Hey guys, have a happy [Insert holiday here], and enjoy your [Insert loved ones here].
I'm gonna' be out and about for a while. Maybe posting some, a lot, or not at all next week. We'll find out when we get there.
Please be safe and enjoy life.
Also, take the time to compliment each other. It makes people feel wanted and capable.
(Transylvania Compliments was a good idea, I think, and I still have a few more to send to them...)
-
Waddles
Friday, December 21, 2012
Wednesday, December 19, 2012
The Activism Train
I was thinking about this idea earlier this morning based on a few comments I always see/hear whenever any conversation about activism comes up.
Everyone in the "Activism Train" as I'm taking to calling it, is confident that their train car is more important than the other train cars. Don't get me wrong, you're all important. But none of you are the most important. The Activism Train isn't divisive between cars, but rather, it's divisive by how good a passenger you are.
I haven't explained myself yet, so this analogy is going to seem pretty murky- Let me get to the point.
PREFACE/WARNING: These categories are not mutually exclusive. You can be a member of one, all, some, or none of these categories at the same time. The descriptions of these categories will include some personality analysis that assumes an individual is only a member of a particular category. So, if you read something you disagree with, consider the possibility that you're falling into more than just that group, which means certain descriptions won't apply to you.
All current activism-based movements have several necessary parts that are required for the movement to function adequately.
1. First and foremost (while not more important, definitely the most obvious part), you have the victims. These are people to whom a tragedy has already happened. These are the people who remind us what life could be like if we don't engage in activism. As such, these are the main people who will inspire activism out of pity, sympathy, or fear that we might wind up like them some day.
The parents of the Sandy Hook school shooting.
People who have been wrongfully arrested.
Victims of prejudice, bigotry, systemic devaluation, racism, sexism.
People who have been swallowed by debt they don't deserve.
People who got the short end of the stick, the raw deal. Without the people who show you what life could be like for you or others, there would be no movement- no activism. Why? Because without victims, there is no problem. Nothing that needs solved.
These are the people who give a face to a movement.
2. Donators. These are the people who will fund a movement. People who have money and feel bad about a problem at the very least. Those who fall solely into this category sometimes just want to absolve themselves of guilt by noting that they have contributed actual currency to a cause.
"White, liberal, middle-class guilt" is often the descriptor- These are people who are willing to put ten dollars to helping people after a catastrophic earthquake. Or maybe some donated supplies or even blood/plasma/marrow. However, these people often do not have the time, energy, or eloquence to do much else for the movement. They're the people who give muscle to a movement.
3. "Slacktivists." This is a term that was coined with the rise of social media. A term I'm not fond of. The name implies that these are people who don't do anything, however, "Social Media Activists" (as I'm going to call them) provide a very necessary element for any movement. These are the people who keep the issue at the front of your mind whether you want it there or not. These are the people who are often writing pieces about the issue to convince those who may be on the fence. This is the role that bloggers, journalists, writers, and social media users occupy- usually to different degrees. If Donators are those without time/energy or eloquence to do anything else for a movement, then Social Media Activists are the people without the money or time/energy, but they can contribute eloquence. They are the people who give a voice/mind to a movement.
4. Demonstrators. These are the in-person activists. Protestors. People who are sometimes willing to go so far as to get arrested for the cause if it'll help. If SMAs are forcing you to read about it when you're at home, these are the people who will remind you when you're out driving or walking around town. These are the people who give a body to the movement. Where Donators represent the money and SMAs represent the eloquence, Demonstrators represent the time and energy in a movement.
Now don't get me wrong- All of these exist in varying degrees as well as varying categories. For example, I can be a "Demonstrator," even if I only show up to a single demonstration where four people sit around with a few signs and get high. I'm a Demonstrator, sure, but a weak one. Same goes for the SMA who posts a single Facebook status with a vague idea for why a movement might be needed. And a Donator can still be a Donator even if they only give a few bucks to a movement without ever contributing anything else.
This is why the ideal activist is either heavily invested in one category or well-invested in more than one. (Obviously, it's to that end that I probably cannot be considered a very good activist, but I try to provide no small amount of thought-provoking perspective. Whether I succeed or not is to be determined by everyone else)
Without the people willing to put their money to a movement, organization is sloppy and it doesn't have the ability to grab your attention, provide studies, or advertise.
Without people willing to put their eloquence to a movement, the movement doesn't have a clear message or a demanding media presence.
Without people willing to put their time and energy to a movement, the movement won't show people how serious the issue is or how seriously people are taking it.
Politicians speak the language of money and they're scared of crowds. That's why the 2nd and 4th categories of activists are typically the ones we acknowledge as legitimate. They can both have a measurable effect on the politicians who can physically enact change.
Contrarily, SMAs don't really do anything for politicians (except send them nosey emails that are likely thrown out). However, SMAs do reinforce the movement itself, which is much harder to measure. However, many Demonstrators and Donators are informed of the importance of a movement by SMAs.
And as I've said, there are people who are willing to do the bare minimum in the name of activism in order to feel better. And there are those who only do it to appear good in the eyes of others. Like all things, activism can be done for the wrong reasons or in truly mediocre quality/quantity.
It should also be noted that contributing the bare minimum is far easier for SMAs than the other two, which is part of the reason that this category is targeted for being "slackers," among other things.
Regardless- remember that all four elements are necessary for a movement to take off and be successful. Try reaching into multiple categories or pushing hard into one category. And while I said some negative things about every category, remember that they're sweeping generalizations and don't necessarily apply to you. Usually because you fit into more than one category to some degree.
(I know plenty of people who have donated and written about the recent Sandy Hook tragedy, for example).
Activism means a lot of different things for different people. Keep an open mind about the actual effect they may be having with their methodology.
-
Waddles
Everyone in the "Activism Train" as I'm taking to calling it, is confident that their train car is more important than the other train cars. Don't get me wrong, you're all important. But none of you are the most important. The Activism Train isn't divisive between cars, but rather, it's divisive by how good a passenger you are.
I haven't explained myself yet, so this analogy is going to seem pretty murky- Let me get to the point.
PREFACE/WARNING: These categories are not mutually exclusive. You can be a member of one, all, some, or none of these categories at the same time. The descriptions of these categories will include some personality analysis that assumes an individual is only a member of a particular category. So, if you read something you disagree with, consider the possibility that you're falling into more than just that group, which means certain descriptions won't apply to you.
All current activism-based movements have several necessary parts that are required for the movement to function adequately.
1. First and foremost (while not more important, definitely the most obvious part), you have the victims. These are people to whom a tragedy has already happened. These are the people who remind us what life could be like if we don't engage in activism. As such, these are the main people who will inspire activism out of pity, sympathy, or fear that we might wind up like them some day.
The parents of the Sandy Hook school shooting.
People who have been wrongfully arrested.
Victims of prejudice, bigotry, systemic devaluation, racism, sexism.
People who have been swallowed by debt they don't deserve.
People who got the short end of the stick, the raw deal. Without the people who show you what life could be like for you or others, there would be no movement- no activism. Why? Because without victims, there is no problem. Nothing that needs solved.
These are the people who give a face to a movement.
2. Donators. These are the people who will fund a movement. People who have money and feel bad about a problem at the very least. Those who fall solely into this category sometimes just want to absolve themselves of guilt by noting that they have contributed actual currency to a cause.
"White, liberal, middle-class guilt" is often the descriptor- These are people who are willing to put ten dollars to helping people after a catastrophic earthquake. Or maybe some donated supplies or even blood/plasma/marrow. However, these people often do not have the time, energy, or eloquence to do much else for the movement. They're the people who give muscle to a movement.
3. "Slacktivists." This is a term that was coined with the rise of social media. A term I'm not fond of. The name implies that these are people who don't do anything, however, "Social Media Activists" (as I'm going to call them) provide a very necessary element for any movement. These are the people who keep the issue at the front of your mind whether you want it there or not. These are the people who are often writing pieces about the issue to convince those who may be on the fence. This is the role that bloggers, journalists, writers, and social media users occupy- usually to different degrees. If Donators are those without time/energy or eloquence to do anything else for a movement, then Social Media Activists are the people without the money or time/energy, but they can contribute eloquence. They are the people who give a voice/mind to a movement.
4. Demonstrators. These are the in-person activists. Protestors. People who are sometimes willing to go so far as to get arrested for the cause if it'll help. If SMAs are forcing you to read about it when you're at home, these are the people who will remind you when you're out driving or walking around town. These are the people who give a body to the movement. Where Donators represent the money and SMAs represent the eloquence, Demonstrators represent the time and energy in a movement.
Now don't get me wrong- All of these exist in varying degrees as well as varying categories. For example, I can be a "Demonstrator," even if I only show up to a single demonstration where four people sit around with a few signs and get high. I'm a Demonstrator, sure, but a weak one. Same goes for the SMA who posts a single Facebook status with a vague idea for why a movement might be needed. And a Donator can still be a Donator even if they only give a few bucks to a movement without ever contributing anything else.
This is why the ideal activist is either heavily invested in one category or well-invested in more than one. (Obviously, it's to that end that I probably cannot be considered a very good activist, but I try to provide no small amount of thought-provoking perspective. Whether I succeed or not is to be determined by everyone else)
Without the people willing to put their money to a movement, organization is sloppy and it doesn't have the ability to grab your attention, provide studies, or advertise.
Without people willing to put their eloquence to a movement, the movement doesn't have a clear message or a demanding media presence.
Without people willing to put their time and energy to a movement, the movement won't show people how serious the issue is or how seriously people are taking it.
Politicians speak the language of money and they're scared of crowds. That's why the 2nd and 4th categories of activists are typically the ones we acknowledge as legitimate. They can both have a measurable effect on the politicians who can physically enact change.
Contrarily, SMAs don't really do anything for politicians (except send them nosey emails that are likely thrown out). However, SMAs do reinforce the movement itself, which is much harder to measure. However, many Demonstrators and Donators are informed of the importance of a movement by SMAs.
And as I've said, there are people who are willing to do the bare minimum in the name of activism in order to feel better. And there are those who only do it to appear good in the eyes of others. Like all things, activism can be done for the wrong reasons or in truly mediocre quality/quantity.
It should also be noted that contributing the bare minimum is far easier for SMAs than the other two, which is part of the reason that this category is targeted for being "slackers," among other things.
Regardless- remember that all four elements are necessary for a movement to take off and be successful. Try reaching into multiple categories or pushing hard into one category. And while I said some negative things about every category, remember that they're sweeping generalizations and don't necessarily apply to you. Usually because you fit into more than one category to some degree.
(I know plenty of people who have donated and written about the recent Sandy Hook tragedy, for example).
Activism means a lot of different things for different people. Keep an open mind about the actual effect they may be having with their methodology.
-
Waddles
Sunday, December 16, 2012
Guns
As you're no doubt aware, Connecticut suffered the second-worst shooting spree in the country since the Virginia Tech massacre. Some 20 people were shot, most of whom were children in a kindergarten class. This is only somewhat related to my topic today in that an assault weapon and a semi-automatic pistol were used.
There's another equally important discussion to be had about society, mental illness, and other factors involved. However, today we're focusing on the vehicle by which people murder most often. Guns.
I've touched on them earlier in a post about the constitution, noting that the 2nd amendment specifies that weapons are to be used by a standing militia only, the purpose of which was:
"To execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions." (According to Article 1, section 8, clause 15 of the US Constitution)
The last time laypeople had to do any of those three was a very long time ago, so it's safe to assume that the original purpose of the militia has long since lived its life.
Starting there, why the piss does anyone have guns anymore?
Four main reasons:
1. Hunting - One of the two most cited reasons for owning a gun. People like to hunt. It's a harmless (hahahahahaha) hobby.
2. Protection - The other most cited reason for owning a gun. People need protection from all the bad in this world. It's just a precaution.
3. Collecting - Another hobby. Less common this time.
4. Compensation - The reason I attribute to some of the guns that people own. There are people who own guns not necessarily as a collector, or for hunting, or for protection. These are the people that just "like" guns. The people that like firing a gun just for that feeling of power.
The problem with all of these people except for the collector is that intensely strict gun regulations wouldn't really hinder any of them.
1. Hunting rifles aren't the problem anyone is discussing. So you can keep hunting without worry unless you're using semi-automatics and assault weapons to mow down deer.
2. The number of time guns are used in self defense is roughly .2% (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States#Self-protection). That is 2/1000 incidences. And most of the instances involved are resolved without firing a single shot, which means a toy gun would be just as effective. That said, a simple Taser is a non-lethal alternative to owning a gun for protection.
3. I'm sorry, I realize that you may have a legitimate grievance if guns are banned or heavily restricted, but I'd rather see people less likely to be murdered than to see you continue with your hobby. Cost/benefit analysis and all.
4. Your ego needs to not be tied to physical objects anyway. Let it go. Seek a therapist to discuss your need to compensate.
Given the low number of incidences that result in using a firearm for self-protection and the effectiveness of Tasers, I don't think it's reasonable to demand that we be allowed to keep firearms for personal protection. In the event that we decide personal protection is a legitimate reason to own a personal firearm, I think we can all agree that assault weapons, semi-automatics with 18+ bullets per clip, and any similar weapons are completely unnecessary for self-protection.
If I'm interested in protecting myself from an intruder, statistically, I won't even need one bullet let alone over a dozen. And if I do need a bullet, I won't need more than one or two! Guns have become ruthlessly efficient killing-machines without a purpose.
Personally? I don't care if you're a nice person or not. I don't care if you're not going to kill anyone. And you probably won't. But just because you won't doesn't mean other people won't either. And the harder we make it to obtain guns, the less likely people are going to be to carry out a horrific act.
Let's give an example. Take a depressed person who has suicidal ideation. Do you think they'll be more or less likely to commit suicide if they have a gun sitting in their lap?
What if the gun is in the other room?
What if the gun is in a safe in the basement?
What if they have to go to a store to get the gun?
What if they have to go to the store and go through a rigorous psychological evaluation that they suspect they may fail?
I know for my part (someone who is depressed and has had suicidal ideation), I would be progressively less likely to go through with a suicide plan the further down the list I went. True that personal experience is just that- personal. But I believe that is underlying human nature at work. People are less likely to do any given act the more difficult it becomes.
So yes, you may be sad that you can't own an assault weapon anymore, or that it might be extremely difficult to obtain a firearm- but as long as you're not a criminal and you're psychologically stable, it shouldn't be a problem for you! And if you're not, I have good news- That means the system worked!
This is a problem. This is a consistent problem in our country that is being put off every time a massacre occurs because people don't want to "politicize" the event. Well, I have news for you, you're making a political judgment about someone when you say that. A political judgment that condemns raising new questions and identifying issues using previous examples. In other words, an argument for the status quo. Which, if I'm not mistaken, is a politicization.
And yes, I understand that many of us want to empathize with the families. Or you feel that the families wouldn't care about what our political opinion is on gun control. And I agree with both.
We should empathize. This should hit us right in the feels. It should hurt.
And no, the families of Newtown couldn't care less what our opinion is on gun control. You know why? Because it doesn't matter to them anymore. They've already lost what's potentially at stake in the gun control argument. They've had the worst possible event occur that's related to the argument. They've already lost. But some of us haven't. And that's why we're invested in this discussion. Because there's so much more to lose if we don't have the discussion now.
The time to discuss it is now. The time was also after Colorado. After Tuscon. After Virginia Tech.
The time to discuss it is always. So long as it remains an issue, it deserves to be discussed, and refusing to do so is to learn nothing from the problems of the past.
If you're still willing to tell us to "wait" before talking about it after being reminded that we waited back then too. We waited and then couldn't get the momentum we needed to enact change. No one was paying attention. No one was outraged.
Well I'm talking about it now, and if you're outraged- GOOD. Maybe then you'll start talking about it too.
Guns are goddamned unnecessary in this day and age.
You think the government is gonna' try to murder you someday? And what if they do? Do you think you're 9mm semi-automatic is going to beat out tanks, planes, bullet-proof vests, riot-shields, or a highly trained military?
You're desperately clinging to a "freedom" that is costing others the freedom of LIFE.
And I have one more argument to address before I storm out of here for the night (this is my room, and I probably shouldn't storm out unless it's for a snack before bed...)
"If they wanted to do it, they'd do it regardless of regulations and laws."
This is a bad argument that has a kernel of truth in it. There are some criminals who, if they really want something, will not stop until they get it.
However, apply this logic to a burglar eyeing your home. You say, "if he wants in, he'll find a way no matter what I do."
So, at night, you don't lock your front door and he walks inside and robs you blind.
Alternatively, you lock your front door and he tries the backdoor.
But what if you lock that too? Well, he'll try some windows.
If those are locked?
Maybe he'll smash in a window, greatly increasing the risk at which he is caught in the act, while also alerting any dogs or setting off any alarms that you may have.
What if you had extremely strong windows?
Would the would-be burglar be willing to fire his gun at the window to break it?
At some point, your various safeguards WILL IN FACT deter the burglar enough that he will leave despite your shitty mantra that he will stop at nothing.
Harken back to my example for the person considering suicide. At some point, that person will decide that the hassle isn't worth it.
Or consider the case of the Chinese assailant who stabbed 22 kids in a school attack sharing the date of the Newtown massacre. http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/14/world/asia/china-knife-attack/index.html
Perhaps nothing was going to stop him from attacking kids.
However, not having a gun forced him to do it with a knife. Which resulted in 0 casualties.
At the very least, we can deter would-be murderers from carrying out a plan as long as possible and possibly prevent it altogether! And if not, maybe the regulations will just make them do something less deadly when they do snap.
The point is that we're doing something net beneficial for the sacrifice of no one except gun collectors, and people who need to compensate.
Law-abiding and sane citizens could still obtain guns for self-protection with mild hassle or guns for hunting with even less hassle.
Or we could have my ideal circumstance in which guns are just goddamned banned because hunting is a fucking cruel hobby if you're doing it for sport. You have a gun, why not give the thing a fighting chance and fight it with your hands if you're so eager to prove your mastery over nature? Or better yet, why not just stop thinking that you've proven anything by killing an animal. Why not go read a book?
(if you're hunting and planning on using the whole animal, I can't fault you though. But when I say "use," I don't mean hanging its head up on your wall as a fucking trophy.)
And I already mentioned that Tasers (or pepper spray) is a great tool for dealing with assailants without murdering them.
Seriously. Seriously. Guns are tools invented for the sole purpose of killing.
Can we agree that we shouldn't have a tool like that in the hands of untrained laypersons?
And then can we agree that the planet would be better off without that tool in anyone's hands?
-
Wade
There's another equally important discussion to be had about society, mental illness, and other factors involved. However, today we're focusing on the vehicle by which people murder most often. Guns.
I've touched on them earlier in a post about the constitution, noting that the 2nd amendment specifies that weapons are to be used by a standing militia only, the purpose of which was:
"To execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions." (According to Article 1, section 8, clause 15 of the US Constitution)
The last time laypeople had to do any of those three was a very long time ago, so it's safe to assume that the original purpose of the militia has long since lived its life.
Starting there, why the piss does anyone have guns anymore?
Four main reasons:
1. Hunting - One of the two most cited reasons for owning a gun. People like to hunt. It's a harmless (hahahahahaha) hobby.
2. Protection - The other most cited reason for owning a gun. People need protection from all the bad in this world. It's just a precaution.
3. Collecting - Another hobby. Less common this time.
4. Compensation - The reason I attribute to some of the guns that people own. There are people who own guns not necessarily as a collector, or for hunting, or for protection. These are the people that just "like" guns. The people that like firing a gun just for that feeling of power.
The problem with all of these people except for the collector is that intensely strict gun regulations wouldn't really hinder any of them.
1. Hunting rifles aren't the problem anyone is discussing. So you can keep hunting without worry unless you're using semi-automatics and assault weapons to mow down deer.
2. The number of time guns are used in self defense is roughly .2% (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States#Self-protection). That is 2/1000 incidences. And most of the instances involved are resolved without firing a single shot, which means a toy gun would be just as effective. That said, a simple Taser is a non-lethal alternative to owning a gun for protection.
3. I'm sorry, I realize that you may have a legitimate grievance if guns are banned or heavily restricted, but I'd rather see people less likely to be murdered than to see you continue with your hobby. Cost/benefit analysis and all.
4. Your ego needs to not be tied to physical objects anyway. Let it go. Seek a therapist to discuss your need to compensate.
Given the low number of incidences that result in using a firearm for self-protection and the effectiveness of Tasers, I don't think it's reasonable to demand that we be allowed to keep firearms for personal protection. In the event that we decide personal protection is a legitimate reason to own a personal firearm, I think we can all agree that assault weapons, semi-automatics with 18+ bullets per clip, and any similar weapons are completely unnecessary for self-protection.
If I'm interested in protecting myself from an intruder, statistically, I won't even need one bullet let alone over a dozen. And if I do need a bullet, I won't need more than one or two! Guns have become ruthlessly efficient killing-machines without a purpose.
Personally? I don't care if you're a nice person or not. I don't care if you're not going to kill anyone. And you probably won't. But just because you won't doesn't mean other people won't either. And the harder we make it to obtain guns, the less likely people are going to be to carry out a horrific act.
Let's give an example. Take a depressed person who has suicidal ideation. Do you think they'll be more or less likely to commit suicide if they have a gun sitting in their lap?
What if the gun is in the other room?
What if the gun is in a safe in the basement?
What if they have to go to a store to get the gun?
What if they have to go to the store and go through a rigorous psychological evaluation that they suspect they may fail?
I know for my part (someone who is depressed and has had suicidal ideation), I would be progressively less likely to go through with a suicide plan the further down the list I went. True that personal experience is just that- personal. But I believe that is underlying human nature at work. People are less likely to do any given act the more difficult it becomes.
So yes, you may be sad that you can't own an assault weapon anymore, or that it might be extremely difficult to obtain a firearm- but as long as you're not a criminal and you're psychologically stable, it shouldn't be a problem for you! And if you're not, I have good news- That means the system worked!
This is a problem. This is a consistent problem in our country that is being put off every time a massacre occurs because people don't want to "politicize" the event. Well, I have news for you, you're making a political judgment about someone when you say that. A political judgment that condemns raising new questions and identifying issues using previous examples. In other words, an argument for the status quo. Which, if I'm not mistaken, is a politicization.
And yes, I understand that many of us want to empathize with the families. Or you feel that the families wouldn't care about what our political opinion is on gun control. And I agree with both.
We should empathize. This should hit us right in the feels. It should hurt.
And no, the families of Newtown couldn't care less what our opinion is on gun control. You know why? Because it doesn't matter to them anymore. They've already lost what's potentially at stake in the gun control argument. They've had the worst possible event occur that's related to the argument. They've already lost. But some of us haven't. And that's why we're invested in this discussion. Because there's so much more to lose if we don't have the discussion now.
The time to discuss it is now. The time was also after Colorado. After Tuscon. After Virginia Tech.
The time to discuss it is always. So long as it remains an issue, it deserves to be discussed, and refusing to do so is to learn nothing from the problems of the past.
If you're still willing to tell us to "wait" before talking about it after being reminded that we waited back then too. We waited and then couldn't get the momentum we needed to enact change. No one was paying attention. No one was outraged.
Well I'm talking about it now, and if you're outraged- GOOD. Maybe then you'll start talking about it too.
Guns are goddamned unnecessary in this day and age.
You think the government is gonna' try to murder you someday? And what if they do? Do you think you're 9mm semi-automatic is going to beat out tanks, planes, bullet-proof vests, riot-shields, or a highly trained military?
You're desperately clinging to a "freedom" that is costing others the freedom of LIFE.
And I have one more argument to address before I storm out of here for the night (this is my room, and I probably shouldn't storm out unless it's for a snack before bed...)
"If they wanted to do it, they'd do it regardless of regulations and laws."
This is a bad argument that has a kernel of truth in it. There are some criminals who, if they really want something, will not stop until they get it.
However, apply this logic to a burglar eyeing your home. You say, "if he wants in, he'll find a way no matter what I do."
So, at night, you don't lock your front door and he walks inside and robs you blind.
Alternatively, you lock your front door and he tries the backdoor.
But what if you lock that too? Well, he'll try some windows.
If those are locked?
Maybe he'll smash in a window, greatly increasing the risk at which he is caught in the act, while also alerting any dogs or setting off any alarms that you may have.
What if you had extremely strong windows?
Would the would-be burglar be willing to fire his gun at the window to break it?
At some point, your various safeguards WILL IN FACT deter the burglar enough that he will leave despite your shitty mantra that he will stop at nothing.
Harken back to my example for the person considering suicide. At some point, that person will decide that the hassle isn't worth it.
Or consider the case of the Chinese assailant who stabbed 22 kids in a school attack sharing the date of the Newtown massacre. http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/14/world/asia/china-knife-attack/index.html
Perhaps nothing was going to stop him from attacking kids.
However, not having a gun forced him to do it with a knife. Which resulted in 0 casualties.
At the very least, we can deter would-be murderers from carrying out a plan as long as possible and possibly prevent it altogether! And if not, maybe the regulations will just make them do something less deadly when they do snap.
The point is that we're doing something net beneficial for the sacrifice of no one except gun collectors, and people who need to compensate.
Law-abiding and sane citizens could still obtain guns for self-protection with mild hassle or guns for hunting with even less hassle.
Or we could have my ideal circumstance in which guns are just goddamned banned because hunting is a fucking cruel hobby if you're doing it for sport. You have a gun, why not give the thing a fighting chance and fight it with your hands if you're so eager to prove your mastery over nature? Or better yet, why not just stop thinking that you've proven anything by killing an animal. Why not go read a book?
(if you're hunting and planning on using the whole animal, I can't fault you though. But when I say "use," I don't mean hanging its head up on your wall as a fucking trophy.)
And I already mentioned that Tasers (or pepper spray) is a great tool for dealing with assailants without murdering them.
Seriously. Seriously. Guns are tools invented for the sole purpose of killing.
Can we agree that we shouldn't have a tool like that in the hands of untrained laypersons?
And then can we agree that the planet would be better off without that tool in anyone's hands?
-
Wade
Thursday, December 13, 2012
A Few Days Off
Hey everyone (People still read this?)-
I'll be visiting some friends and preparing for an extended set of Christmas trips (as you may have read earlier) starting tomorrow.
I should have time to piece together a post on Sunday.
Monday is a crapshoot, so we'll see.
After that, I'll be good to post the remainder of the week. After the 21st, all bets are off when it comes to time and energy until January 1st. I'll try to maintain some kind of regularity, but I can't guarantee anything. Unless you're so desperate to hear from me that you're willing to put up with,
"Uhh... Well, today I talked about game design with my brother... I'd tell you about it, but it would be lengthy and nothing short of catastrofuckpocalypse is going to give me the motivation to write it all up, so instead, here's a picture of a dinosaur looking thoughtfully at a leatherbound copy of 'Harry Potter and the Sex that Happens at Hogwarts,' the oft forgotten 8th book that delved into Malfoy's saucy love affair with professor McGonagall."
I'm already spacing out and slipping into a stupor while I continue working on my awesome Christmas gifts for my brothers.
I'm sure I'll get in something before Christmas, but don't hold out for anything spectacular. If I'm lucky, I'll be able to provide you with something spectaculess.
-
Waddles
I'll be visiting some friends and preparing for an extended set of Christmas trips (as you may have read earlier) starting tomorrow.
I should have time to piece together a post on Sunday.
Monday is a crapshoot, so we'll see.
After that, I'll be good to post the remainder of the week. After the 21st, all bets are off when it comes to time and energy until January 1st. I'll try to maintain some kind of regularity, but I can't guarantee anything. Unless you're so desperate to hear from me that you're willing to put up with,
"Uhh... Well, today I talked about game design with my brother... I'd tell you about it, but it would be lengthy and nothing short of catastrofuckpocalypse is going to give me the motivation to write it all up, so instead, here's a picture of a dinosaur looking thoughtfully at a leatherbound copy of 'Harry Potter and the Sex that Happens at Hogwarts,' the oft forgotten 8th book that delved into Malfoy's saucy love affair with professor McGonagall."
I'm already spacing out and slipping into a stupor while I continue working on my awesome Christmas gifts for my brothers.
I'm sure I'll get in something before Christmas, but don't hold out for anything spectacular. If I'm lucky, I'll be able to provide you with something spectaculess.
-
Waddles
Wednesday, December 12, 2012
Procrastination and Stress
In honor of finals' week (at least for my Transylvania friends), I'd like to talk about procrastination (even though you probably could've used this a lot more last week when all the papers were due...
Having graduated an accomplished procrastinator myself, I have a lot of experience with the feelings associated with it, the problems it causes, the choices you make during, and the benefits of (and against) procrastinating.
There are plenty of reasons that we procrastinate.
1. Not excited about whatever it is we're procrastinating.
2. There are more interesting things right in front of you.
3. Out of energy after a hard semester- intellectually exhausted.
4. Fear of confrontation, progression, or change itself.
5. Depression (a combination of 3/4).
6. Denial that the work exists.
And many others.
Procrastination is a tricky issue because it's so self-perpetuating. It's very easy to slip into a loop of procrastination despite how easy it is to budget time each day between the start of a project and the end.
Yet, instead of working an hour a day for a week, we cram seven hours into a single night, whereby we're too stressed and exhausted to do a good job on the project anyway.
It's a super common problem caused the open-ended nature of assignments with the anxiety of long-term thoughts and goals.
People don't like thinking months in advance typically. It's stressful and anxiety-provoking. It's far easier, emotionally, to put something away in the corner of your mind until it's more urgent.
A single procrastinated project doesn't typically cause more than a mild amount of stress. However, as any college student will tell you, if you procrastinate two or three papers at once, the stress piles up exponentially. Additionally, exams can often occur around the due dates for some projects giving an added element of frustration and helplessness.
While the first reaction might be to blame the professor for making a term paper due the same time as every other term paper ever (a valid criticism) along with most exams, the professor is in a lose-lose situation.
Their two easiest options are to assign something at the beginning of the semester due at the end of the semester in order to give you both adequate time to complete it and the convenience of doing the work when you have the spare time. (What they do now)
OR
Assign a long paper due a week or two after assigning it so that it no longer falls in line with most other papers and typically fewer tests. However, the second option removes the option of doing the work strictly when you have free time and forces you into a deadline that you may legitimately have difficulty with. The added bonus is that it's far more difficult to procrastinate a project due the same week it was assigned.
In either circumstance, the students have a valid complaint.
Either the paper is due in a fashion that most people aren't comfortable working with (open-ended working times and long-term planning, due at the same time as many other similar projects), or the paper is due in a fashion that gives you limited flexibility and less time for completion.
It's far easier to assign a project due in the first method, so a professor doesn't have to keep up with exceptions or special requests and the professor has an out by being able to blame the students for procrastinating in the first place.
Can't really blame them for that choice.
It's really a systemic problem, wouldn't you say?
Here we are in an education system that stresses deadlines and timing. Strict tardy policies, focus on punctuality, and everything's compartmentalized in our daily routine.
We're in this system for 12+ years before going on to college.
Where once our longest project deadline was typically a week, we're suddenly given months to complete assignments. The system doesn't train us to utilize time-management techniques, but then it expects us to utilize them properly?
And before it's brought up, yes, many schools will often have a lesson with tips and tricks on time management, but that's the equivalent to cramming for an exam in a class you never showed up for.
If you don't ever have to use time-management techniques in 12 years of schooling, what lesson have you learned? That time-management isn't very important or useful. It's hard to unlearn that. So while it would be wrong for students to respond angrily to a professor's choice of assignment dating, it's equally wrong to insinuate that a student is simply lazy of their own accord.
Let's frame this another way-
You go your whole life through the school system and the culture we have, and when you finally get to college, you're suddenly graded on your ability to avoid gender norms a few times every semester.
Can you imagine? You go your whole life learning that skirts are for girls and jeans are for boys and then you're expected to suddenly shed those ingrained cultural norms? Imagine that with every gender norm in your life. The way you sit, the way you dress, the way you walk, talk, think, who you associate with, your hobbies- it's mind-numbing to think that you could just stop all the behavior you learned throughout your life up to that point.
And yet, that's what we're expected to do when we're told out of the blue that assignment due dates are effectively open-ended like that.
So, we'd be more comfortable with papers due a week from their assignment, but it might cause more unavoidable conflicts and problems.
Contrarily, we're less comfortable with papers due at the end of a semester, but they give us more maneuverability on how we work on them.
College has enough going on that the maneuverability is typically more useful to us than the comfort, but without the comfort, we don't use the maneuverability, lending this style to causing the standard end-of-the-semester panic attacks.
What do?
There's not a lot you can do except adapt (or pitch ideas to professors).
Learning time management is annoying and difficult.
Set alarms. Lots of alarms. Use incentives. Use the buddy system to ensure that you and a friend are forcing each other to do work in a timely fashion.
However, ultimately if you do procrastinate, there's one major thing to remember:
Don't panic, take deep breaths, and try to ignore the sense of impending doom- instead, collect yourself and evaluate the situation. Are you going to almost certainly be unable to complete the assignment by its due date for any reason? If so, immediately notify your professor and don't lie.
Yes, they'll be annoyed, but you get some respect for honesty and many professors are willing to work with you if you show that you're putting in the effort.
Maybe ask if you can send in an incomplete draft on the due date to show your progress while sending in the completed assignment a day or two later.
Avoid taking "leisure" time during this crisis. What I mean by "leisure time" is any activity that is not conducive to work or concentration. You can take breaks where you clear your mind (we'll come back to this) or read related articles, but avoid sitting down to watch TV.
Deep breaths, holy shit, deep breaths. Shallow breathing reduces oxygen to your brain, preventing you from using the full extent of your knowledge and intellectual capabilities in your project. Deep breaths help to clear the clogged pathways in your mind.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ZJzrEJgKxU&t=1m19s
Watch this clip through 2:00. It's the explanation for chakras in Avatar: The Last Airbender, but it succinctly applies to stress as well.
Stress and panic tends to have a spiraling effect. If you have stress, it causes panic. If you panic, you get stressed, ad nauseum. It's difficult, but breaking this spiral is essential to prevent a full-blown panic attack.
It seems counter-intuitive, but the best way to break this cycle is to stop focusing on the stress-inducing work (even if it needs done ASAP). To do this, you must focus on something else while breathing as deeply as you can (in through the nose and out through the mouth, for those inexperienced with healthy breathing techniques).
For my part, I discovered Tai-Chi at Transy my sophomore year. It taught both consistent/deep breathing and how to focus on something else for about a half hour at a time. By focusing on the way that your body moves and flows while performing the Tai-Chi movements, you're forced to keep sensory focus on new data constantly (because your body rarely stays perfectly still during the movements). This, in turn, allows you to keep your mind off of the stress-inducing work while you breathe. The end result is that your mind becomes significantly more clear at the end of the exercise.
With a clear mind, you can return to work with a more straightforward grasp of what you need to do and how you need to do it.
Don't be afraid to take one of these breaks when everything seems to be closing in on you. It's healthy and productive towards finishing your work.
(an hour of panicked breathing and harried writing will come out muddled and of low quality)
(a half hour of the previous exercise will leave you capable of writing with far more skill and clarity for several hours while also removing [or limiting] the inhibition that is stress and panic)
Remember not to panic. Panic is the enemy that will suck valuable time, energy, focus, and ability during a time when you need it most. Panicking will not solve anything and will only make you more miserable. While it's difficult to fight it, the exercises above should help.
(NOTE: Doing an exercise like the one I mentioned on a weekly basis will help you perfect it in your time of need, allowing it to come more easily to you despite the panic. Similarly, your ability to breathe deeply will be enhanced with practice, allowing for more clearing of the clogged "chakras.")
This advice does not strictly translate into non-school related endeavors, but the exercises are good for any instance of panic and stress that you will ever have. So long as you have the time to stop, step back, and breathe for a few minutes, problems will always be easier to deal with.
Good luck! (Now that you're mostly done)
-
Waddles
Having graduated an accomplished procrastinator myself, I have a lot of experience with the feelings associated with it, the problems it causes, the choices you make during, and the benefits of (and against) procrastinating.
There are plenty of reasons that we procrastinate.
1. Not excited about whatever it is we're procrastinating.
2. There are more interesting things right in front of you.
3. Out of energy after a hard semester- intellectually exhausted.
4. Fear of confrontation, progression, or change itself.
5. Depression (a combination of 3/4).
6. Denial that the work exists.
And many others.
Procrastination is a tricky issue because it's so self-perpetuating. It's very easy to slip into a loop of procrastination despite how easy it is to budget time each day between the start of a project and the end.
Yet, instead of working an hour a day for a week, we cram seven hours into a single night, whereby we're too stressed and exhausted to do a good job on the project anyway.
It's a super common problem caused the open-ended nature of assignments with the anxiety of long-term thoughts and goals.
People don't like thinking months in advance typically. It's stressful and anxiety-provoking. It's far easier, emotionally, to put something away in the corner of your mind until it's more urgent.
A single procrastinated project doesn't typically cause more than a mild amount of stress. However, as any college student will tell you, if you procrastinate two or three papers at once, the stress piles up exponentially. Additionally, exams can often occur around the due dates for some projects giving an added element of frustration and helplessness.
While the first reaction might be to blame the professor for making a term paper due the same time as every other term paper ever (a valid criticism) along with most exams, the professor is in a lose-lose situation.
Their two easiest options are to assign something at the beginning of the semester due at the end of the semester in order to give you both adequate time to complete it and the convenience of doing the work when you have the spare time. (What they do now)
OR
Assign a long paper due a week or two after assigning it so that it no longer falls in line with most other papers and typically fewer tests. However, the second option removes the option of doing the work strictly when you have free time and forces you into a deadline that you may legitimately have difficulty with. The added bonus is that it's far more difficult to procrastinate a project due the same week it was assigned.
In either circumstance, the students have a valid complaint.
Either the paper is due in a fashion that most people aren't comfortable working with (open-ended working times and long-term planning, due at the same time as many other similar projects), or the paper is due in a fashion that gives you limited flexibility and less time for completion.
It's far easier to assign a project due in the first method, so a professor doesn't have to keep up with exceptions or special requests and the professor has an out by being able to blame the students for procrastinating in the first place.
Can't really blame them for that choice.
It's really a systemic problem, wouldn't you say?
Here we are in an education system that stresses deadlines and timing. Strict tardy policies, focus on punctuality, and everything's compartmentalized in our daily routine.
We're in this system for 12+ years before going on to college.
Where once our longest project deadline was typically a week, we're suddenly given months to complete assignments. The system doesn't train us to utilize time-management techniques, but then it expects us to utilize them properly?
And before it's brought up, yes, many schools will often have a lesson with tips and tricks on time management, but that's the equivalent to cramming for an exam in a class you never showed up for.
If you don't ever have to use time-management techniques in 12 years of schooling, what lesson have you learned? That time-management isn't very important or useful. It's hard to unlearn that. So while it would be wrong for students to respond angrily to a professor's choice of assignment dating, it's equally wrong to insinuate that a student is simply lazy of their own accord.
Let's frame this another way-
You go your whole life through the school system and the culture we have, and when you finally get to college, you're suddenly graded on your ability to avoid gender norms a few times every semester.
Can you imagine? You go your whole life learning that skirts are for girls and jeans are for boys and then you're expected to suddenly shed those ingrained cultural norms? Imagine that with every gender norm in your life. The way you sit, the way you dress, the way you walk, talk, think, who you associate with, your hobbies- it's mind-numbing to think that you could just stop all the behavior you learned throughout your life up to that point.
And yet, that's what we're expected to do when we're told out of the blue that assignment due dates are effectively open-ended like that.
So, we'd be more comfortable with papers due a week from their assignment, but it might cause more unavoidable conflicts and problems.
Contrarily, we're less comfortable with papers due at the end of a semester, but they give us more maneuverability on how we work on them.
College has enough going on that the maneuverability is typically more useful to us than the comfort, but without the comfort, we don't use the maneuverability, lending this style to causing the standard end-of-the-semester panic attacks.
What do?
There's not a lot you can do except adapt (or pitch ideas to professors).
Learning time management is annoying and difficult.
Set alarms. Lots of alarms. Use incentives. Use the buddy system to ensure that you and a friend are forcing each other to do work in a timely fashion.
However, ultimately if you do procrastinate, there's one major thing to remember:
Don't panic, take deep breaths, and try to ignore the sense of impending doom- instead, collect yourself and evaluate the situation. Are you going to almost certainly be unable to complete the assignment by its due date for any reason? If so, immediately notify your professor and don't lie.
Yes, they'll be annoyed, but you get some respect for honesty and many professors are willing to work with you if you show that you're putting in the effort.
Maybe ask if you can send in an incomplete draft on the due date to show your progress while sending in the completed assignment a day or two later.
Avoid taking "leisure" time during this crisis. What I mean by "leisure time" is any activity that is not conducive to work or concentration. You can take breaks where you clear your mind (we'll come back to this) or read related articles, but avoid sitting down to watch TV.
Deep breaths, holy shit, deep breaths. Shallow breathing reduces oxygen to your brain, preventing you from using the full extent of your knowledge and intellectual capabilities in your project. Deep breaths help to clear the clogged pathways in your mind.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ZJzrEJgKxU&t=1m19s
Watch this clip through 2:00. It's the explanation for chakras in Avatar: The Last Airbender, but it succinctly applies to stress as well.
Stress and panic tends to have a spiraling effect. If you have stress, it causes panic. If you panic, you get stressed, ad nauseum. It's difficult, but breaking this spiral is essential to prevent a full-blown panic attack.
It seems counter-intuitive, but the best way to break this cycle is to stop focusing on the stress-inducing work (even if it needs done ASAP). To do this, you must focus on something else while breathing as deeply as you can (in through the nose and out through the mouth, for those inexperienced with healthy breathing techniques).
For my part, I discovered Tai-Chi at Transy my sophomore year. It taught both consistent/deep breathing and how to focus on something else for about a half hour at a time. By focusing on the way that your body moves and flows while performing the Tai-Chi movements, you're forced to keep sensory focus on new data constantly (because your body rarely stays perfectly still during the movements). This, in turn, allows you to keep your mind off of the stress-inducing work while you breathe. The end result is that your mind becomes significantly more clear at the end of the exercise.
With a clear mind, you can return to work with a more straightforward grasp of what you need to do and how you need to do it.
Don't be afraid to take one of these breaks when everything seems to be closing in on you. It's healthy and productive towards finishing your work.
(an hour of panicked breathing and harried writing will come out muddled and of low quality)
(a half hour of the previous exercise will leave you capable of writing with far more skill and clarity for several hours while also removing [or limiting] the inhibition that is stress and panic)
Remember not to panic. Panic is the enemy that will suck valuable time, energy, focus, and ability during a time when you need it most. Panicking will not solve anything and will only make you more miserable. While it's difficult to fight it, the exercises above should help.
(NOTE: Doing an exercise like the one I mentioned on a weekly basis will help you perfect it in your time of need, allowing it to come more easily to you despite the panic. Similarly, your ability to breathe deeply will be enhanced with practice, allowing for more clearing of the clogged "chakras.")
This advice does not strictly translate into non-school related endeavors, but the exercises are good for any instance of panic and stress that you will ever have. So long as you have the time to stop, step back, and breathe for a few minutes, problems will always be easier to deal with.
Good luck! (Now that you're mostly done)
-
Waddles
Sunday, December 9, 2012
Personal and Current Issue
Non-political, non-controversial post. Just need to use my blog as an ear to talk to about my life for a bit.
So if you're not interested in my first-world-problems, the day to read my blog is not today.
Christmas has always been an... exhausting time in my family.
Three Christmases with both sets of grandparents and the nuclear family with some hours of driving in between all three.
Wasn't too terrible though. Growing up, it really just meant more presents.
After the divorce, however, it meant negotiations and the addition of 8-12 extra hours of driving for various people. With my parents' inability to be cordial to each other, it meant I had to be the go-between for both parents on who would get me at what times, who would drive me where, and who would have to pick me up. Alternatively, during the time in which I had a car, it simply meant that I had to cover the extra slack to see everyone.
Additionally, being that my parents were now separated, each set of grandparents promptly stopped taking the other family's Christmas celebrations into consideration, dropping the additional convenience of synchronized schedules off the map.
You swing with the punches though, right?
Well, this year is just nice and complicated for me, so I'm stressing about it.
1. I don't have a car. Days, times, and locations are, therefore, not up to me. I'm not thrilled about following everyone else's schedule for 10 days.
2. I have a girlfriend that I really don't want to be away from for very long (read: more than two days at a time). I wouldn't under normal circumstances either, but this is the first time I've felt this close to someone and she's basically one of the only people keeping me sane right now because oh yeah
3. I'm still filled with goddamned overwhelming anxiety, paranoia, sadness, and spontaneous/wild mood swings. Without Jessica, I'll need to rely on myself to not be completely crazy. It's not necessarily that I doubt I can do this though. No no- I should be able to. The problem is that the thought of doing it on my own is anxiety-provoking. That's not something I want or need right now until I'm a little more comfortable.
4. My relationship with my dad is still in this super awkward place where I don't respect him as much as I probably should because I've only recently come to where I understand human motivation, thought, and action well at all, and my dad is a case that strikes me as really... Problematic. I love him, and he's tried to be in our lives and interested in our hobbies as much as possible, but he was never much of a father figure or a husband figure (given my current romantic position, having a responsible husband-figure in my life would have been great, because I'm basically having to learn all of this as I go). Furthermore, his great hobby (read: obsession) is sports, something that I don't connect with at all, while my brothers do, so it's hard for me to talk to him about anything without it slowly turning into an awkward silence.
Add onto that the fact that I moved in with my mom and had her pay for my schooling and watch me grow up through early adulthood while my brothers were living with my dad, and you have a formula where I'm not very connected to my father, I don't look up to him in many ways, and we haven't been very involved in each others' lives.
I love him, but I don't like him a whole lot. And he wants to spend as much time with me as possible over Christmas.
Now, I empathize with that. I get that he doesn't get much time at all with me and I'm his offspring and his life has come to that point where he doesn't have a whole lot going on except his hobbies, his job, and his kids. I understand that putting our relationship second, while not painful for me, is painful for him.
But I'm in a place in my life where I need to respect the people I'm around. And I don't want to miss any time with my brother with whom I have a far more meaningful connection. My priorities, at this stage in life, don't match up at all with his and we share very little.
Normally, I'd be pretty good about getting it over with anyway, but with all my stress piling on right now, I don't want to be in an environment where I feel awkward and uneasy. I can barely remain stable in environments where I'm totally comfortable as it is.
5. I share virtually nothing with any of my other relatives, and I really don't want to see any of them this year (except the only relatives that probably won't show up anyway). No, there aren't many Christmases left for my grandparents, and yes, it's important that I see them as much as I can. And I'm fine with that, but like the last point- not this year. I don't have the energy to spend on this.
Right now, the plan is for me to go from:
1. My apartment to my mom's for four days leading up to the 21st/22nd.
2. Mom's house to dad's (our relatives in Ohio)
3. Dad's (relatives in Ohio) to Mom's (relatives in Ohio)
4. Mom's (relatives in Ohio) to dad's house in Michigan.
5. Dad's house in Michigan back to Mom's.
6. Mom's back to my apartment.
Spanning a total of 14 days counting the time leading up to the 21st.
Here's what I would do if I had 100% control of time and space.
Spend two days with my mom (23-24).
Spend a day with my dad (25).
Spend two days with my brother (26-27).
Come home.
Since I'll be doing 0 of the driving, it's actually a bit of a surprise that everything worked out for the actual plan.
And a big part of me wanted it all to crumble so that I could have an excuse to not put myself out there this year.
Ugh, I feel like Charlie Brown right now.
(Sorry for making my blog posts all out of order this week. The only one posted on the correct day was Wednesday's...)
-
Wade
So if you're not interested in my first-world-problems, the day to read my blog is not today.
Christmas has always been an... exhausting time in my family.
Three Christmases with both sets of grandparents and the nuclear family with some hours of driving in between all three.
Wasn't too terrible though. Growing up, it really just meant more presents.
After the divorce, however, it meant negotiations and the addition of 8-12 extra hours of driving for various people. With my parents' inability to be cordial to each other, it meant I had to be the go-between for both parents on who would get me at what times, who would drive me where, and who would have to pick me up. Alternatively, during the time in which I had a car, it simply meant that I had to cover the extra slack to see everyone.
Additionally, being that my parents were now separated, each set of grandparents promptly stopped taking the other family's Christmas celebrations into consideration, dropping the additional convenience of synchronized schedules off the map.
You swing with the punches though, right?
Well, this year is just nice and complicated for me, so I'm stressing about it.
1. I don't have a car. Days, times, and locations are, therefore, not up to me. I'm not thrilled about following everyone else's schedule for 10 days.
2. I have a girlfriend that I really don't want to be away from for very long (read: more than two days at a time). I wouldn't under normal circumstances either, but this is the first time I've felt this close to someone and she's basically one of the only people keeping me sane right now because oh yeah
3. I'm still filled with goddamned overwhelming anxiety, paranoia, sadness, and spontaneous/wild mood swings. Without Jessica, I'll need to rely on myself to not be completely crazy. It's not necessarily that I doubt I can do this though. No no- I should be able to. The problem is that the thought of doing it on my own is anxiety-provoking. That's not something I want or need right now until I'm a little more comfortable.
4. My relationship with my dad is still in this super awkward place where I don't respect him as much as I probably should because I've only recently come to where I understand human motivation, thought, and action well at all, and my dad is a case that strikes me as really... Problematic. I love him, and he's tried to be in our lives and interested in our hobbies as much as possible, but he was never much of a father figure or a husband figure (given my current romantic position, having a responsible husband-figure in my life would have been great, because I'm basically having to learn all of this as I go). Furthermore, his great hobby (read: obsession) is sports, something that I don't connect with at all, while my brothers do, so it's hard for me to talk to him about anything without it slowly turning into an awkward silence.
Add onto that the fact that I moved in with my mom and had her pay for my schooling and watch me grow up through early adulthood while my brothers were living with my dad, and you have a formula where I'm not very connected to my father, I don't look up to him in many ways, and we haven't been very involved in each others' lives.
I love him, but I don't like him a whole lot. And he wants to spend as much time with me as possible over Christmas.
Now, I empathize with that. I get that he doesn't get much time at all with me and I'm his offspring and his life has come to that point where he doesn't have a whole lot going on except his hobbies, his job, and his kids. I understand that putting our relationship second, while not painful for me, is painful for him.
But I'm in a place in my life where I need to respect the people I'm around. And I don't want to miss any time with my brother with whom I have a far more meaningful connection. My priorities, at this stage in life, don't match up at all with his and we share very little.
Normally, I'd be pretty good about getting it over with anyway, but with all my stress piling on right now, I don't want to be in an environment where I feel awkward and uneasy. I can barely remain stable in environments where I'm totally comfortable as it is.
5. I share virtually nothing with any of my other relatives, and I really don't want to see any of them this year (except the only relatives that probably won't show up anyway). No, there aren't many Christmases left for my grandparents, and yes, it's important that I see them as much as I can. And I'm fine with that, but like the last point- not this year. I don't have the energy to spend on this.
Right now, the plan is for me to go from:
1. My apartment to my mom's for four days leading up to the 21st/22nd.
2. Mom's house to dad's (our relatives in Ohio)
3. Dad's (relatives in Ohio) to Mom's (relatives in Ohio)
4. Mom's (relatives in Ohio) to dad's house in Michigan.
5. Dad's house in Michigan back to Mom's.
6. Mom's back to my apartment.
Spanning a total of 14 days counting the time leading up to the 21st.
Here's what I would do if I had 100% control of time and space.
Spend two days with my mom (23-24).
Spend a day with my dad (25).
Spend two days with my brother (26-27).
Come home.
Since I'll be doing 0 of the driving, it's actually a bit of a surprise that everything worked out for the actual plan.
And a big part of me wanted it all to crumble so that I could have an excuse to not put myself out there this year.
Ugh, I feel like Charlie Brown right now.
(Sorry for making my blog posts all out of order this week. The only one posted on the correct day was Wednesday's...)
-
Wade
Thursday, December 6, 2012
Game Guide (Tis the Season)
The finale to our 3-part blogathon- we finish on an upbeat note, encouraging capitalism and hobbies.
Now, I've only been in the board-gaming hobby for 6 years or so.
The first three years consisted of me wandering around like a chicken without its head, wondering what games were right for me in a sea of board and card games that all looked bizarre.
I, like many who begin the descent into this hobby, began when my brother introduced me to a little game called Settlers of Catan.
Having grown up on the likes of Risk, Monopoly, Stratego, Omega Virus, Uno, and a host of other Milton Bradley games, Settlers was an eye-opening experience.
Settlers, for those who are unfamiliar, belongs to a class of game commonly referred to as a Euro board game. They focus less on luck and more on strategy than most American board games. Notable exception in this case is Stratego, which has a surprisingly large amount of strategy behind it.
I don't want to go on another Euro game rant (been there), so I'll keep this bit brief- if you think you might be interested in board games that have more depth, strategy, and re-playability, then you might be interested in Euro games. Settlers is a great gateway game, combining many elements of both American and Euro games. A good alternative is Ticket to Ride. Or maybe Carcassonne.
Anyway, Settlers was a unique and thrilling plummet into a magnificent world that I've only just started to truly explore.
And if there's one thing I've learned, it's that there are board games for everyone.
There are purely abstract games designed for people to be able to work at to master over time. Chess and Go (Go is like Chess on crack and meth at the same time) are examples of this. Unchanging setups that offer infinite variations for the game's progression simply based on what the player decides to do with their move. No luck is involved in these games.
There are games which are purely luck.
Games with high player interaction.
Games with excellent themes.
Games where you take on the role of your character.
Games that progress like an epic quest.
Games where you develop competitive setups against the other player(s).
Games with talking.
Games with bluffing.
Games with the risk of being eliminated.
Games where everyone always gets to play.
Games to push your brain.
Timed games.
Games with bidding and auctions.
Games where you build your own city.
Games where you get to micro-manage your resources or units.
Games where you have to cooperate with other players.
Games where you get to deceive other players.
Games centered on laughing.
Games centered on conquering and diplomacy
Games with strict mechanics.
Games with loose mechanics.
Games that last days or weeks at a time.
Games that last 10-30 minutes.
Games for 2 people.
Games for 28 people.
Games based on your worldly knowledge.
Games based on your vocabulary.
Games where no one wins.
Games where you want to lose.
Games with miniatures.
Games with nothing but your imagination.
There are games for everyone.
One of the best resources available to any would-be gamer is
http://boardgamegeek.com - A website with forum discussion, pictures, rules, descriptions, comments, ratings, reviews, and more on nearly any board/card game you could think about giving someone. If you have a specific game in mind and want to know more, head to this site.
[A side note about BGG's rating system- the world of boardgamers is cruel. The vast majority of games are rated below 8.0. Many of the top rated games in various fields are high 7s. Don't let the rating system get you down if a game looks interesting, but is "only" rated 6-7. Find a good review and let that tell you its pros and cons]
But maybe you have no idea what to get someone in the first place and you don't want to go cruising up and down BGG playing whack-a-mole with game ideas.
So, narrow your selection down. Who are you buying for? Are you planning on playing together? Or with more people? What kind of theme are you looking for? Or is theme even important? Are you looking for players to interact constantly or would you rather players compete without screwing with each other? Are you interested in a lighter game or a heavier game? Is price an issue?
These are just some of the many questions that you'll ask whenever picking a game. However, most of the questions start to slip away when you've figured out more or less what you (or your giftee) wants in a game.
Most games fall somewhere between 20-40 dollars, particularly if you buy them on Amazon or a website like coolstuffinc.com. Lighter games (games that are quick to play and easy to learn) are typically (but not always) in smaller boxes and will be cheaper to purchase, but that doesn't mean they'll be any less fun. Are you not sure at all what you might like? There are actually a number of groups that review board games and sometimes play them for you to see. http://tabletop.geekandsundry.com/ - This is the site for Tabletop, a video review blog on board games with Wil Wheaton that many people find useful in choosing what games to get.
Purchasing those first few games is often the most challenging part of the hobby because you don't really know exactly what you'd like until you start playing. It's easiest to break into gaming if you have friends who can introduce you to games that they own, so you can judge more or less what you're into. Otherwise, it's all about guessing and checking.
But again, if you're just starting out, there are some really simple games that are pretty fun and cover a decent array of mechanics, like Settlers, which has some luck, has some strategy, includes a basic economy mechanic, tile placement, card-drawing, light player interaction, it's pretty easy to teach, plays in under an hour, and has high replayability with a number of expansions if you're trying to spice it up.
Furthermore, it may not be a direct correlation, but try to think about the kinds of video games or TV shows or books that you like.
Are you really into mystery? Mystery Express
Do you like shows like The Mole? There are a number of hidden-role games where you get to deceive other players into thinking you're on their side while trying to sabotage them instead. The Resistance and Werewolves of Millers Hollow are two party games heavily dependent on hidden roles. Shadows Over Camelot is longer board game for fewer people of this genre.
Are you partial to war and history? There are a number of excellent war games that have been produced, including one of the all time top rated 2-player games ever, Twilight Struggle
Or maybe you're into sci-fi? Well, this ranges greatly- you can play games like Space Alert, which is a real-time cooperative game where you try to survive with your crew mates against the unknown perils of space- or you can play Race for the Galaxy, a game about building the most profitable galactic system through planetary structures that benefit each other. Or Eminent Domain, a deckbuilding game about galactic conquest.
Fantasy and sci-fi are two of the more prolific genres of board/card games available, and there will be no shortage of games to choose from for fans of them.
Horror is a tricky genre, where much of the popular games revolve around HP Lovecraft's Cthulhu universe, which spawned a number of board games that use miniatures under the series title Arkham Horror. However, horror also encompasses the zombie genre, which has spawned a number of popular board games like The Last Night on Earth. Horror sci fi even has a place here with Escape from Aliens in Outer Space, which is a hidden-role game in which you don't know who's an alien and who's a human, but you're all on a derelict spacecraft and you have to slowly make your way out of the ship, trying to bluff the aliens into not finding you in the darkness, while the aliens have to move like humans to avoid arousing suspicion.
Tensions run high in horror games, giving you that real adrenaline pumping feeling that you're a single mistake away from inviting disaster.
But maybe you're into games that are more about the strategy than they are about the theme?
Maybe you'd care to try Dominion.
But don't think that all your games need fancy pieces and parts for you to have fun.
Have you ever sat down to play a simple, but fun, game of Telephone Pictionary?
Need a little more whimsy and a lot more crazy? Try playing a round of Everyone is John.
But let's say you want to sit down with your family and play a nice game that trains your brain that doesn't have to be about the competition. Boggle lets you exercise your vocabulary, your spatial reasoning, and you never have anyone placing down "Xi" on a triple-word-score and laughing at you.
And if you're just interested in showing off your worldly knowledge, there's the ever popular Trivial Pursuit (seen here in many different formats).
Far be it from me to tell you how to have fun, but the next time you sit down to play Monopoly and you end the night wondering why the hell you still play Monopoly, try taking a look at what the wide world of gaming has to offer you. After all, there's more to good games than rolling dice and buying whatever property you landed on ad nauseum. At least in my book.
Board games can get pretty complicated though. So when you're looking through these, previewing, viewing, and reviewing, remember that it's okay to be confused, it's okay to get things wrong, and it's okay to play with house rules or to change the game to make it fun for you.
And PS, if you're looking for a party game like Apples to Apples except actually funny (provided no one is offended by extremely crude/vulgar words and ideas), then check out Cards Against Humanity.
Good luck, and Merry Christmas!
-
Waddles
Now, I've only been in the board-gaming hobby for 6 years or so.
The first three years consisted of me wandering around like a chicken without its head, wondering what games were right for me in a sea of board and card games that all looked bizarre.
I, like many who begin the descent into this hobby, began when my brother introduced me to a little game called Settlers of Catan.
Having grown up on the likes of Risk, Monopoly, Stratego, Omega Virus, Uno, and a host of other Milton Bradley games, Settlers was an eye-opening experience.
Settlers, for those who are unfamiliar, belongs to a class of game commonly referred to as a Euro board game. They focus less on luck and more on strategy than most American board games. Notable exception in this case is Stratego, which has a surprisingly large amount of strategy behind it.
I don't want to go on another Euro game rant (been there), so I'll keep this bit brief- if you think you might be interested in board games that have more depth, strategy, and re-playability, then you might be interested in Euro games. Settlers is a great gateway game, combining many elements of both American and Euro games. A good alternative is Ticket to Ride. Or maybe Carcassonne.
Anyway, Settlers was a unique and thrilling plummet into a magnificent world that I've only just started to truly explore.
And if there's one thing I've learned, it's that there are board games for everyone.
There are purely abstract games designed for people to be able to work at to master over time. Chess and Go (Go is like Chess on crack and meth at the same time) are examples of this. Unchanging setups that offer infinite variations for the game's progression simply based on what the player decides to do with their move. No luck is involved in these games.
There are games which are purely luck.
Games with high player interaction.
Games with excellent themes.
Games where you take on the role of your character.
Games that progress like an epic quest.
Games where you develop competitive setups against the other player(s).
Games with talking.
Games with bluffing.
Games with the risk of being eliminated.
Games where everyone always gets to play.
Games to push your brain.
Timed games.
Games with bidding and auctions.
Games where you build your own city.
Games where you get to micro-manage your resources or units.
Games where you have to cooperate with other players.
Games where you get to deceive other players.
Games centered on laughing.
Games centered on conquering and diplomacy
Games with strict mechanics.
Games with loose mechanics.
Games that last days or weeks at a time.
Games that last 10-30 minutes.
Games for 2 people.
Games for 28 people.
Games based on your worldly knowledge.
Games based on your vocabulary.
Games where no one wins.
Games where you want to lose.
Games with miniatures.
Games with nothing but your imagination.
There are games for everyone.
One of the best resources available to any would-be gamer is
http://boardgamegeek.com - A website with forum discussion, pictures, rules, descriptions, comments, ratings, reviews, and more on nearly any board/card game you could think about giving someone. If you have a specific game in mind and want to know more, head to this site.
[A side note about BGG's rating system- the world of boardgamers is cruel. The vast majority of games are rated below 8.0. Many of the top rated games in various fields are high 7s. Don't let the rating system get you down if a game looks interesting, but is "only" rated 6-7. Find a good review and let that tell you its pros and cons]
But maybe you have no idea what to get someone in the first place and you don't want to go cruising up and down BGG playing whack-a-mole with game ideas.
So, narrow your selection down. Who are you buying for? Are you planning on playing together? Or with more people? What kind of theme are you looking for? Or is theme even important? Are you looking for players to interact constantly or would you rather players compete without screwing with each other? Are you interested in a lighter game or a heavier game? Is price an issue?
These are just some of the many questions that you'll ask whenever picking a game. However, most of the questions start to slip away when you've figured out more or less what you (or your giftee) wants in a game.
Most games fall somewhere between 20-40 dollars, particularly if you buy them on Amazon or a website like coolstuffinc.com. Lighter games (games that are quick to play and easy to learn) are typically (but not always) in smaller boxes and will be cheaper to purchase, but that doesn't mean they'll be any less fun. Are you not sure at all what you might like? There are actually a number of groups that review board games and sometimes play them for you to see. http://tabletop.geekandsundry.com/ - This is the site for Tabletop, a video review blog on board games with Wil Wheaton that many people find useful in choosing what games to get.
Purchasing those first few games is often the most challenging part of the hobby because you don't really know exactly what you'd like until you start playing. It's easiest to break into gaming if you have friends who can introduce you to games that they own, so you can judge more or less what you're into. Otherwise, it's all about guessing and checking.
But again, if you're just starting out, there are some really simple games that are pretty fun and cover a decent array of mechanics, like Settlers, which has some luck, has some strategy, includes a basic economy mechanic, tile placement, card-drawing, light player interaction, it's pretty easy to teach, plays in under an hour, and has high replayability with a number of expansions if you're trying to spice it up.
Furthermore, it may not be a direct correlation, but try to think about the kinds of video games or TV shows or books that you like.
Are you really into mystery? Mystery Express
Do you like shows like The Mole? There are a number of hidden-role games where you get to deceive other players into thinking you're on their side while trying to sabotage them instead. The Resistance and Werewolves of Millers Hollow are two party games heavily dependent on hidden roles. Shadows Over Camelot is longer board game for fewer people of this genre.
Are you partial to war and history? There are a number of excellent war games that have been produced, including one of the all time top rated 2-player games ever, Twilight Struggle
Or maybe you're into sci-fi? Well, this ranges greatly- you can play games like Space Alert, which is a real-time cooperative game where you try to survive with your crew mates against the unknown perils of space- or you can play Race for the Galaxy, a game about building the most profitable galactic system through planetary structures that benefit each other. Or Eminent Domain, a deckbuilding game about galactic conquest.
Fantasy and sci-fi are two of the more prolific genres of board/card games available, and there will be no shortage of games to choose from for fans of them.
Horror is a tricky genre, where much of the popular games revolve around HP Lovecraft's Cthulhu universe, which spawned a number of board games that use miniatures under the series title Arkham Horror. However, horror also encompasses the zombie genre, which has spawned a number of popular board games like The Last Night on Earth. Horror sci fi even has a place here with Escape from Aliens in Outer Space, which is a hidden-role game in which you don't know who's an alien and who's a human, but you're all on a derelict spacecraft and you have to slowly make your way out of the ship, trying to bluff the aliens into not finding you in the darkness, while the aliens have to move like humans to avoid arousing suspicion.
Tensions run high in horror games, giving you that real adrenaline pumping feeling that you're a single mistake away from inviting disaster.
But maybe you're into games that are more about the strategy than they are about the theme?
Maybe you'd care to try Dominion.
But don't think that all your games need fancy pieces and parts for you to have fun.
Have you ever sat down to play a simple, but fun, game of Telephone Pictionary?
Need a little more whimsy and a lot more crazy? Try playing a round of Everyone is John.
But let's say you want to sit down with your family and play a nice game that trains your brain that doesn't have to be about the competition. Boggle lets you exercise your vocabulary, your spatial reasoning, and you never have anyone placing down "Xi" on a triple-word-score and laughing at you.
And if you're just interested in showing off your worldly knowledge, there's the ever popular Trivial Pursuit (seen here in many different formats).
Far be it from me to tell you how to have fun, but the next time you sit down to play Monopoly and you end the night wondering why the hell you still play Monopoly, try taking a look at what the wide world of gaming has to offer you. After all, there's more to good games than rolling dice and buying whatever property you landed on ad nauseum. At least in my book.
Board games can get pretty complicated though. So when you're looking through these, previewing, viewing, and reviewing, remember that it's okay to be confused, it's okay to get things wrong, and it's okay to play with house rules or to change the game to make it fun for you.
And PS, if you're looking for a party game like Apples to Apples except actually funny (provided no one is offended by extremely crude/vulgar words and ideas), then check out Cards Against Humanity.
Good luck, and Merry Christmas!
-
Waddles
Wednesday, December 5, 2012
The Trouble with Knowing
Round 2 of the 3-round blogathon!
The Trouble with Knowing, a spinoff of a previous blog post on the cycle of needing experience to get a job to get the money to afford an apartment, which requires that you live in the area and have a job.
To put it as quickly and painlessly as possible, the trouble with Knowing is that no one wants it.
Knowing isn't profitable for you and it's not profitable for Them. In fact, Knowing takes away from Their bottom line, so they have two good reasons to not want you to Know.
This is all really vague and confusing, so let me elaborate.
What do I mean by "Knowing," first of all?
Mostly facts about the world, humans, relationships, interactions, culture, statistics. Having a good analytical grasp of the places we inhabit and travel.
It's all largely worthless except a few key things, many of which are still worthless unless you wish to abuse your knowledge.
Who do I mean by "They"?
The people you depend on to survive. People with money.
You are one of three things to Them-
1. A customer/consumer
2. A salesman to sell to the customer/consumer for Them
3. One of Them
Before I continue, I'd like to make a disclaimer, that I don't intend to pass Them off as evil (despite clearly using an Us vs. Them setup in my argument). They are not all bad people. The unfortunate reality is, however, that most of Them are willing to abuse their knowledge, and I believe that merits Them a separate category which places money over people.
So, why isn't Knowing profitable to you?
Most jobs don't require knowledge of anything except salesmanship. And that's going to be the key bit of Knowledge that you should know. Being a good salesman. How to tell people what they want without them realizing it. How to make something totally useless seem like the most important thing on the planet. How to overwhelm them with knowledge so that they're forced to defer to you if it's something they're forced to get, or how to shmooze them into the next tier up if it's something they just want. Being a good salesman is the Knowledge.
But what will Knowing about gender struggles get you? Who will pay you for your wealth of information about transgender studies?
What about micro-economics?
Or Cartesian dualism?
Who will buy your vast expanse of Freudian psychoanalytic theory?
Theoretically, all areas of Knowledge have some money in them, but the problem is that most of that money is in writing books or teaching other people that same Knowledge. Few jobs practice the theoretical Knowledge, and obtaining them requires you to jump through uncountable hoops before reminding you that no one will pay attention to you now that you have that job unless you're also writing on the subject.
And all of that requires that you become so proficient in that field of Knowledge that everything else sort of slips by you. You spend a third of your life or more acquiring the status necessary to write on the topic. And even then, few people will read it and even fewer will take it seriously.
But am I not defining "profit" a little poorly? Don't we enhance our lives through much of this Knowledge?
You may not become a clinical psychologist with your BA in psychology, but you know a lot more about the human mind and people, don't you?
Well, yes. But you'll be taken far less seriously than the people who devote that third of their lives to one specific facet of that Knowledge set. So much so that your friends are the only ones who may listen to you.
And whatever practical knowledge you have, even if it's exactly the same as a "professional" of the field, will only be able to be applied to your own life as a result of your lower status.
So yes, Knowing can help us lead a more fulfilling life perhaps. But it's not profitable.
Now, why don't They want us to Know? It seems like They would be more neutral to the topic, wouldn't They?
Not exactly. One of the other "benefits" of Knowing is that the more you Know, the less likely you are to be sold something.
Since They only see you as a consumer, salesman, or one of Them, They need you to be buying if you're not already selling, although They'd prefer you to do both. If you're resistant to both, you're in Their way.
So, not only is your Knowledge not helping Them, it's actually hurting Them. Not in a very measurable degree, of course. Like an ant biting you, Knowing is merely a nuisance to Them. Unless you're willing to abuse that Knowledge.
If you're willing to use what you Know about people and the world to sell them something they don't need, then you can transcend the first two roles to become one of Them.
And like I said, not all of Them are bad. You could sell something to the people that is useful and you can appreciate Knowledge as one of Them. But ultimately, you don't need someone with Knowledge like you need someone to sell your product. So, you must reluctantly follow Their way of life. And who would blame you? You need to feed yourself too.
Is there anything we can do?
Not really. Short of everyone (or at least the majority) having the capacity and desire to Know, most Knowledge will remain underwhelming. So the best bet is to teach as many people as possible to Know. Once Knowing catches on, then the world can shift itself to incorporate that Knowledge, and then we start the process over.
But one thing will never go away- the value of being able to sell someone something they don't need. And that's why They'll always have power. Because there will always be a demand for frivolity and, thus, someone to sell it.
I am so sorry for today's post. It is weird and confusing...
-
Waddles
The Trouble with Knowing, a spinoff of a previous blog post on the cycle of needing experience to get a job to get the money to afford an apartment, which requires that you live in the area and have a job.
To put it as quickly and painlessly as possible, the trouble with Knowing is that no one wants it.
Knowing isn't profitable for you and it's not profitable for Them. In fact, Knowing takes away from Their bottom line, so they have two good reasons to not want you to Know.
This is all really vague and confusing, so let me elaborate.
What do I mean by "Knowing," first of all?
Mostly facts about the world, humans, relationships, interactions, culture, statistics. Having a good analytical grasp of the places we inhabit and travel.
It's all largely worthless except a few key things, many of which are still worthless unless you wish to abuse your knowledge.
Who do I mean by "They"?
The people you depend on to survive. People with money.
You are one of three things to Them-
1. A customer/consumer
2. A salesman to sell to the customer/consumer for Them
3. One of Them
Before I continue, I'd like to make a disclaimer, that I don't intend to pass Them off as evil (despite clearly using an Us vs. Them setup in my argument). They are not all bad people. The unfortunate reality is, however, that most of Them are willing to abuse their knowledge, and I believe that merits Them a separate category which places money over people.
So, why isn't Knowing profitable to you?
Most jobs don't require knowledge of anything except salesmanship. And that's going to be the key bit of Knowledge that you should know. Being a good salesman. How to tell people what they want without them realizing it. How to make something totally useless seem like the most important thing on the planet. How to overwhelm them with knowledge so that they're forced to defer to you if it's something they're forced to get, or how to shmooze them into the next tier up if it's something they just want. Being a good salesman is the Knowledge.
But what will Knowing about gender struggles get you? Who will pay you for your wealth of information about transgender studies?
What about micro-economics?
Or Cartesian dualism?
Who will buy your vast expanse of Freudian psychoanalytic theory?
Theoretically, all areas of Knowledge have some money in them, but the problem is that most of that money is in writing books or teaching other people that same Knowledge. Few jobs practice the theoretical Knowledge, and obtaining them requires you to jump through uncountable hoops before reminding you that no one will pay attention to you now that you have that job unless you're also writing on the subject.
And all of that requires that you become so proficient in that field of Knowledge that everything else sort of slips by you. You spend a third of your life or more acquiring the status necessary to write on the topic. And even then, few people will read it and even fewer will take it seriously.
But am I not defining "profit" a little poorly? Don't we enhance our lives through much of this Knowledge?
You may not become a clinical psychologist with your BA in psychology, but you know a lot more about the human mind and people, don't you?
Well, yes. But you'll be taken far less seriously than the people who devote that third of their lives to one specific facet of that Knowledge set. So much so that your friends are the only ones who may listen to you.
And whatever practical knowledge you have, even if it's exactly the same as a "professional" of the field, will only be able to be applied to your own life as a result of your lower status.
So yes, Knowing can help us lead a more fulfilling life perhaps. But it's not profitable.
Now, why don't They want us to Know? It seems like They would be more neutral to the topic, wouldn't They?
Not exactly. One of the other "benefits" of Knowing is that the more you Know, the less likely you are to be sold something.
Since They only see you as a consumer, salesman, or one of Them, They need you to be buying if you're not already selling, although They'd prefer you to do both. If you're resistant to both, you're in Their way.
So, not only is your Knowledge not helping Them, it's actually hurting Them. Not in a very measurable degree, of course. Like an ant biting you, Knowing is merely a nuisance to Them. Unless you're willing to abuse that Knowledge.
If you're willing to use what you Know about people and the world to sell them something they don't need, then you can transcend the first two roles to become one of Them.
And like I said, not all of Them are bad. You could sell something to the people that is useful and you can appreciate Knowledge as one of Them. But ultimately, you don't need someone with Knowledge like you need someone to sell your product. So, you must reluctantly follow Their way of life. And who would blame you? You need to feed yourself too.
Is there anything we can do?
Not really. Short of everyone (or at least the majority) having the capacity and desire to Know, most Knowledge will remain underwhelming. So the best bet is to teach as many people as possible to Know. Once Knowing catches on, then the world can shift itself to incorporate that Knowledge, and then we start the process over.
But one thing will never go away- the value of being able to sell someone something they don't need. And that's why They'll always have power. Because there will always be a demand for frivolity and, thus, someone to sell it.
I am so sorry for today's post. It is weird and confusing...
-
Waddles
Tuesday, December 4, 2012
Art and Sacrifice
This'll be the first in my 3-days-3-posts marathon to make up for Monday and Friday this week (both of which will not be filled with bloggy goodness
I'm strolling over into completely foreign territory right now to talk about something that has caused me no small amount of cognitive and emotional stress- Art.
Specifically, the sacrifices made in the name of art.
What do we owe to art? What power does art have over us? What are we allowed to do for art's sake?
No doubt this breaches the worlds of ethics, personal opinion, and aesthetics, all of which are intensely subjective topics, so coming to any sort of consensus is virtually out of the question, but I think the discussion merits existence regardless.
Art has existed since our cognition. And as we've progressed, we've taken all our knowledge and attempted to turn it into objective formulas- techniques and crafts. This has led to the rise of subversive works, not just in art, but in all fields. When there is a matter of certainty to how we create, those who are "truly" creative will deliberately exit the expected avenues of creativity in order to produce something new, unexpected, shocking, fascinating, or simply delightful. This is not a new phenomenon, but much of it falls under a recently named movement- postmodernism.
Subversive art, specifically, has taken many forms, from self-torture to pictures of anuses, but in the pursuit of a more shocking and surreal experience of aestheticism, what would normally be considered "art," has dabbled in the realm of real-world consequences.
http://webecoist.momtastic.com/2009/01/10/animal-torture-art/
Animal torture art (something I literally just now found out existed).
Human self-torture art.
Art that uses people, whether willing participants or not.
What exactly is "okay" in the realm of art? Why? Have we simply grown to justify immorality for the sake of art in our quest to constantly expand our artistic horizons?
Does an action lose much of its value when it's being performed for alternative reasons?
Let me give you an example-
We have an abusive father who beats his child out of malice. A clearly abhorrent act which obviously deserves jail time and a mandatory separation of the child from the father.
Now, what if the father is an artist who's making a statement about the world through beating his child? What if his intent is artistic and the suffering being caused is merely incidental?
How do we treat this new father? What exactly is the difference?
There must be some distinction, because we don't view the two as equal crimes, but we might not be likely to view the second father's actions as "acceptable" either. So the distinction is in intention.
But what exactly does that imply about the nature of actions? That as long as you don't mean to cause pain, you're off the hook? What about negligence? What value do we place on people being so irresponsible that they would cause harm to someone without recognizing how wrong that is? Isn't that a fair description of someone who lacks empathy?
Or maybe it's not that the perpetrator is negligent, but perhaps they feel the artistic value is worth more than the suffering! Isn't that even worse? Isn't that some really twisted act of ignoring empathy?
To put it another way, I feel sorry for those who suffer from psychopathy to an extent. The inability to feel empathy forces individuals to live by a set of rules (society's rules) that are contrary to anything they can have experience of. They don't know why what they're feeling is wrong- it doesn't make sense to them. It's genuine confusion.
Contrarily, someone who has empathy, but deliberately ignores it has absolutely no excuse for causing suffering. They're valuing something over their innate capacity for empathy.
What truth is worth more than life and happiness? Art? Why does art deserve that rank and title?
(Philosophically, why does life and happiness deserve it either? Both questions are equally valid)
Reaching back to a common theme of my posts- Where and why do we draw a line for what's acceptable for the sake of art?
Is animal torture?
How about human torture?
What if the human is yourself, so it's an informed choice?
Or perhaps a masochist, so it's an informed choice?
What if you're simply starving or suffering as a result of the art, and the art has no intention towards causing the suffering? Starving artists, artists who get too lost in their oeuvre?
What if the pain being caused isn't physical, but rather emotional?
Allow me to give you a fictional scenario from a play, "The Shape of Things."
The play is about an art student who meets and befriends a museum guard. He's intrigued by her, and they eventually start dating. Throughout the play, she gives him the motivation to change a significant number of qualities about himself, from the way he dresses to the way he talks and presents himself. By the end of the play, he comes to her senior art exhibit, which turns out to be about him.
Her art project was to take him and turn him into something completely different without ever actually forcing the change on him. Her time with him was entirely used for the purposes of art and she had never had feelings for him.
The ethical implications here are... incredibly complicated to say the least.
Human experimentation for the advancement of science, medicine, and psychology has been deemed unethical provided you cannot receive informed consent (and sometimes even if you can) by participants.
But the play presents something... not quite there. Almost like human experimentation when viewed through a cracked mirror.
The choices were entirely in the hands of the male protagonist. It was always within his power to stop it, but he was also deceived into believing in a legitimate connection that wasn't there. Does that deceit constitute any sort of criminal act? An immoral act would probably be pretty easy to argue, but it's unclear if you could ever really punish someone for it.
Furthermore, while the intent was never to cause pain, the intent was to use him for ulterior purposes. In other words, he was merely a means to an end instead of an end itself.
But we're talking about extreme cases that we don't often see or hear. Let me take this into a topic that may hit a little closer to home.
What about an acting role which causes someone to commit suicide?
Were they pushed too hard by a director looking for acting that was too real?
Or perhaps they pushed themselves too hard to be the perfect artist?
Is it a justifiable loss in the name of art?
What if your spouse was in a role that required them to have sex with someone else?
What if you were absolutely not okay with it, but your spouse wanted to go through with it?
Is the pain justifiable for art?
At what point does pain stop being justifiable for art?
After all, you're an unwilling recipient of the consequences of art, but it's more complicated than that, since the actual artist is willing.
However, this is a very particular example of something that I think is really a more general phenomenon-
Theater itself uses people for the purposes of art. They, unlike the poor boyfriend in "The Shape of Things," are willingly being used. Each production of the same play with the same characters takes people from the streets to attempt to fill those roles, no matter who they are. It could be anyone so long as they fit a set of criteria to be determined by the casting director, a tool used by the artform.
The theater does not care who you are or how you came to be. All it cares about is your ability to fulfill your duty and there will be no second thought if another can fill your role better than you.
The theater wants you to perform a set of actions and say specific things, no matter how you feel about them. It's up to another arm of the art, the director, to try to make you comfortable in order to streamline the process, but ultimately, your discomfort is of little consequence to the theater.
And then you sacrifice a large amount of hours, your time, your energy, your personal life- in order to keep up with the theater's demands so that you can be a part of this art.
When push comes to shove, that simply comes down to whether or not that personal sacrifice is worth it to you, as an individual, for the sake of art.
And what exactly defines this art form? The crowd? The collaboration? The polish? Is it still art if it's a bunch of unpracticed kids on stage in front of an empty auditorium trying to recite Shakespeare?
At what point does it go from being just pretending to being art?
And at what point does suffering start to be justified by art?
At what point does pain become acceptable just because someone doesn't intend to cause that pain?
I'm viewing this entirely from the perspective of someone outside the culture who has recently had negative feelings towards it, so it's entirely possible that my limited and biased perspective is totally incapable of understanding the pull of art that causes pain. Or maybe it's something deeper. Maybe pain is beautiful and it is art?
Who knows?
I wouldn't mind hearing some differing perspectives on this as, again, mine is super biased.
-
Wade
I'm strolling over into completely foreign territory right now to talk about something that has caused me no small amount of cognitive and emotional stress- Art.
Specifically, the sacrifices made in the name of art.
What do we owe to art? What power does art have over us? What are we allowed to do for art's sake?
No doubt this breaches the worlds of ethics, personal opinion, and aesthetics, all of which are intensely subjective topics, so coming to any sort of consensus is virtually out of the question, but I think the discussion merits existence regardless.
Art has existed since our cognition. And as we've progressed, we've taken all our knowledge and attempted to turn it into objective formulas- techniques and crafts. This has led to the rise of subversive works, not just in art, but in all fields. When there is a matter of certainty to how we create, those who are "truly" creative will deliberately exit the expected avenues of creativity in order to produce something new, unexpected, shocking, fascinating, or simply delightful. This is not a new phenomenon, but much of it falls under a recently named movement- postmodernism.
Subversive art, specifically, has taken many forms, from self-torture to pictures of anuses, but in the pursuit of a more shocking and surreal experience of aestheticism, what would normally be considered "art," has dabbled in the realm of real-world consequences.
http://webecoist.momtastic.com/2009/01/10/animal-torture-art/
Animal torture art (something I literally just now found out existed).
Human self-torture art.
Art that uses people, whether willing participants or not.
What exactly is "okay" in the realm of art? Why? Have we simply grown to justify immorality for the sake of art in our quest to constantly expand our artistic horizons?
Does an action lose much of its value when it's being performed for alternative reasons?
Let me give you an example-
We have an abusive father who beats his child out of malice. A clearly abhorrent act which obviously deserves jail time and a mandatory separation of the child from the father.
Now, what if the father is an artist who's making a statement about the world through beating his child? What if his intent is artistic and the suffering being caused is merely incidental?
How do we treat this new father? What exactly is the difference?
There must be some distinction, because we don't view the two as equal crimes, but we might not be likely to view the second father's actions as "acceptable" either. So the distinction is in intention.
But what exactly does that imply about the nature of actions? That as long as you don't mean to cause pain, you're off the hook? What about negligence? What value do we place on people being so irresponsible that they would cause harm to someone without recognizing how wrong that is? Isn't that a fair description of someone who lacks empathy?
Or maybe it's not that the perpetrator is negligent, but perhaps they feel the artistic value is worth more than the suffering! Isn't that even worse? Isn't that some really twisted act of ignoring empathy?
To put it another way, I feel sorry for those who suffer from psychopathy to an extent. The inability to feel empathy forces individuals to live by a set of rules (society's rules) that are contrary to anything they can have experience of. They don't know why what they're feeling is wrong- it doesn't make sense to them. It's genuine confusion.
Contrarily, someone who has empathy, but deliberately ignores it has absolutely no excuse for causing suffering. They're valuing something over their innate capacity for empathy.
What truth is worth more than life and happiness? Art? Why does art deserve that rank and title?
(Philosophically, why does life and happiness deserve it either? Both questions are equally valid)
Reaching back to a common theme of my posts- Where and why do we draw a line for what's acceptable for the sake of art?
Is animal torture?
How about human torture?
What if the human is yourself, so it's an informed choice?
Or perhaps a masochist, so it's an informed choice?
What if you're simply starving or suffering as a result of the art, and the art has no intention towards causing the suffering? Starving artists, artists who get too lost in their oeuvre?
What if the pain being caused isn't physical, but rather emotional?
Allow me to give you a fictional scenario from a play, "The Shape of Things."
The play is about an art student who meets and befriends a museum guard. He's intrigued by her, and they eventually start dating. Throughout the play, she gives him the motivation to change a significant number of qualities about himself, from the way he dresses to the way he talks and presents himself. By the end of the play, he comes to her senior art exhibit, which turns out to be about him.
Her art project was to take him and turn him into something completely different without ever actually forcing the change on him. Her time with him was entirely used for the purposes of art and she had never had feelings for him.
The ethical implications here are... incredibly complicated to say the least.
Human experimentation for the advancement of science, medicine, and psychology has been deemed unethical provided you cannot receive informed consent (and sometimes even if you can) by participants.
But the play presents something... not quite there. Almost like human experimentation when viewed through a cracked mirror.
The choices were entirely in the hands of the male protagonist. It was always within his power to stop it, but he was also deceived into believing in a legitimate connection that wasn't there. Does that deceit constitute any sort of criminal act? An immoral act would probably be pretty easy to argue, but it's unclear if you could ever really punish someone for it.
Furthermore, while the intent was never to cause pain, the intent was to use him for ulterior purposes. In other words, he was merely a means to an end instead of an end itself.
But we're talking about extreme cases that we don't often see or hear. Let me take this into a topic that may hit a little closer to home.
What about an acting role which causes someone to commit suicide?
Were they pushed too hard by a director looking for acting that was too real?
Or perhaps they pushed themselves too hard to be the perfect artist?
Is it a justifiable loss in the name of art?
What if your spouse was in a role that required them to have sex with someone else?
What if you were absolutely not okay with it, but your spouse wanted to go through with it?
Is the pain justifiable for art?
At what point does pain stop being justifiable for art?
After all, you're an unwilling recipient of the consequences of art, but it's more complicated than that, since the actual artist is willing.
However, this is a very particular example of something that I think is really a more general phenomenon-
Theater itself uses people for the purposes of art. They, unlike the poor boyfriend in "The Shape of Things," are willingly being used. Each production of the same play with the same characters takes people from the streets to attempt to fill those roles, no matter who they are. It could be anyone so long as they fit a set of criteria to be determined by the casting director, a tool used by the artform.
The theater does not care who you are or how you came to be. All it cares about is your ability to fulfill your duty and there will be no second thought if another can fill your role better than you.
The theater wants you to perform a set of actions and say specific things, no matter how you feel about them. It's up to another arm of the art, the director, to try to make you comfortable in order to streamline the process, but ultimately, your discomfort is of little consequence to the theater.
And then you sacrifice a large amount of hours, your time, your energy, your personal life- in order to keep up with the theater's demands so that you can be a part of this art.
When push comes to shove, that simply comes down to whether or not that personal sacrifice is worth it to you, as an individual, for the sake of art.
And what exactly defines this art form? The crowd? The collaboration? The polish? Is it still art if it's a bunch of unpracticed kids on stage in front of an empty auditorium trying to recite Shakespeare?
At what point does it go from being just pretending to being art?
And at what point does suffering start to be justified by art?
At what point does pain become acceptable just because someone doesn't intend to cause that pain?
I'm viewing this entirely from the perspective of someone outside the culture who has recently had negative feelings towards it, so it's entirely possible that my limited and biased perspective is totally incapable of understanding the pull of art that causes pain. Or maybe it's something deeper. Maybe pain is beautiful and it is art?
Who knows?
I wouldn't mind hearing some differing perspectives on this as, again, mine is super biased.
-
Wade
Friday, November 30, 2012
Sorry!
Late night! I got nothin'.
I'll get back to you with something fun on Monday, alright?
-
Waddles
I'll get back to you with something fun on Monday, alright?
-
Waddles
Wednesday, November 28, 2012
Relationships
Here's a big one. It's been coming for a while, but an old friend finally gave me some spectacular inspiration for writing it.
I need to preface this with something incredibly important and personal to me, which is why I feel as though I can maybe scratch the surface on the topic for once.
I'm currently dating an amazing woman who puts up with the worst I've ever shown anyone, and somehow that's only made us stronger. The downs I've faced in the last six months are among the worst I've ever experienced, with the highs being notably high themselves, and she's never once complained about the problems, helping me to shoulder them as long as I'd let her. As a result of this, and our overall connection, I'm in love (or just dependent) with her.
But the feelings I've had towards her are some of the most extreme feelings I've ever had, ranging from bitter sobbing sadness to simple and pure contentment. The negative feelings are more exceptional to me because they're a new aspect of my mind I haven't had to deal with much in the past with relationships. I've come across a new appreciation for jealousy that was once totally foreign to me. I've known a hurt unlike any other I've ever felt. These only exist resulting from a deeper connection than I thought I knew how to make.
With that said, I'm far from an example of healthy relationship material, however, I am at least pretty good about understanding others and their situations.
And it is from that experience as well as what little I know of psychology, ethics, and interpersonal relations that I draw my knowledge for this post.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Relationships. I don't have to tell you how complicated and nuanced relationships are. That crap is complicated. So I will be glossing over things, missing things altogether, so please forgive me for that.
There's a million things that go into a successful relationship, and I don't even really have the space to adequately cover a single one of these, but I'm gonna' talk about six or seven and just dive into them, covering as much ground as I can think of in a single swoop.
My preface to this is to remind you, the reader, that all people and all couples are different. Some of this may not apply or may only apply somewhat to certain couples. However, even if this doesn't apply to you, you may want to consider if your relationship might be happier or healthier if you altered your style to incorporate some of these ideas.
1.Trust- This here's the golden egg of the relationship world. If you can't scrounge up some trust in your partner, your relationship is doomed. Doesn't matter which one of you lacks the quality (though it's made exceptionally worse when neither party has it). Trust is absolutely essential to the functioning of a healthy relationship. This word has some breadth to it though, so don't simply assume that, "well, I don't think my partner would cheat on me, therefore trust!"
Trust in fidelity is certainly one thing- and an important thing, but it only falls under a single category for trust- one that we can call physical trust. (You're about to see a shout-out to my post on subjects and objects, because I'm headed in a similar direction)
A. Physical trust- You trust your SO not to cheat on you, but you also trust them not to hit you or threaten your physical well-being. You trust your SO not to take any physical actions that result in you getting hurt. You trust your SO not to steal from you or take any kind of physical advantage of you.
B. Emotional trust- This is pretty similar to physical trust except that it entails more than simply trusting them not to do emotionally hurtful things, but you're also trusting them with your emotional burdens. Each partner is extremely unique in their emotional and cognitive developmental histories. You'll have different fears, different wants, different needs, different ideas, hobbies, tastes, comforts, discomforts. You have to trust each other with this knowledge. If you don't, you'll inevitably get hurt by a well-intentioned partner who simply doesn't know any better.
C. Cognitive trust- I would largely place the simple notion of deceit in this category. You have to trust that your partner is not lying to you. This can get into some sticky territory since our culture has placed some value on the idea of lying to "protect" someone. The simplest solution to this problem is to have a discussion about it and ultimately agree to either ban or utilize small lies as a couple. This is the category for discussion. Trusting your partner not to lie to you is important, but it goes further- you also have to be able to count on your partner as an available and willing conversationalist.
In other words- talk about all of your problems. All of your problems with your significant other. Now don't get me wrong- you don't have to constantly bring up how much of a problem you might have with your partner's friends- There must always be a balance and moderation. Converse as much as is required for their to be a mutual understanding about any given topic that causes problems for one or both of you, but be wary of "beating a dead horse." It might wear on their patience and cause a host of other problems.
D. Privacy- I felt this deserved a special mention since it is one of the topics that encompasses all three categories. Violating someone's privacy is deeply physical, emotional, and cognitive. For example, if you're looking at your partner's phone without their consent deliberately seeking information you think they may be keeping from you, you're violating their physical property (and not trusting that your partner isn't violating your physical connection through infidelity), emotional connections (as well as refusing to trust them with your fears and insecurities), and you're violating the trust they have that you will talk to them when you're feeling uncertain, while also refusing to trust that they are not lying to you in the first place.
A violation of privacy is a fundamental warning sign that you have little to no respect or trust for your partner. Have a conversation about this immediately if you are in a situation in which this is an issue.
Really. Have a conversation immediately if you feel as though there's a trust problem on any levels. Because conversations are healthy. Seriously. Have them. A lot. I cannot possibly stress this enough.
2. Understanding- Gained through emotional trust, understanding plays a fundamental role in any disagreement you may have with your significant other. Empathizing with your partner allows your partner to feel like you care enough to know exactly how they're feeling, and it allows you to see an alternate perspective that you may not have considered before. Too often, we get stuck in our ways, assuming that others have nothing left to teach us, no matter who they are. But so often are we surprised by the knowledge gained by simply spending a few minutes thinking and feeling as your partner instead of as yourself.
(And I don't mean that shitty biased way that some people "empathize" where they implant assumed and unrealistic motives into another person:
"Try to put yourself into the shoes of the guy who cut you off. Why do you think he did that?"
"He wanted to piss me off!")
You understand your partner by talking to them and, even if you disagree, trying to distance your own emotionality in order to see your partner's perspective without your own bias. It's a skill that develops the more you do it, so don't wait to start talking and understanding.
3. Compassion- The natural (hopefully) conclusion from gaining an understanding of your partner is to gain compassion for them. Their situations, their troubles, etc. It's one thing to understand where someone's coming from, but it's a whole additional trial to love them for it, particularly when you disagree or associate some other negative feeling with their circumstance.
This is often the thing you notice first when a relationship becomes love. It's something to be developed through an extraordinary amount of time with your partner. Don't expect either understanding or compassion to be fully realized without an enormous amount of work by both parties.
A wonderful quote that I believe sums up the value of compassion is, "If you can't handle me at my worst, you don't deserve me at my best." [EDITOR'S NOTE 3/24/15: I actually don't love this quote. It implies the onus is on your partner to deal with your actions whether they're acceptable or not, which isn't fair. I think a better quote might be, "If you can't handle me at my saddest, you don't deserve me at my happiest."]
4. Respect- While this coincides much with understanding, there are additional elements to respect. Respect is about acknowledging the differences between you and your partner as "acceptable" while also valuing the needs and wants of your partner. Respect, like understanding, doesn't necessarily translate into agreement, but it can translate into compliance. You may not like that your partner wants to pursue their career and, resulting from this, move away, but to respect your partner's independence and their desires, you may give them your blessing anyway.
However, on the opposite end of this, your partner may very much want to go, but may respect your desire to see them stay. It's a push and pull- a system of balancing that requires compromise and finding common ground. Maybe you'll opt to go with your partner. Or maybe you'll agree as a couple that it should only be a trial run.
Respect strengthens the bonds forged by trust, allowing both parties to remain independent people without diminishing the value of their connection to each other. Respect may often call for us to make sacrifices, as you might guess. It's painful, but rewarding to know that, despite your pain, your partner is happy. However, it is never wise to assume you know what your partner wants or needs without having a conversation first, so don't "respect" something that may not be there. Such actions can needlessly strain the emotional trust shared between you two.
[A very real problem we can run into is when we compartmentalize these relational items as separate. In reality, many of these are fully related to other items. For example, if your partner expects you to stop being friends with everyone of the opposite gender, you may feel like you have something of an obligation to respect that desire, but ultimately, such an expectation is fostered by a lack of emotional and physical trust. Respect isn't worth a whole lot if you're sacrificing trust to get there. As with all of these items, make sure to fully take stock what other elements any argument or request may have embedded within them.]
5. Expectations- Oh Jesus, this is the big'n. Expectations are something of the meat of any relationship, good or bad. Everyone has expectations for every relationship, whether platonic or romantic. You expect your friends to not poop on your bed while you're sleeping in it. You expect your friends not to break your belongings. You expect your friends to provide you with humor or compassion or sometimes just a shoulder to cry on.
Likewise, you expect your partner to trust you. You expect your partner to respect you.
But these are all really sort of universal expectations. We also have some pretty controversial expectations.
Like expecting a friend to bail you out of jail. Or expecting to be able to borrow your friend's clothes.
Expecting your partner to provide sexual stimulation when you want it. Expecting a relationship to be long-term. Expecting monogamy. Expecting commitment. Expecting your partner to sacrifice for you. Expectations come in many severities, shapes, sizes, etc. The important thing is to lay out your expectations in front of you and have a discussion over-time in the relationship about them, particularly when they become relevant. Do you expect your SO to flirt with and tease you once the relationship has started? That might be something to bring up early on. Do you expect your partner to spend time with your family on holidays if you're together by that point? Maybe that's something to bring up when it becomes relevant.
Whatever the expectation, failing to meet with your partner's expectation can lead to disastrous complications and it's up to your emotional and cognitive trust to prevent a fight or a separation depending on how intense the expectations are.
Do you expect your partner to stay in the same city as you after graduation? That's something you want to have a discussion about before the time comes so that you know what you should have invested in the relationship- so you can plan ahead. The earlier discussion will also prevent a flood of emotional distress if their expectations don't necessarily line up with yours, since you'll have more time to discuss it down the road.
Ultimately, if your expectations don't line up and you don't talk about it, then you may simply wind up facing a decreasingly happy relationship. The importance of talking with your partner cannot possibly be overstated with regards to expectations. If you don't tell your partner what you want out of the relationship, they will never know without making a lot of half-correct inferences based on your behavior and other context cues you put off. This is equally applicable to your sex life as well. While our culture may have this grand taboo about discussing sex, you will have to talk about your sexual expectations and desires with your partner in order to avoid having a bland and unhappy sex life.
While it can be amazing and romantic if your partner picks up on what you want without you saying anything, it's not very practical, and there's really no harm in telling your partner what you'd like. Do you wish your partner would work out more? Clean the dishes more thoroughly? Call you more often? Take you on weekly dates? Hold your hand in public? Avoid PDAs? Tell them! Have a mature, grown-up discussion about it. And if your partner expects you to not have mature, grown-up discussions with them, then maybe the relationship has some problems to be addressed...
Don't underestimate the power of simple expectations as well as the complex ones. Something as insignificant as only brushing your teeth at night and not when you wake up may end up having a large influence on the happiness of your relationship without you realizing it. That's why you need to talk about it when something bothers you or when you want your partner to do something.
And I know it can be awkward to ask your partner to do something multiple times. Maybe your partner doesn't want to do it, but is avoiding confrontation. Maybe your partner simply forgot. Maybe your partner isn't doing it out of some revenge- regardless of the case, you need to initiate the discussion- not in an accusatory way, mind you, but in an understanding and respectful way that invites compassion! (See all these buzzwords I'm throwing around? They'll be on the test)
6. Argumentation styles- On the topic of initiating discussion, you're gonna' find that most people fall under three categories of discussion/argumentation/confrontation styles. I'm going to be extremely biased towards one, even though all three can lead to successful, long-term relationships.
A. Aggressive- This is your type A personality. Raised voices, highly emotional arguing, and a lot of, frankly, irrational logic. These are highly confrontational people who are often interested in being right or exerting power and influence. People looking for a fight. This type of argumentation seems less inclined towards understanding, emotional trust, and respect, let alone compassion. A typical representation of abusive partners is someone who has an aggressive argumentation style, though I must stress that not all aggressive partners are abusive, and not all abusive partners are aggressive.
If you believe that you or your partner has this argumentation style and it's causing problems in the relationship, it may be worth looking into anger-management, therapy, or possibly a more compatible relationship. Some couples are able to function perfectly with aggressiveness, but if you don't feel that you're one of them, do not subject yourself to treatment like that, which can be highly vitriolic and outwardly hurtful.
B. Avoidant- This argumentation style is characterized by a lot of either passive-aggressiveness or often simply caving into your partner's needs or wants without examining/pushing for your own. Avoidant partners simply don't want to rock the boat, even if it's not healthy for them or the relationship. The partners of aggressive individuals are often either aggressive themselves or avoidant, taking one extreme or the other. The main concern with avoidant partners is that they are more easily capable of being walked on. The needs and wants for avoidant partners are less vocalized and, therefore, less often received unless their partner is someone willing to actively seek out their needs and wants.
C. Respondent- The balance of the other two styles, respondent individuals are willing to talk in order to solve problems, but are reserved enough to avoid emotional outbursts and yelling in most situations. Those who are respondent are more typically people who have not only understanding, respect, and compassion for their partner, but also themselves, which is also incredibly important in any relationship.
Remember, when you're "fighting", you're not at war. You're trying to close a serious emotional or cognitive gap between the two of you. You don't want your partner to lose. What does that gain you? The best outcome is one not focused on winning or losing, but on understanding, respecting, and compromising. This leads to growth for the individuals and the relationship as a whole, while promoting both parties getting needs and wants resolved.
7. Dependency- This is something I'm struggling with a bit myself, but it's something we've all seen. That couple that is together 100% of the time. That couple who collectively stopped having outside friends. Dependency is a very serious issue in relationships, especially if one partner is dependent, but not the other. This is a major disconnect in expectations in the relationship that would need to be discussed immediately before any other progress could be made. However, physical dependence isn't the only kind.
Sometimes, we require the presence or validation of our partner in order to feel remotely worthwhile ourselves. This happens often in abusive relationships as well as relationships with insecurities and self-esteem issues. Being dependent on another person is ultimately bad for your health and bad for the health of the relationship. Until you can love yourself, you cannot love another (or something like that). That's not exactly true, but in order to love someone else, we have to be willing to appreciate ourselves on a fundamental level. Until we can do that, our insecurities will only poison the relationship as well as ourselves. And if the relationship falls apart resulting from our insecurities, then that only services to reinforce our self-esteem issues. It's a gamble that's not worth the pain. If you're not feeling confident, start making changes to your life and your perspective until you are confident. Would working out make you feel confident? How about looking at yourself in the mirror every day and telling yourself that you're beautiful? Be confident in yourself, and then you can be confident in your relationship, and you won't have to depend on the emotional support of your partner to get you through each day.
8. Objective/Subjective- http://atouchofwaddles.blogspot.com/2012/10/objects-and-subjects.html
I already did a blog post on this one, but it's also super important and a lot of things from this tie in, so go read that if you haven't.
Relationships are scary and difficult and time consuming. We have to put ourselves out there, ask questions we're not used to asking. Talk about everything. We have to live in a radically altered way than single life when we're in a relationship- but this is how you grow. This is how you learn.
Which brings me to my last point.
9. Breaking up- Relationships end. Sometimes peaceably, sometimes catastrophically. But most of them end. How it ends is up to you.
But just remember that no relationship is without gain, even if it doesn't seem like it. Every time you go through the song and dance, you learn something new- about yourself, about human nature, about relationships, and yes, about partners. You're going to go through a lot of pain in order to find and maintain love, but if it's worth it to you, then keep up with it. Take the good and the bad and always remember the experiences along the way.
I don't have a single relationship in my memory that was without good times. And honestly, the good times are usually far more vivid than the bad times. If you obsess over the negative, you're going to set yourself up for a bad relationship down the road, where you're expecting the bad to be repeated. If you remember the positives more readily, then new relationships will be associated with those good times, and you'll be that much more excited to jump back into it.
Everyone copes with breaking up differently, but just try to make sure you're respectful about it. Try to have a mature, grown-up discussion about it- whether or not it's salvageable, whether or not you can be friends, whether or not you should give each other back gifts, etc.
Offer and ensure closure. No one likes to end a relationship filled with questions. It makes us depressed and frustrated, and it's just not worth it. You're already breaking up, which is the most awkward kind of interaction, so why should it matter to have a final thirty minute discussion where you hammer out the final details, answer any questions, and part like adults?
Wow. That was long. I am sorry.
-
Waddles
I need to preface this with something incredibly important and personal to me, which is why I feel as though I can maybe scratch the surface on the topic for once.
I'm currently dating an amazing woman who puts up with the worst I've ever shown anyone, and somehow that's only made us stronger. The downs I've faced in the last six months are among the worst I've ever experienced, with the highs being notably high themselves, and she's never once complained about the problems, helping me to shoulder them as long as I'd let her. As a result of this, and our overall connection, I'm in love (or just dependent) with her.
But the feelings I've had towards her are some of the most extreme feelings I've ever had, ranging from bitter sobbing sadness to simple and pure contentment. The negative feelings are more exceptional to me because they're a new aspect of my mind I haven't had to deal with much in the past with relationships. I've come across a new appreciation for jealousy that was once totally foreign to me. I've known a hurt unlike any other I've ever felt. These only exist resulting from a deeper connection than I thought I knew how to make.
With that said, I'm far from an example of healthy relationship material, however, I am at least pretty good about understanding others and their situations.
And it is from that experience as well as what little I know of psychology, ethics, and interpersonal relations that I draw my knowledge for this post.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Relationships. I don't have to tell you how complicated and nuanced relationships are. That crap is complicated. So I will be glossing over things, missing things altogether, so please forgive me for that.
There's a million things that go into a successful relationship, and I don't even really have the space to adequately cover a single one of these, but I'm gonna' talk about six or seven and just dive into them, covering as much ground as I can think of in a single swoop.
My preface to this is to remind you, the reader, that all people and all couples are different. Some of this may not apply or may only apply somewhat to certain couples. However, even if this doesn't apply to you, you may want to consider if your relationship might be happier or healthier if you altered your style to incorporate some of these ideas.
1.Trust- This here's the golden egg of the relationship world. If you can't scrounge up some trust in your partner, your relationship is doomed. Doesn't matter which one of you lacks the quality (though it's made exceptionally worse when neither party has it). Trust is absolutely essential to the functioning of a healthy relationship. This word has some breadth to it though, so don't simply assume that, "well, I don't think my partner would cheat on me, therefore trust!"
Trust in fidelity is certainly one thing- and an important thing, but it only falls under a single category for trust- one that we can call physical trust. (You're about to see a shout-out to my post on subjects and objects, because I'm headed in a similar direction)
A. Physical trust- You trust your SO not to cheat on you, but you also trust them not to hit you or threaten your physical well-being. You trust your SO not to take any physical actions that result in you getting hurt. You trust your SO not to steal from you or take any kind of physical advantage of you.
B. Emotional trust- This is pretty similar to physical trust except that it entails more than simply trusting them not to do emotionally hurtful things, but you're also trusting them with your emotional burdens. Each partner is extremely unique in their emotional and cognitive developmental histories. You'll have different fears, different wants, different needs, different ideas, hobbies, tastes, comforts, discomforts. You have to trust each other with this knowledge. If you don't, you'll inevitably get hurt by a well-intentioned partner who simply doesn't know any better.
C. Cognitive trust- I would largely place the simple notion of deceit in this category. You have to trust that your partner is not lying to you. This can get into some sticky territory since our culture has placed some value on the idea of lying to "protect" someone. The simplest solution to this problem is to have a discussion about it and ultimately agree to either ban or utilize small lies as a couple. This is the category for discussion. Trusting your partner not to lie to you is important, but it goes further- you also have to be able to count on your partner as an available and willing conversationalist.
In other words- talk about all of your problems. All of your problems with your significant other. Now don't get me wrong- you don't have to constantly bring up how much of a problem you might have with your partner's friends- There must always be a balance and moderation. Converse as much as is required for their to be a mutual understanding about any given topic that causes problems for one or both of you, but be wary of "beating a dead horse." It might wear on their patience and cause a host of other problems.
D. Privacy- I felt this deserved a special mention since it is one of the topics that encompasses all three categories. Violating someone's privacy is deeply physical, emotional, and cognitive. For example, if you're looking at your partner's phone without their consent deliberately seeking information you think they may be keeping from you, you're violating their physical property (and not trusting that your partner isn't violating your physical connection through infidelity), emotional connections (as well as refusing to trust them with your fears and insecurities), and you're violating the trust they have that you will talk to them when you're feeling uncertain, while also refusing to trust that they are not lying to you in the first place.
A violation of privacy is a fundamental warning sign that you have little to no respect or trust for your partner. Have a conversation about this immediately if you are in a situation in which this is an issue.
Really. Have a conversation immediately if you feel as though there's a trust problem on any levels. Because conversations are healthy. Seriously. Have them. A lot. I cannot possibly stress this enough.
2. Understanding- Gained through emotional trust, understanding plays a fundamental role in any disagreement you may have with your significant other. Empathizing with your partner allows your partner to feel like you care enough to know exactly how they're feeling, and it allows you to see an alternate perspective that you may not have considered before. Too often, we get stuck in our ways, assuming that others have nothing left to teach us, no matter who they are. But so often are we surprised by the knowledge gained by simply spending a few minutes thinking and feeling as your partner instead of as yourself.
(And I don't mean that shitty biased way that some people "empathize" where they implant assumed and unrealistic motives into another person:
"Try to put yourself into the shoes of the guy who cut you off. Why do you think he did that?"
"He wanted to piss me off!")
You understand your partner by talking to them and, even if you disagree, trying to distance your own emotionality in order to see your partner's perspective without your own bias. It's a skill that develops the more you do it, so don't wait to start talking and understanding.
3. Compassion- The natural (hopefully) conclusion from gaining an understanding of your partner is to gain compassion for them. Their situations, their troubles, etc. It's one thing to understand where someone's coming from, but it's a whole additional trial to love them for it, particularly when you disagree or associate some other negative feeling with their circumstance.
This is often the thing you notice first when a relationship becomes love. It's something to be developed through an extraordinary amount of time with your partner. Don't expect either understanding or compassion to be fully realized without an enormous amount of work by both parties.
A wonderful quote that I believe sums up the value of compassion is, "If you can't handle me at my worst, you don't deserve me at my best." [EDITOR'S NOTE 3/24/15: I actually don't love this quote. It implies the onus is on your partner to deal with your actions whether they're acceptable or not, which isn't fair. I think a better quote might be, "If you can't handle me at my saddest, you don't deserve me at my happiest."]
4. Respect- While this coincides much with understanding, there are additional elements to respect. Respect is about acknowledging the differences between you and your partner as "acceptable" while also valuing the needs and wants of your partner. Respect, like understanding, doesn't necessarily translate into agreement, but it can translate into compliance. You may not like that your partner wants to pursue their career and, resulting from this, move away, but to respect your partner's independence and their desires, you may give them your blessing anyway.
However, on the opposite end of this, your partner may very much want to go, but may respect your desire to see them stay. It's a push and pull- a system of balancing that requires compromise and finding common ground. Maybe you'll opt to go with your partner. Or maybe you'll agree as a couple that it should only be a trial run.
Respect strengthens the bonds forged by trust, allowing both parties to remain independent people without diminishing the value of their connection to each other. Respect may often call for us to make sacrifices, as you might guess. It's painful, but rewarding to know that, despite your pain, your partner is happy. However, it is never wise to assume you know what your partner wants or needs without having a conversation first, so don't "respect" something that may not be there. Such actions can needlessly strain the emotional trust shared between you two.
[A very real problem we can run into is when we compartmentalize these relational items as separate. In reality, many of these are fully related to other items. For example, if your partner expects you to stop being friends with everyone of the opposite gender, you may feel like you have something of an obligation to respect that desire, but ultimately, such an expectation is fostered by a lack of emotional and physical trust. Respect isn't worth a whole lot if you're sacrificing trust to get there. As with all of these items, make sure to fully take stock what other elements any argument or request may have embedded within them.]
5. Expectations- Oh Jesus, this is the big'n. Expectations are something of the meat of any relationship, good or bad. Everyone has expectations for every relationship, whether platonic or romantic. You expect your friends to not poop on your bed while you're sleeping in it. You expect your friends not to break your belongings. You expect your friends to provide you with humor or compassion or sometimes just a shoulder to cry on.
Likewise, you expect your partner to trust you. You expect your partner to respect you.
But these are all really sort of universal expectations. We also have some pretty controversial expectations.
Like expecting a friend to bail you out of jail. Or expecting to be able to borrow your friend's clothes.
Expecting your partner to provide sexual stimulation when you want it. Expecting a relationship to be long-term. Expecting monogamy. Expecting commitment. Expecting your partner to sacrifice for you. Expectations come in many severities, shapes, sizes, etc. The important thing is to lay out your expectations in front of you and have a discussion over-time in the relationship about them, particularly when they become relevant. Do you expect your SO to flirt with and tease you once the relationship has started? That might be something to bring up early on. Do you expect your partner to spend time with your family on holidays if you're together by that point? Maybe that's something to bring up when it becomes relevant.
Whatever the expectation, failing to meet with your partner's expectation can lead to disastrous complications and it's up to your emotional and cognitive trust to prevent a fight or a separation depending on how intense the expectations are.
Do you expect your partner to stay in the same city as you after graduation? That's something you want to have a discussion about before the time comes so that you know what you should have invested in the relationship- so you can plan ahead. The earlier discussion will also prevent a flood of emotional distress if their expectations don't necessarily line up with yours, since you'll have more time to discuss it down the road.
Ultimately, if your expectations don't line up and you don't talk about it, then you may simply wind up facing a decreasingly happy relationship. The importance of talking with your partner cannot possibly be overstated with regards to expectations. If you don't tell your partner what you want out of the relationship, they will never know without making a lot of half-correct inferences based on your behavior and other context cues you put off. This is equally applicable to your sex life as well. While our culture may have this grand taboo about discussing sex, you will have to talk about your sexual expectations and desires with your partner in order to avoid having a bland and unhappy sex life.
While it can be amazing and romantic if your partner picks up on what you want without you saying anything, it's not very practical, and there's really no harm in telling your partner what you'd like. Do you wish your partner would work out more? Clean the dishes more thoroughly? Call you more often? Take you on weekly dates? Hold your hand in public? Avoid PDAs? Tell them! Have a mature, grown-up discussion about it. And if your partner expects you to not have mature, grown-up discussions with them, then maybe the relationship has some problems to be addressed...
Don't underestimate the power of simple expectations as well as the complex ones. Something as insignificant as only brushing your teeth at night and not when you wake up may end up having a large influence on the happiness of your relationship without you realizing it. That's why you need to talk about it when something bothers you or when you want your partner to do something.
And I know it can be awkward to ask your partner to do something multiple times. Maybe your partner doesn't want to do it, but is avoiding confrontation. Maybe your partner simply forgot. Maybe your partner isn't doing it out of some revenge- regardless of the case, you need to initiate the discussion- not in an accusatory way, mind you, but in an understanding and respectful way that invites compassion! (See all these buzzwords I'm throwing around? They'll be on the test)
6. Argumentation styles- On the topic of initiating discussion, you're gonna' find that most people fall under three categories of discussion/argumentation/confrontation styles. I'm going to be extremely biased towards one, even though all three can lead to successful, long-term relationships.
A. Aggressive- This is your type A personality. Raised voices, highly emotional arguing, and a lot of, frankly, irrational logic. These are highly confrontational people who are often interested in being right or exerting power and influence. People looking for a fight. This type of argumentation seems less inclined towards understanding, emotional trust, and respect, let alone compassion. A typical representation of abusive partners is someone who has an aggressive argumentation style, though I must stress that not all aggressive partners are abusive, and not all abusive partners are aggressive.
If you believe that you or your partner has this argumentation style and it's causing problems in the relationship, it may be worth looking into anger-management, therapy, or possibly a more compatible relationship. Some couples are able to function perfectly with aggressiveness, but if you don't feel that you're one of them, do not subject yourself to treatment like that, which can be highly vitriolic and outwardly hurtful.
B. Avoidant- This argumentation style is characterized by a lot of either passive-aggressiveness or often simply caving into your partner's needs or wants without examining/pushing for your own. Avoidant partners simply don't want to rock the boat, even if it's not healthy for them or the relationship. The partners of aggressive individuals are often either aggressive themselves or avoidant, taking one extreme or the other. The main concern with avoidant partners is that they are more easily capable of being walked on. The needs and wants for avoidant partners are less vocalized and, therefore, less often received unless their partner is someone willing to actively seek out their needs and wants.
C. Respondent- The balance of the other two styles, respondent individuals are willing to talk in order to solve problems, but are reserved enough to avoid emotional outbursts and yelling in most situations. Those who are respondent are more typically people who have not only understanding, respect, and compassion for their partner, but also themselves, which is also incredibly important in any relationship.
Remember, when you're "fighting", you're not at war. You're trying to close a serious emotional or cognitive gap between the two of you. You don't want your partner to lose. What does that gain you? The best outcome is one not focused on winning or losing, but on understanding, respecting, and compromising. This leads to growth for the individuals and the relationship as a whole, while promoting both parties getting needs and wants resolved.
7. Dependency- This is something I'm struggling with a bit myself, but it's something we've all seen. That couple that is together 100% of the time. That couple who collectively stopped having outside friends. Dependency is a very serious issue in relationships, especially if one partner is dependent, but not the other. This is a major disconnect in expectations in the relationship that would need to be discussed immediately before any other progress could be made. However, physical dependence isn't the only kind.
Sometimes, we require the presence or validation of our partner in order to feel remotely worthwhile ourselves. This happens often in abusive relationships as well as relationships with insecurities and self-esteem issues. Being dependent on another person is ultimately bad for your health and bad for the health of the relationship. Until you can love yourself, you cannot love another (or something like that). That's not exactly true, but in order to love someone else, we have to be willing to appreciate ourselves on a fundamental level. Until we can do that, our insecurities will only poison the relationship as well as ourselves. And if the relationship falls apart resulting from our insecurities, then that only services to reinforce our self-esteem issues. It's a gamble that's not worth the pain. If you're not feeling confident, start making changes to your life and your perspective until you are confident. Would working out make you feel confident? How about looking at yourself in the mirror every day and telling yourself that you're beautiful? Be confident in yourself, and then you can be confident in your relationship, and you won't have to depend on the emotional support of your partner to get you through each day.
8. Objective/Subjective- http://atouchofwaddles.blogspot.com/2012/10/objects-and-subjects.html
I already did a blog post on this one, but it's also super important and a lot of things from this tie in, so go read that if you haven't.
Relationships are scary and difficult and time consuming. We have to put ourselves out there, ask questions we're not used to asking. Talk about everything. We have to live in a radically altered way than single life when we're in a relationship- but this is how you grow. This is how you learn.
Which brings me to my last point.
9. Breaking up- Relationships end. Sometimes peaceably, sometimes catastrophically. But most of them end. How it ends is up to you.
But just remember that no relationship is without gain, even if it doesn't seem like it. Every time you go through the song and dance, you learn something new- about yourself, about human nature, about relationships, and yes, about partners. You're going to go through a lot of pain in order to find and maintain love, but if it's worth it to you, then keep up with it. Take the good and the bad and always remember the experiences along the way.
I don't have a single relationship in my memory that was without good times. And honestly, the good times are usually far more vivid than the bad times. If you obsess over the negative, you're going to set yourself up for a bad relationship down the road, where you're expecting the bad to be repeated. If you remember the positives more readily, then new relationships will be associated with those good times, and you'll be that much more excited to jump back into it.
Everyone copes with breaking up differently, but just try to make sure you're respectful about it. Try to have a mature, grown-up discussion about it- whether or not it's salvageable, whether or not you can be friends, whether or not you should give each other back gifts, etc.
Offer and ensure closure. No one likes to end a relationship filled with questions. It makes us depressed and frustrated, and it's just not worth it. You're already breaking up, which is the most awkward kind of interaction, so why should it matter to have a final thirty minute discussion where you hammer out the final details, answer any questions, and part like adults?
Wow. That was long. I am sorry.
-
Waddles
Monday, November 26, 2012
Technology Time!
Truthfully, the TV story from Friday reminds me of another that took place that same Christmas.
My mother loves technology. She gets a kick out of the new i-gadgets that come out, so naturally, she picked up an i-pad for Christmas to tinker with, completing her trifecta of owning an iPod Touch, iPhone, and iPad. I asked her if I could have her old iPod Touch mostly out of curiosity myself (I also love tinkering with technology). However, after a single night with it, I realized that a gizmo like that had no place in my world.
Some find comfort in the vast array of options afforded by their iEquipment for mobile enjoyment, but I find it mostly just distracting.
If I'm on the go, I'm typically paying attention to where I'm going, leaving me unable to play flash games on a tiny slab. If I'm not moving, I usually have my computer, which is the superior choice for fiddling on the internet or playing games or seeking information. And in the odd scenario where I'm not at home and unable to move, it's usually in a situation where I'd feel a little rude playing "Fruit Ninja."
This is not the case for everyone, mind you, but in my world, if I have downtime in which I can't move and it's not offensive to drift off, I would only want the music portion of the iSeries. Anything more seems over the top.
Sure, sometimes it's nice to have a mobile hotspot app, or a TomTom app, or any one of the million other apps that are convenient (and here's where I'm going to start sounding old), but in a world where information flows literally endlessly towards you, we're overloaded with stimuli, unable to stop and appreciate something atechnological, like nature or the simple process of trial and error or even getting lost and having an adventure.
As a huge proponent of technology, I think having all the world's knowledge at our fingertips is amazing and should be utilized by everyone. But we also need to remind ourselves to be distant sometimes. Back away from technology and appreciate the non-digital world.
Ultimately, each person is different, so I can't, say, give my girlfriend withering looks when she plays flash games on her iPhone during many periods of downtime. But I can choose for myself to keep fully separate my connection with technology (specifically my computer) versus my connection with the non-digital world. [Although to be completely fair, that's getting increasingly difficult, since the entire world is approaching symbiosis with technology. And maybe I'm on the wrong side of history for wanting the two to remain distinct enough that we can tell the difference... Who knows?]
To be sure, the "culprit" (if I want to implicitly mark it as a problem) is mostly mobile devices. Tablets, smart phones, laptops, Nooks, Kindles, etc. We hang out with friends and family, and we always seem to have something open. We're fidgeting with some piece of technology to keep ourselves busy. I don't necessarily think this is bad.
In truth, I don't even think the human attention span is actually shrinking, as many would suggest examining the same set of behavior. No, I think we're experiencing an existential overload. Humans were so incredibly limited before on a day-to-day basis. A kid raised on a farm didn't have a huge selection of books to read or friends to play with or things to do. Being bottlenecked into certain hobbies or activities was, in truth, somewhat productive. We grew and learned certain things because there was nothing else to do. The notable exception would be when faced with libraries, where the knowledge was similarly immeasurably vast.
Here's my theory- when faced with untold resources, most people break down and regress in order to avoid the phenomenal task of making a decision out of millions of options. We see a library- something that has a book for everyone. But instead of reading, we go drinking with our friends. Combing through the books would take immense commitment and a certain lust for exploration that we rip from our children through the education system.
Nowadays, that infinite access is at our fingertips almost at all times. So, instead of being bottlenecked into a few very specific hobbies or conversations, we do something mindless (relatively) and self-indulgent to avoid the angst of billions of choices and not knowing how to proceed. We text our friends. We play little flash games. We scout Reddit or 4chan. Safe zones where we know what to expect and our minds are not taxed.
This is all, of course, the result of an education system and, indeed, a populace wholly unprepared for the implications of the internet and the growing world of technological marvels. This is an unpopular opinion (and a fiscally irresponsible one), but the kids that get iPads through their school in elementary school? That's probably good for them. They're getting access to the infinite world of the internet earlier and systematically learning how to utilize it properly. It may very well be that this coming generation is the first generation that will truly know how to, as a whole, use technology to the extent of its capacity.
The system needs to embrace and integrate this incredible world as early as possible, since it's not just a niche market anymore- this is the future of our very way of life. It's not something we can choose to avoid or ignore anymore. It's not simply a convenience to have a computer now- it's almost a necessity. This technology will continue to progress and surpass previous models at an unbelievable pace, and it simply doesn't do the future justice to try to make kids learn about this world on their own.
[Here I am contradicting my earlier desire to remain partially distant from technology, now telling the world to embrace it. Oye, my nostalgia's fighting my common sense... In fairness though, I wrote this last part several days after the first part.]
-
Waddle
My mother loves technology. She gets a kick out of the new i-gadgets that come out, so naturally, she picked up an i-pad for Christmas to tinker with, completing her trifecta of owning an iPod Touch, iPhone, and iPad. I asked her if I could have her old iPod Touch mostly out of curiosity myself (I also love tinkering with technology). However, after a single night with it, I realized that a gizmo like that had no place in my world.
Some find comfort in the vast array of options afforded by their iEquipment for mobile enjoyment, but I find it mostly just distracting.
If I'm on the go, I'm typically paying attention to where I'm going, leaving me unable to play flash games on a tiny slab. If I'm not moving, I usually have my computer, which is the superior choice for fiddling on the internet or playing games or seeking information. And in the odd scenario where I'm not at home and unable to move, it's usually in a situation where I'd feel a little rude playing "Fruit Ninja."
This is not the case for everyone, mind you, but in my world, if I have downtime in which I can't move and it's not offensive to drift off, I would only want the music portion of the iSeries. Anything more seems over the top.
Sure, sometimes it's nice to have a mobile hotspot app, or a TomTom app, or any one of the million other apps that are convenient (and here's where I'm going to start sounding old), but in a world where information flows literally endlessly towards you, we're overloaded with stimuli, unable to stop and appreciate something atechnological, like nature or the simple process of trial and error or even getting lost and having an adventure.
As a huge proponent of technology, I think having all the world's knowledge at our fingertips is amazing and should be utilized by everyone. But we also need to remind ourselves to be distant sometimes. Back away from technology and appreciate the non-digital world.
Ultimately, each person is different, so I can't, say, give my girlfriend withering looks when she plays flash games on her iPhone during many periods of downtime. But I can choose for myself to keep fully separate my connection with technology (specifically my computer) versus my connection with the non-digital world. [Although to be completely fair, that's getting increasingly difficult, since the entire world is approaching symbiosis with technology. And maybe I'm on the wrong side of history for wanting the two to remain distinct enough that we can tell the difference... Who knows?]
To be sure, the "culprit" (if I want to implicitly mark it as a problem) is mostly mobile devices. Tablets, smart phones, laptops, Nooks, Kindles, etc. We hang out with friends and family, and we always seem to have something open. We're fidgeting with some piece of technology to keep ourselves busy. I don't necessarily think this is bad.
In truth, I don't even think the human attention span is actually shrinking, as many would suggest examining the same set of behavior. No, I think we're experiencing an existential overload. Humans were so incredibly limited before on a day-to-day basis. A kid raised on a farm didn't have a huge selection of books to read or friends to play with or things to do. Being bottlenecked into certain hobbies or activities was, in truth, somewhat productive. We grew and learned certain things because there was nothing else to do. The notable exception would be when faced with libraries, where the knowledge was similarly immeasurably vast.
Here's my theory- when faced with untold resources, most people break down and regress in order to avoid the phenomenal task of making a decision out of millions of options. We see a library- something that has a book for everyone. But instead of reading, we go drinking with our friends. Combing through the books would take immense commitment and a certain lust for exploration that we rip from our children through the education system.
Nowadays, that infinite access is at our fingertips almost at all times. So, instead of being bottlenecked into a few very specific hobbies or conversations, we do something mindless (relatively) and self-indulgent to avoid the angst of billions of choices and not knowing how to proceed. We text our friends. We play little flash games. We scout Reddit or 4chan. Safe zones where we know what to expect and our minds are not taxed.
This is all, of course, the result of an education system and, indeed, a populace wholly unprepared for the implications of the internet and the growing world of technological marvels. This is an unpopular opinion (and a fiscally irresponsible one), but the kids that get iPads through their school in elementary school? That's probably good for them. They're getting access to the infinite world of the internet earlier and systematically learning how to utilize it properly. It may very well be that this coming generation is the first generation that will truly know how to, as a whole, use technology to the extent of its capacity.
The system needs to embrace and integrate this incredible world as early as possible, since it's not just a niche market anymore- this is the future of our very way of life. It's not something we can choose to avoid or ignore anymore. It's not simply a convenience to have a computer now- it's almost a necessity. This technology will continue to progress and surpass previous models at an unbelievable pace, and it simply doesn't do the future justice to try to make kids learn about this world on their own.
[Here I am contradicting my earlier desire to remain partially distant from technology, now telling the world to embrace it. Oye, my nostalgia's fighting my common sense... In fairness though, I wrote this last part several days after the first part.]
-
Waddle
Friday, November 23, 2012
Materialism and You
Welcome to the Black Friday edition of my blog, per request from an old friend. (Which is great- I had nothing else to write about and it was gonna' come off as kinda' half-hammed)
Black Friday is... well, incredibly American. It just seems appropriate that it's in this country that we celebrate one particular holiday immediately following another-
Specifically, we celebrate a holiday in which we give thanks for what and who we have, typically focusing more on the familial relations and good luck that we've encountered in our lives that has allowed us to thrive in a sometimes bleak world.
And then we celebrate a holiday that ignores the previous holiday's message entirely by going out and buying expensive and ostentatious gadgets and gifts.
Before you stop me, yes, I've participated in several black Fridays, so I'm not condemning anyone without condemning myself first.
I spent somewhere in the ballpark of ten hours in line at a Target last year, in fact, waiting with my brothers who were determined to buy a 46" TV for $300. I didn't want anything at the time, I was just talked into going with them to keep them company. So, I froze my assorted limbs and genitalia off while I sat and talked with my brothers. As the night progressed, I was wrangled into seeing the TV as a potential gift from my father, and I eventually acquiesced. I had been sucked into the allure of a brand new TV that I had no use for. I already had a 36" flat screen that suited me fine.
So, after getting the TV, I kept it in its box, trying mildly to sell it for a modest profit. I waited, unable to do even that- For over six months before finally deciding to give my old TV to my parents and just keep the damn thing for myself.
I didn't need it. I didn't even really want it until I was convinced to want it. But isn't that the very essence of American material culture? Ads, commercials, sales, flashing lights, bonus, deluxe, double, super, mega, buy-one-get-one-free, half-off, free samples, Christmas gifts, greeting cards, six-pack, irresistible, limited time offer, gotta-have-it, bulk, salesmen giving sales pitches to increase sales during the once-weekly sale to end all sales!
We're a culture saturated by this idea that you have to have stuff to be happy. That somehow the fact that we own things increases our street cred or our worth to society. It's not what you do or who you are, but what you possess.
Sure, my 46" TV has slightly increased the quality at which I play games and watch movies with my girlfriend. But in the long run, I won't remember the size of the TV mattering a whole lot. It'll be the times I had with people that I remember. And my health and level of life-satisfaction/stress. This is part of why I don't like the consumer culture so much. We've convinced people to compulsively want things so much that people have had their lives ruined by mere objects. People have gone into crippling, irreversible debt just to own things that someone else convinced them they need or want or should have. But is this their fault? Not really. Not anymore so than it's their fault they follow gender norms. When culture pushes something as truth hard enough, we all find ourselves adhering to it, sometimes completely subconsciously. Sometimes against our will.
I don't feel super comfortable wearing a skirt (I've done it before). I know it shouldn't matter. It's a piece of fabric. Clothing. It says nothing about who I am, what I've done, what I'm going to do, etc. And yet, I feel so much more comfortable and in-my-own-skin when I'm wearing jeans. Not for any ideological values I have, lord no. I don't care if some other chap wants to wear a full dress outside. It's because culture has shaped my comfort zones, my wants, my needs, my tastes.
Imagine a world where wife beaters were the stylish article of clothing. Where showing skin was an act of reverence to the natural world and the bodies we've been given. Where academics wore tank tops and high school drop outs wore cardigans to hide their shameful bodies. I can picture that world so clearly and it makes just as much sense as the flip side. Because ultimately, it's fabric- nothing more and nothing less. No article of clothing would mean anything if it weren't for our culturally induced ideas of modesty and fashion.
And in that same way, our culturally induced ideas of consumerism and wanting things has forced people to make irrational and unwise financial decisions in order to feel as though they've "arrived" at the American dream, with a house, a wife and two kids, and two cars. Society has told us to want that life so badly that we're willing to take on hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt to get there. Once we're there, we realize that there's always something more to want or need. But suddenly, we're so far in debt, we can't move anymore. Our lives stagnate and fall apart.
Objects are not inherently bad. However, we must distance ourselves from their perceived emotional value in order to remind ourselves that there's nothing inherently good about them either. Objects are objects. There for convenience and use.
I think this quote nicely sums it up:
"Love people and use things; don't love things and use people."
There was a much better and more full quote that I couldn't find, but the gist is the same. Stuff is just stuff. Eat a big frozen pizza with your loved ones instead of a giant turkey. Watch a movie, play a board game, or just sit and talk instead of going out and indulging in shopping for more things. (I did catch the irony of mentioning two "things" that you could be doing instead of buying more "things," but I believe that if an object brings you together with people, then it definitely has a good use)
Here's the one way I'll really differentiate from my desire to distance myself from the consumer culture- comfort.
I just got a soft queen sized bed and I'm bringing home an electric blanket this weekend to keep warm. If I could afford a tempur-pedic mattress, I would buy one. When your quality of life can actually be improved through home goods, you jump onto that ship and you buy yourself what you need to be in better health. But if it won't make you healthier in a pretty objective sense, then you probably don't need it.
Finally- I will make an odd recommendation to you- If you've never indulged in black friday- do it once. The full package- wait in line from the night before, huddling together with a loved one for warmth.
Don't do it for the item(s) you're getting though. Do it for the experience. Look around you and really see the other people. See the environment. See what our culture has become. Where our passions lay. Experience the bone-chilling, nighttime temperatures and use it as an excuse to become closer with someone. Experience the soul-crushing weight of object-demand. Revel in it.
It's another perspective to check off the list.
-
Waddles
PS- the real reason you shouldn't shop on Black Friday is that it's artificial demand created by corporations to get you to buy in a frenzy which causes accidents and deaths each year while simultaneously destroying the morale of retail workers everywhere. And I should note that these corporations don't often offer a fair shake to those employees which they force to work Black Friday. See Wal-Mart protests.
Black Friday is... well, incredibly American. It just seems appropriate that it's in this country that we celebrate one particular holiday immediately following another-
Specifically, we celebrate a holiday in which we give thanks for what and who we have, typically focusing more on the familial relations and good luck that we've encountered in our lives that has allowed us to thrive in a sometimes bleak world.
And then we celebrate a holiday that ignores the previous holiday's message entirely by going out and buying expensive and ostentatious gadgets and gifts.
Before you stop me, yes, I've participated in several black Fridays, so I'm not condemning anyone without condemning myself first.
I spent somewhere in the ballpark of ten hours in line at a Target last year, in fact, waiting with my brothers who were determined to buy a 46" TV for $300. I didn't want anything at the time, I was just talked into going with them to keep them company. So, I froze my assorted limbs and genitalia off while I sat and talked with my brothers. As the night progressed, I was wrangled into seeing the TV as a potential gift from my father, and I eventually acquiesced. I had been sucked into the allure of a brand new TV that I had no use for. I already had a 36" flat screen that suited me fine.
So, after getting the TV, I kept it in its box, trying mildly to sell it for a modest profit. I waited, unable to do even that- For over six months before finally deciding to give my old TV to my parents and just keep the damn thing for myself.
I didn't need it. I didn't even really want it until I was convinced to want it. But isn't that the very essence of American material culture? Ads, commercials, sales, flashing lights, bonus, deluxe, double, super, mega, buy-one-get-one-free, half-off, free samples, Christmas gifts, greeting cards, six-pack, irresistible, limited time offer, gotta-have-it, bulk, salesmen giving sales pitches to increase sales during the once-weekly sale to end all sales!
We're a culture saturated by this idea that you have to have stuff to be happy. That somehow the fact that we own things increases our street cred or our worth to society. It's not what you do or who you are, but what you possess.
Sure, my 46" TV has slightly increased the quality at which I play games and watch movies with my girlfriend. But in the long run, I won't remember the size of the TV mattering a whole lot. It'll be the times I had with people that I remember. And my health and level of life-satisfaction/stress. This is part of why I don't like the consumer culture so much. We've convinced people to compulsively want things so much that people have had their lives ruined by mere objects. People have gone into crippling, irreversible debt just to own things that someone else convinced them they need or want or should have. But is this their fault? Not really. Not anymore so than it's their fault they follow gender norms. When culture pushes something as truth hard enough, we all find ourselves adhering to it, sometimes completely subconsciously. Sometimes against our will.
I don't feel super comfortable wearing a skirt (I've done it before). I know it shouldn't matter. It's a piece of fabric. Clothing. It says nothing about who I am, what I've done, what I'm going to do, etc. And yet, I feel so much more comfortable and in-my-own-skin when I'm wearing jeans. Not for any ideological values I have, lord no. I don't care if some other chap wants to wear a full dress outside. It's because culture has shaped my comfort zones, my wants, my needs, my tastes.
Imagine a world where wife beaters were the stylish article of clothing. Where showing skin was an act of reverence to the natural world and the bodies we've been given. Where academics wore tank tops and high school drop outs wore cardigans to hide their shameful bodies. I can picture that world so clearly and it makes just as much sense as the flip side. Because ultimately, it's fabric- nothing more and nothing less. No article of clothing would mean anything if it weren't for our culturally induced ideas of modesty and fashion.
And in that same way, our culturally induced ideas of consumerism and wanting things has forced people to make irrational and unwise financial decisions in order to feel as though they've "arrived" at the American dream, with a house, a wife and two kids, and two cars. Society has told us to want that life so badly that we're willing to take on hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt to get there. Once we're there, we realize that there's always something more to want or need. But suddenly, we're so far in debt, we can't move anymore. Our lives stagnate and fall apart.
Objects are not inherently bad. However, we must distance ourselves from their perceived emotional value in order to remind ourselves that there's nothing inherently good about them either. Objects are objects. There for convenience and use.
I think this quote nicely sums it up:
"Love people and use things; don't love things and use people."
There was a much better and more full quote that I couldn't find, but the gist is the same. Stuff is just stuff. Eat a big frozen pizza with your loved ones instead of a giant turkey. Watch a movie, play a board game, or just sit and talk instead of going out and indulging in shopping for more things. (I did catch the irony of mentioning two "things" that you could be doing instead of buying more "things," but I believe that if an object brings you together with people, then it definitely has a good use)
Here's the one way I'll really differentiate from my desire to distance myself from the consumer culture- comfort.
I just got a soft queen sized bed and I'm bringing home an electric blanket this weekend to keep warm. If I could afford a tempur-pedic mattress, I would buy one. When your quality of life can actually be improved through home goods, you jump onto that ship and you buy yourself what you need to be in better health. But if it won't make you healthier in a pretty objective sense, then you probably don't need it.
Finally- I will make an odd recommendation to you- If you've never indulged in black friday- do it once. The full package- wait in line from the night before, huddling together with a loved one for warmth.
Don't do it for the item(s) you're getting though. Do it for the experience. Look around you and really see the other people. See the environment. See what our culture has become. Where our passions lay. Experience the bone-chilling, nighttime temperatures and use it as an excuse to become closer with someone. Experience the soul-crushing weight of object-demand. Revel in it.
It's another perspective to check off the list.
-
Waddles
PS- the real reason you shouldn't shop on Black Friday is that it's artificial demand created by corporations to get you to buy in a frenzy which causes accidents and deaths each year while simultaneously destroying the morale of retail workers everywhere. And I should note that these corporations don't often offer a fair shake to those employees which they force to work Black Friday. See Wal-Mart protests.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)