So I had a lovely debate with a gentleman recently. A man who was furious about Obama's lie that "if you like your policy, you can keep it" regarding the ACA.
For an in-depth analysis of this particular lie, you can look at Politifact, which called it the Lie of the Year.
Basically, this person was not wrong in what they were saying about Obama either being wrong or being ignorant. He chose to express his position in incredibly offensive and condescending terms, but ultimately, what he was expressing was correct. Obama promised something that was expected to be false.
But, let's look at this a little closer, since I don't favor an entirely cut-and-dry take on the issue:
The ACA raised the minimum standards by which insurance carriers could offer policies. As a result, certain gaps in policy coverage had to be filled in and patched over, otherwise the policy would no longer be legal. As a technicality, it was entirely up to the insurance carriers whether or not they were willing to bring the policies up to code or else disband them completely. To that end, while Obama didn't explicitly lie, he did suggest something that put insurance companies in a very tight squeeze; lose profits or look like the bad guys. Unfortunately, the plan backfired and was turned on Obama as the villain of the escapade.
I'm not so much interested in the actual incident itself as the implications of minimum standards being raised, so I'll leave it to you, my dear reader, to formulate your own opinion on president Obama's choice of words in connection with the ACA.
It was in this argument that I was confronted with this particular position:
"The
notion that no job at all is somehow better for someone who had a job
before is just.... Well, in the words of the Dude, 'It's just your
opinion, man.' Shouldn't the person accepting the job have something to say about it?"
As far as argumentation goes, this is at once a very typical and an incredibly stalwart defense. In order to defeat it, I have to admit that it's better to regulate people for their own good in certain circumstances. Fortunately, I'm completely okay with this. Of course, it means that the argument dissolves therein because it becomes a simple matter of opinion.
I do not think it's an unreasonable proposition to suggest that people will accept substandard living conditions if it's all that they can get. From there, I do not think it's unreasonable to suggest that standardizing a minimum living condition has a long-term viability that is completely lacking in the philosophy of "it's better than nothing."
Maintaining the status quo is only a healthy course of action if the status quo provides. If it does not provide, then we must dismantle it and build a new status quo. The unfortunate reality of this ideal is that people will get caught in the crossfire. During the transition, insurance carriers will drop millions of policies, leaving many without insurance- including some who were "fine" with the substandard policies they had.
This is a very Big Brother notion. That we can choose what's best for people. Ultimately, that's a complicated issue that no one wants to address directly. Why?
Well, just look at our prototypical sides of the issue. Liberals want no regulations on issues of abortion and birth control. Conservatives want no regulation on issues of guns.
Liberals want to be rid of our stringent regulations on marijuana. Conservatives want to be rid of our stringent regulations on corporations.
In truth, both sides are playing both sides of the fence. Sometimes, we like to regulate, and sometimes we feel that regulation is inherently problematic. At what point can we reasonably start to regulate behavior? There's no distinctly simple answer, but the easiest one I'm going to lay out for you is when they negatively impact the lives of people around us who don't otherwise have a say in the matter.
This is... a step with many philosophical implications, and I am not committed to it, but it seems the most consistent position.
This would effectively allow us to regulate smoking, weapon ownership, emissions, obesity in parents, wage laws, working conditions, insurance policy standards, treatment standards, and depending on how we define "people," abortion.
This strikes an odd resonating note with me, because I'm actually very pro-choice, but I cannot deny that if we define human life as anything before birth, then abortion becomes a philosophically inconsistent position to support. There's no straightforward solution to that problem either. The definition for life is so convoluted that it would be impossible to objectively define it. We have to arbitrarily pick a point that represents when life is first determinable. Alternatively, we could allow select abortions in this gray area with a lot of "if - then" statements. Neither option is particularly appealing, as they both lead to very complicated scenarios.
"If the mother's life is in danger, then..."
"If the fetus has a developmental or genetic problem, then..."
"If the parents are determined to not be ready, then..."
"If the child cannot be supported, then..."
Who gets to define "ready"? Who gets to define that arbitrary point that we call life? Do we just pick a spot and never stray from that? Is it 8 weeks? 12? Why? What criteria are we using, and why does that criteria take precedence?
Potentiality is an equally problematic argument, since every egg and every sperm have potentiality.
Anyway, this is all wandering off-topic towards another abortion discussion, which I'm okay having another day. My point is this: Regulation is necessary to the betterment of humanity. "It's better than nothing" is not a sustainable approach to life in the long run. It destroys the have-nots and gives more to the haves. Basically just entirely unacceptable in a fair and just society.
Gah, life is complicated.
Thoughts?
-
Waddles
Friday, December 13, 2013
Wednesday, December 11, 2013
Confronting the Truth
Writing this following an exchange I had with a coolperson. To give a tiny bit of background, I expressed fear regarding the notion of going outside of my bubble; where that fear comes from, what makes it so prevalent in my life, why, etc.
I've known for a very long time that this was a baseline fear that I had, but this conversation dredged the anchor up from the seabed. Where I had only caught glimpses of a wavering shape in the swirling waters before, I was now standing directly in front of what it was that kept me bogged down.
We all have thoughts and fears that we try not to think about too hard- that's normal. Spending too much time on your fears rules your life and destroys your drive. But if we don't actively reflect on our fears with some diligence, it's possible that we continue to gloss over the most glaring truths in our lives.
It is a discomforting sensation. Heart pounding, hands sweating, and every instinct telling you to run away before you confront what lies at the end of the chain that is everpresent in your life. But it is only after confrontation that we can hope to set sail again (Continuing with my weird "Life is a boat" metaphor). It is only after fighting the hard, necessary fights that we can truly begin to move forward. Still, it takes a tremendous amount of willpower and presence of mind to begin that fight. With everything else in your life at once, maybe there's just too much. If the fear isn't causing you any problems you can't live with, why hassle with it?
Suffice it to say, this was one of the most grueling and nerve-wracking conversations I've allowed myself to participate in in quite a while. And it was only able to happen with someone that, for better or worse, I took a chance with regarding that particular topic. But, I do not trust easily or often. So it's possible that this is a phenomenon that is easier to achieve for others. It's possible that this uncomfortable knowledge is something others are used to. Something that does not, by nature, require an immense amount of effort and voluntary reflection.
Nor can I pretend that this is a revelatory experience that is necessarily common upon such reflecting.
However, I would at the very least urge you to examine your fears.Truly appraise them from the top down. What are your surface fears? What thoughts do they stem from? What situations do they lead to? What do these fears keep you from doing? Would your life be better if you rid yourself of this fear? Is there someone you could trust to show you how? How much worse is your life if you keep these fears?
Being vulnerable is hideously uncomfortable, but doesn't it tire you out to spend all your life building walls? They're cumbersome things. They get in the way of human connection- even if they do lend some protection. There are pros and cons to the walls we build.
It is not easy to admit an uncomfortable truth to anyone, least of all yourself. However, this is the surest sign that we are human. That we are fallible. That we are irrational. That we are timid and scared creatures. That we exist. That we feel. That our lives are unique and have meaning.
Each uncomfortable truth is special to you because it's born of your circumstance- no one else's. Each uncomfortable truth is a reminder of who you are. It services to pull back the curtain and reveal your existence.
It may be absolutely terrifying to find out...
But is it better not knowing?
I don't know...
I've known for a very long time that this was a baseline fear that I had, but this conversation dredged the anchor up from the seabed. Where I had only caught glimpses of a wavering shape in the swirling waters before, I was now standing directly in front of what it was that kept me bogged down.
We all have thoughts and fears that we try not to think about too hard- that's normal. Spending too much time on your fears rules your life and destroys your drive. But if we don't actively reflect on our fears with some diligence, it's possible that we continue to gloss over the most glaring truths in our lives.
It is a discomforting sensation. Heart pounding, hands sweating, and every instinct telling you to run away before you confront what lies at the end of the chain that is everpresent in your life. But it is only after confrontation that we can hope to set sail again (Continuing with my weird "Life is a boat" metaphor). It is only after fighting the hard, necessary fights that we can truly begin to move forward. Still, it takes a tremendous amount of willpower and presence of mind to begin that fight. With everything else in your life at once, maybe there's just too much. If the fear isn't causing you any problems you can't live with, why hassle with it?
Suffice it to say, this was one of the most grueling and nerve-wracking conversations I've allowed myself to participate in in quite a while. And it was only able to happen with someone that, for better or worse, I took a chance with regarding that particular topic. But, I do not trust easily or often. So it's possible that this is a phenomenon that is easier to achieve for others. It's possible that this uncomfortable knowledge is something others are used to. Something that does not, by nature, require an immense amount of effort and voluntary reflection.
Nor can I pretend that this is a revelatory experience that is necessarily common upon such reflecting.
However, I would at the very least urge you to examine your fears.Truly appraise them from the top down. What are your surface fears? What thoughts do they stem from? What situations do they lead to? What do these fears keep you from doing? Would your life be better if you rid yourself of this fear? Is there someone you could trust to show you how? How much worse is your life if you keep these fears?
Being vulnerable is hideously uncomfortable, but doesn't it tire you out to spend all your life building walls? They're cumbersome things. They get in the way of human connection- even if they do lend some protection. There are pros and cons to the walls we build.
It is not easy to admit an uncomfortable truth to anyone, least of all yourself. However, this is the surest sign that we are human. That we are fallible. That we are irrational. That we are timid and scared creatures. That we exist. That we feel. That our lives are unique and have meaning.
Each uncomfortable truth is special to you because it's born of your circumstance- no one else's. Each uncomfortable truth is a reminder of who you are. It services to pull back the curtain and reveal your existence.
It may be absolutely terrifying to find out...
But is it better not knowing?
I don't know...
Monday, December 9, 2013
The Glad Game
Recently, I thought about a relationship I was in during high school in which I was kind of an assclown. But I did have on or two good ideas that showed at least some promise for the future.
One of those ideas was the Glad Game.
The intent of this game was to turn an upsetting or uncomfortable fight with a loved one into a hokey compliment-fest centered around being grateful rather than feeling spiteful. Because I was like 17 and a dumbshit, I didn't know how to design a good game at all, so I'm going to give you the original game, and then attempt to make some modifications based on some modern Game Theory.
Basically, the idea was that in order to turn a fight (typically the uncomfortable silence portion) into something pleasant. initiative would have to be taken by one of the two warring factions by announcing something about their partner that makes them "glad." These can be completely sentimental, or relatively surface things, but it's best to mix them up.
"I'm glad you're a good cook."
Your partner then has to announce one to you.
"I'm glad you listen to me when I ask for help."
The two continued until they had forgotten about being mad, replacing feelings of irritation, frustration, and anger with positive emotions.
Looking back, it was a good idea at its heart, but it made one fairly fatal mistake; the game avoided the actual problem. Instead of discussing or approaching what was actually behind the conflict, it was covered up by irrelevant positive feelings.
While it does have that flaw, the game intentionally reminds you of the 5:1 ratio that I discussed back in Communication and How Not to be Terrible at it. Despite the existence of current negative emotions, the game forces you to remember why you're with your partner. What things you love about your partner. To that end, the game delivers something incalculably important despite its problems. With that in mind, I want to update the game to be a little more on-point.
The Glad game must continue to incite positive emotions in place of negative ones. For this, the basic premise and mechanism by which the game functions is totally fine. However, we need to introduce a new rule to cover the issue of relevancy.
There are two ways to approach this:
Starting with the current problem; or
Ending with the current problem.
I think either one could work fine in theory, and it would likely depend on your relationship to determine which one works better for you.
In starting with the current problem, you tie the initial argument/fight into traits that you find admirable that your partner exhibited on the issue.
"I'm glad you're so passionate about the topic."
"I'm glad you understood my position regarding _____."
"I'm glad you're having this discussion with me."
etc.
From a minimum of 2-3 back-and-forths that are directly related to the argument at hand, you can begin generalizing into traits that you just like about your partner. This requires you to tie your fight into positive feelings that are relevant to the issue, finding an excuse to stand on common ground with your partner. This simple distinction from the original game can allow for far more understanding between partners after a spat.
If you end with the current problem, the idea is to take the heightened positive feelings from the entire exercise and apply them to traits you admire about your partner regarding the argument. While it's a little more distant from the fight itself, this method winds up associating positive feelings far more easily with the fight. It will also feel less forced and more genuine.
Do you eat your dessert first or last? Either way, you're getting the same meal.
As a final rule, when concluding (You can pick an arbitrary number of compliments to run through. Let's say 10-15 each), you must point to one of the compliments your partner gave you that you appreciated most (or very much in general). This gives direct feedback to how each player did in their participation in a way that can only be positively reinforcing.
Will this solve your conflict? Nah. But it will associate and remind you of positive emotions while arguing so that it might be a little easier for you to start discussing again. This is not a solution to your problem, but rather, it's intended as a means of turning a problem into a game. From something unpleasant that you have to do into something pleasant that you choose to do.
Other rules:
Things you can NOT do while playing this game.
Falsify sincerity.
Sarcasm.
Be silent.
Be a jerk.
You must be making eye contact with your partner. Any other meaningful or happy contact helps too. Holdings hands, backscratches, etc.
As with any relationship advice, this would not be a replacement for communication. It must be used as a supplement to active communication, or a tool to encourage active communication.
Let me know if you have any suggestions for how I might improve the game! I thought of some of these changes kind of on the fly... >.>
-
Waddles
One of those ideas was the Glad Game.
The intent of this game was to turn an upsetting or uncomfortable fight with a loved one into a hokey compliment-fest centered around being grateful rather than feeling spiteful. Because I was like 17 and a dumbshit, I didn't know how to design a good game at all, so I'm going to give you the original game, and then attempt to make some modifications based on some modern Game Theory.
Basically, the idea was that in order to turn a fight (typically the uncomfortable silence portion) into something pleasant. initiative would have to be taken by one of the two warring factions by announcing something about their partner that makes them "glad." These can be completely sentimental, or relatively surface things, but it's best to mix them up.
"I'm glad you're a good cook."
Your partner then has to announce one to you.
"I'm glad you listen to me when I ask for help."
The two continued until they had forgotten about being mad, replacing feelings of irritation, frustration, and anger with positive emotions.
Looking back, it was a good idea at its heart, but it made one fairly fatal mistake; the game avoided the actual problem. Instead of discussing or approaching what was actually behind the conflict, it was covered up by irrelevant positive feelings.
While it does have that flaw, the game intentionally reminds you of the 5:1 ratio that I discussed back in Communication and How Not to be Terrible at it. Despite the existence of current negative emotions, the game forces you to remember why you're with your partner. What things you love about your partner. To that end, the game delivers something incalculably important despite its problems. With that in mind, I want to update the game to be a little more on-point.
The Glad game must continue to incite positive emotions in place of negative ones. For this, the basic premise and mechanism by which the game functions is totally fine. However, we need to introduce a new rule to cover the issue of relevancy.
There are two ways to approach this:
Starting with the current problem; or
Ending with the current problem.
I think either one could work fine in theory, and it would likely depend on your relationship to determine which one works better for you.
In starting with the current problem, you tie the initial argument/fight into traits that you find admirable that your partner exhibited on the issue.
"I'm glad you're so passionate about the topic."
"I'm glad you understood my position regarding _____."
"I'm glad you're having this discussion with me."
etc.
From a minimum of 2-3 back-and-forths that are directly related to the argument at hand, you can begin generalizing into traits that you just like about your partner. This requires you to tie your fight into positive feelings that are relevant to the issue, finding an excuse to stand on common ground with your partner. This simple distinction from the original game can allow for far more understanding between partners after a spat.
If you end with the current problem, the idea is to take the heightened positive feelings from the entire exercise and apply them to traits you admire about your partner regarding the argument. While it's a little more distant from the fight itself, this method winds up associating positive feelings far more easily with the fight. It will also feel less forced and more genuine.
Do you eat your dessert first or last? Either way, you're getting the same meal.
As a final rule, when concluding (You can pick an arbitrary number of compliments to run through. Let's say 10-15 each), you must point to one of the compliments your partner gave you that you appreciated most (or very much in general). This gives direct feedback to how each player did in their participation in a way that can only be positively reinforcing.
Will this solve your conflict? Nah. But it will associate and remind you of positive emotions while arguing so that it might be a little easier for you to start discussing again. This is not a solution to your problem, but rather, it's intended as a means of turning a problem into a game. From something unpleasant that you have to do into something pleasant that you choose to do.
Other rules:
Things you can NOT do while playing this game.
Falsify sincerity.
Sarcasm.
Be silent.
Be a jerk.
You must be making eye contact with your partner. Any other meaningful or happy contact helps too. Holdings hands, backscratches, etc.
As with any relationship advice, this would not be a replacement for communication. It must be used as a supplement to active communication, or a tool to encourage active communication.
Let me know if you have any suggestions for how I might improve the game! I thought of some of these changes kind of on the fly... >.>
-
Waddles
Sunday, December 8, 2013
Creative Compulsive Disorder and the World
As promised, this is part two of my thoughts regarding This Video on Zina Lahr. If you haven't already watched it, I implore you to spend the five minutes. It was worth it for me, at least.
Zina, a 23 year-old artist, had what she coined "Creative Compulsive Disorder." The apparent compulsion to turn "normal," "average," and "expected" into something more. Something unique. Something that makes us stop and reconsider what it is we're looking at and how we perceive it. It was Zina's personal hope that every single day, she could touch at least one person through art that makes the everyday a little less standard. It was clear that this was not a hobby, or even a passion, but this was the fabric of her very existence.
As much as I am a staunch advocate for moderation and constant consideration, I would be remiss if I didn't step back and point out the value of unbridled flow. A philosophy professor of mine once noted that "moderates don't fly plans into buildings. However, they also don't lead revolutions." I cannot say whether or not I fully believe that moderates are incapable of spearheading a revolution, but it does seem to strike a chord with some things that I've noticed about life around me. Those willing to take a chance, branch out, and achieve phenomenal results seem to always be those who are driven to their cause. I do think that this level of zest is necessary for change; necessary for breaking a cycle of stagnation that can set in when a society or person becomes too complacent. Without this kind of focused will, people will always second-guess themselves.
This is not to suggest that second-guessing ourselves is a bad thing. Quite the contrary, I think without the ability to doubt ourselves, we walk too quickly into the folds of egotism, hubris, and recklessness. But I do recognize that if we doubt ourselves every step of the way, a journey may take an infinite amount more time than it would otherwise. Society's perspectives on science, religion, education, politics, etc. are showing clear signs of that level of stagnation and perpetuation right now. So few people are trying to stand up and above the milieu to the ends of a progressive goal as compared to those who are willing to fight for their own personal gain or the retention of the status quo. The fewer beacons there are within the onslaught of voices calling for stasis, the less chance there is that the message is heard at all.
As a result of this, these people who have an unwavering commitment to their ideals are indispensable towards reminding our societies that humans are not meant to stand still. Humans are not meant to stop permanently. But it's incredibly easy to get to that point without someone of heroic stature to follow. We're afraid and self-conscious. We doubt ourselves and our intentions. Again, this is as much a strength of character as it is a weakness, but in the case of marching with the flow of time, it's very much a weakness.
We need to be able to look at a pile of garbage in an entirely new way. We need to be able to see others through a different lens. We need our view of society to fluctuate over time, so that we don't lose sight of where we are versus where we want to be. We need Zinas. We need them desperately, and it's an incredibly shame that we lost one as she was hitting her prime. It is a spirit that we most solemnly keep with us to remind ourselves of what human beings are truly capable of when we let go. When we allow our doubts to rest on the sidelines. When we're certain of ourselves.
It's not a state of being that we can always be in, nor should we aspire to be. But neither should we avoid it or fear it.
Certainty compels us to affect the world.
-
Waddles
Zina, a 23 year-old artist, had what she coined "Creative Compulsive Disorder." The apparent compulsion to turn "normal," "average," and "expected" into something more. Something unique. Something that makes us stop and reconsider what it is we're looking at and how we perceive it. It was Zina's personal hope that every single day, she could touch at least one person through art that makes the everyday a little less standard. It was clear that this was not a hobby, or even a passion, but this was the fabric of her very existence.
As much as I am a staunch advocate for moderation and constant consideration, I would be remiss if I didn't step back and point out the value of unbridled flow. A philosophy professor of mine once noted that "moderates don't fly plans into buildings. However, they also don't lead revolutions." I cannot say whether or not I fully believe that moderates are incapable of spearheading a revolution, but it does seem to strike a chord with some things that I've noticed about life around me. Those willing to take a chance, branch out, and achieve phenomenal results seem to always be those who are driven to their cause. I do think that this level of zest is necessary for change; necessary for breaking a cycle of stagnation that can set in when a society or person becomes too complacent. Without this kind of focused will, people will always second-guess themselves.
This is not to suggest that second-guessing ourselves is a bad thing. Quite the contrary, I think without the ability to doubt ourselves, we walk too quickly into the folds of egotism, hubris, and recklessness. But I do recognize that if we doubt ourselves every step of the way, a journey may take an infinite amount more time than it would otherwise. Society's perspectives on science, religion, education, politics, etc. are showing clear signs of that level of stagnation and perpetuation right now. So few people are trying to stand up and above the milieu to the ends of a progressive goal as compared to those who are willing to fight for their own personal gain or the retention of the status quo. The fewer beacons there are within the onslaught of voices calling for stasis, the less chance there is that the message is heard at all.
As a result of this, these people who have an unwavering commitment to their ideals are indispensable towards reminding our societies that humans are not meant to stand still. Humans are not meant to stop permanently. But it's incredibly easy to get to that point without someone of heroic stature to follow. We're afraid and self-conscious. We doubt ourselves and our intentions. Again, this is as much a strength of character as it is a weakness, but in the case of marching with the flow of time, it's very much a weakness.
We need to be able to look at a pile of garbage in an entirely new way. We need to be able to see others through a different lens. We need our view of society to fluctuate over time, so that we don't lose sight of where we are versus where we want to be. We need Zinas. We need them desperately, and it's an incredibly shame that we lost one as she was hitting her prime. It is a spirit that we most solemnly keep with us to remind ourselves of what human beings are truly capable of when we let go. When we allow our doubts to rest on the sidelines. When we're certain of ourselves.
It's not a state of being that we can always be in, nor should we aspire to be. But neither should we avoid it or fear it.
Certainty compels us to affect the world.
-
Waddles
Saturday, December 7, 2013
Creative Compulsive Disorder and Life
Per the suggestion of a good friend, I watched this 5-minute video with the notion that it might give me something to write about for my blog. I am simultaneously extremely happy and ludicrously frustrated that I watched it.
For brevity, this is the video portfolio of an artist born in 1990. She was younger than me. I say "was" because I neglected to read the description of the video before watching and was met with a rather abrupt "February 13, 1990 - November 20, 2013" at the end.
I was... floored. Dismay. Disbelief. Grief. Helplessness. Those are a few of the emotions I found had crept up on me so suddenly.
Zina Lahr had coined a name for a condition she thought she had. Creative Compulsive Disorder, no doubt a derivative of "Obsessive Compulsive Disorder," but with far friendlier connotations. And this tiny window into her life truly captures what she means by CCD. She sees all things in the world that are "ordinary" and effortlessly creates a way for those things to be extraordinary. And this isn't just a hobby. I would even be hesitant to call this a passion. It's clear that this was her life. Creativity was the essence of her existence.
I'm writing this on raw emotion, so you'll have to forgive the lack of clearly defined path I take here.
The only things I could feel while I watched this video were a mixture of awe and jealousy. The scope and skill within which she worked at such a young age was nothing short of amazing. And her zest is something I've never had. Not even close.
The mere "accumulation of experiences." That is the phrased used to describe a life not worth living by a show I recently watched with my roommate. While it may be a fantasy show and its rhetoric is certainly questionable in a number of ways, I cannot help but feel a resonance with my own life to some extent. Rather than taking life and making it what I desire, I simply live with what is around me to the best that I can with my limited energy and drive. Is this acceptable? Am I going to be happy like this?
But maybe it's not a fair comparison. Different people like different things in different amounts. My desire for new and stimulating experiences, as an introvert, is relatively limited by comparison to pure extroverts who thrive on such stimulation. I enjoy comforts and predictability to some extent.
So, perhaps the intent of this video isn't to show me who I'm not, but rather, to show me the way that anyone can take a world and gracefully morph it into something that is bliss for them, even if the world is, by nature, not interesting in and of its own rights.
This amazing woman showcases an incredible ability to transform everything she comes into contact with from the expected into something truly unique and wondrous. But our own inability to live to those standards isn't necessarily a bad thing. Rather, we each desire to affect the world around us in a different way- sometimes it's in extraordinary ways, sometimes ordinary. Sometimes, a combination. Zina is a shining example of a human being capable of creating their own happiness and joy.
And truly, she created more happiness for herself than I have allowed myself to.
My initial feelings of jealousy. Those were... not quite the right feelings. Because I am jealous of that pure unmitigated passion. But I believe that inspiration is probably the more appropriate emotion to be feeling. Not inspiration to be her or even necessarily be like her, but to carve out my own happiness no matter what stands in my way. It's true that I may not love new stimuli as much as she does, but when I desire new stimuli, I should go out and take it. Make it my own. Make my happiness a reality in this world rather than theory.
Zina Lahr, I never knew you, but you are easily one of the most incredible human beings who has ever lived.
Thank you. Thank you so much.
I promise tomorrow I'll talk about the actual practicality of this "disorder," and how the process might affect society. Today, this was really something for self-reflection... And apparently, I needed it.
-
Waddles
For brevity, this is the video portfolio of an artist born in 1990. She was younger than me. I say "was" because I neglected to read the description of the video before watching and was met with a rather abrupt "February 13, 1990 - November 20, 2013" at the end.
I was... floored. Dismay. Disbelief. Grief. Helplessness. Those are a few of the emotions I found had crept up on me so suddenly.
Zina Lahr had coined a name for a condition she thought she had. Creative Compulsive Disorder, no doubt a derivative of "Obsessive Compulsive Disorder," but with far friendlier connotations. And this tiny window into her life truly captures what she means by CCD. She sees all things in the world that are "ordinary" and effortlessly creates a way for those things to be extraordinary. And this isn't just a hobby. I would even be hesitant to call this a passion. It's clear that this was her life. Creativity was the essence of her existence.
I'm writing this on raw emotion, so you'll have to forgive the lack of clearly defined path I take here.
The only things I could feel while I watched this video were a mixture of awe and jealousy. The scope and skill within which she worked at such a young age was nothing short of amazing. And her zest is something I've never had. Not even close.
The mere "accumulation of experiences." That is the phrased used to describe a life not worth living by a show I recently watched with my roommate. While it may be a fantasy show and its rhetoric is certainly questionable in a number of ways, I cannot help but feel a resonance with my own life to some extent. Rather than taking life and making it what I desire, I simply live with what is around me to the best that I can with my limited energy and drive. Is this acceptable? Am I going to be happy like this?
But maybe it's not a fair comparison. Different people like different things in different amounts. My desire for new and stimulating experiences, as an introvert, is relatively limited by comparison to pure extroverts who thrive on such stimulation. I enjoy comforts and predictability to some extent.
So, perhaps the intent of this video isn't to show me who I'm not, but rather, to show me the way that anyone can take a world and gracefully morph it into something that is bliss for them, even if the world is, by nature, not interesting in and of its own rights.
This amazing woman showcases an incredible ability to transform everything she comes into contact with from the expected into something truly unique and wondrous. But our own inability to live to those standards isn't necessarily a bad thing. Rather, we each desire to affect the world around us in a different way- sometimes it's in extraordinary ways, sometimes ordinary. Sometimes, a combination. Zina is a shining example of a human being capable of creating their own happiness and joy.
And truly, she created more happiness for herself than I have allowed myself to.
My initial feelings of jealousy. Those were... not quite the right feelings. Because I am jealous of that pure unmitigated passion. But I believe that inspiration is probably the more appropriate emotion to be feeling. Not inspiration to be her or even necessarily be like her, but to carve out my own happiness no matter what stands in my way. It's true that I may not love new stimuli as much as she does, but when I desire new stimuli, I should go out and take it. Make it my own. Make my happiness a reality in this world rather than theory.
Zina Lahr, I never knew you, but you are easily one of the most incredible human beings who has ever lived.
Thank you. Thank you so much.
I promise tomorrow I'll talk about the actual practicality of this "disorder," and how the process might affect society. Today, this was really something for self-reflection... And apparently, I needed it.
-
Waddles
Friday, December 6, 2013
Immersion, Technology, and Gaming
Big ol' nerdpost here. Flee while you can.
So I started a new game of Skyrim for the first time in two years. I decided to use mods this time. Once I got one or two graphical mods, I wound up searching for a few hours, grabbing a total of about 50 mods, largely changing visual features, but occasionally changing functionality as well.
Now, when I enter the game, I'm met with ludicrously gorgeous scenery and unmistakeable immersion. The sounds, the sights, I can almost feel the chill as breath visibly rises from the breaths of NPCs.
Now take the existence of a game that has come close to a plateau in virtual depth, and give it this:
The Oculus Rift.
The first consumer marketable virtual reality headset with headtracking and fully immersive field of vision. To say I'm excited for the day the Rift is available for purchase and compatible with a wide array of games is probably the greatest understatement I will make in years. Removing the artificiality of sitting at a desk, faced with the normal comforts of home surrounding you, the Rift convinces your mind through your eyes that you are, in fact, somewhere else.
Watch a 46 second clip of the Guillotine experience to see what I mean.
Despite the fact that people are clearly still in the safety of their own environment, with friends, family, or loved ones around them, the idea that one of their senses has been borrowed for sole use by a game takes them almost completely into the virtual universe that they're experiencing. So much so that their eyes accidentally mistake virtual stimuli for real phenomena.
This level of immersion is unprecedented, unparalleled, and almost unimaginable. You have to experience it to believe it. Which is why I cannot wait to get my hands on one of these things.
Oh, but it only gets better. The Oculus Rift had an enormously successful Kickstarter that raised almost 1000% of its initial goal, garnering emotional investment and excitement in some of the biggest names in the gaming industry. The model they went with was a direct attempt to put Rifts in the hands of independent developers so that hundreds and thousands of people could begin playing with the system, designing games, critiquing, and formulating ideas for the headset.
The result of this? Widespread excitement among the gaming population. So much so that other designers began working almost immediately on ideas that could improve immersion in other ways.
The most popular of such ideas was the Omni. The Omni is a simple, relatively compact omni-directional treadmill designed to be compatible with the Oculus Rift and hopefully, any future games that are compatible therein.
This means that not only are we visually completely included in the virtual scenario, but we're also kinesthesiologically part of the universe as well. Our movements sync to our virtual avatars in head and feet. Ultimately, this leaves the hands and some of the more fine motor movements.
That's where the Razer Hydra comes in.
While I think it's a woefully incomplete product, the idea is largely upheld. Have a controller (or glove) in each hand that mimics placement and movement of the hands, controlled by motion sensing technology. Kinda' like the Wiimote, except about a thousand times better.
What we're left with now is an immersive experience unlike any other we've had the potential to create to this point.
Sound can easily be as immersive as sight with the technology we have.
That leaves taste, smell, and some of the more nuanced instances of touch.
While it was a failed Kickstarter, As Real as it Gets shows us where the technology is headed. Pressurized suits that provide physical stimulation based on in-game events, such as being hit by bullets, having someone touch your shoulder, or even mimicking certain aspects of pain in a non-dangerous way. With the same idea, scaled in size, you could have an entire bodysuit that allows you to feel mimicked sensations. All this while walking, looking, and acting in the real world in order to make your avatar do the same things.
All of this technology is wildly imperfect in myriad ways. There's so much to be considered and so many steps left to take, but the fact that we're this close is nothing short of miraculous. As game technology progresses, we're seeing a switch to highly immersive environments, with much greater focus on attention to detail, exploration, and the feeling that you're in an actual, functioning universe.
Imagine you're playing a horror game with all this immersive technology.
Imagine walking down a long, dark hallway. A single dim light flickers at the end of the expanse, barely lighting the floor. You hear something strange- it sounds like an unnatural slither. As you continue walking forward and looking around, you feel something slowly slide across your back.
You whip around, but there's nothing there and the sensation is gone as quickly as it had come.
Is your heart beating faster yet? The more we mimic real events that continue to be within the safe space of our own homes, voluntarily chosen at our discretion, the more we convince our brains to activate real-world hormones that are increasingly rare to experience "naturally." The rush of adrenaline, the pure terror, sweat dripping from your face, heart racing, the impending feeling that something is about to get you, but you have no idea what it is.
To willingly choose to have this sensation is an exercise in freedom in the most fascinating sense. We're using free will to actively stress ourselves out in visceral and concerning ways. But it's that voluntary aspect that makes gaming so enjoyable. Choosing to overcome arbitrary obstacles and valueless tribulations. It gives us a sense of power and meaning.
It's almost like practice for a life that's much more interesting and terrifying than the lives we actually lead.
I'm too excited for real words. Just... Like...
Holy shit, you guys.
I've got goosebumps thinking about this.
-
Waddles
So I started a new game of Skyrim for the first time in two years. I decided to use mods this time. Once I got one or two graphical mods, I wound up searching for a few hours, grabbing a total of about 50 mods, largely changing visual features, but occasionally changing functionality as well.
Now, when I enter the game, I'm met with ludicrously gorgeous scenery and unmistakeable immersion. The sounds, the sights, I can almost feel the chill as breath visibly rises from the breaths of NPCs.
Now take the existence of a game that has come close to a plateau in virtual depth, and give it this:
The Oculus Rift.
The first consumer marketable virtual reality headset with headtracking and fully immersive field of vision. To say I'm excited for the day the Rift is available for purchase and compatible with a wide array of games is probably the greatest understatement I will make in years. Removing the artificiality of sitting at a desk, faced with the normal comforts of home surrounding you, the Rift convinces your mind through your eyes that you are, in fact, somewhere else.
Watch a 46 second clip of the Guillotine experience to see what I mean.
Despite the fact that people are clearly still in the safety of their own environment, with friends, family, or loved ones around them, the idea that one of their senses has been borrowed for sole use by a game takes them almost completely into the virtual universe that they're experiencing. So much so that their eyes accidentally mistake virtual stimuli for real phenomena.
This level of immersion is unprecedented, unparalleled, and almost unimaginable. You have to experience it to believe it. Which is why I cannot wait to get my hands on one of these things.
Oh, but it only gets better. The Oculus Rift had an enormously successful Kickstarter that raised almost 1000% of its initial goal, garnering emotional investment and excitement in some of the biggest names in the gaming industry. The model they went with was a direct attempt to put Rifts in the hands of independent developers so that hundreds and thousands of people could begin playing with the system, designing games, critiquing, and formulating ideas for the headset.
The result of this? Widespread excitement among the gaming population. So much so that other designers began working almost immediately on ideas that could improve immersion in other ways.
The most popular of such ideas was the Omni. The Omni is a simple, relatively compact omni-directional treadmill designed to be compatible with the Oculus Rift and hopefully, any future games that are compatible therein.
This means that not only are we visually completely included in the virtual scenario, but we're also kinesthesiologically part of the universe as well. Our movements sync to our virtual avatars in head and feet. Ultimately, this leaves the hands and some of the more fine motor movements.
That's where the Razer Hydra comes in.
While I think it's a woefully incomplete product, the idea is largely upheld. Have a controller (or glove) in each hand that mimics placement and movement of the hands, controlled by motion sensing technology. Kinda' like the Wiimote, except about a thousand times better.
What we're left with now is an immersive experience unlike any other we've had the potential to create to this point.
Sound can easily be as immersive as sight with the technology we have.
That leaves taste, smell, and some of the more nuanced instances of touch.
While it was a failed Kickstarter, As Real as it Gets shows us where the technology is headed. Pressurized suits that provide physical stimulation based on in-game events, such as being hit by bullets, having someone touch your shoulder, or even mimicking certain aspects of pain in a non-dangerous way. With the same idea, scaled in size, you could have an entire bodysuit that allows you to feel mimicked sensations. All this while walking, looking, and acting in the real world in order to make your avatar do the same things.
All of this technology is wildly imperfect in myriad ways. There's so much to be considered and so many steps left to take, but the fact that we're this close is nothing short of miraculous. As game technology progresses, we're seeing a switch to highly immersive environments, with much greater focus on attention to detail, exploration, and the feeling that you're in an actual, functioning universe.
Imagine you're playing a horror game with all this immersive technology.
Imagine walking down a long, dark hallway. A single dim light flickers at the end of the expanse, barely lighting the floor. You hear something strange- it sounds like an unnatural slither. As you continue walking forward and looking around, you feel something slowly slide across your back.
You whip around, but there's nothing there and the sensation is gone as quickly as it had come.
Is your heart beating faster yet? The more we mimic real events that continue to be within the safe space of our own homes, voluntarily chosen at our discretion, the more we convince our brains to activate real-world hormones that are increasingly rare to experience "naturally." The rush of adrenaline, the pure terror, sweat dripping from your face, heart racing, the impending feeling that something is about to get you, but you have no idea what it is.
To willingly choose to have this sensation is an exercise in freedom in the most fascinating sense. We're using free will to actively stress ourselves out in visceral and concerning ways. But it's that voluntary aspect that makes gaming so enjoyable. Choosing to overcome arbitrary obstacles and valueless tribulations. It gives us a sense of power and meaning.
It's almost like practice for a life that's much more interesting and terrifying than the lives we actually lead.
I'm too excited for real words. Just... Like...
Holy shit, you guys.
I've got goosebumps thinking about this.
-
Waddles
Wednesday, December 4, 2013
The Problem of Engagement
Okay, here's my first dose of turbonerd game studies coming at you-
The problem in our society with engagement. And no, I don't mean the romantic kind, I mean the kind that we lack in our everyday lives- in our jobs, our assignments, and our activities. Engagement is the sense of involvement and active desire to participate in an activity, thought, or process. Engagement is imperative for "flow," which is the phenomenon in which we lose track of time due to how engrossed we are in what we're doing.
Flow happens when we dabble in our passions. We experience flow when we're with friends having a good time, or lovers wasting away the night, or playing games we love. Flow is the absolute experience of immersion in what you're doing. It's felt a little differently by each person and it's caused by something different for each person as well. What makes you experience flow and how is unique to you and you alone.
As a result, engagement isn't quite the same with everyone. To be truly engaged isn't exactly generalizable.
However, there are some ways that our bodies' are hardwired to be more likely to experience engagement. Meaningful work, social collaboration, awe-inspiring work, and voluntary work are just some of them. Humans have been coded to respond positively to these types of work because they help us on an evolutionary level to propagate our species and advance as a collective. With that in mind, there are certain ways that we can predispose activities to be more likely to engage people. It's not an easy task, but thanks to the direction gaming is headed, it's becoming easier to see the most efficient path forward.
Why gaming?
Games contain all four of the previously described elements. In abundance.
Think of the popular tag game, Humans Vs. Zombies. In it, a dwindling force of very mortal humans attempt to fend off an ever-increasing mob of zombies that cannot truly be killed- only temporarily stunned. A game like this inspires the very roots of teamwork on both sides of the fence. Working alone provides no advantage (beyond stealth). The work is perceived as meaningful because there are quantifiable rewards and benefits to doing well for either team. The work is also perceived as meaningful because of the dire context that the game is put in. Humans are being killed off- crushed under the weight of a zombie outbreak. Obviously, it's voluntary. You have to opt into the game, and you can opt out at any time.
And the sense of awe. Awe is an interesting element because it can be mustered up from ideas as much as actual sights and objects. Seeing a massive collective of people working towards the same ends for what seems like no valuable purpose? That inspires some level of awe. Watching people in what is meaningfully a "desperate" situation gives us goosebumps.
Games can inspire us to get absolutely lost in a way that is incredibly difficult otherwise. Games make us engaged with little to no effort at all. Think about it- all you're doing is running around playing "Tag" with a bunch of arbitrary rules and some team-indicators tied to your shoulders. Why does that make our hearts race? Why does that make us want to connect and bond with other people? Why is that meaningful? Why does that make us feel like something important is on the line?
To give you an idea, let me backtrack and describe something seemingly unrelated; Kittens.
Kittens learn to hunt in a very peculiar manner. They don't actually learn by doing, rather, they learn by playing. Kittens imitate hunting with siblings and parents in order to learn how to hunt. It's a game. It teaches them necessary skills while they have fun. Their lives depend on their ability to learn in a safe environment.
Obviously, humans don't need the same kind of treatment since our environments have been sterilized from birth. However, we still evolutionarily thrive in conditions in which we play games to learn. Engagement has become something that people don't want, since it doesn't appear to necessarily add dollars to arbitrary quotas, especially for the cost. However, in a roundabout way, that's exactly what it does. When we're engaged, we're happier. When we're happier, we're more productive, more invested, and better at what we do. This includes the tedium of corporate work.
Up until this point, managerial standards have been more about punishment and an iron fist in order to get results. In the rare instances that this practice is sidestepped in favor of positive reinforcement, it's usually in the form of simple competition with a prize, or extra goodies just for participating. (Donuts in the breakroom?)
But it's largely an unused practice to actually turn the work itself into a game. Partially because we've been culturally suggested to believe that games and play are what children do. They're not something adults should engage in. Reinforcing that behavior in adults would be catastrophic! Of course, no one takes the necessary step back to ask why it would be a problem. Games are proven to make us incredibly engaged, collaborative, and productive. So, if you can turn what you need done into a game, it stands to reason that the same thing would happen. Why would we suddenly decide to be lazy or unproductive if work became a game? Could we really be much more lazy and unproductive than we are now?
http://www.gallup.com/poll/165269/worldwide-employees-engaged-work.aspx
Technically, yes. But not by much. A mere 13% of workers worldwide are engaged in what they do.
Almost double that are actively disengaged.
What would we really have to lose by trying something new? Something that is evolutionarily suggested to work? I suppose we could theoretically lose that last 13% of people, but somehow, I find that a difficult pill to swallow...
-
Waddles
The problem in our society with engagement. And no, I don't mean the romantic kind, I mean the kind that we lack in our everyday lives- in our jobs, our assignments, and our activities. Engagement is the sense of involvement and active desire to participate in an activity, thought, or process. Engagement is imperative for "flow," which is the phenomenon in which we lose track of time due to how engrossed we are in what we're doing.
Flow happens when we dabble in our passions. We experience flow when we're with friends having a good time, or lovers wasting away the night, or playing games we love. Flow is the absolute experience of immersion in what you're doing. It's felt a little differently by each person and it's caused by something different for each person as well. What makes you experience flow and how is unique to you and you alone.
As a result, engagement isn't quite the same with everyone. To be truly engaged isn't exactly generalizable.
However, there are some ways that our bodies' are hardwired to be more likely to experience engagement. Meaningful work, social collaboration, awe-inspiring work, and voluntary work are just some of them. Humans have been coded to respond positively to these types of work because they help us on an evolutionary level to propagate our species and advance as a collective. With that in mind, there are certain ways that we can predispose activities to be more likely to engage people. It's not an easy task, but thanks to the direction gaming is headed, it's becoming easier to see the most efficient path forward.
Why gaming?
Games contain all four of the previously described elements. In abundance.
Think of the popular tag game, Humans Vs. Zombies. In it, a dwindling force of very mortal humans attempt to fend off an ever-increasing mob of zombies that cannot truly be killed- only temporarily stunned. A game like this inspires the very roots of teamwork on both sides of the fence. Working alone provides no advantage (beyond stealth). The work is perceived as meaningful because there are quantifiable rewards and benefits to doing well for either team. The work is also perceived as meaningful because of the dire context that the game is put in. Humans are being killed off- crushed under the weight of a zombie outbreak. Obviously, it's voluntary. You have to opt into the game, and you can opt out at any time.
And the sense of awe. Awe is an interesting element because it can be mustered up from ideas as much as actual sights and objects. Seeing a massive collective of people working towards the same ends for what seems like no valuable purpose? That inspires some level of awe. Watching people in what is meaningfully a "desperate" situation gives us goosebumps.
Games can inspire us to get absolutely lost in a way that is incredibly difficult otherwise. Games make us engaged with little to no effort at all. Think about it- all you're doing is running around playing "Tag" with a bunch of arbitrary rules and some team-indicators tied to your shoulders. Why does that make our hearts race? Why does that make us want to connect and bond with other people? Why is that meaningful? Why does that make us feel like something important is on the line?
To give you an idea, let me backtrack and describe something seemingly unrelated; Kittens.
Kittens learn to hunt in a very peculiar manner. They don't actually learn by doing, rather, they learn by playing. Kittens imitate hunting with siblings and parents in order to learn how to hunt. It's a game. It teaches them necessary skills while they have fun. Their lives depend on their ability to learn in a safe environment.
Obviously, humans don't need the same kind of treatment since our environments have been sterilized from birth. However, we still evolutionarily thrive in conditions in which we play games to learn. Engagement has become something that people don't want, since it doesn't appear to necessarily add dollars to arbitrary quotas, especially for the cost. However, in a roundabout way, that's exactly what it does. When we're engaged, we're happier. When we're happier, we're more productive, more invested, and better at what we do. This includes the tedium of corporate work.
Up until this point, managerial standards have been more about punishment and an iron fist in order to get results. In the rare instances that this practice is sidestepped in favor of positive reinforcement, it's usually in the form of simple competition with a prize, or extra goodies just for participating. (Donuts in the breakroom?)
But it's largely an unused practice to actually turn the work itself into a game. Partially because we've been culturally suggested to believe that games and play are what children do. They're not something adults should engage in. Reinforcing that behavior in adults would be catastrophic! Of course, no one takes the necessary step back to ask why it would be a problem. Games are proven to make us incredibly engaged, collaborative, and productive. So, if you can turn what you need done into a game, it stands to reason that the same thing would happen. Why would we suddenly decide to be lazy or unproductive if work became a game? Could we really be much more lazy and unproductive than we are now?
http://www.gallup.com/poll/165269/worldwide-employees-engaged-work.aspx
Technically, yes. But not by much. A mere 13% of workers worldwide are engaged in what they do.
Almost double that are actively disengaged.
What would we really have to lose by trying something new? Something that is evolutionarily suggested to work? I suppose we could theoretically lose that last 13% of people, but somehow, I find that a difficult pill to swallow...
-
Waddles
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)