Review

I'm really digging this online blog thing right now. First off because writing is a good way for me to organize my thoughts without being confessional. (I don't post all the things that I write and often just use this as the space for saving my thoughts). I also write far longer posts than I would if I were handwriting and I think the ease of editing on a computer together with the idea that it will be public makes me organize those thoughts more precisely. Occasionally when I go to write a post I look back at my unpublished entries for inspiration or look through previously published posts for similarity.

Today I started to write a post I had no intention of publishing publicly and got interrupted. When I came back to blogger I started looking through old posts and I had an experience that I realize I've had several times before--upon finding an old post that was strikingly similar to what I was writing/wanting to write I realized that it was written almost a year ago today and that my current post is an extension and additional revelation on that previous thought.

Just one year and one day ago I wrote a post entitled "Truth and Justice" It dealt with the natural human desire for fairness and a question as to how we perceive/accept situations that we feel are fair or unfair. It questioned why we desire a truth that will make us unhappy over a lie that we will be content with. This post came about because I was having issues with wanting to tell the truth without either hurting someone or upsetting someone. Both in my personal life and especially in my professional life this is something I come across often.

Looking back now, looking at that poster with a distance and hopefully a little growth, I feel I can give her/myself a little advice: do it with love. See with loving eyes and "the truth" as it is will not tainted by false values and judgmental perception.

Now this might not work quite as directly in my work-life (which is filled with 5-10 minute interactions with strangers), but in my personal-life I'd like to take this as a directive. I'm thinking of the quote that says that if a person has 9 good qualities and 1 bad you should focus on the 9 good qualities... and if in fact they have 9 bad qualities and only 1 good, you should still focus only on the 1 good quality. At it's heart this seems to me to say that you should only see the good in people and that, while you may recognize those bad qualities, you are primarily focused on the good. And if we are focusing only on the good qualities of a person how could we help but to treat them and show them love and respect? How can we help but to say things in the kindest and gentlest way?

Although not the perfect example, think about the age-old dilemma-causing question: "Do I look fat in this?" --if we are focusing our sights only on the good in people we are SEEING differently, not just answering differently. Now I'm not saying I can give you a perfect, loving, kind, gentle, respectful and honest answer that every woman will accept with grace, but the difference is that when we LOOK at the world lovingly instead of through the common veils of judgment, comparison, and negativity, we have a lot less to fear of the "truths" that we see.

---

Visit my other blog here

Cool things I've been reading

From a cool article on the renovation of an old farmhouse using as much 19th century technology and know-how as possible:

Architect Marina Huissoon tells the Star that people used to only heat the rooms they were occupying rather than the modern wasteful habit of heating the whole house. "We looked at the way the original settlers lived and tried to bring those concepts forward. "

Huissoon notes that earlier generations had little choice about practicing conservation ethics. "It's a very old-fashioned notion, taking care of what we have – we've gotten out of that practice in the last few decades. It's time to get back to that approach to living."
The Star.com

From Michael Pollan's "In Defense of Food"

"*Glucose is a sugar molecule that is the body's main source of energy; most carbohydrates are broken down to glucose during digestion. Fructose is a different form of sugar, commonly found in fruit. Sucrose, or table sugar, is a disaccharide consisting of a molecule of glucose joined to a molecule of fructose....

*Fructose is metabolized differently from glucose; the body doesn't respond to it by producing insulin to convey it into cells to be used as energy. Rather, it is metabolized in the liver, which turns it first into glucose and then, if there is no call for glucose, into triglycerides--fat..."

When technological advances allowed for the mass production of white flour (removing the bran as well as the germ) white rice, and corn flour, which were far more popular, more long lasting, and less nutrient rich than their brown counterparts, devastating epidemics of pellagra and beriberi soon followed (caused by a vitamin B deficiency) Nowadays we try to add back in some of the things taken out that have proven necessary--fiber, bran, folic acid, vitamin #, phytic acid, iron, zinc, mangnesium, manganese...but with thousands of micronutrients in every natural food source how can we possibly believe we can add back in all the "needed" things?

Why try to remake a carrot? Why try to process foods until they are unrecognizable and then try to add back in the chemicals and ingredients you've destroyed? It is impossible. But no one got rich selling carrots, they got rich selling Vitamin Fortified Fruit flavored water.

---

Visit my other blog here

My money= My ballot, continued...

So where was I? Right...I was feeling guilt over my consumerism, my consumption, my needless purchasing of things that I thought little to nothing of and of which I had never even stopped to consider all the "real" costs.

In my last post I mentioned all the time I've spent NOT shopping. Although I was surprised at how much time that actually was I have since found out that I am far FAR below average. The average American apparently spends 6 hours a week shopping. I assume this is mostly browsing time, as I think we'd be even more insanely in debt on average if we actually purchased for each occurrence of shopping that totaled that 6 hours. I'm not sure that includes time spent doing online shopping. (I'll double check Big Green Purse where I read this statistic). Anyhow... I found myself with more time on my hands.

For anyone who doesn't know I work in a furniture store and have been there almost 5 years. Over the course of this time I have brought home box upon box of discontinued fabric swatches (about 13"x16" pieces of upholstery fabric used for custom ordering.) I could never bear to throw out this fabric and always figured I'd either use it myself, donate it to an artist or art group or I'd sell it on Ebay after leaving the job. With some extra time on my hands I started organizing these fabrics a bit and made a couple of simple bags. My simple bags were lovely. Beautiful fabrics made the bags gorgeous with little effort on my part, but I have a degree in art so that wasn't enough for me. I started making more complicated bags, using different combinations of solids and prints with contrasting lining. I started making them reversible bags...way cool. But I didn't get far before I realized that handles and closures would be a problem. I didn't have any supplies on hand for handles and most of the fabrics I used were far too bulky to make a nice handle out of. I went to the craft store and looked at handles. $7-$10 for a mass produced handle? for a unique bag made for free, and out of repurposed fabric? It seemed to me like a lot of money and waste, especially since I had no real intention to go into business selling them. And so I looked for alternatives for making handles. I went thrift store shopping, I thought perhaps I could scavenge some handles from other bags or perhaps find some other alternatives.

Most of my thrift store shopping in the past few years has been for one type of item--nice wool sweaters that have some problem or are just ugly, but can be unraveled, wound into a ball, and used again as a cheap, eco-friendly knitting yarn. So when I went shopping for handles I already had a good idea where my favorite thrift stores would be and where I might find good supplies. But when I went I was disappointed. Most of the handles on purses were either already worn, or attached to purses that were far too nice to be scavenged. I came home with nothing (except more sweaters).

So while I was still trying to figure out my handle dilemma a friend told me about her favorite thrift store. I went and was amazed. I found a lovely selection of beautiful, stylish clothing sorted neatly and priced cheaply. I came home with a new winter coat and about 7 shirts, blouses and sweaters, most of which were work appropriate and half of which were brand name items (Banana Republic, Kenneth Cole, Anne Taylor, etc.)I spent around $16.

I've been stingy my whole life. I admit it. I kept quarters my parents gave my brother and I for arcade games and said I was going to put mine in the bank rather than waste it on two minutes of forgettable fun. I ration things; once a box of pop is half empty I start slowing my consumption so it will last longer. I like getting a good bargain; if you compliment some jewelry or piece of clothing I'm likely to smile and tell you how little I paid for it. So it shouldn't really be a shocker that I like thrift stores and that I've shopped at them my whole life and continue to do so even though I can afford not to now. But then again, how does one define what they "can afford"? I may not have to count every penny and worry if my limit has been exceeded if I splurge on some clothes here and there, but student loans and credit card debt still eerily lurk in the background reminding me that whatever I spend is keeping me from being able to pay off debt and start my savings. I occasionally remind my ever-broke coworker that with her complete lack-of-debt she is far richer than I am.

So I find myself in thrift store bliss... Lovely, right? Buying pre-used clothes and other items guilt free? Ah, but there's a catch...my closet is already full and I already have way too much stuff...and did I mention my roommate is moving out and I'm faced with the possibility of either having to move all of stuff (a very hefty task) or finding a new roommate willing to live with all of my belongings?

So I stare into my closet and try to see space, try to see how perhaps I might find more room in the crowded and already overstuffed area...And I fail. I imagine giving away all of the clothes I hardly wear and all of the items around my room and around my house that I don't really NEED and I feel elated, freedom sweeping over me. I imagine how I could pick-up and move to another city, just one suitcase full of belongings to my name...ah, sweet bliss it would be to be relieved of the burden of my belongings.

Then I crash. The reality of my belonging to my belongings pull me down. I OWN this stuff. I am responsible for it--like a puppy: I have accepted ownership and agreed to take care of it for the rest of its days. If I give up on the old worn jeans and the slightly outdated dresses and the acrylic paints and the bottles of household cleaners and the old computer towers and the folding chairs and the hair products and all the other countless things crowding my house I will have to choose their fate--do they end up in a landfill or is there someone I can trust to put them to use? I've seen the dumpsters at the Salvation Army, I know that a large number of items are unsold and dumped, I can find no redemption there.

....big long pause...

...So now what?...Well, I'm not sure. I'm buying a bike and am trying to cut down on my driving. I'm trying to think of ways to re-purpose all my old clothes (rugs? quilts? sculptures?). I've found the recycling drop-off point where I can recycle all plastics #1-7 except 6. I've kept up with the composting. I'm sure I'll find new stumbling points as I go though, new obstacles to trying to live my green and footprint free life.


...I'm sure there will be more to come but most of this bit has been sitting waiting to be published for far too long, keeping me from posting anything more frivolous or not on-topic (and I like frivolous and love off-topic)

---

Visit my other blog here

So Much... Too Much... and I'm a pirate.

I've had so much to say and have been thinking about blogging for several weeks about several different subjects but have seemed too busy to do so,and now (as I wait for the work day to be over so that I can begin packing for vacation) I find myself wanting to fill the time and wanting to "be busy".

But as I said, it's several different subjects, so I may not write on them all, I may defer posting some until I've had time to tweak them, and I may split this into several posts; so I apologize in advance for what may be a jumbled post and for the current run-on sentence.

To begin...I've been noticing lately that I am in fact, fairly happy at work. This is sometimes an odd realization considering how little I like my co-worker, how often I have to deal with lunatics and high-maintenance personalities, and how long I've been unhappy at work, but nonetheless it's true. It might just be that I'm happy because I've been busy in general, and that leads to being active and challenged, and that leads to me being happy--at work, at home, wherever. But I'm not sure. I certainly have felt somewhat dissatisfied with my interactions with dancers and Baha'is and with my social network in general, but with the exception of the occasional moments of dissatisfaction I've been happy in most all places.

And how did I get so "busy in general"? I took up piracy. (Is the government listening? I hope not.)

Yup, Piracy has made me a happier person. I've had my justifications for it-->I'm getting material I could easily get at the library, I'm watching television shows that were put out there for "free" viewing the first time, I never would have paid money for the things I'm pirating therefore I'm not depriving anyone of money they might otherwise have had, and I'm not contributing to wasteful and toxic production of cds, dvds, and books.

So far I've re-read (as most of them I checked out of the library either as books or audiobooks before) 7.5/10 of Anne Rice's Vampire Chronicles. I've listened to the BBC recording of a Douglas Adams book and read another by way of a thrift-store-purchased tree-made-information-storage-depository as a follow-up. I've listened to another 3 audiobooks I can't recall the titles of at the moment, I've watched the entire 3 seasons of Battlestar Galactica, all the episodes of Trigun, and started in on The West Wing, I watched parts of several other TV shows, some of my favorite cheesy 80s movies, and a handful of newer films. I got a kick out of how watching 3 French movies in a row made me start thinking in French again and then how watching The West Wing made me renew my desire to get a law degree. (Reading all the Anne Rice however did not make me want to become a vampire, although it did make me appreciate the in depth study into the struggle between the relationships of right&wrong vs. good&evil.)

Piracy? Check.

Next topic: Environmentalism/ Sustainability & Consumerism

Too big a topic to not have it's own entry.

---

Visit my other blog here

Grammar

I have always believed in using proper grammar and have had the normal cringes at the wrong uses of "their/there/they're" or "it/it's" and all of the other obvious common errors, but having just worked on my fourth Nanowrimo novel I realized how much more focused and thoughtful I am of my grammar and writing these days. I think I have crossed over some line where now I feel completely uneducated and feel that my understanding of grammar is completely inadequate. I spend time fretting over whether I should be adding commas or semi-colons, over the proper use of a term, and over the changing of tenses and point-of-view. I struggle over proper punctuation to both conform to grammar rules and allow the proper reading of dialog.

I feel like having reached this level is like that moment when you realize it [u]is[/u] more fun to dance without being thrown around the floor, like the moment that you have a wonderful dance and realize how immature all of the rest of what you have been doing seems. I am at the point where reading about participial phrases is pleasurable because I can see how this knowledge will improve my writing and my communication in general. I am looking forward to reading up on punctuation and clauses.

I am an aspiring grammar nerd.

---

Visit my other blog here

Nerdy words

So in a couple of lovely nerdy conversations I have had recently people were recounting their favorite words. There were some interesting choices:
Discombobulation
Defenestration
Esoteric
Bunny

and a few others that I didn't know and apparently still don't, as I can't really remember them. But there was one that stuck in my mind as a new word with definite possibilites:

ekphrasis

Main Entry: ek·phra·sis \ehk-fra-sis\
Variant(s): also ec·phra·sis
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural ek·phra·ses also ec·phra·ses \-sēz\
Etymology: Greek ekphrasis, literally, description, from ekphrazein to recount, describe, from ex- out + phrazein to point out, explain
Date: 1715
: a literary description of or commentary on a visual work of art

which reminds me of:

pastiche \pass-TEESH\ noun
*1 : a literary, artistic, musical, or architectural work
that imitates the style of previous work; also : such
stylistic imitation
2 a : a musical, literary, or artistic composition made up
of selections from different works : potpourri b : hodgepodge



Other words I might submit for my list of interesting words (not that I'll ever use most of them) my favorites in italics:

confabulate = confer
octothorpe = #
metonymy = word used for what it represents: "the Crown", "The White House"
phantasmagoria = display of optical effects/illusions
tergiversation : equivocation = evasive speech failing to make a clear statement
eidolon = ideal (think: similar to an idol)
encomium/panegyric = enthusiastic praise
bloviate = to speak or write verbosely and windily
nefarious = flagrantly wicked
tenditious = biased
aleatory = relating to chance or luck
capricious = unpredictable- governed by sudden, impulsive ideas or actions
desultory = marked by lack of direction/purpose (jumps around topics)
non sequitur = statement does not follow or relate to anything previously said.
prate/claver/palaver = idle chat
redolent = fragrant
susurration = whisper
suss out = figure out (british)
penetralia = the innermost or most private parts
axilla = a more interesting word for armpit
poltroon = coward
per contra = by contrast
proclivity/ = a strong inherent inclination towards something objectionable
propensity/ = uncontrollable inclination
penchent/ = irresistible attraction
predeliction = strong liking derived from one's temprament
pretentiousness = expressive of exaggerated importance, stature or worth
misoneism = hatred of change
misanthrope = a person who hates or distrusts humankind
eristic = characterized by disputatious and specious reasoning: argumentative


Anyone have any favorites they care to add?

---

Visit my other blog here

Review

I occassionally save a blog post either so that it cannot be linked to a particular event or person, or because I'm not sure the thought is really complete. I also occassionally review previous posts. This post is both a review and something that I've held off posting for quite a while to see if the perspective is valid. I'm not sure it is completely my thoughts for TODAY, but I'm finally putting it out there anyways.

Could you be a great CFO without the work experiences? Maybe. Could you be a great spouse without the experiences that help you develop skills for being a successful partner? Maybe. But do you really think the person who has been at many short-term, low-responsibility jobs will adjust easily to the pressures, hours, and responsibilities of a C-Level position? Do you really think what we (of the West) seem to consider "ideal" for a young person today is really best preparing them for a married life?

from my blog (here)

I had a discussion with a friend last week about marriage, early marriage, divorce, and remarriage and I was trying to remember why it was I had written this. What values I had determined society was esteeming that were so detrimental.

The things I had listed in that blog as our societies underlying "ideals":
-having a sexually adventurous life (at least while young),
-becoming emotionally and financially independant, and
-getting great toys (material possessions such ascars, clothes, computers, and aesthetic or cosmetic "improvements" to oneself-- might be considered a part of this category)

All are still, in my brain at least, considerably influential in our society. Every bit of advertising and music video and even, to a degree, what we teach in schools seems to lean towards teaching us that at least one or two of these things are to be considered essential. Even the people our society sees as ethical and moral leaders (Oprah?) seem to buy into the superficiality that a "make-over" and a bit of self esteem through independence are all a person really needs to turn their life around. But what is interesting to me is that when I tried to recollect this blog posting I couldn't remember these ideals off the top of my head. Even when I read it it took a moment to recognize it, so now I'm not sure I fully agree with the way I said it just one year ago.

I think the difference is in me. In great part I've removed myself quite a bit from society and the media's "circle of influence" (great term I've been using since I read "7Habits of Highly Effective People" at age 16) over the past year. We no longer have cable television and I watch less television and listen to the radio less than in the past. I've become more involved with people and activities that are based on substance rather than just entertainment. And I've been making changes in my lifestyle and habits that are really positive, energizing and lead to more awareness and reflection. My change in diet has been a huge paradigm shift for me making things I once considered marginally healthy to be absolutely unhealthy and not worthy of being considered food.

All of this, ultimately effects not only the way I REACT to the world, but I think to the way I see it. And although I feel a little less involved in the "normal" trappings of the world, the way I see it is not critically, or remotely, but with more of a sense of love and compassion for society, even with its stumblings and shortcomings. I almost feel pity for it in much the same way as one might look upon a child, struggling to get their own way even when their choice of path or occupation the observer knows would bring them no joy, no love, no growth. I watch society crying out in its "I want, I want, I want!" tantrum, stomping its feet and insisting that THESE things will make it happy, when I know that what it really needs is a bit of loving guidance, a good long nap and a bit less sugar in its diet.

---

Visit my other blog here

Marriage/Commitment/American Dream/Chastity

Why has the status of marriage sunk so low that we believe we can get by with on-the-job training rather than years of disciplined study and growth?

A friend of mine was talking to me recently when she said this:

"So anyways monogamous bliss isn't so blissful all the time"....."in fact it lacks a little spice".

So today I was on a Myspace group page with a bunch of Baha'is talking about chastity and I came across some interesting views and a cool analogy that reminded me of her words

Here are some excerpts from the discussion:

[sex has] become totally MATERIAL. People are viewing the material in a significant other before anything else, thus they idolize it....sex becomes another activity, a material activity like any other - one to explore and take lighter than these standards [the standards of chastity and upright behavior set by religion].

It's like food. If you visit cultures where they eat the same thing everyday, they are not discontent with that at all. They never say, "oh I wish I had a different food". Of course not, because they don't know of different food, they are comfortable with what they have. Likewise if you try to get them to eat something totally foreign, they would be compelled to eat what their diet is used to. However, if you or I were asked to eat the same thing every day, we couldn't take it. Why? Because we are so used to having something new all the time.

I don't know if it's just having something NEW, we're used to having sweet, and savory, and spicy. We try it all, and we can't imagine life without dessert. If and when there aren't limits (such as weight gain, cost, and societal norms) governing us we tend to overindulge and gorge ourselves on these things. (I know I would live on chocolate, cheesecake, dr.pepper, and fatty cheeses and sugary desserts forever if I could). But take a poor child in Africa and ask them the last time they "ordered" dessert, or gorged themselves on cheeses or chocolates. Perhaps it is not their CHOICE whether or not to eat these indulgent foods, but in their world they do not yearn for them either, or miss them the way I would if they were taken from me.

How different are the pleasures of "the flesh" from the pleasures, desires, and cravings of palette? Do our actions create our cravings?

It is the same is with our "romantic relationships" in the West. We are surrounded with it in this society. Not just in practice, but in how there is just an exaggerated emphasis put on it in society. It is very very very VERY difficult then, to go from having all of that [liberty, variety and sexual freedoms], to going to a stable monogamous relationship. People get discontent so fast with another, and no longer wish to stay in [the relationship], then go off and find something else.

There were days in this country where the focus from the beginning of a young person's life was to find a good partner and then marry them. That was the dream. What was the classic tale of the 50's? Marry your high school sweetheart.

Today it seems that dream has been contorted into something where most people believe it is normal, expected, and ideal to:
-have a sexually adventurous life while young and "free",
-become emotionally and financially independant, and
-get some great toys,
and then you will settle down and have kids when you find someone who complements you (sexually, financially, and socially).

If this truly is to end up in marriage and child rearing, this is not only an improbable dream, it is set up for failure, as the things one would need for the end result are not taught through the practices at the beginning and indeed, the opposite values and needs and desires would be nurtured and grown.

Would you expect to become a CFO by
-taking many short term jobs,
-dating a lot of people and
-shopping yourself into debt?

No... why not? Because in order to become a CFO you must not only prove yourself to the people that will hire you, but you must spend years to develop your skills. Those skills being nurtured by
-long-term employment and responsibility,
-relationship building and management skills, and
-financial planning skills.

THIS is why CFOs are more likely to have had longer term employment, be married or in a stable relationship, and be personally financially sound. Not because they became a CFO and then found these things, but because they became the sort of person that would have the qualities necessary for being a successful CFO and eventually became one.

So why would one think that

-having a sexually adventurous life,
-becoming emotionally and financially independant, and
-getting great toys

would prepare them to be a suitable spouse... Where

-monogamy,
-shared finances and an emotionally co-depentant relationship, and
-a bit of sacrafice and restraint in your buying in order to save for children and future expenses

is going to be important.

Could you be a great CFO without the work experiences? Maybe. Could you be a great spouse without the experiences that help you develop skills for being a successful partner? Maybe. But do you really think the person who has been at many short-term, low-responsibility jobs will adjust easily to the pressures, hours, and responsibilities of a C-Level position? Do you really think what we (of the West) seem to consider "ideal" for a young person today is really best preparing them for a married life?

Why has marriage been alloted to the type of low-status ideal that has on-the-job training? Might lack of training, be why it also has 50% turnover rate?

Why do Americans spend millions of dollars reading self-help books to find out how to "make things work" and develop better timesaving, business, organizing, and managing skills and so little time or energy becoming more loving, more nurturing, more kind, more giving...becoming the kind of person who is READY for a loving relationship and that can raise intelligent, thoughtful, creative, and loving children?

---

Visit my other blog here

Change/External things=energy?

So I have been reading a book called "Life Types" which loosely reviews some of the principles of the Myers-Briggs personality tests.

What I've found especially interesting (please note I'm not even 1/2 through the book)was the idea that extroverts (ME, in EVERY aspect) don't just enjoy socializing with others and talking through our problems, we derive our ENERGY from these sources. That external focus means that just sitting around THINKING about a problem, although motivating for an introvert, does very little for an extrovert.

With that in mind I'm thinking I need to get more involved in more things, as I've always found I had plenty of energy while organizing for the Chicago Lindy Exchange, or trying to write a novel during NaNoWriMo, but that over the past 6 months or so I've had very little change, few new friends, and no real extra-curricular activities to spur me on and CREATE the energy I NEED!!!

---

Visit my other blog here

Blink III (The final post)

Although Malcolm Gladwell left off at this point and did not really go into more ways in which we can use the power of "thin-slicing" as he calls the quick, unconscious analysis that often proves more accurate than conscious analytic thought, I continued thinking about it. If reading about Martin Luther King before taking a Race IAT has an effect, how many other things we do have an effect (positive or negative)? I thought about how the idea of "Experience Building" activities form our unconscious and how in this regard every piece of information we see and read and absorb is just like the old adage of "you are what you eat" except it would be what you see, or do, or experience...And thinking that perhaps we should be that much more careful about what we're feeding ourselves.

Obviously I'm not out reading vicious hateful things, but what AM I reading? And I'm not out purposefully looking to experience the type of things that would make me think poorly of other races, religions, or groups of people or doing things to promote prejudice & bias. But what experiences, and what books, and what things am I doing that counteract all of the things I inadvertently experience, and see, and hear, and learn that might be counter to what my conscious mind would believe?

Other "Blink" studies showed how thinking of being a professor for 10 minutes before an academic test actually improved scores, and for African American students answering questions about race reduced them. Many studies have shown that "thinking smart" and being in the right mood or mindset can effect behavior and abilities: just like how priming a student to be patient had them waiting 10 minutes for test results How could I put myself in the right "mindset" everyday while counteracting negative or false biases set in my subconscious?

------

So in thinking about these things I came to an idea...not a conclusion, or necessarily a course of action...just an idea. I came to think about the many discussions I have had with many people over the course of many years about religion: organized religion, disorganized religion, belief in God, belief in Spirituality, and Atheism. Although most the atheists I've known have simply said they don't believe in religion because they don't believe in God, every other conversation has had to do with why people believe what they believe and why they DON'T believe in something else.

But this is my idea: based on all the evidence shown in "Blink" about Priming, thin-slicing, and rapid cognition, there is value to religion or at least religious activities whether you believe in the Prophet's social teachings or not. Most religions are based on simple, basic, and often universal spiritual laws which encompass living an "ethical" or "moral" life. The core value of "do unto others..." is present in almost all religions, as are beliefs about living a virtuous, humble, loving, kind, and generous life. Most religions believe in daily prayer, meditation, and reading of the holy book of that religion as well as outside activities to promote a better society. IF you then apply the concept of priming and of "experience building", you would figure that a person who daily reads (priming) about virtue and morals and treating others kindly and spends time acting on those beliefs (experience building) while involved in their religion's community, they would be led to act and behave in a way that is more in tune with their conscious ethics & beliefs. They would have had more experiences of the behaviors associated with the positive beliefs, and would have more primed bias towards thinking in a loving, kind, humble and generous manner after reading their religious writings each day than someone with the same basic ethical beliefs but without the daily ritual practice of these beliefs.

Just a thought....a very long thought, but it was quite interesting to me.

---

Visit my other blog here

Blink II

This brings me to the second set of studies I found interesting: Priming....

Priming refers to when subtle triggers influence our behavior without our awareness of such changes. An example of this occurs in Spain where authorities introduced classical music on the subway and after doing so, watched vandalism and littering drastically decrease

Gladwell introduces this section by having you form 4 word sentences out of sets of 5 words at a time.

Something like this:

1-him was worried she was always

2-from our florida oranges temperature

3-ball the throw toss silently

4-shoes give replace old the

5-he observes occasionally people watches

6-be will slept lonely they

7-sky the seamless grey is

8-should now withdrawl forgetful we

9-us bingo sing play let

10-sunlight makes temperature wrinkle laziness

And he says that after completing this test that you would, leaving the testing area, walk down the hall slower than if you had not taken the test. This is because although your conscious mind is taking a language test, your unconscious mind picks up on the words "grey", "old", "bingo", "wrinkle" and "Florida" and relates it to old age. If there were too many of these words and you were aware you were being primed, it would not work.

In the book, Gladwell sites a study in which two groups of students are given a series of tests. One interspersed with words like "polite" and "patiently" "yield" "courteous" and the other with words like "aggressively" "rude" "infringe" "bold" "bother" "intrude". After taking the five minute scrambled sentence test the students were asked to walk down the hall to get the results of the test and their next assignment. However when they got to the office, someone would be blocking the doorway, engaged in conversation with the experimenter. They wanted to find out how long it would take for the primed subjects to interrupt and get their results. The experimenters expected a difference in milliseconds between the groups. The University approving the experiment had made them promise to stop the experiment after 10 minutes and they laughed at the restriction, as they could not believe that any student would actually wait that long. But when they ran the experiment they found the assertively primed students interrupted on average around the 5 minute mark, but the polite primed students...or at least 82% of them NEVER interrupted in the length of the 10 minute conversation.

Another series of tests, called the IAT or Implicit Association Test tests the power of unconscious association. It measures the amount of time used to categorize words & pictures into two different columns. It may start with pictures of people who are thin and those who are fat and ask you to hit either the left button for "thin" or the right button for "fat" while showing you photos of the faces. It may then give you a series of words like "glory" "nasty" "awful" "happy" and ask you to categorize them between "good" and "bad" and then it combines the two tests and asks you to put the displayed items in categories of either "Good or Thin" or "Bad or Fat". These tests show that it takes longer for people to associate some things than others. The results show that almost all American participants had a harder time pairing pictures of African Americans with "good" and Caucasians with "bad" than when paired the other way around. The results could be measured with tests pairing Gender & Career or Family and other unconscious biases. (see some of the test options here)

After the test is complete the data will tell if the subject has a "slight", "moderate" or "strong" preference, or "little to no preference"

Malcolm Gladwell said that he himself took the IAT and despite knowing how it worked and the outcome he wanted he found he still came out as moderately preferential towards whites over blacks. Being half black the outcome disturbed him. In fact, 50,000 African Americans have taken the test and a startling 50% of them have stronger preference towards whites than blacks.This is despite their conscious belief systems. Gladwell took the test four more times and still had the same results. Even if you take the test everyday, you probably will be unable to consciously overcome your results.

BUT...if you were to look over some pictures or read an article about Martin Luther King, or Colin Powell, or Nelson Mandela, and then took the Race IAT, you would find yourself more capable of associating Positive things with Black people... and your results would change. There was a student who took the test every single day just to collect the data, but one day he got a positive association with Blacks for the first time. Thinking it over, he realized that he had spent the morning watching the Olympic Track & Field competitions where black athletes could be said to have represented the honor and pride of the American competitors.

Although our unconscious biases and "gut feelings" are influenced by what we have experienced, and seen and read, and absorbed from our surroundings, we can effect those unconscious thoughts by WHAT we experience. It is not enough to simply believe in equality, or elimination of prejudice. If we want to overcome the unconscious bias that we have built up through experience and our surroundings, we need to change our experience and our surroundings. If we want to be able to treat a minority as our equal and eliminate the unconscious bias, we must surround ourselves with all the best of their culture and become accustomed to seeing them associated with good things.

So I think all these thoughts are interesting and started thinking about what implications this has in MY life, and how usable this information is to me...that's up next...

---

Visit my other blog here

Thoughts on "Blink" by Malcolm Gladwell

I listened to the audiotape of "Blink" this week at work, as read by the author. It was a fascinating book and brought up a lot of novel ideas. It did have the feeling of an academic piece and, as such, I got to about half-way through the book and began wondering why Gladwell was still defending his main point and negating counter-arguments when I was already convinced. Additionally the presentation of information did little to offer any sort of practical application. But then maybe I've just read too many self help books and watched too many American "happy ending" movies and believe things should have a point AND a purpose.

But I did come away from "Blink" with some theories of my own and ideas of how the concepts presented can be combined with others to become "useful"

First let me review some of the things I found most interesting in "Blink"--the basic idea of the book is that rapid cognition, or the quick, unconscious thinking that goes on in the first second we see, hear, or think about something is far more important than we realize and is often more important than the long, drawn out thought process. He points to many examples of how this process works and how it can have positive or negative effects.

I found a couple of the psychological studies he referenced as particularly interesting. The first was one in which people were asked to categorize things by looking at words. For instance words like: Jane, Tom, Jerry, Amy, JoAnne were to be put into the two categories for Man and Woman. Then categories were combined, having Woman or Family as one category and Man or Career as another and participants were asked to put a series of words into the proper categories. The pairings were then switched and the test repeated. Their answers were timed down to a fraction of a second, and it was found (unsurprisingly to me at least) that people had an easier and quicker time putting Man & Career and Woman & Family together than when Man&Family and Woman&Career were paired. This study showed a bias towards males and careers and towards women & families.

This test could be repeated with many pairings and it was; in the tests that paired African American, White, Good, and Bad it was found that almost all the people tested of many racial backgrounds had a bias towards white/good, black/bad. These tests could be repeated over and over again and even when trying to purposefully bias the test towards the opposite, one would get the same results over and over again. The author said he knew several people who would take it everyday and only ONCE had he heard of someone changing their results; the student said the only thing he could think of that could have made his results change was that he had spent the morning watching Olympic track & field events (where generally the bias is towards blacks doing better).

This brings me to the second set of studies I found interesting: Priming.... more later

---

Visit my other blog here

Cognitive Dissonance Part II

Cognitive Dissonance...the more, now that it's later:

I've been thinking over this theory because it not only makes so much sense to me, but it explains certain things that I think about a lot.

To begin with, I feel I need to explain a bit about what I think, and how I think...

I've always been able to do exceptionally well on aptitude and intelligence tests, to cram for exams and to know and remember a multitude of facts that most people would forget completely, but am often at a loss to remember what I ate for lunch or the names of good friends when trying to recall them. Information and trivia get stuck in my mind while things that I cannot categorize do not. I am in no way trying to assert my intellectual superiority over anyone here, I've actually always felt that this has just been "given" to me, and I've never had to work at it and have felt really weird about that. I never thought it was fair that I could remember things and perform well in things so easily while other people were truly working HARD and diligently and following the rules, as I slacked and accomplished the same results. Even though I was on the easier side of the equation, it always made me feel bad for not working harder.

But this is where the "HOW" of my thinking comes into play, and also where Cognitive Dissonance has a role in that play.

I've believed for quite some time now that the reason I do better than others in a large number of things does not have anything to do with how HARD I work, but rather with my ability to creatively solve problems so that the work is not as hard. I used to say that I learned all the paths in my college campus by which had the fewest stairs, which had the shortest path, where all the pop machines and bathrooms were and which had the most time spent indoors as a means of being "lazy"....Hold on, hold on, we're not to the Cognitive Dissonance part yet...My point is that I analyzed all the options to find the option that provided the best or most enjoyable experience. If it was cold out, I spent more time indoors, if I was carrying a project I avoided stairs, and so on.

I've said it before: I analyze everything. I just do. I don't know why. If it's part of my life, I analyze it. Whether it's the best papertowel for the money, or what career I should choose, I've analyzed it. And in doing so, I believe I've come up with better answers. Maybe not better for others, but better for me. This analysis extends to include my beliefs. What I believe and how that relates to what I DO is part of my "regular maintenance" thinking-->Hence all the previous "ranting" posts on feminism, vegetarianism and my religion.

So the ideas and theories behind cognitive dissonance hold that we try to come up with new encompassing theories or beliefs when we hold two opposing beliefs to be true at the same time and are unable to hold them without some internal conflict or some resolution. It seems to me as if everything I have come to believe has come about through this struggle, and the balancing acts and resolutions that ensue.

I believe that this process has been part of what has built the creative problem solving skills that allows me to acquire knowledge and education so much more easily and efficiently than other people do. I think the average person finds a straight path in their mind between a starting point and the destination point and my mind instead balances out all the information surrounding each point and determines the best, or most interesting, or most efficient, or most inclusive path of all of them in order to reach the destination point. I think this ability to connect sometimes seemingly unrelated things allows me to creatively solve problems better than the next guy and remember details that otherwise are lost in most people's minds.

I've read that the synapses (sp?)in our mind act as the points along the path that allows a thought to be processed and that as we age the paths that are unused are (and I'm using a bit of poetic license here) "overgrown" and lost. I've also read that older people who do puzzles, riddles, and games help keep their minds active and creatively thinking are less likely to experience dementia and some of the effects of memory loss. These games and puzzles are the sort of activity that a creative problem solver enjoys as the key is usually thinking in a "different or unexpected" way to come up with a non-obvious solution. Those with less ability and desire to think creatively would likely enjoy less and be less able to solve puzzles and games. It makes me think that those who question and analyze their lives and go through the struggles of cognitive dissonance are more likely to develop stronger, more adept and agile minds.

It's interesting to me that the people who don't struggle, who are accepting and unquestioningly resolute in their beliefs are in some way KEEPING themselves from expanding their minds from being able to see other side/situation/solutions. And yet, for the most part, they probably consider themselves happier than the Questioner.

So today I am thankful for my struggles and my doubts, for my questions and my self-evaluation, because with their help I'll probably be able to be out-and-about while others are trying to remember where they left their dentures.

---

Visit my other blog here

But is it FAIR?

I don't know how many times in my life I will have to run into seemingly different personal obstacles and then later realize they fall under the same category of Justice & Fairness, but it seems to be never ending.

I analyze everything.

That seemed to need to be a paragraph all on its own... It is that important to understand, if one is to understand me.

I analyze everything and I believe that a good deal of my success in life is because of it. I believe that the reason I am good at art, the reason I'm a quick learner, the reason I can solve problems better than the next guy, and the reason I am so good in sales is because I am good at analyzing.

I analyze my personal habits, my emotions, my plans, my surroundings, my reactions, and just about anything that I can.

Other people don't analyze as much as I do....It's hard for me to realize this all the time, but I know it to be true. And I've even tried analyzing whether this is a good thing or a bad thing; I haven't come to a definitive answer, but what I have decided is that:

a. People who don't analyze are much easier to brainwash (and often seem much happier because of it).
b. One should not try to explain how one came to the outcome of analysis to people who don't analyze.
c. It is better to NOT tell people (especially one's boss, professor, or mother) about the shortcomings you've discovered in yourself through self-analysis and are currently working on.

Keeping these three things in mind is important for me, and yet I seem to slip up ALL the time.

Now a smart person doesn't point out their difficulties and shortcomings to their boss.

I'm highly intelligent....I make no claims to being smart.

I know you are not supposed to talk about your job on blogs, but again...I make no claims to being smart. I'll JUST say that I slipped up on point "c" this week and not only had (what I thought was going to be just a discussion) a massive debate with my boss, but a seriously catastrophic collision wherein my boss now believes that I "purposefully" give bad service to certain customers-- simply because I've analyzed my techniques enough to recognize that my feelings (about certain issues in the company that I think are not fair) effect my sales ability and tried discussing the issue itself and its resulting effect. He now feels it necessary to tell me that if I can't give fair, equal, and identical service to ALL customers then I can no longer work for the company....ouch!


I let him know that I always give fair service, but I NEVER give identical service because EACH customer is different and receives their own individualized service. I feel that I am fair, and I try my best to be equal, and I am working to not to let my feelings effect me, but often it requires a conscious effort to overcome unconscious reactions.

No one else would probably even recognize their unconscious reactions, much less try to discuss ethical issues with their boss.

[rainman voice] "Def...def...definitely not that smart, definitely not that smart [/rainman voice]Perhaps I should go back to analyzing "safe" things-- like how to get people to jump out of a plane.

---

Visit my other blog here

More discussion on beauty

I've been on a discussion board that's been discussing some of the same issues with women and beauty and society and have been having some interesting discussion.

As someone there said:

My points thus far have been made to point out what I believe to be a comparison of the amount of direct influence males have over a woman's inadequacy (and thus her need to feel beautiful, etc) vs the amount of influence females have over the same sense of inadequacy.

I think that through a woman's lifetime, her female associations have more of an effect on her self image than her male associations.

Consider:
- A woman will usually interact first with female peers regarding gender issues, even before 'first contact' with a member of the opposite sex.
- In the early stages, issues such as who's ugly, who's cute, who's hot, who's a whore, etc etc are discussed with her female friends. At this point, she learns how to act, how to feel, how not to dress prior to any interaction with males.
- In the early stages, males are goofy. Period. If you're claiming that they are consciously attempting to shape the female psyche in order to maintain a stranglehold of control of the unliberated female psyche, you're on crack. Males at this age snort milk through their nose, and momentarily lose motor control when they *think* they can see a girl's undies.
- Women go to the bathroom together. This happens ALL the time. This. Does. Not. Happen. With. Guys. Ever. And if it does, it is not discussed. Ever.

Humour aside (it's 2 in the morning. I'm weak.) women spend a whole lot of time convincing each other about why other women are beautiful and why they're ugly before they ever get any kind of commentary from a guy. This happens in their early years all the way through to first contact. The issues are discussed at length in slumber parties, between classes, in teen magazines and women's magazines. I mean, you've got publications that are allegedly written BY women FOR women about 'health' and 'Beauty', and you've had that for generations prior to the very first GQ.

You talked about the "early stages" but I think you're skipping ahead of the real "early stages". I'm sorry I don't have the actual study, but I know I've read about it too:

I keep thinking about that study a few years ago where the researchers took a bunch of babies and dressed them all like girls. Then they asked strangers to interact with them. The adults assumed (because of the clothes) that the babies were all girls. When the handled them they did so gently, and used words like "pretty" and "fragile". Then the researchers took the same babies, dressed them as boys and repeated the experiment. This time, the adults played rougher games with the babies and called them things like "strong" and "smart". Overall, the adults assessed the "boy" babies (who were really boys and girls) as healthy and competent, and the "girl" babies as "tiny" (even though they were the same babies) and "beautiful". It made me wonder how many assessments I make about babies based on their gender, and how I treat them without even thinking about it.

We are told what we are and how we should behave and look from our infancy by both Men and Women. Children pick up on the traits that are most desired and accepted. Boys are guided towards being "tough" and a "big boy" and girls are encouraged to be "sweet" and "pretty" by encouragement of every adult they meet who either lavishes attention on these positives or scolds them for their opposites.

Studies also show that uglier children get less attention from their parents and others than their more attractive counterparts, so just as a two year old has already figured out exactly how to manipulate their parents into giving them popsicles for dinner, how much do little girls also figure out that the prettier they make themselves the more love and attention they will receive as a reward?

By the time we reach slumber parties it's more like we're comparing "trade secrets" and "marketing strategies" than just encouraging our friends to buy into the concepts.

Can't you all just exist without putting yourselves in the context of a man?

I don't have a fully formed thought on it, but it does seem interesting to me that when there is a large enough community of homosexuals a certain culture develops and that the gay male culture seems quite based on looks and physique, and the lesbian cultures seem far less focused on physical attributes. Could it be that we all market ourselves in the way we find most effective for our prospective mates, and when women no longer need to market themselves to men the physical aspects are of less importance?

---

Visit my other blog here

Gender, Beauty and Self-Worth

Today Stephanie said something that touched a few ideas that have been aggressively tangoing about in my head. While knitting baby sweaters she wondered about whether to use a particular pattern on an infant boy's sweater:

I keep thinking about that study a few years ago where the researchers took a bunch of babies and dressed them all like girls. Then they asked strangers to interact with them. The adults assumed (because of the clothes) that the babies were all girls. When the handled them they did so gently, and used words like "pretty" and "fragile". Then the researchers took the same babies, dressed them as boys and repeated the experiment. This time, the adults played rougher games with the babies and called them things like "strong" and "smart". Overall, the adults assessed the "boy" babies (who were really boys and girls) as healthy and competent, and the "girl" babies as "tiny" (even though they were the same babies) and "beautiful". It made me wonder how many assessments I make about babies based on their gender, and how I treat them without even thinking about it.

I have been thinking a lot lately about gender roles, sexism, and our percieved sense of value/self-worth in regards to gender lately.

It started in a variety of ways, but I think I voiced it (which somehow is how I come to more concrete thoughts) when I read a post of Lacey's where she was complaining about being whistled at while walking down the street. A guy had responded that we are all narcissistic to some degree and that we enjoy feeling attractive. I replied (basically, but I've added stuff later):

I think the men who believe or say that they are complimenting women by accepting or participating in these behaviors also have to have the underlying idea that a woman's self-worth is based (only?) on her attractiveness to men. That somehow, her person is made to feel more worthy by having outside attention placed upon its beauty. Not only is this a misguided sense of worth, but is very one-sided, as the same cannot be said about men. Men are rarely given this type of attention for their physical bodies, and we don't see a beautiful man and believe him to be a success and an ugly man and assume he is a failure, as is often the case when people judge women. We have words like "gold-digger" and "cougar" as derogatory terms for women who place a man's worth according to his pocketbook or his youth, but there are no words for men like this...we seem to just accept that the universal judging of women according to looks alone is okay.

I'd prefer someone to compliment me on my style, my attitude, my intelligence, my choices, my accomplishments,or my hard work over my body or looks ANY day!

Lacey responded to the thread of comments by saying:

What I'm learning is if I want to "blend" and just become part of the woodwork (which is GENUINELY what I want when walking to get coffee), I have to purposely make myself look less attractive.

I wish I could say that I was unaffected by what people around me do, but it gets to me. There are some things that I couldn't care less what someone thought of me, but when it comes to me physically, it bugs me. They point out the good as well as the bad. I don't want to hear either.

And I agree, I don't want to hear it either. Whether I feel good about myself should have little to nothing to do with what my physical body looks like. If I'm bathed and dressed in clean clothes that should be sufficient physically. It should be about the life I choose to live and how I've lived it that determines my self-confidence & pride.

I've just become really sick of our society and media telling us/showing us that women have to be beautiful to be successful and confident and to realize our full potential. I feel like I'm unable to fully voice all the ways this is done, and how different this is than the way men are treated. My brain swims with examples, but finds very few that I can hammer down and say "here, look, this is IT"... especially since women seem so willing to accept it and buy into it, and participate and further its cause. How can I say that we should not be subjected to it, and then turn around, put on make-up, wear a form-fitting outfit and help my friends pick out outfits to "better flatter" their figures? Is this the Overeaters Anonymous paradox? The paradox wherein one must break the addiction and yet cannot completely give up the errant/addictive/unwanted activity? How we say that beauty is unimportant and somehow NOT base our worth upon it, but still take part in things meant to achieve it?

---

Visit my other blog here