Alonergy Triumphs

From the Atlantic Wire, quoted in full:

Two different topics and two very different publication bring two writers to the same questions: is solitude necessary for great thinking, and is it becoming scarcer? Newser's Michael Wolff approaches the topic by looking at the way famous mathematician Grigory Perelman has avoided the limelight. "Successful people are, nowadays," he notes, "pretty much defined by their need for approval." Yet Perelman has declined the highest prizes in mathematics, and once told an inquisitive reporter "You are disturbing me. I am picking mushrooms." Asks Wolff: "Would we be smarter and able to concentrate more deeply if we were strong enough to be left alone, to be able to say those words that deserve to be immortal?"

That may seem like an overly deep conclusion to draw from one man's hermit-like habits. But in The American Scholar, essayist William Deresiewicz offers a similar proposal. He, instead, is looking at the way top schools churn out "leaders" who in fact are simply "world-class hoop jumpers"--able to perform any task you set them. The problem there is that what's really being valued is "conformity," and Deresiewicz thinks that, of all things, is not going to help the "crisis of leadership in this country."

Great leaders--like General David Petraeus, argues Deresiewicz--are great precisely because they can ignore what other people are saying and what other people want from them and "think things through for [themselves]." How do you learn to do that? Not by turning to social media, and even traditional media, says Deresiewicz, which means "you are continuously bombarding yourself with a stream of other people's thoughts. You are marinating yourself in the conventional wisdom." Instead, to truly lead, you have to turn your thoughts within, or, in some cases, to books and people outside the river of conventional wisdom. "Solitude," he concludes, is the very essence of leadership."

Men! Hrmph!

I didn't feel like a particularly oppressed man, until I read this article by Michael Chrichton.  Now I am not so sure. Some quotes:

There is no question that men feel under attack, and psychologically beaten down. All sorts of horrible qualities are attributed to us: we are unemotional, we are brutal, we are violent, we are uncaring. ... We've been hearing this for more than twenty years. There are young men who have grown up in America who have heard nothing else.

Refuting the hard truths:

Are men inarticulate? Sure, sometimes. Expressing deep feelings is difficult, especially if you've been told—as most males have, even in our postmodern age—that to express your feelings is unmanly.

But I don't really see women able to express their feelings any better. Women like to talk about feelings, as men like to talk about football and computers. But when it comes to talking about your own feelings, I find that women suddenly stumble. In the workplace, around the dinner table, on that big date, I am not aware that a woman has an easier time expressing the hard truths: that her feelings are hurt, or something made her feel bad, or that she feels weak or sad or inadequate.

Fear of commitment:

Men won't make commitments? Let's face it: commitment is hard for anybody. ... One of the great ironies today is that women who aren't ready to settle down are doing a good thing: pursuing their careers and fulfilling themselves. Whereas men in the same situation are doing a bad thing: they’re unwilling to commit.

Men are individuals too:

It may be true that most men differ from most woman in some statistical way. But we don't have relationships with "most men" or "most women." We have relationships with individual men and women. And when we apply the group stereotype to an individual, we are guilty of prejudice.

It's no longer acceptable to talk about shiftless blacks, mincing gays, or drunken Irishmen. Why is it still acceptable to talk about intimacy-avoiding men?

Women, we may tolerate you out of necessity:

But if you don't want to live alone, you'll have to put up with another person. And that other person just isn't going to be the person you want them to be.

At least, not all the time.

That's just the way it is.

So how can it be anybody's fault?

Women--controlling, scapegoating, revengeful, tragic:

Fault-finding through male stereotyping has some unpleasant aspects that should be mentioned. The first is this: if you can adopt the position that you're inherently skilled in some aspect of relationship—say, intimacy—and the other person is inherently deficient, then you have an unbeatable position of power. The other person is always on the defensive. He will always have his hands full trying to prove he isn't the way you say he is.

This is a control dynamic.

The second is this: if both men and women have trouble expressing real intimacy, then both men and women experience tension in this area. A convenient way to get rid of that tension is to blame it on the other person. Everything would be fine if he'd just talk, or listen, or make a commitment.

This is a scapegoat dynamic.

The third is this: if you treat another person as a stereotype, he will feel it, and sooner or later he will pay you back.

This is a revenge dynamic.

The fourth is this: if you treat another person as a stereotype, you will miss a great deal of delight and richness in your association with him.

This is a tragic dynamic.

By the way, Chrichton knows his audience.  Did I mention this was originally published in Playboy magazine?  Way to stir things up.  Speaking of things that anger women, Who Stole Feminism is also on my list of things to read.

Instructions

Me Too

Where Are You On My Curve?

Alonergy Defined

Loyal reader Hayna has recently benefited from Alonergetic practices and dutifully sang praise to this phenomenon on her blog, with sundry friends and family chiming in via the comments section. In above posting, she decries the lack of a formal definition for the movement. Rightly so. While I did my best to help her understand the nuances of Alonergy by responding in the comments section (reproduced below), I was unsatisfied with the strictures of that form and with my hastily written reply. I consulted the only man I know whose Alonergy Star Efficiency Rating (similar to the Energy Star Rating used by the EPA and DOE) approaches 100%--in other words, the man who captures nearly all of his Alonergy potential. His name is Feed. My comments and his response below.

A note of caution: stop talking, blogging, or emailing about Alonergy or, in the words of one wise adherent, "Before you know it, we are all alone together and Alonergy as we know it disappears."

My original reponse:

My dear young practitioners/followers/believers:

I need to clarify several points.

1. Alonergy is not a theory, not an element of life, it is life.

2. I did not invent Alonergy as a theory, for it is universal and eternal. Nor was I the first to promulgate its principles, that was Feed

3. The opposite of Alonergy is not Togethergy, it is Synergy. Alonergy (1=3) was coined to express the opposite of Synergy (1+1=3).

4. You can't enjoy both Alonergy and Synergy any more than you can serve God and mammon or be both an extrovert and an introvert. If you think you enjoy both, then you are really a follower of Synergy who needs some time to recharge. If you are truly uncomfortable--always --when around other people, then Alonergy is, by definition, what keeps you going.

5. Quick Test: If you surf the web for pictures of Siberia or the Northwest Territories while at work so that you can fantasize about being in a place where you know there is not another living soul around for hundreds of miles, then you are a true believer. And if so, may I recommend www.trekearth.com.

Feed's response:

I do approve. Be mindful, though, that in communicating Alonergy to the community you do not become tempted by community, and give in to the sickly sweet seduction of synergy.

The basic, newly updated, definition of Alonergy, as I indicated on my blog, is: The non-interaction of agents or forces such that their effect is greater than if they had interacted. A heightened state of awareness, happiness, or effectiveness achieved by being or acting alone.

Alonergy is not a religion or a way of life. It is an observable phenomenon. Nonetheless, it is best discussed as a religion or a way of life.

The persistent (but never taxingly so) Alonergist will begin to see signs of encouragement and recognition from unlikely sources. For example, googling "Alonergy" brings up your blog, jenni's blog, and this kin of yours, but not myself as the real source. As an advanced Alonergist I am respected and left in peace by Technology, for we have much in common. I would hope that some day Technology will accord you similar respect.

A true Alonergist can be deeply, profoundly alone not only in a crowd, but with an intimate group of friends, or even a pet.

Never forget that Alonergy is a source of energy -- that invigorating breeze from a closing door as people vacate a room, the restorative sigh as one realizes one is at last truly free -- but the amounts of energy involved are normally very small. It is only the relative change for the better when one is alone that matters. Some of the greatest Alonergists are those with the least overall energy.