Friday, May 4, 2012

The Best and the Worst


“We like people for their qualities, but we love them for their flaws” I always thought that quotes was by Eleanor Roosevelt, and it’s somewhat disappointing to find out that it’s from some movie call “Hellboy” instead. I guess it’s still a good quote. I do think that qualities and flaws of a person are often a different side of the same coin. Flaws are often the qualities, but taken too far and applied too generally. I have, of course, made a chart to illustrate my point.


Quality
Heads
Tails
Assertive
You always know where you stand with them.
They can be selfish/greedy
Bird of a Feather
You’re on the same wavelength, and need to explain yourself is minimal
You don’t have someone to pull the other way when you really need someone on the saner, less neurotic end of the tug rope
Friendly
They’re friendly (duh)
You never know if they are being nice because they like you or because they are just nice to everyone
Rude
They’re refreshingly honest
They can be hurtful
Conscientious
They are very moral, reliable people.
You have to spend a lot of time reassuring them that some things are okay to let slide, and, no, it does not make them a  horrible person
Sensitive
They notice when you are down about things, and are understanding
They are easily hurt or offended and they hold grudges.
Independent
They don’t need you.
They don’t need you.
Perfect
They’re perfect!
They can be depressing to be around and compare yourself with

Wednesday, April 25, 2012

On getting older


I’ve always felt I am too old. Some people start worrying about aging when they hit thirty. I started when I was nine. Actually eight years and 364 days to be precise. A few hours before my bedtime, it fully hit me that I would never, ever be eight again, and that there was absolutely nothing I could do about it. It was not my happiest birthday party.


I had another terrifying realization about a year thereafter, while driving with Sam and her family to Spokane for a soccer tournament. I made the connection that had somehow eluded me until that point in time: if I didn’t believe in an afterlife, it followed that I was going to be nonexistent someday. Consequently, I was very zen-like about our disappointing second place finish that weekend. (Sam’s always just mature for her age, no religious turmoil necessary, so by the end of our car ride home, we had decided that silver was a much prettier color anyway.)


I eventually came to uneasy terms with my mortality somewhere between sixth and seventh grade, though it made me even more panic-y about growing old. I went through a period of mourning when I was twelve due to the fact that I was now too old ever learn another language without an accent. (Why did I waste it reading the Animorph series when I could have been learning French verbs? Darn my lazy grade-school self.) I refused to get my driver’s license until I was over eighteenth partly due to my denial of the fact that I was aging. And finally, even if I hadn’t been snowed in alone in Pullman on my twenty first birthday with some alcoholic rats (it was sad, Aubrie), I would have still been unhappy about passing the last birthday that was still on a uphill trajectory. Now, at twenty-two, I’m over the hill.


I’m trying to get better at this. I know that getting older is much better than the alternative - I’m unbelievably lucky to live in a time and country where life expectancy is so high. I also know that twenty years from now, I’ll consider myself crazy for thinking myself old at twenty-two. I’m going to try to do better with just appreciating the age I’m at, and realizing that I’ll never be this young again (true at any age). It is one thing to not wish your life away, but I take it too far the other direction.

Monday, April 23, 2012

The pros and cons of being judgmental

Pro

1. Nobody needs to wonders what my opinion is on anything

2. If somebody didn't know before that things like alcohol are bad for them, they just learned something new.

3. It comes naturally.

Con

1. I don't know the full circumstances, and, even if I did, I don't have the answer to life, the universe, and everything.

2. Doesn't follow the golden rule.

3. People never take my advice. Maybe someday...

4. There's a tendency to make people feel like I'm judging them.


Conclusion: Too close to call.



Saturday, April 21, 2012

Lost and Found in e-Translation


Sometimes I interpret electronic writing (aka "texts") in a way that may say more about me than about the writer



Writing Device
How I interpret them
Commentary
Ellipse after a sentence…
Think about what I just said, because there is a hidden meaning.
Drives me crazy when it’s after something like “Have a nice day….” Part of me knows there is no hidden meaning, and part of me feels like there is something I don’t know about an assassin.
“quotations”
I’m mocking you.

Um…
What you just said was so dumb, it’s going to take me a second to think of a tactful response. I just want you to be aware of that.
It just seems somewhat fake in writing form. “Um”’s are a semi-involuntary tick, and writing isn’t involuntary.
Ellipse….between…
words
Pause and think about every word I’m saying

Acceptable when the words are worth it, very annoying when they are not.
ALL CAPS
I’m screaming at you.
So exhausting to read.
No smiley faces or exclamation marks
I’m mad at you or bored.

I know this generally not right, but I’ve been conditioned to expect smiley faces with everything remotely friendly.

Friday, April 20, 2012

Why you shouldn't hug me


Hugs are not one of my favorite things. I don’t know who decided that reducing one’s personal space to a minimum was a great way to greet random people. Maybe it evolved to let people know you trust them enough to allow them in the perfect position to put a knife in your back. Who knows. The following is a three part explanation of why you should just shake my hand. Or wave. That would be fine, too.

1. I’m into personal space. Maybe it’s because I prefer to judge other people, rather than be judged myself, and that’s easier at a distance (That little self-analysis was for you, Cera) In any case, my self-consciousness increases exponentially with personal proximity. I get stuck in a perpetual loop of they’re thinking that I’m thinking that they’re thinking…Thankfully, young children don’t have a theory of the mind, so I don’t feel self-conscience and I’m absolutely fine with holding them.


2. Some of the time, with some people, I’m okay with them hugging me, but I’m aware of how awkward my hugs are, so I prefer not to inflict them with it. They’re kind of like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9fdO4Y8q5Dc For example, Angie is one of my favorite people, I'm totally okay with her hugging me, and yet look at how well I’m handling a semi-hug. This is one of the last times I saw her, too. According to the body language interpreters in tabloid magazines, I am pulling away, and we will be divorced in a few months. Sorry, Angie. I'm keeping Robyn.


3. The rest of my problem is my sister, Tamar. Tamar insists that she hugged me all the time when we were little because she loved me. I know differently. It was her way of attacking me in a mom-approved way. It didn’t help that I spent ten minutes trying to get away from her and that once she caught me, she never let go. You know how “Free Hug” coupons are shorthand for a lazy, cheap gift? I used to give them to Tamar, and she loved them and actually used them. I had to put time limits on the hugs, and I always ended up wishing I had gotten her a real gift instead. 

Ja, ik spreek Engels.


First a note: I’m going to stop posting blogs updates on facebook (after this).  Mostly I just feel like nobody loves me if nobody comments on the update, and sink into a deep, though temporary, state of dsyphoria. I’d much prefer to believe that nobody knows I’m updating. 


However, I am going try to update everyday for the next ten days (without spamming facebook). Now I finally cancelled my New York Times online subscription (they make it deviously difficult, you actually have to call them), I can no longer spend most of my free time learning about things I have no influence on, so it seems like a perfect time to start writing about them instead. So yeah. Today's topic is immigration.

I feel that pretty much everyone if you go back far enough owns land due to questionable or downright genocidal means. Since we can’t possibly reassign the land fairly, we pretty much get what we landed on when the music stopped and overtaking land started to be frowned upon.

To stop everyone from rushing into the richest lands undocumented and unregulated, there are rules about who can live where. The rules aren’t fair, but they’re better than the total mayhem that would result if this land were my land, and, what the heck, it’s your land, too.

However, it’s important to keep in mind that almost no one’s claim to land is without sin (except maybe the Native Americans) so it’s best to be lenient with who can and can’t enter the country. Sure, people should be documented, there should be basic requirements to becoming a resident, and people should respect the native culture. However, it also should be possible to do it within the rules, because, ideally, everyone should have the chance to live in a great country like America.

As it is now, the immigrants who break the rules get in, and the immigrants who don’t have to wait forever. It’s not fair, and it give immigrants more motivation to break the rules and countries less heart to prosecute the said immigrants. You get stories like these, where nobody wins: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/28/opinion/28sat4.html So I think there should be a path to legalization, the people trying to do it the legal way should be rewarded, and if you are going to prosecute someone, it will be easier knowing that they did have a solid alternative to breaking the law.

Tuesday, March 27, 2012

Things I'm Hypocritical About

I have my standards. Two in fact.

Blogs:
For othersThere is a percentage (mostly friends of friends of friends, aka strangers, that I feel I’m kind of invading their privacy by reading) that I read mostly because I like mocking them in my head (Sometimes out loud, but then people start wondering why I’m talking to myself). Blogs are easy targets. Everything has already been said in a funnier, wittier, or more informative way, and nobody wants your two cents – they are less valuable than the metal they are made of. And nobody finds your child as fascinating as you do.

For myself: Not only will I blog, but I’ll post it on my status updates. And Isaac is fascinating. I think everyone would agree, unless they’re too busy looking for their nonexistent heart. (Update: Isaac is doing well – as charming and happy as ever. A big thanks to everyone taking such good care of him at Starfish)

Monologue-ing
For others: How could they possibly think I’m interested in this?

For myself: They’re just not interested because they haven’t heard enough yet. I’ll just keep talking.

Being late
For others: It’s rude and disrespectful.

For myself: It takes no time to find keys, check e-mail, or read what the latest political gaffe is, right? And so no matter how many times I add all those “no times” together, I should still get no time, right? And yet, I’m still late to everything. Oh well, nobody probably notices, anyway.

Classmates asking barely tangent questions
For others: It’s irrelevant and obviously an excuse to show off some boring tidbit of knowledge you somehow managed to obtain. I’m not here to listen to you talk.

For myself: It’s kind of relevant. And I’m sure everyone is secretly interested and impressed by my in dept knowledge. Very secretly.

Bashing religious or political beliefs
For others: Formula for figuring out whom your "non pc" statuses are annoying: Take the number of your facebook friends. Then take the number of….oh wait. No, that’s the answer, you got it already ... it’s a simple formula.

For myself: But it’s really clever…they’ll love it!

Looking sloppy
For others: How much effort is it to change out of your pjs?

For myself: None, if you just sleep in your daytime clothes. Loophole!


Saturday, March 24, 2012

Self Delusion - You Should Try It


I know everyone has a certain degree of self delusion. We need it to survive. In fact, it’s clinically depressed people who have the most accurate view of themselves. Fun fact, right? It makes sense. You need to be able to get others to believe in you – to hire, to befriend, to raise, or to marry you. And it’s easier to sell a product when you believe in it, even if, or especially if that faith isn’t entirely justified.

So little amount of self delusion is healthy and it’s fairly easy to obtain. Attribution bias alone would probably do the trick - giving ourselves all the credit when we do well, and giving the situation all the credit when things go poorly. (If you want to be an especially special snowflake, do the opposite for others.)

However, obviously, there can be too much of a good thing. When I look back at the people who annoy me the most, it’s the people who are lazy bullies, but in their heads are the hard working, kindest individuals they know. It just seems so unfair – being such a horrible person should result in a crippling self knowledge, shame and repentance, and yet, these are the people walk around believing themselves saints in a world full of blundering idiots.

PS. And if you think I walk around like that, the irony of this entire blogpost must be killing you. 


PPS. If you think this blog is about you, it's definitely not. 



Friday, February 24, 2012

Everyone is beautiful!


No, they aren’t.

Yes, I’m glad it’s recognized that not only size zero, teenage caucasians are beautiful. However, allowing for different body types, ages, and races expands the number of beautiful people from about 1% to 5% of the population. Sure, we could take it a couple of Bigfoot size steps further, and go around stating that everyone is beautiful, but the word quickly becomes meaningless. Objectively speaking, not everyone is. Take me for example, I’m extremely average looking.


And I’m also more or less okay with that, depending on when I last looked through a fashion magazine. Those of you who know me should realize that means I’m always okay with it. Yeah, it would be nice to be attractive, but it would be nice to be a lot of things I’m not (tall, stoic, French…) I think the message to average looking people (at least half of the population) should be - Yeah, you’re not a super-model, but you can’t have everything. You have a lot of wonderful qualities such as…. (list qualities, just don’t pause too long and don’t say anything about a sweet spirit)

Now some caveats:

1. Just because you’re not at the Albert Einstein of beautiful people doesn't mean you’re not on the honor roll. Don’t compare yourself to impossible, or - in the case of airbrushed photos -nonexistent standards. (I know, I could have  just said "just because you're not Heidi Klum" but by the time I realized that, I already had sunk too much cost into this mediocre analogy) 

2. I’m talking purely about objective attractiveness. I completely understand that subjective attractiveness is an entirely different story. I think everyone has experienced objectively so-so person becoming more and more attractive the better you get to know them (or, conversely, an objectively beautiful person becoming less and less attractive the better you get to know them).

3. Babies and toddlers are always beautiful.

3. Even if you’re never going to be a Disney princess, there is still some value in trying. 
A problem I have is when it becomes clear that I’m no good at something – like singing, first impressions, lying, dancing, resisting sugar…it’s a long list – I tend to give up completely. Sometimes, I devalue it for good measure. Sour grapes, and all that. So when I realized that my hair was never going to look like Ariel’s (I was a Little Mermaid fan), I kind of gave up on the whole “being pretty” thing. I have since realized that real hair doesn’t stay up like that.

4. I get that some of you think I’m pretty, but that’s because you’re my mom.

Speaking of my mom, it would be great if someone besides her commented on my blog. It really would.

Monday, February 6, 2012

Why Twilight Annoys Me



Okay, there are a lot of reasons. But the main one is that the plot consists of a whiny heroine getting everything she wants while everyone worships her. 

Basic structure: Someone wants Bella to have a good thing (aka the rose) There is some convoluted conflict where this good thing is perceived as a bad thing for absolutely no good reason (aka the lame thorn).This way Bella can have the cake and be seen as self sacrificing for eating it. (All those calories would have been bad for everyone else. Thank goodness she took the bullet. So typical Bella.) 

I made chart to illustrate my point (lots of free time on my hands):



Rose
Thorns
Reason this is a lame thorn
Edward
Might eat Bella
Despite every conversation between Edward and Bella being “I’m not good for you”, Bella is never eaten.
Becoming a Vampire (immortality, beauty, superpowers, super strength, et)
Can’t have children, might kill innocent people
Turns out Bella can have children and has super self-control. Surprise.
Presents for Bella
Not sure but Bella spends more pages whining about presents in general then she spent seconds thinking about on all those poor people who die at the Voltorri
Whining does not equal a good conflict  
Getting a free, planned wedding
Again, not sure why Bella is finding things to complain about
See above
Having a dangerous pregnancy
Might die
The venom only had to be inserted before heart stopped beating. This isn’t super hard if you ask me. No one did



You might be wondering why I would bother to read the books if they annoy me so much. The embarrassing truth is that I did like the first book when I was sixteen, and, a few years later, I got through the last book because I was kind of hoping against hope that everyone would be massacred.  

Thursday, January 19, 2012

Psychopaths

What’s the difference between a sociopath, a psychopath, and a person with anti-social personality disorder. Answer: There is none, but it feels most satisfying to call a horrible people a “psychopath” then a “person with anti-social personality disorder” so that’s what I’m going with. I recently read a good deal of books about psychopaths, which isn't suspicious or weird at all, and I wanted to sort out my thoughts, so hence this post.

I think personality disorders are the most interesting of any mental disorders because they give you such an alien, alternative viewpoint of the world. Most mental disorders can be understood as normal behavior taken to extremes. For example, if you imagine how you feel right before an big interview and than imagine feeling like that all the time you can get a degree of understanding of generalized anxiety disorder. But how can a normal person understand how the mind of a serial killer works?

I read an interesting theory on psychopaths somewhere (I think it was in the Blank Slate by Steven Pinker) that psychopathy, as opposed to most mental disorders, can actually be advantageous. If most of the population is kind and trusting, a certain percentage of the population can take advantage of that by becoming parasites. This strategy works only if a small portion of the population takes subscribes to it. (You can’t have a society of parasite, because then there will be no host.) Fear and empathy both stops normal people from exploiting others. Conveniently psychopaths aren’t handicapped by either. It’s not hard to see how lacking these attributes would make one a better cheater, liar, stealer, murderer etc. and how that could be beneficial from a purely selfish standpoint.

This goes part way toward explaining one thing that always confused me about psychopaths- if you don’t care about anyone, why bother to deal with people? Why go out of your way to kill someone if you just don’t care? Why not just deal with computers or TV or whatever you do care about instead? Viewing psychopathy as adaptive offers an answer of sorts - Psychopaths do actually care about people but only as sources of power.

The book Sociopath Next Door, by Martha Stout, clarified this further for me. I remember seeing the Psychopath Next Door at Barnes and Nobles six years ago, but back then I was still very much in my “nobody is really evil” phase, so I didn’t want to read it. But now I’m older, so much older (sigh), so I read it. Besides explaining how psychopaths were motivated by "making others people jump", Stout also makes the point that lacking in empathy doesn’t necessarily manifest itself as a serial murderer. Smart psychopaths might end up on Wall Street or running an entertainment company. An often repeated claim of the book is that 4% of the population are psychopaths, and that some people really are just evil and you should avoid them.

At this point, I was wondering how many psychopaths I knew and making a mental list. Thankfully, before I could go far into that rabbit hole, I read the Psychopath Test. The author, Jon Ronson, writes about his meetings with a very diverse group of people from Emmanuel Constant, an infamous Haitian death-squad leader, to the people who tried to “fix” the psychopaths with treatments such dream-therapy and LSD administration. (Sidenote: 80% of released from that psychopath rehab program reoffended (gruesomely), as opposed the normal 60%. The rehab therapy just taught them new ways to fake empathy.)

While he sees the absurdity of the view of some that psychopaths just need to be loved, he also isn’t entirely comfortable with the power to classify some people as psychopaths and thereby making them practically another species. I would highly recommend this book. Not only is it funny, informative, and easy to read, but I really like how he never over-states his case. In fact, it often seems like he doesn’t have one, he just tells the story and lets you decide what you want to take from it all. What I took from it all was that some people such as that death-squad leader really are just evil, but you can’t go around labeling everyone disagreeable as a psychopath.

….Or can you? Below is list of the twenty traits accessed by the Hare Psychopathy Test (score each trait from 0-2, a sum over 30 qualifies, source: http://www.minddisorders.com/). And if you’re worried you might be a psychopath, don’t worry, you’re not one. As Dr Stout says, a real psychopath wouldn’t worry about that.

 glib/superficial charm

 grandiose estimation of self

 need for stimulation

 pathological lying

 cunning/manipulativeness

 lack of remorse or guilt

 superficial affect

 callousness/lack of empathy

 parasitic lifestyle

 poor behavioral controls

 sexual promiscuity

 early behavior problems

 lack of realistic long-term goals

 impulsivity

 irresponsibility

 failure to accept responsibility for own actions

 many short-term marital relationships

 juvenile delinquency

 revocation of conditional release

 criminal versatility

Wednesday, January 11, 2012

What type are you?

As a middle-aged adult trapped in a young adult’s body, I really like Oprah magazine. Mostly, I like the pop psychology articles (as a neuroscience and psychology major, I feel slightly guilty about that). Anyway, Dr. Fisher keeps coming up in them, so I’ve been wanting to read her book(s) for some time without actually paying for them, so I was psyched the library had a copy Why Him? Why Her? (I had to check of a lot of intellectual sounding books out to compensate for that title. Review of A Language History of the World coming soon!)

This is your typical “Understand-all-human-interactions-with-this-one-simple-theory” pop psychology book. They’re probably like the diets also featured in Oprah magazine - if they actually delivered on their promise, they wouldn’t have to come out with a new one every month. However, Dr. Helen Fisher actually is a researcher, so my hopes were high that I would finally find the answer to life, the universe, and everything.

To give a brief overview: There are four types of people, typified by one type of hormone;

Type

Hormone

Short Description

Famous Person

Builders

Serotonin

Conventional

George Washington

Explorors

Dopamine

Lots of joy de vivre

Helen Keller

Negotiators

Estrogen

Stereotypical Female

Gandhi

Directors

Testosterone

Stereotypical Male

Albert Einstein

Your chemistry profile determines your personality type, which in turn effects your choice of career, partner, communication style…basically everything.

(You can read more about the types at http://www.oprah.com/relationships/Whats-Your-Type)

Since the book was trying to establish its authority based on neuroscience, I was disappointed by how little neuroscience the book addressed. The role of hormones and neurotransmitters seemed very oversimplified. Hormone levels vary throughout life and situations, interact with each other, exist simultaneously, and can have completely different effects based on which part of the brain or body they act on, it really can’t be as simple as having one hormone profile.

However, despite the oversimplification (which I suppose might be necessary to sell the book), it was a fun and informative read. Helen Fisher is a good writer and her historical anecdotes, study-backed facts, and quotes kept the book interesting.

In case you were wondering, I am a NEGOTIATOR/director. Among many other things I “wrestle with the contradictory feelings of being too eager to please and being tough minded”, “avoid social engagements”, and I’m drawn to people “with unruffled calm and decisiveness, those who are ambitious, and those who can focus on their goals”. Good to know.