone, but for male facial attractiveness, sexual dimorphism—or the difference between typically male and female traits—seems also to be key. Interesting results suggest that ovulating heterosexual women prefer faces with masculine traits. These traits are associated with increased exposure to testosterone during key developmental stages, and include a broad forehead, prominent nose and cheekbones, large jaw, and strong chin—all of which may be a departure from average to some extent. This preference was less strong during menses and luteal phases. Thus, not only may women prefer men to have faces that are not average, their preference may also be stronger at different phases during their hormonal cycles. That said, at least one rigorous study suggests that feminized features of a male face were preferred, so to some extent, we aren’t really sure what women prefer when it comes to men’s faces.

Moreover, this preference also seems to vary between countries—masculinity preference increased as general health indicators decreased--suggesting among other things that attraction may be impacted by environment and may be a socio-cultural learned phenomenon to some extent. All that said, this should be read in concert with facial average studies, as those also tend to confirm averageness as attractiveness for men.

Do these findings hold true for people attracted to the same sex?

Again, not quite! In one study—and let’s be clear, as in so many areas, this is understudied for people attracted to the same sex—“homosexual men demonstrated stronger preferences for masculinity in male faces than did all of the other groups. Homosexual women demonstrated stronger preferences for masculinity in female faces than did heterosexual women. These results suggest attractiveness judgments of same-sex faces made by homosexual individuals are not a mirror image of those made by heterosexual individuals of the opposite sex. Our data suggest that face preferences of homosexual individuals reflect a system of biologically and socially guided preferences at least as complex as those found among heterosexual individuals.” So average again may be attractive, but sexual dimorphism and varying preferences in typically masculine and typically feminine traits are relevant.

You’re Extraordinary

So, what do we do if we are—sigh—not average? That’s where the exposure effect mentioned before may actually come in handy. The exposure effect is so powerful that people judge almost everything, from photographs, to songs, to themes in movies, to shapes, to made-up words, to people more positively. This will likely be the subject of a future post—but for the romantics, take heart. Just showing up repeatedly may be enough.

It’s also worth pointing out that these studies are not a simulation of the human mind—they are primarily visual, and don’t account for the rich variety of social, behavioral, and physical interactions that make us love one another. Everything from smell, to shared experiences, to kindness impacts how we feel. As Helena notes in A Midsummer Night’s Dream (Act 1, Scene 1):

Love can transpose to form and dignity.

Love looks not with the eyes but with the mind.

And therefore is winged Cupid painted blind.

-William Shakespeare

Flow State: How to Boost Happiness, Increase Performance, and Unlock Your Creative Superpowers

Positive psychology is the study of “what makes life worth living.” If you want to be a hobbyist and read some research, this is a great place to start, as it can measurably improve your life. It’s worth noting that positive psychology arose in part as a reaction to psycho-analysis and behavioral analysis, but is not a rejection of those schools of thought—rather, it’s concerned with a different goal: how do we live the good life?[1]

What is the flow state?

Mihály Csíkszentmihályi—who I’ll refer to as MC because (a) damn and (b) it makes me feel like he’s a 90s hip hop artist into positive psychology--is a giant in this field. He defined the “flow experience,” which is a state in which a person engages in an activity and is fully immersed in it, feeling energized, involved, capable, and absorbed by it. In this state, it is common for us to feel as if time has passed incredibly quickly, and to lose a sense of space (and even, MC would argue, consciousness of one’s own existence). Colloquially, flow state is known as being “in the zone.”

MC and Jean Nakamura identify at least 6 independent conditions of flow state (i.e. they can occur independently, but only some combination of the factors constitutes a flow experience):

1. Intense and focused concentration on the present moment

2. Merging of action and awareness

3. A loss of reflective self-consciousness

4. A sense of personal control or agency over the situation or activity

5. A distortion of temporal experience, one's subjective experience of time is altered

6. Experience of the activity as intrinsically rewarding, also referred to as autotelic experience

Flow state is like positive hyperfocus—an optimal experience--according to MC.

How ‘bout some neuroscience?

In his Ted Talk, MC suggests that a person’s mind can attend to only a certain amount of information at a time: about "110 bits of information per second.” Just decoding speech takes about 60 bits of information per second—which is why we are really bad at understanding two simultaneous conversations. To some extent, flow state may be understood as a heightened focus on a given activity beyond what is normally achieved.    

Steven Kotler suggests that flow state is associated with a cascade of neurochemical changes: your brain produces norepinephrine, dopamine, anandamide, serotonin, and endorphins. This chemical release may allow you to take in more information, process it more quickly and deeply (i.e. with more parts of your brain), and experience a heightened state of awareness. In addition, these chemicals may considerably improve motivation, and augment creative processes by improving our ability to combine new information with that which we already know. Pattern recognition may also be improved.

What are the benefits of accessing a flow state in daily life?

Though causality is notoriously tricky to prove in positive psychology, there is strong empirical evidence that time spent in a flow state makes us considerably more happy and successful.

People who have experienced flow describe it as:

1. Completely involved in what we are doing - focused, concentrated.

2. A sense of ecstasy - of being outside everyday reality.

3. Great inner clarity - knowing what needs to be done, and how well we are doing.

4. Knowing that the activity is doable - that our skills are adequate to the task.

5. A sense of serenity - no worries about oneself, and a feeling of growing beyond the boundaries of the ego.

6. Timelessness - thoroughly focused on the present, hours seem to pass by the minute.

7. Intrinsic motivation - whatever produces flow becomes it own reward.

I’m also willing to bet that you already know all of this, and can think of a time when you experienced flow, and the calm, focused, and life-affirming feelings associated with it. I’ve experienced flow state while performing jazz drumming with a good group, racing a car around a track, dancing, playing squash, fencing, and making jewelry. Though I have yet to see research on this, sex is likely a common way to access flow state.

Beyond the massive benefits of generally being happier and more content, flow state has a very well documented correlation with incredible success and achievement in creative and athletic endeavors, including artistic and scientific achievement, teaching, learning, and sports.[2] Of course, to an extent, prowess in those endeavors makes flow state more likely, but many of the outstanding performances that one can think of in any endeavor likely had a component of flow state involved. It expands capability.     

If it was possible to bottle flow state, it would be among the most powerful performance enhancing drugs imaginable. Deep focus, quicker thinking and reactions, improved connectivity between brain and muscle control, and enhanced pattern recognition would very likely lead to incredible performance. It seems to do just that: Michael Jordan, Carmelo Anthony, and Kobe Bryant all have strikingly similar descriptions (or perhaps a lack of descriptions—it’s an ineffable feeling) for being “in the zone.”

Ayrton Senna, late Formula 1 driver and a particular hero of mine, described qualifying for the Monaco Grand Prix in 1988 in the following way: "I was already on pole [...] and I just kept going. Suddenly I was nearly two seconds faster than anybody else, including my teammate with the same car. And suddenly I realized that I was no longer driving the car consciously. I was driving it by a kind of instinct, only I was in a different dimension. It was like I was in a tunnel [...] the whole circuit was a tunnel. I was just going and going, more and more and more and more. I was way over the limit, but still able to find even more."

Beyond performance, there is an immediate and lasting impact on happiness. MC began his research by looking into artists and then scientists—people who didn’t gain fame or fortune from their work, but were nevertheless happy. One composer shared his experience of flow: “You are in an ecstatic state to such a point that you feel as though you almost don’t exist.  I have experienced this time and time again. My hand seems devoid of myself, and I have nothing to do with what is happening. I just sit there watching it in a state of awe and wonderment. And the music just flows out of itself.” MC’s interviews with the composer suggest that this experience is so intense that the composer feels almost as if he doesn’t exist—and despite that rather romantic notion, it’s the aforementioned limitations of our nervous system that cause the feeling. Someone truly engaged in creating something new doesn’t have enough attention left over to feel hungry, tired, or worried about bills—he’s focused on the music flowing out.

My sense is that there is something innately human about this. Peak achievement, the act of creation, the rare feeling associated with doing something that few others can do—there has to be a regular motivation for wanting to achieve on this level despite the difficulty and dedication it takes to do so. A feedback loop makes sense—it feels good to do this, and doing this makes you better, which makes you feel good. MC’s research also revealed that people who regularly access flow state report higher levels of happiness overall. Isolating exactly why this is is the purview of further research, but we can all benefit from the knowledge, without having a perfect explanation of the mechanism.  

How can I access flow state?

Here’s the thing: flow—or totally losing yourself in an activity—isn’t exclusive to athletes and artists. MC has found it in CEOs, assembly line workers in auto factories, Navajo shepherds, mountain climbers, and more. Think your job isn’t conducive to some sort of flow? MC described one man he interviewed who worked in New York City, slicing salmon for lox and bagels at a Deli:  

“...and he describes how you take a fish, a 30, 40-pound salmon, and you drop it on the counter, one after the other, until you develop a three-dimensional X-ray of how the fish is made inside by seeing how it ripples and how it sounds when it falls on the counter. And then [he] takes these knives that he always sharpens, and then starts cutting these fish so that he avoids the bone structure that would be in the way, and makes the thinner slices as fast as possible with the least effort possible. He developed this into an art form and is very proud every night. When he goes home, he knows that he has filleted better than anybody else could do in the world.”

A flow state can be entered performing any activity. However, it helps to do something. In other words, the most common example of an activity that is not conducive to flow state is watching TV. Although even for that, MC suggests that perhaps 7%-8% of the time one could access flow watching TV—if totally engrossed. One of my friends is particularly into screenwriting, and his delighted tracking of the story structure, elements and beats very likely elevates watching TV and movies to a flow-type of experience for him.

Still, for those of you who like a model, there is one to consider: 

MC and colleagues published this model in 1987. Each of the 8 channels depicted represent the experience of different combinations of perceived challenge and perceived skill at a task. The most important takeaway is that flow is more likely to occur when the activity at hand is higher than average in perceived challenge, and the individual in question has above-average skills in relation to the task at hand. For MC, Arousal is a good place to be—as the learning process is likely to increase skill and lead to flow. Additionally, Control is a good place to be, as one can progressively increase the challenge to enter flow. Other commentators have noted that a clear set of goals and progress, immediate feedback, and confidence in one’s skill set are helpful.

Personally, I’ve found that I’m more likely to enter a flow state when engaged in activities that combine a physical component with a mental challenge. Note that the balance of the two is not particularly important—dancing after learning some challenging choreography can get me there, and writing about something I’m particularly passionate about can too. In the former situation, memory, dance steps/turns, and self-consciousness sort of slip away, and I can feel myself simply feeling, moving, and enjoying the moment. While writing in a flow state, ideas, concepts, illustrations, and phrases simply line up and burst from my head through my hands and onto the page—and I look at the clock, hours have disappeared, and whatever I was writing has flourished (at least in an initial draft form). I should point out that perceived skill and challenge level are important—I’m by no means an expert dancer—but flow is totally possible.

To increase happiness and heighten chances of success, it’s worth taking stock of our lives, and looking for opportunities on a regular basis to embrace and encourage a flow state. This could be in our workplaces (most likely to occur where goals are clear, feedback is immediate, and a balance between opportunity and capacity exists)[3], or in our leisure activities. If you’re having trouble, think of the last activity you got absorbed in. It could be painting, drawing, playing music, playing chess—whatever it is, do more of it. Schedule it if you have to. It may just be the key to happiness.

[1] For criticism, see Schneider, K. (2011). "Toward a Humanistic Positive Psychology". Existential Analysis: Journal of the Society for Existential Analysis. 22 (1): 32–38.

[2] Artistic and scientific creativity: Perry, (1999); Sawyer, (1992). Teaching: Csíkszentmihályi, Mihály (1996), Creativity: Flow and the Psychology of Discovery and Invention, New York: Harper Perennial, ISBN 0-06-092820-4. Learning: Csíkszentmihályi et al., 1993. Sports: Jackson, Thomas, Marsh, & Smethurst, (2002); Stein, Kimiecik, Daniels, & Jackson, (1995).

[3] Csíkszentmihályi, Mihály (2003), Good Business: Leadership, Flow, and the Making of Meaning, New York: Penguin Books, ISBN 0-14-200409-X.