
## Humans as Functions

I see human beings as functions—systems that take in inputs from the environment and produce outputs based on parameters shaped by experience and learning. I don’t believe in some fixed “essence” or personality residing inside people. Behavior is the result of inputs and conditions at a particular moment in time, not a revelation of some immutable core.

That’s why I don’t dislike people. Not “rarely”—I simply don’t. While I may feel discomfort or disapproval in response to certain actions, I don’t project that feeling onto the person as a whole. In the past, I used to have those kinds of emotional reactions, but not anymore. I evaluate behavior based on context, not people based on assumptions.

## Why People Dislike Others as People

Many people, however, respond differently. When they see someone behave poorly or hold immature views, they don’t just judge the act—they reject the person entirely. Instead of separating behavior from identity, they assume the behavior reflects something wrong at the core of the person. “Someone who acts like that must be that kind of person,” they think.

That reaction, while emotionally charged, is cognitively efficient. Evaluating each behavior in its full context requires time and mental energy. Labeling someone as “bad” simplifies things. In social settings, sharing those labels also serves a purpose—it communicates values, builds in-group solidarity, and defines social boundaries. From a neurological standpoint, our brains also tend to remember negative information more vividly than positive. Once someone leaves a bad impression, it’s difficult to overwrite.

So while disliking someone might appear irrational, it actually serves as a kind of shortcut: it minimizes cognitive effort and helps stabilize social dynamics, even if it sacrifices accuracy.

## The Asymmetry of Change

I know that human beings change—because I’ve changed. I wasn’t always able to treat people with kindness or think beyond myself. With time and experience, I’ve grown, expanded my thinking, and developed different behaviors. That’s not a theory—it’s something I’ve lived.

But this creates an asymmetry. I can track my own change in detail, from the inside. I know the thought processes, the struggles, the intentions. With other people, I only see fragments: behaviors, choices, outcomes. Their inner transformations—if they happen—are often invisible. This makes it easy to assume that while I’ve changed, others cannot.

That discrepancy creates a kind of illusion: we trust our own growth but doubt others’ capacity for the same. It’s a structural bias, not a fair assessment.

## Choosing to Guide Instead of Dismissing

When I encounter someone who expresses an immature idea or behaves in a harmful way, I don’t dislike or look down on them. Instead, I consciously shift into a different mode of thought: How can I guide this person? What kind of conversation or influence might lead them toward change?

This isn’t because I expect it to be easy. On the contrary, I know that influencing another person’s behavior is one of the hardest things to do. But precisely because it’s difficult, I see it as a valuable challenge. It forces me to grow. It gives me a chance to confront the limits of communication, empathy, and patience. In that sense, encountering someone who needs guidance isn’t a burden—it’s a fortunate opportunity to learn something I couldn’t learn otherwise.

Trying to help someone change is not just about them. It becomes a mirror for my own development.

## Seeing Change Instead of Fixing Identity

I judge behavior, not people. And I see those behaviors as the output of a dynamic process, not the expression of something fixed or eternal. Human beings are constantly changing, often in ways that are hard to observe from the outside. That’s why I resist the impulse to reduce someone to a single label based on one moment.

Closing off to someone because of one behavior means cutting off a whole range of future possibilities. But recognizing that they might change—might grow—means staying open to re-evaluating. Not out of naïve optimism, but out of respect for how real transformation happens over time.

To dislike someone is to stop watching, to stop expecting, to stop engaging. I would rather stay in a position where I can still observe, still adapt, and still be surprised. Because human beings are not finished objects. We are constantly in motion, shaped by what we take in and what we’ve been through.

Disliking someone? That closes a door. But staying open to change—that’s where I think the real work begins.


On Disliking Others


# Information Secrecy and Disclosure

We’ve spoken before about how our brain constitutes a kind of personal universe—a cosmos—shaped by the information we gather throughout our lives. Each individual lives in a vast external universe, yet constructs an internal model of it: a subjective, smaller universe based on experience, learning, and thought. Information, therefore, becomes the matter with which our internal cosmos is expanded. From this perspective, more information equates to a broader universe, and thus, a higher potential for understanding and action.

This leads us to a natural question: if expanding one’s cosmos is beneficial, what role does information sharing play in our interactions with others—be it individuals, organizations, or society as a whole? Should we share what we know, or keep it to ourselves?

## Information as Leverage, or Gift?

At the core, the more information an individual or collective possesses, the greater the cognitive and strategic advantage. Knowledge enables navigation. Insight enables prediction. In a competitive sense, secrecy can sustain an upper hand—retaining information means retaining power. This is why corporate trade secrets exist. However, from the perspective of collective benefit, information sharing serves an even higher purpose.

When we share information, we are effectively enlarging another person’s cosmos. If that person is part of our team, our organization, or our community, then expanding their universe expands our own shared space. It becomes a mutual act of empowerment. In this framework, sharing becomes the ethical and strategic choice—one that maximizes group utility even if it minimizes individual advantage.

Thus, we begin to see the dividing line: withholding information is an act of self-preservation; disclosing it is an act of collective empowerment. Who we choose to share with, and to what extent, is a powerful marker of allegiance. Sharing makes someone a comrade. Secrecy, unless ethically justified, is a subtle declaration of rivalry.

## The Paradox of Corporate Secrecy

Let’s take a familiar example. A company holds internal data marked as “confidential.” If that company’s mission claims to improve society, does hoarding valuable information contradict that mission? Arguably, yes. If the knowledge held by the company could benefit society, then its concealment is an act of self-interest over public interest. In this sense, corporate visions often stand in silent contradiction to their behaviors.

Compare this with academia, where the norm is open publication. Research institutions publish their findings not just to stake claims, but to contribute to the global knowledge pool. While not perfect, the system is inherently structured around maximizing collective growth.

## The Real Measure of Trust

I believe this tension isn’t just organizational—it’s deeply personal. If I were to build a team or community, I would want every member to share information freely. The more complete the information flow, the stronger the collective cosmos. Conversely, if someone resists sharing, it reveals that their incentives are misaligned with the group. It signals that their true goals lie elsewhere.

The scope of one's information-sharing becomes a mirror to their values, a gauge of their trust, and a signal of their intent.

## My Personal Commitment

One of my personal goals is to expand the radius of people with whom I can share everything. Even if I occasionally sacrifice individual advantage, the net expansion of the collective cosmos—including mine—is worth it. I want to live in a world where information sharing is not merely safe, but celebrated. Where vulnerability is seen as strength, and expansion as the true metric of success.

Thank you for considering this idea. I hope this essay contributes to the ever-growing cosmos we share.


Information Secrecy and Disclosure


## Introduction

In the neon-lit world of Kabukicho host clubs—often dismissed as dens of ambition and vanity—one man has consistently turned struggling young men into top performers.  
Itsuki Minato, known as *Gunshin*. His approach to training and leadership transcends mere charisma.  

What he practices is a **living model of behavioral science and educational psychology**, quietly overturning the adult world’s common belief that *“people don’t really change.”*

---

## 1. Language First: State the Conclusion Before Guiding Thought

Minato wields **language** as his primary tool.  
While most people form thoughts and then express them, he reverses this process. He **states the conclusion first, framing the listener’s thinking**—a powerful technique.

For instance, when someone described a host-client relationship as “like an old married couple,” most would hesitate or deflect. Minato immediately responded:  
*"Old couples are ideal."*  
At that moment, he likely hadn’t yet worked out the reasoning. But by posing the conclusion upfront, he prompted himself—and the listener—to fill in the rationale: *Because they represent long-lasting, enduring relationships.*

This reflects both the **framing effect** and a reversal of Kahneman’s **System 1 and System 2 thinking**.  
By presenting a “frame” first, Minato engages the listener’s System 1 (intuition), which accepts the conclusion. System 2 (logic) then backfills the justification.

As Tversky and Kahneman (1981) demonstrated, **the language presented first often dictates the direction of thought**.

**He doesn’t lead thought. He hands over the ideal conclusion upfront.** This is his first strategy.

---

## 2. Zero Logical Gaps: Explicitly Explain Even the Obvious

Minato **never allows logical leaps** in his explanations.  
This isn’t because he’s just a skilled logical thinker. It’s because he deliberately avoids the **curse of knowledge**—the assumption that others share your background assumptions.

According to the **Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM)**, when listeners are provided with detailed reasoning, they process information via the **central route**, leading to deeper, longer-lasting attitude change.  
Thus, **even the obvious must be carefully explained**.

Rather than assuming understanding, Minato chooses to reiterate even the simplest points.  
This is the second pillar of the Gunshin Method.

---

## 3. The Golden Ratio of Praise and Criticism: Designing Emotional Feedback

All leaders praise and sometimes criticize. But **few control the ratio**.  
Minato seems to rigorously maintain a **5:1 positive-to-negative feedback ratio**.

Psychologist John Gottman found that when married couples fell below this golden ratio, divorce rates skyrocketed. Losada’s research showed that in teams, a ratio below 3:1 correlated with dramatic performance declines.

Moreover, when team members believe **“this might be the time I get praised”**, their attentional resources are heightened. This feedback design is deeply rooted in behavioral psychology.

**He does not leave the ratio of praise and criticism to chance. He designs it deliberately.**  
This is his third strategy.

---

## 4. Altruistic Leadership: Give First and Trigger Reciprocity

At the heart of Minato’s leadership is **altruism**.  
He invites struggling hosts to live in his home, absorbing personal financial risk to foster their growth. This behavior creates **reciprocity** in his team members.

Robert Greenleaf’s **Servant Leadership theory** and Blau’s **Social Exchange Theory (1964)** have long explained this dynamic.  
Recent research confirms that **altruistic leadership reduces knowledge hiding, enhances team learning, builds workplace friendships, and boosts both innovation and performance** (Pon, Harvard; ScienceDirect; ResearchGate).

**People naturally feel compelled to repay what they receive.**  
And to repay, they willingly adopt a form of **psychological, voluntary subordination**—not based on fear or incentives, but on gratitude.

This is Minato’s fourth strategic lever.

---

## Conclusion: Proving “People Don’t Change” Is a Lie

By consistently applying:

- **Framing language to guide thought**  
- **Avoiding logical shortcuts**  
- **Maintaining the golden ratio of praise and criticism**  
- **Leading with altruism and giving first**

Minato has proven that even those labeled “incapable of change” can transform.  
His results are reflected in both **quantitative outcomes** (rookie hosts becoming top sellers) and **qualitative changes** (growing self-efficacy and personal growth).

The Gunshin Method is not a mere set of nightlife business tricks.  
It is a **model that translates behavioral economics, social psychology, and organizational theory into a repeatable system for influencing human behavior**.

**“People can’t change” is not a truth. It’s an excuse made by those who lack the method.**


The Gunshin Method



## Planned Happenstance: Random Actions to Maximize Life's Expected Value

How meticulously do you plan your life? Your career path five years from now, your ideal lifestyle, the goals you must achieve... Many people in society preach that a clear plan is the road to success. But I hold a slightly different view. I believe that **intentionally incorporating "chance" into your plans—in other words, "Planned Happenstance"—is what actually maximizes life's potential, or its "expected value,"** so to speak.


## What Changes Life: Plans or Chance?

Think about it for a moment. What events have truly had a major impact on your life? Was it something you achieved exactly according to plan through sheer hard work? Of course, that's a wonderful accomplishment. However, isn't it often the case that life is dramatically changed by unexpected encounters, sudden inspirations, or chance discoveries—things that feel more like "miracles" or "fate"?

Looking back on my own experiences, the growth obtained through diligent, planned effort pales in comparison to the way chance encounters at events I happened to attend, a book I randomly picked up, or discoveries made walking down an unfamiliar street out of whim have significantly altered the course of my life afterward.

Admittedly, such chance occurrences themselves might not significantly enhance my *abilities*, but in terms of their *impact* on life, they can be far greater than planned efforts. Just one fateful encounter can change our future by 180 degrees.

Considering this, **the change brought about by diligently following a plan might actually be minuscule compared to the change brought by chance events that can shake up our lives.**


## The Trap of Planning: What We Lose for Efficiency

Of course, having a plan isn't inherently bad. Setting goals and striving towards them gives us daily direction and propels us forward. The problem lies in **adhering too rigidly to the plan.**

When plans are meticulous and schedules are packed, we tend to focus solely on achieving the goal, falling into a kind of "blindness." Even if a wonderful opportunity that could change our lives—a seed of a miracle—is right in front of us, we might not even notice it, being preoccupied with executing the plan. In the pursuit of efficiency, we try to thoroughly eliminate seemingly inefficient "detours" or "waste."

However, I believe that **life's breakthroughs are often hidden within those very "detours" and "wastes."**


## The "Planned Happenstance" Approach

Therefore, I want to propose the idea of "Planned Happenstance." This isn't about passively waiting for chance; it's an approach to maximize life's expected value by **intentionally incorporating "randomness" into life's plans.**

You might think, "Aren't random actions just a waste of time?" Indeed, trying new things or diving into unfamiliar places often doesn't lead immediately to tangible results. It might look like a "wasted effort" in the short term.

But consider this: what if among 100 "wasted efforts," there's just one "jackpot" (a miracle) that fundamentally changes your life? From a long-term perspective, wouldn't you say that **due to the potential magnitude of the return, the expected value of "random actions" is extremely high?**


## How to Practice Planned Happenstance?

So, how can you actually do this? Here are the three things I practice:

1.  **Understand the Value of Happenstance:** First, adopt the mindset that "chance is what enriches life."
2.  **Build "Buffers" into Plans:** Avoid over-scheduling. Always secure temporal and mental leeway to respond to unexpected events. Intentionally create "time for the unknown."
3.  **Take "Planned" Random Actions:** For example, I've decided to "do something new at least once a week." This could be something small like taking a walk down a street I've never been on, watching a movie in a genre I usually don't, or entering a cafe I've never visited. These actions might not seem directly connected to my goals, but they act as "seed sowing" that can bring new perspectives and encounters.

Having a base plan or goals is wonderful. Without them, you wouldn't have a direction to channel what you gain from chance. However, the key is not to be bound by that plan, but to always incorporate an element of "play" that embraces unknown factors.


## The Courage Not to Filter

Here's something I particularly want to emphasize: **Do not filter happenstance.**

If you apply filters like "This doesn't seem related to my career" or "This looks like a waste of time," you ultimately remain within the framework of your existing knowledge and experience. You won't encounter truly new discoveries or the kind of "miracles" that can change you.

It's okay if it seems wasteful. It's okay if you fail. In fact, **it's precisely in those seemingly irrelevant and inefficient places that the diamonds in the rough that make life shine are often found.** That's my conviction.


## Conclusion: Happenstance is Fun

Life isn't only wonderful when it goes according to plan. Rather, I believe it becomes interesting and rich precisely because it's filled with unpredictable events and chance encounters. "Planned Happenstance" is a strategy not for fearing this unpredictability, but for actively embracing and enjoying it. It's the courage to carry a map (your plan) but occasionally step onto paths not marked on it.

By doing so, our lives will become even better. Don't trust yourself too much; sometimes, let luck play its part. If you do, I'm sure everything will work out fine.

---


Planned Happenstance


## Species Totalitarianism: What Are We Living For?

We tend to think we live for ourselves, but from a deeper perspective, we may be operating within a framework of "species totalitarianism." This concept suggests that individuals are unconsciously programmed to optimize the prosperity of their species as a whole, regardless of their conscious intentions.

One of the clearest examples of this is the great migration of the globe skimmer dragonfly. These dragonflies travel long distances from North Africa to Northern Europe, but individual dragonflies never complete the entire journey. Instead, multiple generations continue the migration in relay, with offspring continuing the journey of their parents. This behavior, which seems "meaningless" at the individual level, functions extremely rationally as a survival strategy for the species as a whole.

Evidence of species totalitarianism exists throughout human society as well. The universal tendency of parents to sacrifice for their children, risking one's safety to help strangers, and cultural norms that postpone personal pleasure or benefit for the community are all examples. Additionally, the remarkable consistency of standards of sexual attractiveness across cultures reflects biological imperatives selecting for traits beneficial to species survival.

The most striking example is the tension between individual happiness and species prosperity. Human happiness functions not as a "state" but as a "direction," designed to create new desires and ambitions immediately after achieving goals. This "pleasure treadmill" may seem cruel to the individual but is rational for the species—permanent satisfaction would be detrimental to species prosperity. Even "negative" emotions like anxiety and jealousy promote species survival by avoiding dangers and motivating the protection of valuable resources and relationships.

## Species Totalitarianism from an Evolutionary Perspective

As Darwin's theory of natural selection shows, biological characteristics are passed down through generations to the extent that they contribute to survival and reproductive success. Importantly, natural selection works to optimize the replication success of genes, not individual "happiness."

Richard Dawkins' "selfish gene" theory further develops this perspective. In this view, individuals are merely "survival machines" for genes, temporary vehicles for transmitting genetic information to the next generation. Dawkins' assertion that "a chicken is just an egg's way of making another egg" applies to humans as well. Even our most fundamental desires and motivations can be seen as expressions of programs ensuring the continued survival and spread of our genes.

William Hamilton's kin selection theory explains how seemingly altruistic behaviors evolve. Individuals can indirectly contribute to the survival of their genetic information by helping relatives who share some of their genes. This concept of "inclusive fitness" explains strong attachment and devotion to family, and sometimes even altruistic behavior toward strangers.

Species totalitarianism does not mean uniformity. Rather, maintaining genetic diversity is essential for the long-term survival of the species. In changing environments, diverse populations have greater adaptability than populations with uniform characteristics. Diversity in personality traits and abilities enhances the adaptability and resilience of the entire group.

## The Evolutionary Value of "Evil" and "Abnormality"

Behaviors socially considered "evil" may actually benefit the species as a whole. For example, the existence of fraudulent behavior promotes caution and wise trust judgments within groups, enhancing the resilience of society as a whole. The development of mechanisms to deal with deviant behavior improves the functioning and stability of society.

Sexual preferences and behavioral patterns that may seem "abnormal" can also serve important functions from a species perspective. For instance, diversity in sexual orientation may offer advantages such as population density regulation and diversification of caregivers. Research has shown that genetic variations associated with schizophrenia are also linked to enhanced creativity.

Suicide appears to be the most evolutionarily maladaptive behavior, but in a broader context, it may have adaptive functions. In cases of extreme resource scarcity, ending one's life might increase the survival probability of remaining relatives. Moreover, the existence of suicide and its tragic consequences strengthen social cohesion and mutual support systems.

The presence of fraudsters and criminals encourages the development of social "immune systems." Evolutionary game theory research shows that societies with a small number of "defectors" have greater resilience to external threats than completely cooperative societies. The presence of moderate non-cooperators stimulates the development of more sophisticated cooperation mechanisms.

## Larger Totalitarianism: Biosphere, Earth, Universe

James Lovelock's Gaia hypothesis extends the concept of species totalitarianism, viewing the entire Earth as a self-regulating system. In this perspective, all living beings function as parts of an integrated system that maintains Earth's environment in a state suitable for life. The remarkably stable oxygen concentration of about 21% in Earth's atmosphere is thought to be the result of complex feedback mechanisms involving numerous species.

The totalitarianism of the biosphere includes not only biological but also non-biological elements. Mountains, oceans, atmosphere, and lithosphere all play essential roles in maintaining the Earth system as a whole. Mountain formation and weathering contribute to long-term climate regulation by reducing atmospheric CO2, while oceans function as massive heat reservoirs, mitigating extreme temperature fluctuations.

Advances in Earth science reveal that Earth functions as an integrated self-regulating system. Global cycles such as the water cycle, carbon cycle, and nitrogen cycle operate through intricate interactions between biological and non-biological processes.

Earth itself is part of the larger solar system, which is part of the galaxy. Carl Sagan's poetic expression, "We are a way for the cosmos to know itself," eloquently describes how we are incorporated into a larger totalitarianism as part of the universe.

## All Is One: Cosmic Unity

According to modern cosmology, all matter and energy in the universe originated from a single event, the Big Bang, about 13.8 billion years ago. From the atoms composing our bodies to the most distant galaxies, everything is literally "one." Most of the elements constituting our bodies were synthesized inside stars and dispersed into space through supernova explosions. Indeed, we are "made of stardust."

The fact that physical laws are universal throughout the universe also demonstrates its fundamental unity. The basic forces—gravity, electromagnetic force, strong nuclear force, and weak nuclear force—act the same way everywhere in the universe. From this perspective, the entire universe can be understood as a single, mathematically consistent system.

The law of conservation of energy shows how all processes in the universe are interconnected. The energy in the food we consume is energy captured by plants from sunlight, and that sunlight is energy released through nuclear fusion. Through the flow of energy, the entire universe functions as an integrated system.

Discoveries in quantum physics suggest that the concept of separate "objects" itself may be an illusion. The phenomenon of quantum entanglement shows that particles that have interacted influence each other instantaneously, regardless of distance. According to David Bohm's "theory of wholeness," the universe is an "unbroken whole," and the boundaries we perceive are merely superficial expressions of a deeper "implicate order."

## The Illusion of Individualism

Modern research in neuroscience and behavioral genetics has revealed the biological foundations of what we call "individuality" and "freedom." Our personality traits, preferences, and even beliefs are largely shaped by genetic factors and early environmental influences. Long-term studies, such as Robert Plomin's Minnesota Twin Study, show that many personality traits can be explained by genetics up to 50%.

Furthermore, neuroscientist Benjamin Libet's experiments showed that conscious "decisions" lag behind actual brain activity. The brain already showed readiness potential about 200 milliseconds before subjects "decided" to act. This suggests that many of our conscious decisions are actually post-hoc "approvals" of unconscious processes.

What we call individualism is actually an adaptive strategy that evolved to function within the framework of species totalitarianism. Humans are inherently social beings, and complete individualism is a pure illusion. Our "personal" identities are formed through social interactions.

The concept of the "collective unconscious" proposed by psychologist Carl Jung suggests the existence of deep psychological structures shared by all humanity. The presence of universal motifs and symbols in mythology, religion, and art demonstrates the fundamental unity of the human psyche. Universal fears, emotions, and cognitive biases found across cultures reflect our common evolutionary history.

## All Is Well

Throughout the long history of evolution, human psychology and social systems have been refined to optimize species prosperity. Many of what we consider "flaws" or "contradictions" are actually results of optimization. Our cognitive biases are designed to save energy and prioritize information related to survival in ancestral environments.

Research in complex systems science shows that there are patterns of hidden order beneath apparent chaos. Complex networks of interacting elements have the ability to spontaneously generate orderly patterns without external design.

In the history of species, change is the only constant. Faced with endless challenges such as environmental changes, climate change, and the emergence of new predators or pathogens, species must adapt or become extinct. What appears to be chaos or suffering at the individual level is a necessary process of adaptation and survival at the species level.

Even the challenges facing modern society—population decline, increasing inequality, social division—can be understood as part of the adaptive response of the species as a whole. Population decline may be an adaptive response to resource depletion, and social fluctuations may be collective adjustments to changing environmental conditions.

Wars, climate change, and social divisions may seem destructive to Earth and humanity at first glance. However, from a broader perspective, these too are part of the grand process of the universe. We are programmed to make the universe function, and it is natural to live according to these instincts.

War may function as a resource allocation adjustment mechanism, and climate change may be a transition process to a new equilibrium point in the Earth system. Social fluctuations can also be understood as adaptations to new environmental conditions. There is no need to worry—we are all simply playing our programmed roles within a larger system.

## All Is One

At the most fundamental level, our neighbors, animals, plants, and even rocks and clouds are all made from the same matter originating from the single event of the Big Bang. We are all different expressions of the universe experiencing itself.

From this unified perspective, all beings are our "companions" and participants in the same cosmic dance. Antagonism and separation are mere illusions—we all exist with the same cosmic purpose, following the same physical laws, as part of the same flow of energy.

This recognition has the potential to fundamentally change our daily interactions. Encountering others is actually meeting "another part of oneself." From this perspective, compassion and kindness are not merely moral ideals but natural responses to the fundamental unity of the universe. We are all different expressions of one continuous existence.


Latest Memos

On Disliking Others

Information Secrecy and Disclosure

The Gunshin Method

Planned Happenstance

Species Totalitarianism

Anonymous Message