Not all posts should be serious, right?

Please help me with a scientific experiment.

My brother and I recently ran an experiment and we need a broader testing pool.

Our hypothesis was that Dark Chocolate Covered Altoids would taste almost identical to York Peppermint Patties. We tried them in that order. We noticed flavors in the Patty we had never noticed before. Try it out and let me know what you discover.

Perception

Magna res est vocis et silentii temperamentum --"The great thing is to know when to speak and when to keep quiet"

Although it's an odd memory the "lesson" I learned from a guy named Patrick in college has remained with me. He was an interesting guy...the first person I really ever hung out with who was into recreational drugs (he often tried things that he didn't even know the name for). I learned how a water bong worked and how people decided what to purchase from their suppliers. Important learning for a naive college freshman who had traveled the world but knew little about this side of life.

But the lesson I learned had nothing to do with drug use or naiveté. Our conversations helped me develop my concept of communication, that I believe to this day. You see, Patrick and I were completely different. We both spoke English as a first language, but the way that we spoke and the things we chose to say were completely different. I don't know how to explain this and I no longer can quote things he said, but I know that 50% of the time I didn't have a clue what he was saying. He would say the words, I would hear them and then they translated to no recognizable concept in my head, or would translate to something completely wrong. Simirla to thsoe sutdys taht say you cuodl raed dfifernet tihgns even wehn spllenig is worng-- I realized that my brain pieces together statements based on probability. That the words that I hear accurately are probably only 70% intact, and my brain interprets the rest to calculate meaning. So I might hear "I-- r---ee -ite to c-d new bu- I jus- ca-d" and even with misheard letters I'd interpret "I'd really like to come now but just can't" ...but with people like Patrick I might be interpreting incorrectly. He might have said "I'm rolling right now to cut blunts at my joint, ciao"...And my brain would take the syncopation of the phrases, the letters and sounds of the words and try to make a sensible sentence...which was almost always wrong. His syncopation was different, his wording was different, the things he said were different and while everyone else could understand him I'd have him repeat the same phrase 3 times and still not understand. We were on different wavelengths.

My lesson in communication: that we actually hear very little and interpret a lot has served me well. It has helped me in sales--learning to articulate, re-state, re-phrase and use visual aids. It has helped me speak with people from other cultures and with different language backgrounds with shorter phrasing and easier words. It has helped me avoid frustration over things that I know I simply MUST be hearing/understanding wrong.

In general: I've applied this lesson to other areas of life as well and realized that what we see isn't always what we think we see and what we understand of the world has so often been skewed by our own perspectives and understandings that we should reserve judgment. I often try to think of other possibilities for why someone might be saying or doing something that is different or unwanted.

(This post was written almost exactly a year ago (1/22/09) and I'm finally posting it.--with a few additions/edits)

sodium

THINK ABOUT IT...

---

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

Are all arts the same?

I've considered myself an artist for most of my life. I started at art school when I was something like 10yrs old. I spent five years studying art at the University of Cincinnati and ended up getting a college degree in Fine Arts with an emphasis in sculpture. But while in college I got into dance as well. And when I say "got into" it wasn't some passing hobby that I participated in from time to time, it was an instant addiction that had me out dancing 5 nights a week for several years...and it never really disappeared. I still go out 1-3 nights a week and have a large number of friends that I know solely through the dance scene.

One of my dancing friends is also a singer/songwriter. It was through her that I was introduced to a place that I go to almost every Tuesday night now. It's a small bar in Bucktown with an open mic night that is attended by a number of Chicago's singer/songwriters with their guitars, their keyboards and/or a number of accompanists. Because of my regular attendance I've become friends with a number of musicians and they indulge me in discussions about music, about instruments, and my endless stream of queries about everything and anything that intrigues me--which, it seems, is a lot.

When I began dancing I found it natural that my figurative artwork could draw from my dance, and my dance was often viewed through my "artistically trained" eyes. I drew comparisons between movement in dance and visual "movement" or the dynamic flow of a sculpture, a painting, a drawing or other static artwork. The idea that music could be expressed through dance and even enhanced or emphasized; or that the dancer in someway "played" the music as much as another piece of the ensemble might, made as much sense to me as the expression of anything through color, light, form, mass, density, warmth, scale, texture and symbolism might in a sculpture.

As a figurative sculptor I would raise questions about my work and its relationship to real life : Is it a reflection of life, or a comment upon life? does it say something new about an experience, emotion, or belief people/I have? do I want to change my audience's mind, or expose them to something new? do I want to express something that my audience will understand better through my work? Do I want to use recognized symbols/gestures, or abstract forms to express something?

These type of questions were easily translated into questions about my dance: Should I dance to the melody or the rhythm? do I want to mimic the music or add to it? do I want to say something about the music through interpretation, translation, or by symbolic "commentary"? do I want to use recognized gesture or abstract reactions to the music?

So now I find myself a fan of singer/songwriters and I find a new set of questions and I feel as if in someway I should be able to connect them, although in some cases I don't know how.

In someways I've always felt that all art dealt with life and our experience of it. Perhaps this is a poor premise. But my questions like "Does it try to portray life, abstract life, or speak about life?" in art directly translated to "Does it try to imitate the music, or speak about it?" in dance. It seemed to make sense. Art was about art's relationship to life, and dance was about the relationship to music. But in music itself I find I don't know what the artist is dealing with. Surely music is also about life, but as life is not generally set to a score, music seems far removed from it. I tried to believe that music was just an expression of emotion, but that seems far too narrow.

The key to me seems to be abstraction. By taking something and making it in a different medium, all art is an abstraction of something else. A painting of an apple is not an apple. A sculpture of an apple is not an apple. No matter what you make, and how realistic it may appear, you are making a representation of an apple, and because it is not the "real" thing, it is in some form abstracted. Even the most hyper realistic pieces are abstractions because they are taking something and making it in a completely different medium.

So dance as well is a different medium. It is a visual medium representing an auditory medium, just as a painting can be a two-dimensional medium that is representing a three-dimensional item. These are not to say that the imitation is necessarily inferior, as the art often enhances the thing represented, or can make the most boring things spring to life. But none the less they are a shift, a change in mediums that brings a different aspect or view of the original.

So all of this had me questioning: what about music? What is it an abstraction of? The voice and song can be said to be an abstraction of speaking, but of music itself, in all it's nuance and complexity, what does it represent? It does not imitate in the way a painting might. It does not express one physical sense through another as dance may be said to embody music. Although there are rhythms and language that influence it, it does not seem to directly imitate or represent anything. It is in a realm of its own.

So my only thoughts, my only (unsubstantiated) conclusions have been that music DOESN'T imitate one of our senses, or some physical movement or object. But music DOES imitate life; because life is not only physical, as dance or a painting may represent. Life is time and life is cycles and life is balance, and life is emotion and experiences and things that are not static, things that are not physical, things that are not felt externally by one of the 5 senses, but felt internally and processed intellectually and experienced individually...So maybe music can be said to be nothing less than the imitation of our emotion, our experience, our spirit? An expression of the idea, of the feeling, of the thought, of the non-physical? A physical, auditory experience, made up solely of the waves of sound travelling through the air, as insubstantial, as indescribable, and as unique as the feelings and experiences they may portray....and yet another abstraction of life.

---

Temptation, Restraint, and Self-Control

It seems to me as if the idea of freeing oneself of attachment--through restraint, moderation, self-control and avoidance of temption, and, in doing so, living a life in a state of peace and meditation was really one of the central messages taught by Buddha. (although I'll be the first to admit I don't know nearly enough about Buddhism to warrent my claiming to know its teachings well.)

These themes, however, went along well (in my head anyways) with what I was saying in my post about Dieting and Religion, so I thought I might include some Buddhist quotes on the subject:

"The Tempter masters the lazy and irresolute man who dwells on the attractive side of things, ungoverned in his senses, and unrestrained in his food, like the wind overcomes a rotten tree.

But the Tempter cannot master a man who dwells on the distasteful side of things, self- controlled in his senses, moderate in eating, resolute and full of faith, like the wind cannot move a mountain crag."

"In the same way that rain breaks into a house with a bad roof, desire breaks into the mind that has not been practising meditation.

While in the same way that rain cannot break into a well-roofed house, desire cannot break into a mind that has been practising meditation well."

"Things which are wrong and to one's own disadvantage are easily enough done, while what is both good and advantageous is extremely hard to do."

"Guard against physical unruliness. Be restrained in body. Abandoning physical wrong doing, lead a life of physical well doing.

Guard against mental unruliness. Be restrained in mind. Abandoning mental wrong doing, lead a life of mental well doing.

Guard against verbal unruliness. Be restrained in speech. Abandoning verbal wrong doing, lead a life of verbal well doing.

The wise who are restrained in body, speech and mind - such are the well and truly restrained."

All from: ~Dhammapada - Sayings of the Buddha (Translated by J. Richards)

---

Visit my other blog here

Truth and Justice

Stephanie Dornbrook often includes in her posts the names or lyrics of songs that pop into her head and won't come out...I currently have some lyrics on loop that are from a song of my parents generation. It's particularly frustrating as I cannot for the life of me come up with more than the single line: "Because it's eeeea-sier, easier said than done." There is a little more tinkling of melody before and after, but no other lines, and I wonder if it's because that's the only line that relates to what I've been thinking/feeling lately.

I had a rather sleepless night the other night with thoughts running through my mind and a mix of emotions making my stomach upset. It had been a long time since I've had this kind of night.

So with an extra 8 hours or so to kill while I wasn't sleeping, I did some cleaning, uploaded music and photos to my computer, drank some chamomile tea, did some reading, some praying, some meditating, and finally when all other diversionary tactics failed, I did some thinking.

I was thinking about a number of things, but I'm not sharing them all with you, which is interesting, because one of the main subjects I was thinking about was truthfulness, and whether withholding information, or thoughts is still truly honest, and if one must say something, how to find the right words to say.

My desire to work on being completely truthful lately has been straightforward in many aspects of my life, but has come upon a bit of a stumbling block in that I occasionally find myself at a loss as to how I can be honest and truthful and yet still speak in a loving and kind way and in a way that will not "burden the hearer" ...and I've been wondering whether it is better to be honest in ALL cases even if the truth won't make someone any happier, could make them sadder, or couldn't lead to a better outcome for anyone involved. These thoughts are also wrapped up with my own ideas about justice and fairness.

It seems to me that oftentimes humans are almost self-destructive in their desire for fairness/justice. I was reading something lately that talked about the change that our brains go through psychologically and physiologically around the age of eleven. Prior to that age our games and play were built around imagination and interaction usually is focused on "fun", but around that age the way a child plays begins to change and the focus of games become rules and fairness, and in watching children play they may spend up to half the time establishing and enforcing rules. It is our tendency to try to find logic in our world and fairness and justice help us make the world make sense. But how often is that search for justice the cause of much unhappiness and turmoil!

Now let's think about our desire for truth, and our desire for justice. Let's say for instance that you order something and it is delayed. Would you rather hear the truth: that someone screwed up entering something into a computer screen in the shipping department and as a result it won't go out until next weekend, or would you rather be told that the piece you ordered was unfortunately damaged in shipping and that the company is working hard to be able to rush a new piece out so that you can get it by next weekend. Now imagine you won't be compensated in any way (or at least any way significant to you) for the delay, regardless of who is at fault. Would you rather think it an unfortunate accident, or human error?

I've found most people feel they need to know WHY something has happened, but they accept a situation more readily if they believe it is just luck, or fate, or randomness, then if they believe something for which they could blame someone or find fault in a person or system. They feel that justice must demand compensation for an avoidable situation, but an unavoidable "accident" finds its balance despite a lack of any external compensation. We can resign ourselves to the bumps in the road of life as long as we can't find someone to blame for them.

"Let truthfulness and courtesy be your adorning" - Baha'u'llah
"Lay not on any soul a load which ye would not wish to be laid upon you, and desire not for any one the things ye would not desire for yourselves." (Baha'u'llah, Gleanings from the Writings of Baha'u'llah, p. 128)
"Beware lest ye offend the feelings of anyone, or sadden the heart of any person, or move the tongue in reproach of and finding fault with anybody, whether he is friend or stranger, believer or enemy"(Abdu'l-Baha, Tablets of Abdu'l-Baha v1, p. 44)
"Never is it the wish of 'Abdu'l-Bahá to see any being hurt, nor will He make anyone to grieve; for man can receive no greater gift than this, that he rejoice another's heart. I beg of God that ye will be bringers of joy, even as are the angels in Heaven." (Selections from the Writings of 'Abdu'l-Bahá, sec. 174, pp. 203-204)


So when absolute honesty would be hurtful and silence is not an option, how do we find the balance, faith and direction to walk the invisible tightrope? Yup, as the song says... "It's easier said than done"

---

Visit my other blog here

Direction

Feeling lost? Don't know your place in the world?...the solar system?...the universe?...the entire history of sentient beings?

Check out the blog post here and start your day anew.

---

Visit my other blog here

Diets & Religion

So some who have been around me already know that I've been on a pretty strict diet. It is based on numerous studies showing, time and time again, evidence that a diet with little to no animal products, a high level of green vegetables and legumes, and a limited amounts of whole grains and nuts will lead to a healthier, longer life with less likelihood of cancer or heart disease. For the first six weeks it does not allow for any animal products at all, and allows only foods with little-to-no added fat, sugar or salt.

Now that I've been embracing this diet, what I find interesting is the many correlations I've been finding between diet and religion.

I started thinking about desires, about the things we want regardless of the knowledge that they may be bad for us physically or spiritually. My religion prohibits drinking alcohol and I'm often asked, "Aren't you ever tempted?" (people always emphasize that word when they ask, perhaps because they believe it might be an offensive question), but I can honestly reply that "No, I've never really been tempted to drink alcohol". But over and over I've heard people say "Oh, I don't think I could ever be a Baha'i, because I just don't think I could give up alcohol." or they couldn't give up this, or that, or some other thing. I, personally, never really thought of drinking as an option, I always thought of it as "just something I don't do" and I never really questioned or was tempted to break that particular prohibition. But certainly there are other things within my religion with which I have not been so resolute. There are plenty of my beliefs and Baha'i laws that I have broken, sometimes with thought, sometimes without. When those things come up perhaps my will is not so strong, and my resolve melts between a mixture of beliefs of "what is good for me? What is best for me? What will make me happiest?" My faith is shaken by a confusion of selfish desires. I desire what will make me happiest (usually for the moment) and I question whether following the beliefs and teachings will lead me there now or ever.

So back to the diet, and my love of chocolate and cheese...
Q: Do I truly believe these prohibited foods are good for me?
A: No
Q: Do I still desire them?
A: Yes, but * (I'll get back to you on this one)
Q: Would I rather live a longer, healthier life?
A: Yes
Q: Is momentary pleasure or happiness better than living a longer, healthier life?
A: Hmmmm.....

So back to religion...
Q: The things that are prohibited, are they good for me?
A: No
Q: Do I still desire them?
A: Yes, but *
Q: Would I rather live a deeper, more spiritually healthy life?
A: Yes
Q: Is momentary pleasure or happiness better than living a more spiritually healthy life?
A: Hmmmm.....


When I first looked at this diet I thought it was far too strict for me to be able to manage. I've been vegetarian for years, but have always said "I could never be vegan, I'm far too in love with cheese". But nonetheless I have been feeling more and more uneasy over the past few years as I read about the dairy/veal industry and about the levels of saturated fats and hormones in cheeses. I'm also a big fan of chocolate, of pasta, of sugary desserts, and of quick and easy foods (mmm...Easy Mac!). So as I read this book and recognized that even being vegetarian I'm increasing my risks of developing cancer and heart disease simply because of my high dairy/cheese intake and other poor food choices, I felt my resolve to at least try this diet increase page by page. And the promise that I could eat AS MUCH fruits and vegetables as I wanted and never be hungry and still have the pounds just drop off was very tempting, but I wasn't sure it would overcome my desires for all the foods that I love.

So as I began the diet I yearned for things. I craved cheese. I craved chocolate. I craved caffeine and bread and pasta and butter. But I didn't eat them. I told myself that I just had to stick too it and wait to see the results, or I would never know. The arguments for better health remained in my head.

There is a concept often spoken of in religion which we usually term "attatchment" which is very similar to the idea of addiction. We talk about being overly "attached" to the things of this physical world. They can be things like food or comfort, money, possessions, or our habits and lifestyle. But these attachments are often the things that keep us from being able to develop our spiritual virtues. Greed keeps us from compassion, generosity and selflessness. Our love of our position in life may keep us from humility and loving kindness. Our love of our daily habits and routines may keep us from being able to attend new events and grow in new directions.

Americans in general are addicted to bad foods. We are COMFORTABLE and ATTACHED to the foods, the flavors, the textures, the restaurants, the lifestyle and the time we spend eating. We can't imaging a celebration, a loss, a meeting, a date, or even a death without it relating to food. We are resistant to change. Most of us will deny this attachment and will deny proofs of the unhealthiness of our choices not because of the lack of clear evidence, but because we do not WANT to believe it because it would mean we would have to give up so many things we are so attached to or be forced into admitting that we are deliberately doing harm to ourselves.

In similar manner, we sometimes try to fool ourselves by only choosing to accept beliefs that will suit our lifestyle rather than really looking for the truth and then doing what is truly best for the health and growth of our soul. I saw a good analogy someone posted on MySpace to another person who was stating how hard it was when he became a Baha'i to be around people who were out drinking and partying every weekend without him now:

"That's the problem with planting a seed. In order for that seed to grow, it has to completely shed its old form. The seed has to break apart and cease to exist, in what metaphorically can be a painful transformation of giving up parts of its old existence. But the beauty is that as the seed is watered by God's living waters as you put it, a new plant emerges that is capable of producing such wonderful fruits. It's the same seed/plant essentially, just in a new form that has always potentially been within just waiting for the right stimulus. Be patient, you will at some point start to see the growth within yourself, if you haven't already!"
~Shoshona on Myspace

Now the other thing to take into account is the effect that a diet, or living a life as prescribed by God will have on our body or our soul and in a transformation into a truly different person. Although I hate the expression of being "born again" (because it seems to absolve any previous transgressions and to indicate an instantaneous change) the concept of changing into someone new, and fresh, with new goals and desires is a very real thing that many people go through in their lives by many different means. It may be law school, or army boot camp, or a spiritual awakening, or taking on a new diet and exercise regime, but people do dramatically change their character and change into a person with different goals and desires and outlooks than their previous selves would have had.

Back to our questions earlier:
Q: Do I truly believe they are good for me?
A: No
Q: Do I still desire them?
A: Yes, but *

*Yes, but with knowledge about their effect on my well being and time spent away from them I find I'm less attached.

So the first real realization I notice from this diet is that only AFTER I've changed my behavior can I appreciate the results. You could TELL me that I would look better and feel better and that my desires for these foods would decrease, but I could not foresee the internal changes and not anticipate the feeling I would have afterwards. I did not know the person I would become.

But the second realization is that the results were not my motivator for change, my BELIEF in living a healthier life is what truly motivated the change, and only after a month of dieting can I really appreciate some of the feelings and results of this change and my resolve to stay along the same path has increased as I tread it. The same I think is true of living a life more in accordance with your spiritual beliefs. The results of "living the life" one believes in cannot be quantified and described externally, they generally are something about which only experience speaks most clearly and directly . They also do not generally come as a result of yearning for the, many times unknown or unexpected, end results but rather from the knowledge and belief that the things prescribed are the things that are best for the health of your soul, and as you follow the laws and strive and work towards exemplifying your beliefs it becomes far more clear that this is the right path to be taking.

--------------
Oh, and for any who are curiousI've lost 16lbs in one month so far on the diet from "Eat to Live" by Dr. Joel Fuhrman.

---

Visit my other blog here

Family Tree

Marilyn Manson= love child of...
















Severus Snape and
















Lord Voldemort

Is Voldemort really Marilyn Manson?

So you remember the comment in the Quibbler about Sirius (that Luna Lovegood later referenced) about Sirius actually being Stubby Boardman, the lead singer in the popular wizarding group The Hobgoblins?

After seeing Voldemort in the most recent movie dressed in lovely Armani Muggle-wear I've decided he is actually just upset that his back story is that he could not make it into the Weird Sisters and that the dirty muggle Marilyn Manson stole "his look" ...that's why he's doing all this acting out.

;) hahaha.

(Although I've heard people seriously theorizing that Regulas Black is "hiding" in the same manner as Dumbledore told Malfoy he could hide Him and his mother, but is actually in disguise as the hairy bass player from the Weird Sisters)

---

Visit my other blog here

Where I stand on the Harry Potter theories

There are a number of theories floating around the Interweb about Harry Potter, and things that will be revealed in the next book. There are also a number of interesting questions JK Rowling has raised. Here are a few of my favorite theories and questions and my stand on them:

Lily and Snape:
The theory is that Snape loved Lily--whether she loved him back or not is also in question. Evidence supporting this theory is based largely on trying to read into clues and see who or where they point best. The key being the "Lily's eyes" comments that are scattered throughout the books. It is mentioned a number of times that Harry looks just like his father, but with Lily's eyes. It then begs the question of how those who saw his parents would see him, and it goes kind of like this:
Loved Lily+ Loved James= Loves looking at Harry as the combo of people they loved
Hated Lily+ Loved James= Love looking at Harry, but Hate looking Harry in the eyes/unsettled when they see HER eyes
Loved Lily+ Hated James= Hate seeing Harry, but unsettled when they see Lily's eyes in James's face.
Hated Lily+ Hated James= Hate seeing Harry

So obviously, one of the most interesting would be someone who Hated James, but loved Lily--seeing the eyes of the one they loved staring out of the face they hated. Personally I think the Hate/Hate is pretty interesting too, but I can see the allure of the Love/Hate all in one face argument as well.

Rowling has said that Snape "has been loved" and the question of "by whom" is still up for debate.

MA: Has Snape ever been loved by anyone?
JKR: Yes, he has, which in some ways makes him more culpable even than Voldemort, who never has.

The visions Harry saw when he broke into Snapes mind during Occlumency lessons shows he had a troubled home life and didn't have a great deal of friends at school (at least not in the way James did), so another relationship is tempting, but doesn't necessarily point at Lily.

The three things I think support this theory:
1. The chapter "Snape's Worst Memory" had Harry viewing a memory so important that Snape took it out of his mind lest Harry see it during an Occlumency session. That memory showed not only the taunting of Snape by James Potter and Sirius, but it showed Lily saving him and him calling her a "mudblood". This memory was embarrassing, and certainly could have been amongst the "worst" on a lot of people's lists, but even more so if Snape remembered calling the girl he loved a horrible name.
2. Snape did not just pull Harry out of the pensive, he entered the pensive, grabbed Harry and then left. This allowed him to see how much Harry had seen and since we didn't see the ending we don't know more about any further conversation or if there were more memories in the pensive.
3.

David Moulds for the News of the World - How does Aunt Petunia know about dementors and all the other magical facts she knows?
JK Rowling: Another very good question. She overheard a conversation, that is all I am going to say. She overheard conversation. The answer is in the beginning of Phoenix, she said she overheard Lily being told about them basically.
Is that true?
JK Rowling: Yes. The reason I am hesitant is because there is more to it than that. As I think you suspect. Correctly, but I don't want to say what else there is because it relates to book 7.

The book say's she overheard "Lily talking to THAT BOY" or that strange/weird/filthy/odd, something...boy. So I've kind of thought from how it was said in the interview that maybe Lily was talking to someone OTHER than James...perhaps Snape???

Rowling has also said

ES: Was James the only one who had romantic feelings for Lily?
JKR: No. [Pause.] She was like Ginny, she was a popular girl.

Again, seeming to hint that there might be other former flames out there.

Okay, on to other interesting theories/subjects

Peter Humphreys for BBC Newsround. - Who did Fawkes previously belong to and will he play a vital role in the next book?
JK Rowling: I am not going to answer about the role in the next books, which probably gives you a big clue, and he has never been owned by anyone but Dumbledore... Fawkes is Dumbledore's possession, not a Hogwarts possession.

I love Fawkes! I think the relationship between Harry and Fawkes has been interesting and I believe the pheonix chooses their owner much more than the owner chooses them. My guess is that it will choose to help Harry at least once more and I'm really interested to see if she explains more about the cool way it seems to be able to "apparate" even inside Hogwarts (OTP--Dumbledore's escape: "there was a flash of fire and the pair of them had gone")

JK Rowling: I keep killing all my favourite members of the Order of the Phoenix, but there is one member of the Order of the Phoenix that you have not yet met properly and you will -- well, you know that they are a member, but you haven't really met them properly yet and you will meet them in seven, so I am looking forward to that.

My bet is on Dumbledore's brother, Aberforth, who also has a number of "Aberforth Spotting" Threads devoted to him. The leading theory is that he is the bartender at the Hog's Head Inn, which "smelled strongly of something that might have been goats" HBP pg335. (Aberforth, Dumbledore had mentioned once, had been publicly ridiculed for performing illegal charms on goats). The bartender is described in HBP as "a grumpy-looking old man with a great deal of long gray hair and beard. He was tall and thin and looked vaguely familiar to Harry." We've been told by Rowling that we will learn more about Dumbledore's past in Book 7 and I'm on the Learning-through-Aberforth boat.

ES: Dumbledore is unrivaled in his knowledge of magic –
JKR: Mmhm.
ES: Where did he learn it all?
JKR: I see him primarily as someone who would be self-taught. However, he in his time had access to superb teachers at Hogwarts, so he was educated in the same way that everyone else is educated. Dumbledore's family would be a profitable line of inquiry, more profitable than sweet wrappers.
MA: His family?
JKR: Family, yes.
MA: Should we talk about that a little more?
JKR: No. But you can! [Laughter.]

MA: It's interesting about Dumbledore being lonely.
JKR: I see him as isolated, and a few people have said to me rightly I think, that he is detached. My sister said to me in a moment of frustration, it was when Hagrid was shut up in his house after Rita Skeeter had published that he was a half-breed, and my sister said to me, “Why didn't Dumbledore go down earlier, why didn't Dumbledore go down earlier?” I said he really had to let Hagrid stew for a while and see if he was going to come out of this on his own because if he had come out on his own he really would have been better. "Well he's too detached, he's too cold, it's like you,” she said!" [Laughter] By which she meant that where she would immediately rush in and I would maybe stand back a little bit and say, “Let's wait and see if he can work this out.” I wouldn't leave him a week. I'd leave him maybe an afternoon. But she would chase him into the hut.

But I love you Dumbledore! I love his grandfatherly patience. He reminds me of my own patient grandfather in ways. Plus his idea of "a few words" are absolutely precious! I can't wait to learn more about him!

ES: What would Dumbledore see? [in the Mirror of Erised]
JKR: I can't answer that.
ES: What would Dumbledore's boggart be ?
JKR: I can't answer that either, but for theories you should read six again . There you go.

Oh...twist my arm, all right I'll read book 6 one more time for you Jo!

There are a lot of theories about the Veil in the Ministry

JKR: The veil's been there as long as the Ministry of Magic has been there, and the Ministry of Magic has been there, not as long as Hogwarts, but a long time. We’re talking hundreds of years. It's not particularly important to know exactly when, but centuries, definitely.
MA: Was it used as an execution chamber or just studying?
JKR: No, it's just studying. The Department of Mysteries is all about studying. They study the mind, the universe, death…
MA: Are we going back to that room, that locked room?
JKR: No comment.

So no coincidence that Luna, Neville, and Harry were all the ones who had "seen death" and could see thestrals and were also the one's attracted to the veil and able to hear the whispers just beyond. Obviously the veil has something to do with the divide between the living and the dead, but I'm not expecting anyone to come striding out of it or anything. But perhaps it would be a way to make sure no part of Voldemort could return???

[about the rest of Harry's mission as it was set forth in book 6]
JKR: It's not all of it. Obviously it's not all of it, but still, that is the way to kill Voldemort. That's not to say it won't be extremely an torturous and winding journey, but that's what he's got to do. Harry now knows — well he believe he knows – what he’s facing. Dumbledore's guesses are never very far wide of the mark. I don't want to give too much away here, but Dumbledore says, ‘There are four out there, you've got to get rid of four, and then you go for Voldemort.’ So that's where he is, and that's what he's got to do.
ES: It's a tall order.
JKR: It's a huge order. But Dumbledore has given him some pretty valuable clues and Harry, also, in the course of previous six books has amassed more knowledge than he realizes. That's all I am going to say.

So the last four horcruxes:
1. The locket--I'm guessing it is the one discovered and briefly mentioned in the cleaning of the Black household and that Kreacher helped Regulus A Black (RAB) to retrieve it from the cave. I'm guessing either Kreacher or Mundungus has removed it from where it was though.
2. The cup of Helga Hufflepuff--I'm not sure on this one, but I'm also interested in the fact that the trophy room has been mentioned over and over again and how Tom Riddle liked to "collect trophies" from people when he was young.
3. Nagini--seems a bit too easy, as all the other items found so far had some kind of curse that made them difficult to destroy, and the snake is mortal, so how would it improve Voldemort's immortality. Perhaps this is one of Dumbledore's "Big Mistakes"?
4. Something of Ravenclaw & Gryffindor. I think Voldemort was trying to do something of Godric Griffyndor's by killing Harry in "Godric's Hollow" but that Harry's "being a true Gryffindor" (maybe even by blood???) will allow him to have more control over the object than Voldemort would anticipate.

So if indeed Dumbledore was wrong about Nagini the snake, it would seem more likely that that object was something Ravenclaw related and might be an object related to the intelligence and sharp witted-ness of the Ravenclaw's.

---

Visit my other blog here

Shared Adversity.

I was riding on a Megabus yesterday that broke down. We spent almost 4 hours at a truckstop and I learned about the lives and jobs of half a dozen people. Everyone was taking it in stride and only one person complained loudly about the situation. I'm always amazed when I find myself surrounded by small groups of seemingly random people at how well they oftentimes all get along. My knitting groups, Nanowrimo groups, and other "random" groups that would from the surface have only one or two small things that the participants have in common and yet I've had some amazing interactions and gatherings with these people. Perhaps because of all the interactions I have with customers I tend to think that there are a lot of people out there that either I don't get along with or that are just generally hard to get along with. Perhaps this is untrue, or perhaps I'm just hanging out in all the right places.

---

Visit my other blog here

Communication: rules, laws, and frame

I've been having an interesting discussion with someone in regards to spirituality, religion and religious laws. It got me really thinking about the analogies of other things that are governed by laws and rules and how those rules can be bent, broken, or used, and to what effect. Here is a bit of that conversation...

p-I'm saying that religion is a tool to access spirituality...

v-I have a slightly different view on this, but okay....

p-Really, what's your view? Less utilitarian?"

v-Well, as I believe religion was sent, through Messengers, by God, I don't think it is merely a tool to access spirituality--that is just something it occasionally accomplishes. Although it may act to that effect, just as the Gov't may be "said" to be a tool for social justice--it may or may not work that way, but that is not its OVERALL purpose, it is just one aspect at which it may help achieve. As an individual it is easy to look at the gov't and say that its role in YOUR life is to help ensure some sort of rights and justice FOR you, but the gov't itself is not simply for that purpose. Similarly, religion ultimately has larger goals, much broader than the scope of an individual and their spiritual growth. The individuals, and their spiritual growth ultimately are necessary for a religion to succeed, (much as a gov't needs some sense of justice, or it is likely to be overthrown). And certainly individuals may USE it for that purpose alone and not feel a part of anything greater, but I personally wouldn't define religion by that one aspect alone.

p- "I have this piano teacher who, when I think about her attitudes towards the music, I think I would never want to play like her. So conservative and rigid. She really sticks to the rules, when I'm more interested in how I can break them, usually before I've even learned them. But, somehow she brings out things in me and gets me to think about things in a new way, and I come up with possibilities for interpretation (and misinterpretation) that neither she nor I would have likely come up with on our own."

v- I'm an artist. Trust me, I know how much inspiration comes from having rules and breaking them... and I'm constantly trying to break the law of Gravity. But don't you think you sometimes have to really know the rules in order to know which ones you can bend/break, or how far? Scientists learn the laws of Gravity so they can learn how to escape or exceed its pull. Learning to play music properly makes you capable of learning to break rules with finesse, and without ending up with 5 band members all doing solos at different tempos at the same time. (However, I maintain the rights to cowbell solos whenever so motivated).

In dance there is a frame that allows lead-follow without brute force, it is a medium for communication between the two dancers, but in essence it is a set of rules--don't allow your elbows to break this plane, offer resistance in this direction, continue movement until "told" not to... And certainly rules can be broken, but in breaking frame you are ceasing to communicate and simply talking without listening to your partner. The joy comes when you are so well trained in the rules that you no longer have to think about them, and communication is easy and free between the partners, listening to the music, with no focus on the rules, only on the communication. I'm sure it's the same feeling as REALLY connecting while playing music, or singing, or playing sports...all of which require a set of rules to be followed in order to really enjoy the interaction.

I guess the thing I'm getting at is that there is a certain growth and spirituality that comes from following the rules set out by religion, and perhaps once comfortable with those rules we get to a point where we no longer have to think about them, and perhaps they help us become able to communicate with God better, in the same way that the rules of sports allow us to enjoy the game, and the rules of music or of dance allow us to communicate with other dancers or musicians better. Perhaps in failing to follow those rules we have a harder time hearing or listening to our "lead" ? Does that make any sense?

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

New Book

I'm reading a new book that I got through Bzzagent called "The Power of Nice: How to Conquer the Business World with Kindness" It's a new book, not actually being released until September 19th, but I was sent an advance copy.

I'm really enjoying this book and it is suprising how motivating I'm finding it. It has interesting statistics that are making me re-evaluate some of my relationships with customers and other employees. It's packed with stories, anecdotes and statistics illustrating all the points they're going over.

So the thing that made me jump up from my reading and want to blog was this:

"When therapist Ona Robinson begins working with couples, she often starts with a homework assignment: Name three reasons why cannibalism is good. She gets a lot of hilarious responses--"excellent source of protein," "not too much fat," "reduces world population," "all-natural ingredients".

The point of the exercise is not to defend cannibalism but to help people develop the habit of assuming goodwill. When you approach others with the assumption that they will have generous intentions, you'll find that your life becomes a much easier ride."

Not only hilarious, but an excellent exercise. You're training yourself to interpret the speaker's view as positive.

In "Blink" (which I had a full 3 posts on so you should know all about it by now) Malcolm Gladwell brought up the idea of "Negative Sentiment Override". It was the only thing that I immediately stopped reading and wrote down a note for. It is the reaction we have when someone says something that we automatically hear as a negative--whether it's your mom asking if you've found a job yet, or someone mentioning your wardrobe, it is the internal override that tells you their intent was negative...even when the statement is neutral. (Yes, I have this with most things my mother says to me)

So I'm thinking that this cannibalism thing is touching on some great "POSITIVE Sentiment Override" exercises. Let's begin:

Name three reasons why being late is good
-Never have too help set up
-Avoid the wasted time spent trying not to be too early
-Absence makes the heart grow stronger

Name three reasons why George W is a good president:
-Increasing national economy with Bushism dictionaries and paraphernalia
-Helping even Conservatives to start rooting for the environment
-Making the US less attractive to Immigrants

Name three reasons why being fatter is better
-It's like lifting weights all day long
-Fat helps "fill in" all those wrinkles
-Less likely to be eaten by health-conscious cannibals

Have any others you'd like to add?

No, but seriously, I'm a big believer in conscious behavior modification, and I think practicing hearing an "assumption of good" is a good start in the right direction (see last post for more on direction :) )

We decided/ I decided/ You decided

The "Morning After Pill" was passed by the FDA as an over-the-counter drug this week.

Abortion opponents threatened political retribution, however, and were displeased when President Bush backed the agency’s decision.

“Let there be no mistake about it,” said the Rev. Thomas J. Euteneuer, president of Human Life International, an anti-abortion group based in Virginia. “Today’s decision lies at the feet of President Bush and has created a lasting rift with the Catholic faithful who comprise a large part of his support base.”

I am always a bit torn between feeling that some people are extremists and trying to decide where the line is that determines if my own beliefs are extreme.

While I generally look at the hardcore “right to lifers” and wonder how it is that they can feel capable of making decisions in the lives of thousands of strangers they’ve never met. Although I believe in life beginning at conception, I have never been in the situation and hope to never be in the situation of having an unplanned pregnancy. I do not even guess at the immensity of that position and the consequences it entails. I would not ever choose to make a decision for someone else regarding the propriety of their decision one way or another. I consequently think of myself as someone who can hold a set of beliefs and values and standards for myself without feeling that I am judging others by those standards, much less forcing them to adhere to them. Just like in the matter of gay marriage and abortion, I feel there is a HUGE difference between disagreeing with a belief or a choice and creating a LAW to prohibit others from exercising that choice.


Then I progress on to the thought of government interference in our lives and think with some distaste of the thoughts of a certain friend of mine who believes government has no right to pull the “in the public’s best interest” card in ANY circumstance-- be it road construction, smoking bans, environmental regulations, or public health crisis and believes that supply and demand, public support/action, and individual choice will make these things work themselves out without government interference. I feel strongly that government SHOULD be involved in things that promote the health and safety of the public, the environment, and the individuals within the population it looks after. I am FOR seatbelt and helmet laws, gun control, environmental accountability, and drug control. No matter how much they may hinder an individual, I put the public well-being above that and believe that many times people will make bad decisions when it comes to money, power, and pleasure and that by making those decisions harder or impossible to make we are protecting people from themselves and paths that will make them a burden on others.

So what’s the difference between these two? How can I say that I am NOT expecting to live by my beliefs and standards and then say (in essence) “EXCEPT for”…wearing your seatbelt/helmet, using drugs, buying guns, when you intend to pollute, or otherwise put yourself or others in what I consider to be a bad position? aren't I just "creating a LAW to prohibit others from exercising that choice."

hmm...

---

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