American Education
You've probably already figured out (or know from my IP trace, w/e) that I'm an American. So my anonymity just dropped down from the entire English-speaking internet-equipped population of the world, to the " " of America. I'm willing to make that sacrifice in order to publish this commentary, because its something I feel very strongly about.
Low-potential kids. Stupid, learning disabled, developmentally delayed, whatever you want to call them, they exist. Its bad enough that we teach all kids of the same age the same material, in the same order, and (within a class) at the same pace, despite drastic differences in speeds of knowledge and skill acquisition. Example, despite being a very intelligent and academically talented person myself, it would still take me a few extra weeks to absorb all the information that a college class might try to condense into a semester. I'm slow, I own it, and I'm lucky that I have the ability to cope with that disadvantage. Others don't.
But what's worse, is that we are teaching all children, from the stupidest to the smartest, advanced academic material. My key gripe is with chemistry, but this can be easily applied to most maths, essay writing, almost everything students do in high school.
Why is this? Because we're trying to send them all to college. Bollox. College is not the place for everyone. It was the place for me. Huzzah. But when people who went to college come into political power and start making the assumptions that everyone can go to college, shit goes downhill fast.
Point is, lots of these kids are not going to go to college, and if they are, they're probably not going to use the calculus and chemistry and literary analysis skills that they all suffered through in high school. And for most, when they get to working, even with a college degree, that knowledge and those skills are even less relevant!
So why are we wasting all this time and all these resources to teach kids things that they will never use and certainly not remember, meanwhile there are clear educational deficits about things like filing your taxes, or making a budget, or proper nutrition, or fixing your car, skills of everyday life for the masses that are not being covered? Common issues like how to deal with the police, or what drugs can do to your body, are skimmed over if they are addressed at all, while an entire year is devoted to the study of atoms alone.
American education needs to make a reassessment of its utility. We know that a lot of these kids are not going to become chemists. But its taught for the purpose of finding and encouraging kids who do have the talent to go to college and pursue a scientific career, for the benefit of the country at large (since that's where much of the educational funding is coming from). So basically, these exhaustive academic classes are being used like talent-scouting, or weeding, as it were. And I swear the more analytic classes like calculus are just a method for colleges to measure your brain-power; they don't actually care if you do calculus ever again, so long as you demonstrate the ability to learn it.
We do this, sacrificing the masses at the altar of international competition, scientific progress, and - lets be real here - the big hope of the federal government is that we will produce scientists that build weapons. Perhaps this drive is left over from our competition with Russia, I don't know. But from a political philosophy approach, it isn't right at all.
Sunday, November 18, 2012
Approval seeking
Approval seeking
I met a woman who was beaten by her mother, a very long time ago. Her sister (who was beaten even more severely) invited their mother to live with her. The clear response to this is "holy shit, that's stupid." But my friend explained it this way. The one person that a beaten child seeks approval from the most is the person who beat them. For whatever reason.
And I thought to myself, thats not true of me. I hate my mother, but she never beat me, not badly, so the rule doesn't apply. I can despise how she treated me without suffering the syndrome of caring what she thinks.
Wrong. Turns out, I have this same psychology, although I didn't realize it. I was very happy with my decision about where my life was headed next. I was going to be self-actualizing, to exert some independence, to join the real world! Well, when I told my mother what I planned to do and she expressed the slightest bit of discontent, I found myself in a dissonance state. I found myself doubting my plans, despite how agreeable to me they had been only a short time ago. I found myself remaking plans to do things her way, which was a continuation of the same stressful lifestyle I've been living, am living now, that's driven me to make drastically different plans for the future. All of my self-actualization ambitions went out the window when the need to make my mother happy invaded my brain and planted its flag. And once I figured out that this is what was going on, that this had happened to other people and it really never made anything better, I was able to take a step back, and try again to do what I thought I had been doing all along; to not care what my mother thought, and live my own life.
And so, this all to show that if you know how psychological cause/effect systems have manifested in other people, you can recognize it in yourself, and rewrite your story. And that's why I feel that the study of psychology etc should not be limited to the people who make it college. I mean really, teaching history as a requirement for graduating high school is justified with "we want to make sure these kids don't repeat the mistakes of the past." But based on that logic, isn't the teaching of psychology much more relevant? The idea that abused children are more likely to abuse their own offspring; seems like this knowledge could help someone to change their life a lot more than the knowledge that zoot suits were a product of the economic times. Yes that's all very interesting and perhaps changes how we interpret our surroundings and maybe even how we participate politically (and isn't that really the goal), but isn't making sure that child abuse doesn't propagate through generations more important? Priorities, lets have some.
When you know what your future is likely to be, you have the power to change it. We are teaching kids about the possible future of society, but what they need is knowledge about their individual prophecies, or the people that they choose to have intimate relationships with. I mean, if I had to choose between interpersonal psychology and basic chemistry... electrons go around protons, ooh look how that knowledge affects how I live my daily life!
And that brings me to my next point...
I met a woman who was beaten by her mother, a very long time ago. Her sister (who was beaten even more severely) invited their mother to live with her. The clear response to this is "holy shit, that's stupid." But my friend explained it this way. The one person that a beaten child seeks approval from the most is the person who beat them. For whatever reason.
And I thought to myself, thats not true of me. I hate my mother, but she never beat me, not badly, so the rule doesn't apply. I can despise how she treated me without suffering the syndrome of caring what she thinks.
Wrong. Turns out, I have this same psychology, although I didn't realize it. I was very happy with my decision about where my life was headed next. I was going to be self-actualizing, to exert some independence, to join the real world! Well, when I told my mother what I planned to do and she expressed the slightest bit of discontent, I found myself in a dissonance state. I found myself doubting my plans, despite how agreeable to me they had been only a short time ago. I found myself remaking plans to do things her way, which was a continuation of the same stressful lifestyle I've been living, am living now, that's driven me to make drastically different plans for the future. All of my self-actualization ambitions went out the window when the need to make my mother happy invaded my brain and planted its flag. And once I figured out that this is what was going on, that this had happened to other people and it really never made anything better, I was able to take a step back, and try again to do what I thought I had been doing all along; to not care what my mother thought, and live my own life.
And so, this all to show that if you know how psychological cause/effect systems have manifested in other people, you can recognize it in yourself, and rewrite your story. And that's why I feel that the study of psychology etc should not be limited to the people who make it college. I mean really, teaching history as a requirement for graduating high school is justified with "we want to make sure these kids don't repeat the mistakes of the past." But based on that logic, isn't the teaching of psychology much more relevant? The idea that abused children are more likely to abuse their own offspring; seems like this knowledge could help someone to change their life a lot more than the knowledge that zoot suits were a product of the economic times. Yes that's all very interesting and perhaps changes how we interpret our surroundings and maybe even how we participate politically (and isn't that really the goal), but isn't making sure that child abuse doesn't propagate through generations more important? Priorities, lets have some.
When you know what your future is likely to be, you have the power to change it. We are teaching kids about the possible future of society, but what they need is knowledge about their individual prophecies, or the people that they choose to have intimate relationships with. I mean, if I had to choose between interpersonal psychology and basic chemistry... electrons go around protons, ooh look how that knowledge affects how I live my daily life!
And that brings me to my next point...
Lawyered
Lawyered
apparently, everyone thinks I should be a lawyer.
Why? Apparently I have a fabulous logical pathway, that or I'm just better at communicating my logical projection than others. And I have a lot of difficulty backing down from a fight.
Problem one: I have no poker face whatsoever. My emotions show straight through to my facial expression unless Im paying particularly close attention to keeping deadpan. Apparently I do all these little things that I'm not aware of when I'm having silent conversations with myself.
So, I couldn't be a trial lawyer. I couldn't stand up in front of a bunch of people and try to talk them into agreeing with me. Too stressful. But I probably could write beautiful persuasive reports.
If my profession had been chosen for me, I would have been a lawyer, so says people who are older and supposedly wiser than me. Then why did I choose to be a doctor? I have this one particular talent; is it transferable? Am I wasting my potential by pursuing the path that I am slightly less equipped for?
I don't think so. Because there's more to a profession than ability. There has to be drive; passion, ambition, whatever it is that keeps you fulfilling your potential for that particular task. If I were to pursue a career in law, I would probably be a lot less motivated, and so even with the advantage of talent produce a lot less than what I can accomplish in a career that I'm really passionate about.
Well, that's not news to anyone. But lets compare the motivations I might have for being a doctor versus a lawyer. Yes, biology is really cool, but its not the only thing I could get excited about. It's not like I always wanted to be a doctor. My current motivation is that its the best profession to allow me to help people directly and to get me out of a static, stagnating living situation. One thing I'm reasonably sure of is that I want to spend a lot of time out my home country. I want to go to Africa, South America, the places where they really need help. I could lobby for improvement in those regions from here, theoretically, but at least right now I have a desperate need to get out of industrialized society. I couldn't continue for years and years commuting from my home with internet and central air conditioning to an office where I had to wear really nice clothes all the time. I can't stand being dressy. My choice to be a physician is at least slightly motivated by my need to dress comfortably, and to not spend exhorbitant amounts of money making myself look nice for the benefit of people who simply use that as a baseline standard rather than as a bonus in their judgment of others.
There's something that is just not nearly as fulfilling as the hands-off approach. If I were to lawyer policy changes for the regions and populations I'm concerned with, I would still be relying on others to carry that through. I never meet the people that benefit from my intervention. I have no control over the quality of care, the human-to-human aspect. Because pretty much anything that gets lawyered through involves compulsion. Would I be sending military aide forces to these areas? Jobs that they didn't sign up for, individuals with prejudices who perform the job just within the lines set by their commanding officers? That's not enough. In fact, that really just makes room for things to get even worse, in terms of inter-cultural relations. No, if you want something done right, you have to do it yourself, isn't that the mantra? So if I want these underserved peoples to get not just medical care, but humanistic, quality of life care, essential education and a positive experience with visitors from other cultures, then I have to be the ambassador.
apparently, everyone thinks I should be a lawyer.
Why? Apparently I have a fabulous logical pathway, that or I'm just better at communicating my logical projection than others. And I have a lot of difficulty backing down from a fight.
Problem one: I have no poker face whatsoever. My emotions show straight through to my facial expression unless Im paying particularly close attention to keeping deadpan. Apparently I do all these little things that I'm not aware of when I'm having silent conversations with myself.
So, I couldn't be a trial lawyer. I couldn't stand up in front of a bunch of people and try to talk them into agreeing with me. Too stressful. But I probably could write beautiful persuasive reports.
If my profession had been chosen for me, I would have been a lawyer, so says people who are older and supposedly wiser than me. Then why did I choose to be a doctor? I have this one particular talent; is it transferable? Am I wasting my potential by pursuing the path that I am slightly less equipped for?
I don't think so. Because there's more to a profession than ability. There has to be drive; passion, ambition, whatever it is that keeps you fulfilling your potential for that particular task. If I were to pursue a career in law, I would probably be a lot less motivated, and so even with the advantage of talent produce a lot less than what I can accomplish in a career that I'm really passionate about.
Well, that's not news to anyone. But lets compare the motivations I might have for being a doctor versus a lawyer. Yes, biology is really cool, but its not the only thing I could get excited about. It's not like I always wanted to be a doctor. My current motivation is that its the best profession to allow me to help people directly and to get me out of a static, stagnating living situation. One thing I'm reasonably sure of is that I want to spend a lot of time out my home country. I want to go to Africa, South America, the places where they really need help. I could lobby for improvement in those regions from here, theoretically, but at least right now I have a desperate need to get out of industrialized society. I couldn't continue for years and years commuting from my home with internet and central air conditioning to an office where I had to wear really nice clothes all the time. I can't stand being dressy. My choice to be a physician is at least slightly motivated by my need to dress comfortably, and to not spend exhorbitant amounts of money making myself look nice for the benefit of people who simply use that as a baseline standard rather than as a bonus in their judgment of others.
There's something that is just not nearly as fulfilling as the hands-off approach. If I were to lawyer policy changes for the regions and populations I'm concerned with, I would still be relying on others to carry that through. I never meet the people that benefit from my intervention. I have no control over the quality of care, the human-to-human aspect. Because pretty much anything that gets lawyered through involves compulsion. Would I be sending military aide forces to these areas? Jobs that they didn't sign up for, individuals with prejudices who perform the job just within the lines set by their commanding officers? That's not enough. In fact, that really just makes room for things to get even worse, in terms of inter-cultural relations. No, if you want something done right, you have to do it yourself, isn't that the mantra? So if I want these underserved peoples to get not just medical care, but humanistic, quality of life care, essential education and a positive experience with visitors from other cultures, then I have to be the ambassador.
Social money
A Social Money Proposition
The Boba doesn't like me, and I don't like her. That's fine. I keep coming in because I like her product. Which makes a pretty general statement about capitalism.
What does money represent? I usually thought of it as "social utility"; people give you money when you produce something that is useful to them, and thus, has utility in the society. Which is a pretty stark view of how people view each other, and while it is representative of only a very narrow aspect of how we value each other, money ends up being the most important aspect of our lives because its how we eat, have a safe place to sleep, and improve our daily lives in various ways.
So this introduces some interesting caveats. Should we reward people for producing social utility? By which we can include anything that makes daily life easier; cell phones, internet, vehicles, medicine. Clearly higher quality goods make life even easier; fast internet, phones with alarm clocks built in, vehicles with anti-lock brakes. So one, we want to consume high quality goods, so the production of high quality of goods has to be incentivized. And that's how we get the modern better goods = more money schema. But that means also, that we're giving the means for a very high quality of life to people who produce very high quality goods. This has a number of consequences. For a start, it means that the highest quality goods are being traded amongst the producers, and the greatest social utility is concentrated at the top; T-Mobile executives can buy Ferraris, and Ferrari executives buy the best surround sound systems by Bose, and Bose executives buy the newest fanciest phones on the market. Circular, all funded by the millions of people who rely on T-Mobile for their cell phone service.
But from a more social perspective, do we believe that these executives, who (in the cell phone service example) have provided some considerable utility for millions of people that they've never met, deserve the rewards that their massive profits confer upon them? Yes, each person who buys into their phone service did so voluntarily, and so on some level must believe that the price of service is fair; thus, they did "fairly" acquire those millions of dollars. Nonetheless it seems like a fluke that someone who might not be very nice, who organized this massive operation but who doesn't directly make an effort for the betterment of my quality of life, has an absolutely fabulous quality of life because I, and others like me, funded it. On a social level, wouldn't we prefer that the nicest, kindest people got to have the nicest things? Or that rewards were proportional to actual effort, and not (as is made possible by current technology) reward-duplication without effort duplication?
If we preferred to reward people we liked, instead of acquiring the best product (bang for our buck), then the meaning of money would change drastically. Because if we only bought from people we liked, then the acquisition of goods would be secondary to the social connection built. In addition, we wouldn't be giving money to persons so that they could buy the best goods; they would, in turn, use that money to make transactions with people that they liked. Thus, if there were persons who produced very high quality goods but weren't well-liked, then those goods would never be distributed. And we would all be living in a lower utility state. Phones that don't get good coverage, slow internet, etc. But perhaps the world would be a nicer place. And maybe, actually quite probably, social issues would be massively advanced. Greater support for companies that were environmentally responsible, that treat their employees with respect.
But just as likely, and this has certainly been seen before, cyclic cliques would form; communities that only do business within their own ranks. International business would be extremely limited if existent at all.
Its important to note that this theory is different from reputation-based business. While such a model can be supported by personalities, the purpose is still nonetheless to track down the best quality goods, bang for buck etc. What I propose is a system is rewarding pro-social behavior, almost independent of goods or utility produced. Nice guys get paid more, even if the work they do is produces less utility. Which they would turn around and spend on other "nice" companies and services from "nice" people. Basically, having lots of money would mean, instead of "I have many people's lives faster stronger cleaner etc.", that "lots of people thought that their daily interactions with me made their lives better." And so old people who had been nice to everyone their entire lives would have plenty of retirement savings. And assholes who pissed everyone off would have nothing. And if we chose to support them, it wouldn't be called "welfare."
There's a rhetoric surrounding welfare, that tax dollars are supporting people who deserve a better quality of life but for whatever reason don't have the means to acquire it for themselves. But if money were distributed on the basis of social, moral "deservingness", then (I believe) even fewer people would argue that these people "deserved" to be supported.
Of course there is a major hole in this monetary theory, don't think I don't see it. If money is distributed on the basis of social agreeableness, then do goods and services still have monetary value? How much should niceness modulate the cost of goods and services? How would higher quality goods be valued, compared to their low quality equivalents?
I postulate that compensation would follow a social norm, similar to how tips for restaurants currently work. There would be a widely accepted baseline, modulated by personal opinion. In my mind, EVERYONE would make approximately $10 an hour. Property distribution would be completely different; the end of front yards, homogenous condo complexes, frequent parks. If rent still existed, it would reflect construction and maintenance costs, modulated by personal opinion.
So, if a society existed that focused on community cohesion, what would happen to all the loners, the deviants? They would probably create their own community. Over in that corner. And reinvent the system that we currently have; I don't care what you're like, I care what you can do.
And seeing where my opinion is on this, I should find myself a new Boba shop.
The Boba doesn't like me, and I don't like her. That's fine. I keep coming in because I like her product. Which makes a pretty general statement about capitalism.
What does money represent? I usually thought of it as "social utility"; people give you money when you produce something that is useful to them, and thus, has utility in the society. Which is a pretty stark view of how people view each other, and while it is representative of only a very narrow aspect of how we value each other, money ends up being the most important aspect of our lives because its how we eat, have a safe place to sleep, and improve our daily lives in various ways.
So this introduces some interesting caveats. Should we reward people for producing social utility? By which we can include anything that makes daily life easier; cell phones, internet, vehicles, medicine. Clearly higher quality goods make life even easier; fast internet, phones with alarm clocks built in, vehicles with anti-lock brakes. So one, we want to consume high quality goods, so the production of high quality of goods has to be incentivized. And that's how we get the modern better goods = more money schema. But that means also, that we're giving the means for a very high quality of life to people who produce very high quality goods. This has a number of consequences. For a start, it means that the highest quality goods are being traded amongst the producers, and the greatest social utility is concentrated at the top; T-Mobile executives can buy Ferraris, and Ferrari executives buy the best surround sound systems by Bose, and Bose executives buy the newest fanciest phones on the market. Circular, all funded by the millions of people who rely on T-Mobile for their cell phone service.
But from a more social perspective, do we believe that these executives, who (in the cell phone service example) have provided some considerable utility for millions of people that they've never met, deserve the rewards that their massive profits confer upon them? Yes, each person who buys into their phone service did so voluntarily, and so on some level must believe that the price of service is fair; thus, they did "fairly" acquire those millions of dollars. Nonetheless it seems like a fluke that someone who might not be very nice, who organized this massive operation but who doesn't directly make an effort for the betterment of my quality of life, has an absolutely fabulous quality of life because I, and others like me, funded it. On a social level, wouldn't we prefer that the nicest, kindest people got to have the nicest things? Or that rewards were proportional to actual effort, and not (as is made possible by current technology) reward-duplication without effort duplication?
If we preferred to reward people we liked, instead of acquiring the best product (bang for our buck), then the meaning of money would change drastically. Because if we only bought from people we liked, then the acquisition of goods would be secondary to the social connection built. In addition, we wouldn't be giving money to persons so that they could buy the best goods; they would, in turn, use that money to make transactions with people that they liked. Thus, if there were persons who produced very high quality goods but weren't well-liked, then those goods would never be distributed. And we would all be living in a lower utility state. Phones that don't get good coverage, slow internet, etc. But perhaps the world would be a nicer place. And maybe, actually quite probably, social issues would be massively advanced. Greater support for companies that were environmentally responsible, that treat their employees with respect.
But just as likely, and this has certainly been seen before, cyclic cliques would form; communities that only do business within their own ranks. International business would be extremely limited if existent at all.
Its important to note that this theory is different from reputation-based business. While such a model can be supported by personalities, the purpose is still nonetheless to track down the best quality goods, bang for buck etc. What I propose is a system is rewarding pro-social behavior, almost independent of goods or utility produced. Nice guys get paid more, even if the work they do is produces less utility. Which they would turn around and spend on other "nice" companies and services from "nice" people. Basically, having lots of money would mean, instead of "I have many people's lives faster stronger cleaner etc.", that "lots of people thought that their daily interactions with me made their lives better." And so old people who had been nice to everyone their entire lives would have plenty of retirement savings. And assholes who pissed everyone off would have nothing. And if we chose to support them, it wouldn't be called "welfare."
There's a rhetoric surrounding welfare, that tax dollars are supporting people who deserve a better quality of life but for whatever reason don't have the means to acquire it for themselves. But if money were distributed on the basis of social, moral "deservingness", then (I believe) even fewer people would argue that these people "deserved" to be supported.
Of course there is a major hole in this monetary theory, don't think I don't see it. If money is distributed on the basis of social agreeableness, then do goods and services still have monetary value? How much should niceness modulate the cost of goods and services? How would higher quality goods be valued, compared to their low quality equivalents?
I postulate that compensation would follow a social norm, similar to how tips for restaurants currently work. There would be a widely accepted baseline, modulated by personal opinion. In my mind, EVERYONE would make approximately $10 an hour. Property distribution would be completely different; the end of front yards, homogenous condo complexes, frequent parks. If rent still existed, it would reflect construction and maintenance costs, modulated by personal opinion.
So, if a society existed that focused on community cohesion, what would happen to all the loners, the deviants? They would probably create their own community. Over in that corner. And reinvent the system that we currently have; I don't care what you're like, I care what you can do.
And seeing where my opinion is on this, I should find myself a new Boba shop.
Curiosity
Potential difference between intelligence and curiosity.
First off, let us establish that there are many different kinds of intelligence. There are some obvious categorical differences, like social and verbal and mathematical, but there are also subtle differences, like what patterns or deviations a person spots in a data set, spatial and directional reasoning, processive reasoning, like the differences between mechanical and electrical engineers, or between molecular biologists and biochemists.
Usually, high intelligence, of whatever sort, is accompanied by an "infovore" state: a hunger for information for which one's brain is most adapted to process. Hence, writers were once often voracious readers, engineers took apart their grandfather's watch and poked their noses into auto garages.
What conclusions can we draw about people who play video games? Is that a kind of infovore state? Conversely, what conclusions can we draw about persons who are shown to have exceptional reasoning skills of one sort or another, but do not seek out challenges of those kinds? Can there be significant intelligence that is not accompanied by infovoracity? My gut reaction is no, but from an objective approach, there doesn't seem to be a reason why not. Even with opportunities available, a prodigious piano player may have no interest in piano. A person with notable skill at mechanical reasoning may not wish to pursue mechanical engineering, nor a processively adept brain fawn after a career in organic chemistry. If we accept these conjectures to be true, then it gives a little more credence to the idiom about "nothing more common than wasted talent."
First off, let us establish that there are many different kinds of intelligence. There are some obvious categorical differences, like social and verbal and mathematical, but there are also subtle differences, like what patterns or deviations a person spots in a data set, spatial and directional reasoning, processive reasoning, like the differences between mechanical and electrical engineers, or between molecular biologists and biochemists.
Usually, high intelligence, of whatever sort, is accompanied by an "infovore" state: a hunger for information for which one's brain is most adapted to process. Hence, writers were once often voracious readers, engineers took apart their grandfather's watch and poked their noses into auto garages.
What conclusions can we draw about people who play video games? Is that a kind of infovore state? Conversely, what conclusions can we draw about persons who are shown to have exceptional reasoning skills of one sort or another, but do not seek out challenges of those kinds? Can there be significant intelligence that is not accompanied by infovoracity? My gut reaction is no, but from an objective approach, there doesn't seem to be a reason why not. Even with opportunities available, a prodigious piano player may have no interest in piano. A person with notable skill at mechanical reasoning may not wish to pursue mechanical engineering, nor a processively adept brain fawn after a career in organic chemistry. If we accept these conjectures to be true, then it gives a little more credence to the idiom about "nothing more common than wasted talent."
Saturday, November 3, 2012
A Note to Xero: Attention Seeking Behavior
Attention seeking behavior is filthy and dangerous. And I want to tell you so much that you should be afraid of me, but that in itself would be attention seeking behavior. Its hard to understand, sometimes, what you pick up on, what you don't, when you ignore me on purpose because you know or at least you think that its what I need. It's good. Even if you gauge it wrong in that moment, it all helps me to gain control of myself.
Am I being impulsive? I don't know. My life is not composed of compulsive actions, but I certainly entertain a lot of thoughts that I never follow through on. Does that make me impulsive? I think the fact that I told you, that I put it not only into words but into the dynamic of our relationship, says that this is one of those thoughts I might actually follow through on. I'm not sure that that makes it any less impulsive, but it would certainly be an outlier if it were impulsive.
Here's the really creepy part. I've already started looking for apartments. Comparing prices and square footage. Looking for areas that are close to your parents and convenient for the work we both see ourselves doing at that time. But don't worry, the thought never leaves my mind that it is TOO FUCKING EARLY for this. The way you lay yourself out there, it makes me feel like I know you really, really well, like there's nothing much I could learn in the coming months that could change my mind about you. But what worries me to the ends of the earth is that you're going to discover something about me that you can't stand, and I will already be invested, and be broken, again. Not the way you've been broken, but you know how can I hurt. You have your curse. This is mine. I haven't earned the right to feel so strongly but I feel it anyway. So really, what I'm afraid of is, I'm going to plan around this, plan for us, and then you'll find something you don't like and all that will fall apart. And I don't know what happens after that. I have a pattern, but its changing. And that pattern has never been in context of trying to find my way in the world outside of the school context. None of this is your problem I just happen to be thinking it. Moving on.
Anyways. Sometimes I feel like you're holding a stick of dynamite in your arms and you refuse to see what's there. But I feel like, if I can keep control of myself, that we could be something. I don't know what. But just for a year, I'd like to try. For all I can guess you would just move back in with your parents at the end of that year. But my plan, to go to medical school and work for the military, it involves a lot of being alone. And I want this experience, I don't want to wait another ten years. And I feel like, we could both benefit from this, if we're careful.
I know I'm moving too fast. I can't help it, I mean I guess I could but it would take a lot of mental effort. I just want to tell you, this is where I am. And even though you stir up all my psychoses, I feel like they're getting weaker, and that this, us, is a good thing.
I don't know how you know it, and in your position I could never trust it, but it is true. I will never, ever try to hurt you. I may manipulate. I may seek attention. I may break apart just so that you'll save me. I'm going to try really hard not to but when shit gets bad, that's what happens. But I won't be them. At worst, I will leave you so that I can't hurt you. That's my truth.
Because regardless of where I am, or how I feel about you, you deserve to be treated right. It just is.
And even trying to tell you this, this way, is attention seeking behavior. You can barely keep your eyes open. And you're probably interpreting me sitting up typing as passive aggressive behavior. Or perhaps you're too tired to give it any thought at all. The fact that you can barely keep your head up and yet continue to play gives me two thoughts. One, that it would be incredibly selfish of me to impinge upon your sleep time any more than I already have. And two, that your time management skills are just as bad as mine. And perhaps there's an addiction involved? I think that's a pretty severe judgment, though. We all have to cope. And talking about it isn't enough, not for you or for me or your mom. There has to be a distraction, something to divert activity away from that part of the brain while it heals from the insults that raise our blood pressure and would drive us to screaming at mirrors if we didn't let it out through... whatever.
How did I find you?
And now I begin to wonder if you know exactly what I'm trying to do, and you're not humoring me because you want me to get my shit together and say this shit out loud. Tall order, big boy. I don't talk very well. I write. And when I write, everything fits together. Almost.
Am I being impulsive? I don't know. My life is not composed of compulsive actions, but I certainly entertain a lot of thoughts that I never follow through on. Does that make me impulsive? I think the fact that I told you, that I put it not only into words but into the dynamic of our relationship, says that this is one of those thoughts I might actually follow through on. I'm not sure that that makes it any less impulsive, but it would certainly be an outlier if it were impulsive.
Here's the really creepy part. I've already started looking for apartments. Comparing prices and square footage. Looking for areas that are close to your parents and convenient for the work we both see ourselves doing at that time. But don't worry, the thought never leaves my mind that it is TOO FUCKING EARLY for this. The way you lay yourself out there, it makes me feel like I know you really, really well, like there's nothing much I could learn in the coming months that could change my mind about you. But what worries me to the ends of the earth is that you're going to discover something about me that you can't stand, and I will already be invested, and be broken, again. Not the way you've been broken, but you know how can I hurt. You have your curse. This is mine. I haven't earned the right to feel so strongly but I feel it anyway. So really, what I'm afraid of is, I'm going to plan around this, plan for us, and then you'll find something you don't like and all that will fall apart. And I don't know what happens after that. I have a pattern, but its changing. And that pattern has never been in context of trying to find my way in the world outside of the school context. None of this is your problem I just happen to be thinking it. Moving on.
Anyways. Sometimes I feel like you're holding a stick of dynamite in your arms and you refuse to see what's there. But I feel like, if I can keep control of myself, that we could be something. I don't know what. But just for a year, I'd like to try. For all I can guess you would just move back in with your parents at the end of that year. But my plan, to go to medical school and work for the military, it involves a lot of being alone. And I want this experience, I don't want to wait another ten years. And I feel like, we could both benefit from this, if we're careful.
I know I'm moving too fast. I can't help it, I mean I guess I could but it would take a lot of mental effort. I just want to tell you, this is where I am. And even though you stir up all my psychoses, I feel like they're getting weaker, and that this, us, is a good thing.
I don't know how you know it, and in your position I could never trust it, but it is true. I will never, ever try to hurt you. I may manipulate. I may seek attention. I may break apart just so that you'll save me. I'm going to try really hard not to but when shit gets bad, that's what happens. But I won't be them. At worst, I will leave you so that I can't hurt you. That's my truth.
Because regardless of where I am, or how I feel about you, you deserve to be treated right. It just is.
And even trying to tell you this, this way, is attention seeking behavior. You can barely keep your eyes open. And you're probably interpreting me sitting up typing as passive aggressive behavior. Or perhaps you're too tired to give it any thought at all. The fact that you can barely keep your head up and yet continue to play gives me two thoughts. One, that it would be incredibly selfish of me to impinge upon your sleep time any more than I already have. And two, that your time management skills are just as bad as mine. And perhaps there's an addiction involved? I think that's a pretty severe judgment, though. We all have to cope. And talking about it isn't enough, not for you or for me or your mom. There has to be a distraction, something to divert activity away from that part of the brain while it heals from the insults that raise our blood pressure and would drive us to screaming at mirrors if we didn't let it out through... whatever.
How did I find you?
And now I begin to wonder if you know exactly what I'm trying to do, and you're not humoring me because you want me to get my shit together and say this shit out loud. Tall order, big boy. I don't talk very well. I write. And when I write, everything fits together. Almost.
a simple conjecture on carbon filters
A Wacky Proposal.
Bear with me. I say that a lot. And frankly I think its warranted.
So, Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons. Produced by burning biomass, including fossil fuels. Has a tendency to stick to particles in the air and get inhaled and cause cancer and all sorts of bad things.
Also has a tendency to adsorb "on almost any solid surface with a strong affinity for organic matter." Huh.
So, why aren't all school buses outfitted with a carbon filter? Catalytic converters are all well and good but they create their own problems. I see the clear drawbacks of a conventional air filter that would accumulate solids and get clogged, etc. No one would buy that, no one would want to deal with replacing it or forgetting it's there and having carbon monoxide backup. See, what I'm talking about is a filter that degrades as it is used. As the surface becomes saturated with pollutants, it flakes off (like rust) too big and heavy to be inhaled. Perhaps we should go with pellets, bb size. So anyways, they fall out of the exhaust pipe as they get used up and pepper the ground. Rain washes them away. Sewer treatment plant takes them out of circulation and collects the evil carcinogenic organic matter and prevents it from poisoning the dolphins. PS this system is not carrying more carcinogens into sewer water, its just shortening the trip and preventing them from hanging around in the air and our lungs in the time between rains.
So yeah I don't think a lot of people will be overjoyed by cancer pellets in the street, but its better than cancer microparticles in the air we breathe! I'm just trying to think up something fast, cheap, easy, with minimal ecosystem repercussions. Then again, who would notice little black pellets on asphalt...
And I picked school buses because those things stink something awful. Clearly they're not doing whatever it is cars are doing to keep that shit out of the air.
So there's my bitty contribution to making the metropolis a little bit more livable. Prototypes coming soon.
Ohh, also, since burning crop residues in developing countries seems to be a big problem, bicycle-powered fans. Yeah. You get a bicycle, and a house-cooling system, and a feed the fire so it doesn't smolder and produce a lot of gross stuff machine. Eh? Maybe? I'm desperate, I'll try anything.
And with your bicycle/fan you get a $100 EEEPC pre-loaded with bookmarks for wikipedia and Khan Academy!
Bear with me. I say that a lot. And frankly I think its warranted.
So, Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons. Produced by burning biomass, including fossil fuels. Has a tendency to stick to particles in the air and get inhaled and cause cancer and all sorts of bad things.
Also has a tendency to adsorb "on almost any solid surface with a strong affinity for organic matter." Huh.
So, why aren't all school buses outfitted with a carbon filter? Catalytic converters are all well and good but they create their own problems. I see the clear drawbacks of a conventional air filter that would accumulate solids and get clogged, etc. No one would buy that, no one would want to deal with replacing it or forgetting it's there and having carbon monoxide backup. See, what I'm talking about is a filter that degrades as it is used. As the surface becomes saturated with pollutants, it flakes off (like rust) too big and heavy to be inhaled. Perhaps we should go with pellets, bb size. So anyways, they fall out of the exhaust pipe as they get used up and pepper the ground. Rain washes them away. Sewer treatment plant takes them out of circulation and collects the evil carcinogenic organic matter and prevents it from poisoning the dolphins. PS this system is not carrying more carcinogens into sewer water, its just shortening the trip and preventing them from hanging around in the air and our lungs in the time between rains.
So yeah I don't think a lot of people will be overjoyed by cancer pellets in the street, but its better than cancer microparticles in the air we breathe! I'm just trying to think up something fast, cheap, easy, with minimal ecosystem repercussions. Then again, who would notice little black pellets on asphalt...
And I picked school buses because those things stink something awful. Clearly they're not doing whatever it is cars are doing to keep that shit out of the air.
So there's my bitty contribution to making the metropolis a little bit more livable. Prototypes coming soon.
Ohh, also, since burning crop residues in developing countries seems to be a big problem, bicycle-powered fans. Yeah. You get a bicycle, and a house-cooling system, and a feed the fire so it doesn't smolder and produce a lot of gross stuff machine. Eh? Maybe? I'm desperate, I'll try anything.
And with your bicycle/fan you get a $100 EEEPC pre-loaded with bookmarks for wikipedia and Khan Academy!
Evoloutionary Biology and Psychopathy
Item four: Why are we fascinated by psychopathy?
Different people different theories. One woman who had a penchant for falling in love with psychopathic rapist/murderers hypothesized that we are fascinated by those who carry out our own never spoken, never acted upon desires and fantasies to kill. Another hypothesis is that they are simply so different from us.
There are lots of theories out there, so let me share mine. It might not be as valid as those backed up by statistics and evidence, but it is certainly just as valid as the armchair psychology hypotheses I've mentioned above. This is just as much armchair psychology, with a bit of Lay-Z-Boi evolutionary biology thrown in.
There is a ponderous amount of human variation that shows up repeatedly in all societies, but shows little indication of being "heritable", or naturally selected for in individuals. One example of this is homosexuality. Clearly it is not passed on directly from parents to children: that would require heterosexual reproduction. But perhaps tribes that produced homosexuals were more successful and so the randomized possibility for it to arise in a tribe was group-selected for. I believe that this can be true for a lot of "personality types". The risk-taker is more clearly one of these. They are, as individuals, much more likely to get themselves offed and not reproduce, but as members of the group they are highly advantageous for discovering new shelter or water sources, taking down dangerous prey, etc. Homosexuals might fit in by reducing the intra-sex competition for mates and the number of children in the tribe competing for food, thus improving the success of the tribe overall. Fewer men being killed in competition for female mates means more men to hunt, or conversely big strong "women" to stay home and protect the other women.
Why not also psychopaths? This evolutionary biology theory approaches psychopathy from multiple directions, many of which do not agree with each other, but bear with me.
The most popular evolutionary theory of psychopathy is that people who are uncompromisingly willing to take advantage of others are more successful. By stealing and adulterating without reservation, they gather more food and may produce more children. This theory is very straightforward and doesn't much account for the intricacies of a society. For example, how many women are actually willing to mate with a psychopath? Isn't the evolutionary theory of women centered around finding a mate that will support them and their offspring? Do psychopaths care for their own children? It probably varies, I couldn't tell you. But this theory does seem to center on the psychopath without giving due credence to how the tribe would react to such an individual.
Here's a theory, it has holes but nonetheless accounts for a group advantage to having a psychopath in the ranks. Let's assume for a second that a psychopath is capable of having loyalty, especially to their friends, group, or tribe. That tribe has an advantage when going to war with other tribes for territory or resources because they can sick this guy on the other team. Even warriors in costume will have reservations regarding some tactics. A psychopath will have no reservations. He will win by whatever means necessary and without any hesitation at the pain he might inflict upon the way. The tribe that has a psychopath wins the war, and propagates.
And now for a theory that is completely counter, that addresses more of "why are we so fascinated by psychopaths" rather than "why do psychopaths exist." This is applicable most to "advanced" civilizations, both of the East and West, with broad and exceptionless laws against harming others in certain ways (esp. murder). Because this is very different from the social structure we evolved in. Before, if there was a person that the tribe did not like, they were banished or killed. Now, we have to tolerate them. Presumably, a psychopath would be the type of person that a tribe would identify and banish or kill for the benefit of the tribe as a whole, although that circumspection would probably not be part of the thought process.
My theory is, we are fascinated by rapists, murderers and psychopaths because we want to kill them, and can't. It is our instinct to annihilate these threats to ourselves, our women, our children, our tribe, and when we can't act on this, it bothers us. And so we keep a very close eye on these people, tracking them, almost stalking, waiting for them to take a wrong step and give us that opportunity to act on our instinctual impulse to kill the deviant.
Now, when I say us, do I mean to theorize that every single human being has these thoughts? Absolutely not. The umbrella statement of my philosophy of people is that people are different. Just as there is room for homosexuals and psychopaths, so is there room for the warrior-protector, the type that wishes to kill the threat, the minister-patriarch, who wishes to teach the deviant the ways of right or at least aims to level something resembling justice (the system we operate under today), and the healer-matriarch, those who wish to care for those who are deviant, thinking that perhaps some TLC is all they need to stop being deviants. Clearly this is not an exhaustive list of personality types, and any given individual cannot be boiled down to such a simplistic description, I only mean to say that these are all valid viewpoints that can account each in part for our fascination with psychopaths. Since that was the original question.
Different people different theories. One woman who had a penchant for falling in love with psychopathic rapist/murderers hypothesized that we are fascinated by those who carry out our own never spoken, never acted upon desires and fantasies to kill. Another hypothesis is that they are simply so different from us.
There are lots of theories out there, so let me share mine. It might not be as valid as those backed up by statistics and evidence, but it is certainly just as valid as the armchair psychology hypotheses I've mentioned above. This is just as much armchair psychology, with a bit of Lay-Z-Boi evolutionary biology thrown in.
There is a ponderous amount of human variation that shows up repeatedly in all societies, but shows little indication of being "heritable", or naturally selected for in individuals. One example of this is homosexuality. Clearly it is not passed on directly from parents to children: that would require heterosexual reproduction. But perhaps tribes that produced homosexuals were more successful and so the randomized possibility for it to arise in a tribe was group-selected for. I believe that this can be true for a lot of "personality types". The risk-taker is more clearly one of these. They are, as individuals, much more likely to get themselves offed and not reproduce, but as members of the group they are highly advantageous for discovering new shelter or water sources, taking down dangerous prey, etc. Homosexuals might fit in by reducing the intra-sex competition for mates and the number of children in the tribe competing for food, thus improving the success of the tribe overall. Fewer men being killed in competition for female mates means more men to hunt, or conversely big strong "women" to stay home and protect the other women.
Why not also psychopaths? This evolutionary biology theory approaches psychopathy from multiple directions, many of which do not agree with each other, but bear with me.
The most popular evolutionary theory of psychopathy is that people who are uncompromisingly willing to take advantage of others are more successful. By stealing and adulterating without reservation, they gather more food and may produce more children. This theory is very straightforward and doesn't much account for the intricacies of a society. For example, how many women are actually willing to mate with a psychopath? Isn't the evolutionary theory of women centered around finding a mate that will support them and their offspring? Do psychopaths care for their own children? It probably varies, I couldn't tell you. But this theory does seem to center on the psychopath without giving due credence to how the tribe would react to such an individual.
Here's a theory, it has holes but nonetheless accounts for a group advantage to having a psychopath in the ranks. Let's assume for a second that a psychopath is capable of having loyalty, especially to their friends, group, or tribe. That tribe has an advantage when going to war with other tribes for territory or resources because they can sick this guy on the other team. Even warriors in costume will have reservations regarding some tactics. A psychopath will have no reservations. He will win by whatever means necessary and without any hesitation at the pain he might inflict upon the way. The tribe that has a psychopath wins the war, and propagates.
And now for a theory that is completely counter, that addresses more of "why are we so fascinated by psychopaths" rather than "why do psychopaths exist." This is applicable most to "advanced" civilizations, both of the East and West, with broad and exceptionless laws against harming others in certain ways (esp. murder). Because this is very different from the social structure we evolved in. Before, if there was a person that the tribe did not like, they were banished or killed. Now, we have to tolerate them. Presumably, a psychopath would be the type of person that a tribe would identify and banish or kill for the benefit of the tribe as a whole, although that circumspection would probably not be part of the thought process.
My theory is, we are fascinated by rapists, murderers and psychopaths because we want to kill them, and can't. It is our instinct to annihilate these threats to ourselves, our women, our children, our tribe, and when we can't act on this, it bothers us. And so we keep a very close eye on these people, tracking them, almost stalking, waiting for them to take a wrong step and give us that opportunity to act on our instinctual impulse to kill the deviant.
Now, when I say us, do I mean to theorize that every single human being has these thoughts? Absolutely not. The umbrella statement of my philosophy of people is that people are different. Just as there is room for homosexuals and psychopaths, so is there room for the warrior-protector, the type that wishes to kill the threat, the minister-patriarch, who wishes to teach the deviant the ways of right or at least aims to level something resembling justice (the system we operate under today), and the healer-matriarch, those who wish to care for those who are deviant, thinking that perhaps some TLC is all they need to stop being deviants. Clearly this is not an exhaustive list of personality types, and any given individual cannot be boiled down to such a simplistic description, I only mean to say that these are all valid viewpoints that can account each in part for our fascination with psychopaths. Since that was the original question.
Labeling versus Self-Identification
Item three: labeling vs self-identification
So there are a lot of new words popping up lately. This is a topic I've discussed before. Transgender vs genderqueer, bisexual vs pansexual. With an awareness of the diversity of human characteristics comes a diverse language to describe it.
But then we get a disconnect (between geographically or informationally isolated contemporaries), because this discourse isn't advancing everywhere at the same speed. I'll start with one story of a high school adolescent. I begin with a gender neutral designation, because to this day I don't think anyone can say with confidence how this person would identify. Born male, this young man was very shy and reserved until he started dressing up in girl's clothes and demanding that he be addressed by a girl's name, at which point "he" became much more self-confident. But, at least from what I could find, the only word ever used to describe him was "gay." The word "transgender" didn't come up until after his death (he was shot by another young man who he had been sexually harassing).
So here's the problem. Anyone from a metropolitan center that hasn't been living under a rock could immediately look at this person and identify him as transgender, male to female. The reporter of the case made note on television to say that this was not a matter of sexual orientation but of sexual identity. Okay. So now everyone from the outside has labeled this kid. Great.
But (it would seem that) this kid self-labeled as "gay." The question becomes, why? Did he not know the word "transgender" and simply pick the only word he knew to describe sexual/gender deviancy, because it seemed relevant? That's a story I can identify with, to an extent. But here's the other large possibility, that is now at the forefront of the sexual/gender identity discourse. It is possible to cross-dress without identifying as trans, or to identify as trans without having body dysphoria. This is a confusing concept, even for me, but that doesn't make it any less legitimate.
My conclusion is, who are we to say that this kid was not gay but transgender? If he calls himself gay, then isn't that what he is? And to what extent are people on the outside defining words, and people who actually experience these deviations defining the words through self-application and self-description? Don't I, in some way, define what it is to be transgender, by continuing to have severe gender identity issues without pursuing hormone therapy and continuing to tolerate, and sometimes even enjoy, my birth-assigned gender roles? And can't this young man, whether or not he was aware of the breadth of terms available to him, define what it is to be gay by selecting that self-label as befitting his unique constellation of attributes?
There occurs a problem when individual identity has to be translated into language, for the purpose of language is for one word to have the same meaning to many people, so that they can share ideas on the topic. Except that a person's identity cannot be constrained by a word that is intended to describe many other individuals. That would suggest that they're all alike (to a greater extent than they may actually be).
This doesn't seem like a problem on the outset, except that some people are so driven by their label that they will change aspects of themselves to fit the label "better" than they did before. One example is of a gay man who, once he identified that he liked other men, also started acting flamboyantly because that's what he thought it meant to be gay. It took many years for him to regain control of his identity, to accept that this word only described one aspect of him, and that the other attributes were not applicable. This man came through it fine, but you can see how such a situation could quickly become destructive for a different individual.
In large part, it should already be true that many words were invented to fit the personalities of individuals who, at the time, served as reference points for the definition. Unfortunately, as it turns out, there are lots and lots and lots of people who can seem similar to these reference point individuals, but who sport subtle differences that nonetheless deserve our attention. So what do we do? Invent a new label and say "you are not this, you are actually this other thing," or do we broaden the definition to include the subtleties of all individuals who choose to self-label with that word? What does gay mean? What does transgender mean? These words used to have one-sentence answers, but if you've read this article the way I intended in writing it, there should be some new breadth, if not downright confusion, on the matter.
Perhaps the two sources of definitions need to be maintained as separate. We all see how putting businesses and individuals under the same tax laws has worked out. So why not keep "I am called" and "I call myself" separate? That would be the most convenient. The boy I mentioned earlier could call himself gay all the way home, and we could call him transgender and be confident that we had a clear language and he had the self-identification he desired.
Well, no. I don't think that will ever work. Because part of rejecting someone's self-label is an inherent disrespect, a paternalistic disregard for their autonomy and freedom to define themselves. And part of a self-identity is being accepted as yourself by the people around you, or your friends at least if not the public at large. Who is anyone else to tell you what you are? But then, why would you choose a word to self-describe that doesn't match the at-large definition?
It seems that the key would be education. If this kid had known the word transgender, then we would know much more about him based on whether he continued to self-label as transgender or as gay. Because a cross-dressing guy that likes guys can still identify as male. That's part of the multi-dimensional spectrum that we (as a society) are becoming aware of. The same way that I can identify as trans while still operating with a cis public identity, and being the cis sexual interest of my partners. I have not yet been with a partner that appreciated me as my trans gender. Being okay with that, or at least continuing to tolerate that, is also part of who I am, and might be subject to labeling in some way, though if there is a designation for "identifies as trans but has relationships as cis", I'm not aware of it yet. Clearly even I am under-educated.
A lot of really fantastic essays are written on the subject, as part of gender studies classes, etc, that I truly believe could add something meaningful to the public discourse but once they are turned in for a grade, practically disappear from existence. And I think that's a problem. Why go to college if you're just going to keep your meaningful thoughts and lessons to yourself? Sure, education is largely viewed as training for the "real world", but a lot of good stuff is produced by people while they're there. I think it's wrong to ignore the important advances in discourse that can be made by students, just because they are students. Not to mention that the stuff written by 18 year olds can be a lot more accessible than high-browed academic writings to the target audience at hand, that is, young people who are trying not only to figure out who they are, but to communicate that to the people around them, to be accepted as themselves.
So there are a lot of new words popping up lately. This is a topic I've discussed before. Transgender vs genderqueer, bisexual vs pansexual. With an awareness of the diversity of human characteristics comes a diverse language to describe it.
But then we get a disconnect (between geographically or informationally isolated contemporaries), because this discourse isn't advancing everywhere at the same speed. I'll start with one story of a high school adolescent. I begin with a gender neutral designation, because to this day I don't think anyone can say with confidence how this person would identify. Born male, this young man was very shy and reserved until he started dressing up in girl's clothes and demanding that he be addressed by a girl's name, at which point "he" became much more self-confident. But, at least from what I could find, the only word ever used to describe him was "gay." The word "transgender" didn't come up until after his death (he was shot by another young man who he had been sexually harassing).
So here's the problem. Anyone from a metropolitan center that hasn't been living under a rock could immediately look at this person and identify him as transgender, male to female. The reporter of the case made note on television to say that this was not a matter of sexual orientation but of sexual identity. Okay. So now everyone from the outside has labeled this kid. Great.
But (it would seem that) this kid self-labeled as "gay." The question becomes, why? Did he not know the word "transgender" and simply pick the only word he knew to describe sexual/gender deviancy, because it seemed relevant? That's a story I can identify with, to an extent. But here's the other large possibility, that is now at the forefront of the sexual/gender identity discourse. It is possible to cross-dress without identifying as trans, or to identify as trans without having body dysphoria. This is a confusing concept, even for me, but that doesn't make it any less legitimate.
My conclusion is, who are we to say that this kid was not gay but transgender? If he calls himself gay, then isn't that what he is? And to what extent are people on the outside defining words, and people who actually experience these deviations defining the words through self-application and self-description? Don't I, in some way, define what it is to be transgender, by continuing to have severe gender identity issues without pursuing hormone therapy and continuing to tolerate, and sometimes even enjoy, my birth-assigned gender roles? And can't this young man, whether or not he was aware of the breadth of terms available to him, define what it is to be gay by selecting that self-label as befitting his unique constellation of attributes?
There occurs a problem when individual identity has to be translated into language, for the purpose of language is for one word to have the same meaning to many people, so that they can share ideas on the topic. Except that a person's identity cannot be constrained by a word that is intended to describe many other individuals. That would suggest that they're all alike (to a greater extent than they may actually be).
This doesn't seem like a problem on the outset, except that some people are so driven by their label that they will change aspects of themselves to fit the label "better" than they did before. One example is of a gay man who, once he identified that he liked other men, also started acting flamboyantly because that's what he thought it meant to be gay. It took many years for him to regain control of his identity, to accept that this word only described one aspect of him, and that the other attributes were not applicable. This man came through it fine, but you can see how such a situation could quickly become destructive for a different individual.
In large part, it should already be true that many words were invented to fit the personalities of individuals who, at the time, served as reference points for the definition. Unfortunately, as it turns out, there are lots and lots and lots of people who can seem similar to these reference point individuals, but who sport subtle differences that nonetheless deserve our attention. So what do we do? Invent a new label and say "you are not this, you are actually this other thing," or do we broaden the definition to include the subtleties of all individuals who choose to self-label with that word? What does gay mean? What does transgender mean? These words used to have one-sentence answers, but if you've read this article the way I intended in writing it, there should be some new breadth, if not downright confusion, on the matter.
Perhaps the two sources of definitions need to be maintained as separate. We all see how putting businesses and individuals under the same tax laws has worked out. So why not keep "I am called" and "I call myself" separate? That would be the most convenient. The boy I mentioned earlier could call himself gay all the way home, and we could call him transgender and be confident that we had a clear language and he had the self-identification he desired.
Well, no. I don't think that will ever work. Because part of rejecting someone's self-label is an inherent disrespect, a paternalistic disregard for their autonomy and freedom to define themselves. And part of a self-identity is being accepted as yourself by the people around you, or your friends at least if not the public at large. Who is anyone else to tell you what you are? But then, why would you choose a word to self-describe that doesn't match the at-large definition?
It seems that the key would be education. If this kid had known the word transgender, then we would know much more about him based on whether he continued to self-label as transgender or as gay. Because a cross-dressing guy that likes guys can still identify as male. That's part of the multi-dimensional spectrum that we (as a society) are becoming aware of. The same way that I can identify as trans while still operating with a cis public identity, and being the cis sexual interest of my partners. I have not yet been with a partner that appreciated me as my trans gender. Being okay with that, or at least continuing to tolerate that, is also part of who I am, and might be subject to labeling in some way, though if there is a designation for "identifies as trans but has relationships as cis", I'm not aware of it yet. Clearly even I am under-educated.
A lot of really fantastic essays are written on the subject, as part of gender studies classes, etc, that I truly believe could add something meaningful to the public discourse but once they are turned in for a grade, practically disappear from existence. And I think that's a problem. Why go to college if you're just going to keep your meaningful thoughts and lessons to yourself? Sure, education is largely viewed as training for the "real world", but a lot of good stuff is produced by people while they're there. I think it's wrong to ignore the important advances in discourse that can be made by students, just because they are students. Not to mention that the stuff written by 18 year olds can be a lot more accessible than high-browed academic writings to the target audience at hand, that is, young people who are trying not only to figure out who they are, but to communicate that to the people around them, to be accepted as themselves.
Changing motivations for physicians as social narrative
Item two: You and your hippie doctors.
So, I happen to work with this doctors' daughter. That's right, both parents are doctors. And she scoffs at young doctors for entering the profession for the money, claiming that her parents became doctors out of passion.
Clearly this is a kid that has never wanted for anything, has been confident that she would always be able to obtain gainful employment, etc. It's hard to believe that such a person could internalize the conception that choosing a profession based on passion is a luxury. Of course more people are choosing their jobs based on the money now than 40 years ago, because money is a lot more scarce, or at least has a lot less buying power, than it did then. Combine this with a recession that started about 4 years ago and the economic hardships we had before Clinton, the ridiculous rising prices of homes the past two decades, and it becomes much easier, for those of us who can identify with being in a state of want, to see why more and more doctors are in it for the security of income and the high lifestyle that they wish to maintain.
Granted, anyone who goes into medicine for the money either made a really bad decision, or was willing to sacrifice some income because they like the job for whatever reason. There are much more effective ways to get rich than to be a doctor, cleaner too. With fewer years in between of student debt and slave-wage residency.
My point is, I get pissed at people who get pissed at people who pursue jobs for the money. We all need money. Just because you're lucky enough to have it without sacrificing your moralistic dignity does not make you better than anyone else. It just makes you lucky. It doesn't mean that others in your position wouldn't make the same decision. It just means that they're not in your position.
Granted, I know plenty of very well-to-do young folks who don't use the luxury of choice to follow their morals. And perhaps I'm making a bad assumption that this young lady's aspirations are moralistic. Maybe she's just passionate about the profession as a stimulating activity rather than as a service to others. But my minimally-informed judgment is that she is actually a nice person, so I'll maintain the righteous moralist image. So applause to her that she is using her gifts, talents and financial luck for the good of humanity. I still do not believe that that gives her a right to look down her nose at people who pursue what is an otherwise noble profession for the money. I mean seriously, these people could have done a lot of damage on Wallstreet, instead they decided to earn their luxurious wages by cutting out cataracts, or whatever.
So, I happen to work with this doctors' daughter. That's right, both parents are doctors. And she scoffs at young doctors for entering the profession for the money, claiming that her parents became doctors out of passion.
Clearly this is a kid that has never wanted for anything, has been confident that she would always be able to obtain gainful employment, etc. It's hard to believe that such a person could internalize the conception that choosing a profession based on passion is a luxury. Of course more people are choosing their jobs based on the money now than 40 years ago, because money is a lot more scarce, or at least has a lot less buying power, than it did then. Combine this with a recession that started about 4 years ago and the economic hardships we had before Clinton, the ridiculous rising prices of homes the past two decades, and it becomes much easier, for those of us who can identify with being in a state of want, to see why more and more doctors are in it for the security of income and the high lifestyle that they wish to maintain.
Granted, anyone who goes into medicine for the money either made a really bad decision, or was willing to sacrifice some income because they like the job for whatever reason. There are much more effective ways to get rich than to be a doctor, cleaner too. With fewer years in between of student debt and slave-wage residency.
My point is, I get pissed at people who get pissed at people who pursue jobs for the money. We all need money. Just because you're lucky enough to have it without sacrificing your moralistic dignity does not make you better than anyone else. It just makes you lucky. It doesn't mean that others in your position wouldn't make the same decision. It just means that they're not in your position.
Granted, I know plenty of very well-to-do young folks who don't use the luxury of choice to follow their morals. And perhaps I'm making a bad assumption that this young lady's aspirations are moralistic. Maybe she's just passionate about the profession as a stimulating activity rather than as a service to others. But my minimally-informed judgment is that she is actually a nice person, so I'll maintain the righteous moralist image. So applause to her that she is using her gifts, talents and financial luck for the good of humanity. I still do not believe that that gives her a right to look down her nose at people who pursue what is an otherwise noble profession for the money. I mean seriously, these people could have done a lot of damage on Wallstreet, instead they decided to earn their luxurious wages by cutting out cataracts, or whatever.
How Facebook has changed the way we read... everything
I have a lot of thoughts on my agenda to get out the door. On the off chance that someone will read them and say "hmm, you know, that actually makes a lot of sense!"
So let's start with item one: how the facebook age has changed the way we read, and write, print media.
My writing director has been saying that over the last 5 to 10 years she has seen many writers picking up on emotions in writings that simply aren't there, interpreting personal attacks that are actually part of standard rhetoric. Keep in mind that this is in the context of biological ethics essays, that is, very academic writings about very abstract concepts.
Now, whether or not the "insult" was intended or not by the writer is up to interpretation. My director's interpretation is that this is standard proceedings, seen in legal discourse and therefore not emotionally biased.
What she doesn't realize is that the readers today grew up on facebook. We have our social, very emotionally laden discourses through (what amounts to) print media. We must convey our complex intents, sarcasm, subtle insults, etc, through the words that we write, without the convenience of voice inflection, facial expressions, body language, all of the tools we would use in social discourse. In most print media we don't even have the convenience of italics, nor the fictional literary tools of "he said with loathing." Ergo, we have learned not only to write, but to read emotions in written words that perhaps were not detected before because writers of latter day only wrote for academic purposes and used the phone or face to face conversations for their social, more emotional discourses. Ergo we have learned to read and write emotionally, and that doesn't go away when we are presented with printed text from another source. Its almost as if we've invented a new written language, using the same words but with much more (or at least different) meaning than how it was used before.
I predict that all print media will evolve as the facebook generation comes of age. Academic writings will have to be much more directly objective, and will leave behind the discourse that was once legalese but has since been socialized to have strong emotional meaning. I welcome the evolution, to strip academic discourse of its ambiguity while also enriching our written language with a myriad of subtle meanings. It really opens up fiction writing and other genres in a way that was probably inaccessible before, or at least would have gone over most readers' heads. But now, we can detect the most subtle, and apparently sometimes nonexistent, underlying meanings, and previously "dry" authors will have an audience. This is going to be fun.
So let's start with item one: how the facebook age has changed the way we read, and write, print media.
My writing director has been saying that over the last 5 to 10 years she has seen many writers picking up on emotions in writings that simply aren't there, interpreting personal attacks that are actually part of standard rhetoric. Keep in mind that this is in the context of biological ethics essays, that is, very academic writings about very abstract concepts.
Now, whether or not the "insult" was intended or not by the writer is up to interpretation. My director's interpretation is that this is standard proceedings, seen in legal discourse and therefore not emotionally biased.
What she doesn't realize is that the readers today grew up on facebook. We have our social, very emotionally laden discourses through (what amounts to) print media. We must convey our complex intents, sarcasm, subtle insults, etc, through the words that we write, without the convenience of voice inflection, facial expressions, body language, all of the tools we would use in social discourse. In most print media we don't even have the convenience of italics, nor the fictional literary tools of "he said with loathing." Ergo, we have learned not only to write, but to read emotions in written words that perhaps were not detected before because writers of latter day only wrote for academic purposes and used the phone or face to face conversations for their social, more emotional discourses. Ergo we have learned to read and write emotionally, and that doesn't go away when we are presented with printed text from another source. Its almost as if we've invented a new written language, using the same words but with much more (or at least different) meaning than how it was used before.
I predict that all print media will evolve as the facebook generation comes of age. Academic writings will have to be much more directly objective, and will leave behind the discourse that was once legalese but has since been socialized to have strong emotional meaning. I welcome the evolution, to strip academic discourse of its ambiguity while also enriching our written language with a myriad of subtle meanings. It really opens up fiction writing and other genres in a way that was probably inaccessible before, or at least would have gone over most readers' heads. But now, we can detect the most subtle, and apparently sometimes nonexistent, underlying meanings, and previously "dry" authors will have an audience. This is going to be fun.
So hipster it hurts
Again I find myself with a spare moment. I'm in an Albertson's in Malibu, taking advantage of the free wifi, and some poor 19 year old sot is sitting here eating his lunch. What are you making of your life, young sir.
I'm happy with Xero. He is a good man. And so I have to wonder my organs are just not participating in the process lately. What did I do to mess them up? My brain is very attracted to him but my body is not with the program. If I didn't want to have sex with him, I would think that all parts of my brain would be on the same page about that. That's why I'm so confused that the spirit is on fire but the flesh is dry and flaccid.
I made him give me a massage. There is nothing quite so intimate as a partner who knows, to some extent, what they're doing, rearranging your muscles and healing you in a way that Western medicine just doesn't seem to appreciate. I had a long conversation with a woman studying Oriental medicine, as she calls it, but what others call Eastern medicine, and I have to say, in my mind there is some merit to it. She presented me with a theory that I think makes a lot of sense. Western medicine evolved from battlefield medicine. Repairing bodies and covering up ailments as quickly as possible to get a soldier back on the field. Dealing with an infected limb by hacking it off. And even though our knowledge of the body and pharmaceuticals has progressed drastically, there is still this philosophy of make it functional and get it done fast. Which isn't really healing. I may have a skewed perspective of Eastern medicine, but it seems that the emphasis is much more aimed at helping the body heal itself, about taking the time required, that time spent off one's feet is not such a terrible loss. Its just the way we live our lives, have lived our lives for many generations, this frantic rush to accomplish, not that anything particularly bad will happen if we don't, and yet that ifs the prevailing disposition. At this point, I suspect its genetic. White people. Something about growing up where its really fucking cold and having to get all the food in before the rains come to be able to survive 6 months of toe numbing cold. Only the desperately frantic, even without any clear conception of the consequences, survived. And so that is how we perform medicine, not just as doctors but as patients. Both are party to the intense need to get the patient back in operational order as quickly as possible. Minimize lost man hours. But when you're capable of slowing down, of working with your body as opposed to on it, or at it, then I think that is much closer to what we can clearly conceptualize as therapeutic.
And if we take this in context of the knowledge that the immune system is suppressed in response to stress, its no fucking wonder that we stay so sick and the healing process hurts. We always describe it as battle. Why not as growth? Its a very extreme paradigm shift but one that I believe is possible. We as a culture have embraced exercise as such, even though it is in a very real way damaging our bodies and can be a painful process. But we focus on the results, and thus can enjoy the process. Why not sickness? Why not go through that pain with calm and joy, secure in the knowledge that if biology is allowed to take its course, you will come out the other side stronger? Will to live seems to have more to do with survival rates than the medicine that we throw at a sickness. If this will to live were allowed to combine synergistically with a therapeutic calm, then I think it could be much more effective.
But these are just the thoughts of someone with no truly relevant training. Yet every day I become more and more convinced that getting training as a massage therapist would be a good thing in my life, because it is a good thing in others' lives that they just don't get often enough.
I want to see Tai Chi taught in inner city schools. The western conceptualization of physical education isn't doing anyone any good. Run around in circles, do sit-ups on hard surfaces. Training that is so painful and denegrating that these kids never perform the exercises except when they are forced to. That is not conducive to health. Not even a little bit.
I'm really the royalist hypocrite of all hypocrites. Look at me, having all these deep thoughts, while doing diddly about them and enjoying my wealth. What have actually ever done for anyone who really needed it? When have a sheltered the homeless, fed the starving? No, I give so little of myself, in any real sense. History will not remember me, not as I am now. Perhaps I'm waiting for the opportunity to show my colors. The new world order requires so much training to be of any legitimate use to anyone, that the beginning of any advanced endeavor has been pushed back by nearly a decade, for my profession. But perhaps I have internalized this artificial system, this lie, allowed it to be my excuse for not putting more of myself out into the world. Yes, its ridiculously expensive to fly out to third world countries for two weeks at a time, and so I try to do what I can, here, but even that isn't much. But the people I'm being given the opportunity to help, they don't need nearly as much help as I am willing and able to give. I am capable of so much and I am stagnant, and I am angry about this.
I wonder if massage therapy would be a viable therapy for kids with Asberger's, situational depression, etc. Human touch is very real and very important, and so often very, very neglected. Its probably something that would never, ever be allowed through public schools, but you never know what can be accomplished by the private sector. Its probably something that would be more appreciated at the middle and high school levels, although there is viability at the younger ages. I really don't know enough about it. I will have to ask a social worker for an opininon.
I'm happy with Xero. He is a good man. And so I have to wonder my organs are just not participating in the process lately. What did I do to mess them up? My brain is very attracted to him but my body is not with the program. If I didn't want to have sex with him, I would think that all parts of my brain would be on the same page about that. That's why I'm so confused that the spirit is on fire but the flesh is dry and flaccid.
I made him give me a massage. There is nothing quite so intimate as a partner who knows, to some extent, what they're doing, rearranging your muscles and healing you in a way that Western medicine just doesn't seem to appreciate. I had a long conversation with a woman studying Oriental medicine, as she calls it, but what others call Eastern medicine, and I have to say, in my mind there is some merit to it. She presented me with a theory that I think makes a lot of sense. Western medicine evolved from battlefield medicine. Repairing bodies and covering up ailments as quickly as possible to get a soldier back on the field. Dealing with an infected limb by hacking it off. And even though our knowledge of the body and pharmaceuticals has progressed drastically, there is still this philosophy of make it functional and get it done fast. Which isn't really healing. I may have a skewed perspective of Eastern medicine, but it seems that the emphasis is much more aimed at helping the body heal itself, about taking the time required, that time spent off one's feet is not such a terrible loss. Its just the way we live our lives, have lived our lives for many generations, this frantic rush to accomplish, not that anything particularly bad will happen if we don't, and yet that ifs the prevailing disposition. At this point, I suspect its genetic. White people. Something about growing up where its really fucking cold and having to get all the food in before the rains come to be able to survive 6 months of toe numbing cold. Only the desperately frantic, even without any clear conception of the consequences, survived. And so that is how we perform medicine, not just as doctors but as patients. Both are party to the intense need to get the patient back in operational order as quickly as possible. Minimize lost man hours. But when you're capable of slowing down, of working with your body as opposed to on it, or at it, then I think that is much closer to what we can clearly conceptualize as therapeutic.
And if we take this in context of the knowledge that the immune system is suppressed in response to stress, its no fucking wonder that we stay so sick and the healing process hurts. We always describe it as battle. Why not as growth? Its a very extreme paradigm shift but one that I believe is possible. We as a culture have embraced exercise as such, even though it is in a very real way damaging our bodies and can be a painful process. But we focus on the results, and thus can enjoy the process. Why not sickness? Why not go through that pain with calm and joy, secure in the knowledge that if biology is allowed to take its course, you will come out the other side stronger? Will to live seems to have more to do with survival rates than the medicine that we throw at a sickness. If this will to live were allowed to combine synergistically with a therapeutic calm, then I think it could be much more effective.
But these are just the thoughts of someone with no truly relevant training. Yet every day I become more and more convinced that getting training as a massage therapist would be a good thing in my life, because it is a good thing in others' lives that they just don't get often enough.
I want to see Tai Chi taught in inner city schools. The western conceptualization of physical education isn't doing anyone any good. Run around in circles, do sit-ups on hard surfaces. Training that is so painful and denegrating that these kids never perform the exercises except when they are forced to. That is not conducive to health. Not even a little bit.
I'm really the royalist hypocrite of all hypocrites. Look at me, having all these deep thoughts, while doing diddly about them and enjoying my wealth. What have actually ever done for anyone who really needed it? When have a sheltered the homeless, fed the starving? No, I give so little of myself, in any real sense. History will not remember me, not as I am now. Perhaps I'm waiting for the opportunity to show my colors. The new world order requires so much training to be of any legitimate use to anyone, that the beginning of any advanced endeavor has been pushed back by nearly a decade, for my profession. But perhaps I have internalized this artificial system, this lie, allowed it to be my excuse for not putting more of myself out into the world. Yes, its ridiculously expensive to fly out to third world countries for two weeks at a time, and so I try to do what I can, here, but even that isn't much. But the people I'm being given the opportunity to help, they don't need nearly as much help as I am willing and able to give. I am capable of so much and I am stagnant, and I am angry about this.
I wonder if massage therapy would be a viable therapy for kids with Asberger's, situational depression, etc. Human touch is very real and very important, and so often very, very neglected. Its probably something that would never, ever be allowed through public schools, but you never know what can be accomplished by the private sector. Its probably something that would be more appreciated at the middle and high school levels, although there is viability at the younger ages. I really don't know enough about it. I will have to ask a social worker for an opininon.
Baby its cold outside
So, I've been meaning to blog, and I happen to find myself with a few spare moments of being disconnected from any other distractions. So, despite being disconnected from the internet, a very unusual circumstance in my everyday life, I nonetheless have access to a word processor, and so, I type.
I have been dating this guy for... see now I'm actually doing the math. Almost exactly three weeks. And I don't know if by this time I had already given up on the marine biologist... I had this distinct feeling the first time I met Mr Mar-Bio that it was not meant to be. And even though I've only been dating this man for a short period, I have a very good feeling about this one. Not that that will actually mean anything in the prediction of the future, but its a nice feeling to have.
I was reading the book I checked out from the philosophy library (two weeks ago) today, and I'm glad I did. I knew why I checked out that book and it seems to be having the intended effect. Sex: A Philosophical Primer is some guy's 100 page summary of "if someone were going to make a philosophical study of sex, these are some things they should probably look at." I'm reading it in order to get a handle on my own feelings, to take control without strangling myself. To allow for the pleasant to occur without being led on into a painful recourse. I guess my real goal is to avoid becoming so attached that I get very hurt, but not be so distant if the connection really is good for me. So far, my instincts are leaning in the direction of "let go, have faith," but, I want to say I know better. In truth I know very little, but my experiences do not lend themselves to closing my eyes and falling backwards.
Although, I have to be honest. I, to my knowledge, have never been betrayed, not in any explicit sense. I have been emotionally manipulated within an inch of my being, at least it felt that way at the time, but if I were to be honest with myself, I have done all of the betraying in my romantic relationships. Not in all of them, but I know what I did, and I am sorry, not out of any romantic regret but simple human to human respect.
It's getting cold out here. Where is my boy? Light of my life, I await you. You'll already know that I'm here because my motorcycle is parked at your curb. Nonetheless I await you.
For the past many weeks I have had a secret hope that he would find my blog. I want him to know me, to know the things that I will not say, at least, would not vocally describe in such emotional detail, but I don't want to know that he knows. I have a crippling self-awareness, and so would be ever second-guessing what he thought about me in light of these facts, these musings, but nonetheless I do want him to understand me, as an emotional being. I do not flatter myself that my life has been so hard as to merit the poetic attention I give it, but, the pain is real to me, and if someone is to be intimately integrated into my life, they must be aware of that. Xero, I don't deserve the attention I seek, and it takes a lot of empowerment and selfishness for me to say that I want it anyway. I listen to you. I sit quietly, and you will just keep talking. You wear your heart on your sleeve. But I play close to the chest. This is how I communicate. I've gotten to good at keeping my mouth closed, and in truth, it is still important for me to maintain that state of discipline around many people. To break that habit for you, and to keep it up around others, is too hard. There's a term for it in cognitive neuroscience I'm sure, and if not it is definitely a well-described phenomenon. And besides, I will flatter myself on this, I am a good writer. Whatever it is, an intimate understanding of how others understand language, and ability to articulate abstract thoughts in ways that others can absorb, I have it. Usually, anyway. Some topics are harder than others. I'm just going to use that as my gett out of bluff free card.
Where are you, my sweet?! Your bane is here! To suck your life, to steal your soul, to poison the well of your well-being with concern for a person who will take and take and take and give until I die.
I am far too serious about this relationship. It is a little scary. I think mostly I'm scared of others finding out how serious I feel. Love at first sight is something you only get away with in fiction. Out here people look at you with a lot of... what is it? Suspicion? Worry? Doubt? Criticism. Disdain.
So many things to write about but they've all fled me now. Its getting very cold, of course by southern coastal standards which really isn't cold at all but my skin is prickling so stfu.
I have so much to do and I'm not doing any of it. I'm following my emotional self, to the death of objective, accomplishing self. But I'm growing, and with that I am attempting to find balance in my life. Of course what I really want to do is devote myself heart and soul and mind and body to my philanthropic cause, but the unfortunate fact is, I am human. If I ignore my other needs, love, friendship, comfort, intellectual stimulation outside the narrow range of my specific goals, then my accomplishment in that one direction will stagnate anyway. At least this is what I like to tell myself. If I cater to my human needs, then overall I will actually do better in my life's work than if I shunned them completely. This is my attempt to justify watching television and relentlessly (if a little shamefully) pursuing a gratifying sexual and romantic relationship. I will take care of him, and he will take care of me.
There is something that you can trust about senseless love. The way that oxytocin binds you into another person's mind. No matter how stupid, how sacrificial, how bizarre and inadvantageous to self an action might be, they will do it for you. If you are truly bound into a person's mind like that, you know that even when it is in their best interest, they will never hurt you. It's a trust beyond all other trust because you know that this devotion is beyond reason, self-serving motives, or sense. That even if this person went mad, they would tear down the house and destroy everything in their path and somehow, somehow, cut a circle around you, an island of peace and protection. In the rage of their mind you are suspended in a bubble, clear and beautiful and perfect, and you are the reason they live and die. Because that's what oxytocin does. And if you're lucky, your Bruce Banner won't have to turn into the Incredible Hulk to prove it to you.
And that's the thing. How do you know? How can you be sure that you are so securely bound into someone's mind like that, short of being the one person spared in their destructive rampage? By the way, this is not to say that love turns all people into rage-monsters. This is just an extreme and colorful example of what oxytocin is capable of.
I guess my question is, Xero, how will you know the extent to which I am devoted to you? People lie. And you don't want to think that I am lying but you've been lied to by people who said that they loved you, and so the thought is in your mind. I understand. And yes, I don't want to mislead you, I do have my doubts. Which is probably the only normal/acceptable emotion I'm having for a week 3 relationship. Would I move in with you? I don't know. Would I cosign a lease with you? At this point, probably not. Would I have your baby? Oh my god too much to think about. See, my friends would be proud. But this is all besides the point. I do feel very strongly for you. The fact that these questions don't already have answers is kind of a big deal.
Okay it is now 1:10 AM. I want to keep waiting for you, but... jeez man. This is getting a little ridiculous. Borrow someone's phone. Text me. Tell me wtf is going on. Conceptualize that I may not have checked my email and may just be sitting here at your front porch, being an idiot... Because, and I'm pretty sure this is true of other people too, I'm an idiot when I'm in love and there's the opportunity for emotional wholeness at the other end. I charge ahead reckless and foolish.
I have been dating this guy for... see now I'm actually doing the math. Almost exactly three weeks. And I don't know if by this time I had already given up on the marine biologist... I had this distinct feeling the first time I met Mr Mar-Bio that it was not meant to be. And even though I've only been dating this man for a short period, I have a very good feeling about this one. Not that that will actually mean anything in the prediction of the future, but its a nice feeling to have.
I was reading the book I checked out from the philosophy library (two weeks ago) today, and I'm glad I did. I knew why I checked out that book and it seems to be having the intended effect. Sex: A Philosophical Primer is some guy's 100 page summary of "if someone were going to make a philosophical study of sex, these are some things they should probably look at." I'm reading it in order to get a handle on my own feelings, to take control without strangling myself. To allow for the pleasant to occur without being led on into a painful recourse. I guess my real goal is to avoid becoming so attached that I get very hurt, but not be so distant if the connection really is good for me. So far, my instincts are leaning in the direction of "let go, have faith," but, I want to say I know better. In truth I know very little, but my experiences do not lend themselves to closing my eyes and falling backwards.
Although, I have to be honest. I, to my knowledge, have never been betrayed, not in any explicit sense. I have been emotionally manipulated within an inch of my being, at least it felt that way at the time, but if I were to be honest with myself, I have done all of the betraying in my romantic relationships. Not in all of them, but I know what I did, and I am sorry, not out of any romantic regret but simple human to human respect.
It's getting cold out here. Where is my boy? Light of my life, I await you. You'll already know that I'm here because my motorcycle is parked at your curb. Nonetheless I await you.
For the past many weeks I have had a secret hope that he would find my blog. I want him to know me, to know the things that I will not say, at least, would not vocally describe in such emotional detail, but I don't want to know that he knows. I have a crippling self-awareness, and so would be ever second-guessing what he thought about me in light of these facts, these musings, but nonetheless I do want him to understand me, as an emotional being. I do not flatter myself that my life has been so hard as to merit the poetic attention I give it, but, the pain is real to me, and if someone is to be intimately integrated into my life, they must be aware of that. Xero, I don't deserve the attention I seek, and it takes a lot of empowerment and selfishness for me to say that I want it anyway. I listen to you. I sit quietly, and you will just keep talking. You wear your heart on your sleeve. But I play close to the chest. This is how I communicate. I've gotten to good at keeping my mouth closed, and in truth, it is still important for me to maintain that state of discipline around many people. To break that habit for you, and to keep it up around others, is too hard. There's a term for it in cognitive neuroscience I'm sure, and if not it is definitely a well-described phenomenon. And besides, I will flatter myself on this, I am a good writer. Whatever it is, an intimate understanding of how others understand language, and ability to articulate abstract thoughts in ways that others can absorb, I have it. Usually, anyway. Some topics are harder than others. I'm just going to use that as my gett out of bluff free card.
Where are you, my sweet?! Your bane is here! To suck your life, to steal your soul, to poison the well of your well-being with concern for a person who will take and take and take and give until I die.
I am far too serious about this relationship. It is a little scary. I think mostly I'm scared of others finding out how serious I feel. Love at first sight is something you only get away with in fiction. Out here people look at you with a lot of... what is it? Suspicion? Worry? Doubt? Criticism. Disdain.
So many things to write about but they've all fled me now. Its getting very cold, of course by southern coastal standards which really isn't cold at all but my skin is prickling so stfu.
I have so much to do and I'm not doing any of it. I'm following my emotional self, to the death of objective, accomplishing self. But I'm growing, and with that I am attempting to find balance in my life. Of course what I really want to do is devote myself heart and soul and mind and body to my philanthropic cause, but the unfortunate fact is, I am human. If I ignore my other needs, love, friendship, comfort, intellectual stimulation outside the narrow range of my specific goals, then my accomplishment in that one direction will stagnate anyway. At least this is what I like to tell myself. If I cater to my human needs, then overall I will actually do better in my life's work than if I shunned them completely. This is my attempt to justify watching television and relentlessly (if a little shamefully) pursuing a gratifying sexual and romantic relationship. I will take care of him, and he will take care of me.
There is something that you can trust about senseless love. The way that oxytocin binds you into another person's mind. No matter how stupid, how sacrificial, how bizarre and inadvantageous to self an action might be, they will do it for you. If you are truly bound into a person's mind like that, you know that even when it is in their best interest, they will never hurt you. It's a trust beyond all other trust because you know that this devotion is beyond reason, self-serving motives, or sense. That even if this person went mad, they would tear down the house and destroy everything in their path and somehow, somehow, cut a circle around you, an island of peace and protection. In the rage of their mind you are suspended in a bubble, clear and beautiful and perfect, and you are the reason they live and die. Because that's what oxytocin does. And if you're lucky, your Bruce Banner won't have to turn into the Incredible Hulk to prove it to you.
And that's the thing. How do you know? How can you be sure that you are so securely bound into someone's mind like that, short of being the one person spared in their destructive rampage? By the way, this is not to say that love turns all people into rage-monsters. This is just an extreme and colorful example of what oxytocin is capable of.
I guess my question is, Xero, how will you know the extent to which I am devoted to you? People lie. And you don't want to think that I am lying but you've been lied to by people who said that they loved you, and so the thought is in your mind. I understand. And yes, I don't want to mislead you, I do have my doubts. Which is probably the only normal/acceptable emotion I'm having for a week 3 relationship. Would I move in with you? I don't know. Would I cosign a lease with you? At this point, probably not. Would I have your baby? Oh my god too much to think about. See, my friends would be proud. But this is all besides the point. I do feel very strongly for you. The fact that these questions don't already have answers is kind of a big deal.
Okay it is now 1:10 AM. I want to keep waiting for you, but... jeez man. This is getting a little ridiculous. Borrow someone's phone. Text me. Tell me wtf is going on. Conceptualize that I may not have checked my email and may just be sitting here at your front porch, being an idiot... Because, and I'm pretty sure this is true of other people too, I'm an idiot when I'm in love and there's the opportunity for emotional wholeness at the other end. I charge ahead reckless and foolish.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)