I am an iphone owner. I jumped on this bandwagon back in the Summer of '08 after the 3G model was released. I loved my iphone. We had great times together. After we got together, I stopped getting lost because of its nifty GPS feature. I found shortcuts around traffic jams. I downloaded cool apps that let me listen to music or find restaurants or look up movies. I even used it to record class lectures. My iphone and I were closer than my cabbage patch "buddy and me" ever were.
But then, one dark day, the evil executives at Apple decided to release the new iphone 4. Why does this make them evil, you might ask? Well, instead of just peacefully releasing a new and improved iphone model, they decided to do something else along with it! They decided to release an update for all older model iphones that would install the new iphone's operating system. This new operating system required the upgraded hardware of the iphone 4 in order to run smoothly. On all older models (such as the 3G), it ran so sluggishly that it caused many users to take up swearing as a new hobby.
Why would they do this? What did I ever do to them? All I did was buy their phone, pay my phone bill, and buy an app every now and then. And I'm rewarded with THIS? That's not the type of treatment you would expect from your friendly big brother, Apple, right?? Then, my naive innocence shattered and the truth transformed me into a bitter cynic. They had sabotaged my phone so that I would be forced to buy the new one!
Like any red-blooded American, I became indignant. I furiously posted some kind of half-rant on facebook. Then I started chatting with one of my friends, and she told me that most people have to replace their phones every two years, so this is just Apple's way of making money. She said: they did such a good job on older models that they realized not enough people would want to buy the newer one--already being content with what they had. Well, all this made sense. She made a sound case.
But this didn't mean I had to accept my fate. Oh no--I refuse to fold to such blatant manipulation. Instead, I decided to beat Apple at its own game. Tonight I came home, googled "downgrade iphone," and found a way to install the previous OS onto my phone. It worked, and now my phone is once again speedy and happy. Now, just to spite them, I'm going to see how long I can make this phone last before it absolutely dies and I'm forced to get a new one. That will teach them for trying to bully this consumer into playing their game. Maybe I'll even hack my phone and get all the apps they don't want me to have, while I'm at it. Just try and stop me you big jerks!
Wednesday, August 25, 2010
Sunday, August 8, 2010
Do you hate your job?
If yes, don't immediately blame it on your job. Time for some introspection.
One of my favorite books is called "Man's Search for Meaning" by Victor Frankl. The author was the creator of "logotherapy," which is a school of psychology that focuses on therapy through meaning. To sum up this concept, Frankl quotes Nietzsche: "He who has a why to live for can bear almost any how." Frankl describes his experience in a Nazi concentration camp during WWII. Frankl was able to survive because he sought and clung to some meaning or purpose that gave him a reason to live.
Now your job isn't life or death (hopefully), but let's think about it. Do you "hate" your job? If so, why? In my experience, I feel most dissatisfied with my job when I don't understand the reason for my task. If the ultimate goal isn't clear to me, then I get frustrated and am considerably less effective. This is why I try to ask questions and understand the "bigger picture" of whatever I'm doing. The knowledge of how my task fits within a larger project helps me feel more relevant: it's like what I'm doing matters more. Without this understanding, my tendency is to adopt an attitude: "Well, what's the point?" "Screw this." Like I said--less effective.
I think that's the first step. If you're dissatisfied with your job, first try to understand how your involvement fits in to a larger process. Ask your boss questions. Who knows, that in and of itself may show him/her that you are more invested in the work. It could inadvertently score you some brownie points.
But maybe you are already intimately familiar with the purpose of your job, and you still hate it. Maybe you find the whole idea pointless. Maybe you disagree with the ultimate goal. Maybe it doesn't sit well with you for some reason. (Maybe I think my client is in the wrong and I'm uncomfortable defending him/her.) What now? Well, now you have to get creative. You have to look deeper for a sufficient "why" to justify your "how." In the case of the "bad" client, I might think he's in the "wrong," but that doesn't change the fact that he should only be liable as far as the facts dictate. My purpose, then, is to minimize his exposure and make sure he doesn't get stuck for more than he is responsible. Or maybe I'm summarizing a very dull deposition (a deposition is where lawyers sit down with a witness and ask hours upon hours worth of questions--all of it transcribed by a court reporter). I know why I'm doing the summary, but it doesn't change how tedious the process is. In that case, maybe I will start looking at how the lawyer is wording his questions, so that I can detect his technique, style, and methods. Altering my focus makes the task more bearable and also potentially allows me to reap personal benefits that would have otherwise been unavailable to me. It also helps me become much more knowledgeable of the facts of the case, and the strategy of that particular lawyer in trying the case. In short, I have turned a tedious process into a learning experience. I have given it a "why."
The above examples are for lawyers, obviously. That's what I do so that is what dominates my mind. But any occupation will have similar opportunities. Like I said, you have to get creative. Once upon a time I worked the early morning shift at UPS, doing package processing and address correction. It was boring and monotonous. It was also 4:00 a.m. in the morning. To counteract all that, I would try to make personal bests in speed and accuracy. Nerdy? Yeah. Overachiever? Maybe. But--it made the job more bearable, and, dare I say--more enjoyable. And that was the whole point.
So if you don't like your job, don't immediately assume that you need a new one. The problem may lie in your failure to find sufficient meaning in what you do. If you can't do this, then you may find a new job just as dissatisfying.
One of my favorite books is called "Man's Search for Meaning" by Victor Frankl. The author was the creator of "logotherapy," which is a school of psychology that focuses on therapy through meaning. To sum up this concept, Frankl quotes Nietzsche: "He who has a why to live for can bear almost any how." Frankl describes his experience in a Nazi concentration camp during WWII. Frankl was able to survive because he sought and clung to some meaning or purpose that gave him a reason to live.
Now your job isn't life or death (hopefully), but let's think about it. Do you "hate" your job? If so, why? In my experience, I feel most dissatisfied with my job when I don't understand the reason for my task. If the ultimate goal isn't clear to me, then I get frustrated and am considerably less effective. This is why I try to ask questions and understand the "bigger picture" of whatever I'm doing. The knowledge of how my task fits within a larger project helps me feel more relevant: it's like what I'm doing matters more. Without this understanding, my tendency is to adopt an attitude: "Well, what's the point?" "Screw this." Like I said--less effective.
I think that's the first step. If you're dissatisfied with your job, first try to understand how your involvement fits in to a larger process. Ask your boss questions. Who knows, that in and of itself may show him/her that you are more invested in the work. It could inadvertently score you some brownie points.
But maybe you are already intimately familiar with the purpose of your job, and you still hate it. Maybe you find the whole idea pointless. Maybe you disagree with the ultimate goal. Maybe it doesn't sit well with you for some reason. (Maybe I think my client is in the wrong and I'm uncomfortable defending him/her.) What now? Well, now you have to get creative. You have to look deeper for a sufficient "why" to justify your "how." In the case of the "bad" client, I might think he's in the "wrong," but that doesn't change the fact that he should only be liable as far as the facts dictate. My purpose, then, is to minimize his exposure and make sure he doesn't get stuck for more than he is responsible. Or maybe I'm summarizing a very dull deposition (a deposition is where lawyers sit down with a witness and ask hours upon hours worth of questions--all of it transcribed by a court reporter). I know why I'm doing the summary, but it doesn't change how tedious the process is. In that case, maybe I will start looking at how the lawyer is wording his questions, so that I can detect his technique, style, and methods. Altering my focus makes the task more bearable and also potentially allows me to reap personal benefits that would have otherwise been unavailable to me. It also helps me become much more knowledgeable of the facts of the case, and the strategy of that particular lawyer in trying the case. In short, I have turned a tedious process into a learning experience. I have given it a "why."
The above examples are for lawyers, obviously. That's what I do so that is what dominates my mind. But any occupation will have similar opportunities. Like I said, you have to get creative. Once upon a time I worked the early morning shift at UPS, doing package processing and address correction. It was boring and monotonous. It was also 4:00 a.m. in the morning. To counteract all that, I would try to make personal bests in speed and accuracy. Nerdy? Yeah. Overachiever? Maybe. But--it made the job more bearable, and, dare I say--more enjoyable. And that was the whole point.
So if you don't like your job, don't immediately assume that you need a new one. The problem may lie in your failure to find sufficient meaning in what you do. If you can't do this, then you may find a new job just as dissatisfying.
Tuesday, June 29, 2010
Blink
I have recently finished reading the book "Blink" by Malcom Gladwell. I feel like I was clumsily on to the gist of this book in a previous post. In that post, I talked about how people are often deliberately dishonest in articulating the reasons for their behavior, which makes them appear crazy or irrational. What I hadn't considered is that perhaps people don't truly know why they do what they do.
One of the main points of "Blink" is that often people don't even consciously realize the reasons for their behavior. One example from the book is an experiment that a psychologist set up where two ropes are attached to the ceiling, a certain distance apart. While the ropes are hanging vertically, it is impossible to hold onto one and also reach the other; they're too far apart. Test subjects were asked to find a way to tie the ropes together. The room was empty except for the ropes. The only solution was to swing one of the ropes, go grab the other, and then catch the swinging rope as it swung back toward the subject. This solution evaded many test subjects until the experimenter would casually walk over to open a window, "accidentally" brushing one of the ropes and setting it into a slight swinging motion. This hint led the subjects to the proper solution. However, when asked how they arrived at that solution, almost all of them said something to the effect of "It just came to me." They didn't consciously realize that the hint came from the experimenter, so their conscious mind came up with the next best explanation.
Another example in the book dealt with how in the past, women were typically excluded from orchestras because of false beliefs about male superiority when it came to playing instruments. However, when orchestras started implementing a screen or curtain between those auditioning and the the conductors, suddenly women started being selected for chairs just as often as men. It goes without saying that the quality of an orchestra depends entirely on its sound. Thus, by eliminating all superfluous information relating to those auditioning (posture, facial expression, physical appearance, gender), conductors were able to make better and unbiased decisions as to who would play in their orchestras. Now if you had asked these conductors to articulate their reasons for accepting or rejecting any particular auditioner prior to the implementation of screened auditions, they probably would have expressed those reasons in terms of performance and sound quality, as would be expected. They wouldn't have referenced any irrelevant information such as appearance or facial expressions, being fully ignorant of the effect of such information on their perceptions. But the reality was that their perceptions were significantly affected by this meaningless information. As the book points out, they were listening with their eyes.
Those are a couple examples from the book. I am also reminded of something similar I observed several years back. Josh, my roommate during college, at one point bought a 1980ish Lincoln Towncar car from his parents because he [I] was tired of [him] bumming rides [from me]. The thing was a freakin' battleship. We called it the pimpmobile because it was anything but. Now Josh also happened to be a good-looking, very athletic volleyball player. He would often tell me: "Aaron, don't knock my car--girls think it is so cool!" (He actually might have used the word "sick," because we were bros back then and got stoked over all sorts of sick stuff.) I would always retort: "No Josh, girls don't like your car. They like you." And that's still my position. If Josh had been an acne-ridden geek weighing out at a buck twenty-five, I don't think girls would have been real thrilled about his set of wheels. It probably would have been just one more nail in his coffin. But I'm pretty sure if I had asked the girls Josh dated what they thought of his car or why they thought it was cool, they would have come up with some semi-plausible reasons. Maybe it was "quaint" or "cute" or reminded them of their grandparents. Who knows. Of course, the real reason would be that they just liked Josh and so who really cares what he drives. That was my point.
Other examples abound, I'm sure. The book is full of them--I'd highly recommend it. What's the take-away from all this? I'm not entirely sure. It seems counterintuitive to attempt a conscious examination of your unconscious mind. I don't know if that's even possible. Over time you might be able to identify certain stereotypes you are susceptible to and try to limit the information you get that would relate to those stereotypes, so that your decisions and judgment remain unclouded--just like the orchestra conductors. My take-away will probably be to conduct impromptu social experiments on my friends and then psychoanalyze them based on the results. Because, you know, I'm evil like that.
One of the main points of "Blink" is that often people don't even consciously realize the reasons for their behavior. One example from the book is an experiment that a psychologist set up where two ropes are attached to the ceiling, a certain distance apart. While the ropes are hanging vertically, it is impossible to hold onto one and also reach the other; they're too far apart. Test subjects were asked to find a way to tie the ropes together. The room was empty except for the ropes. The only solution was to swing one of the ropes, go grab the other, and then catch the swinging rope as it swung back toward the subject. This solution evaded many test subjects until the experimenter would casually walk over to open a window, "accidentally" brushing one of the ropes and setting it into a slight swinging motion. This hint led the subjects to the proper solution. However, when asked how they arrived at that solution, almost all of them said something to the effect of "It just came to me." They didn't consciously realize that the hint came from the experimenter, so their conscious mind came up with the next best explanation.
Another example in the book dealt with how in the past, women were typically excluded from orchestras because of false beliefs about male superiority when it came to playing instruments. However, when orchestras started implementing a screen or curtain between those auditioning and the the conductors, suddenly women started being selected for chairs just as often as men. It goes without saying that the quality of an orchestra depends entirely on its sound. Thus, by eliminating all superfluous information relating to those auditioning (posture, facial expression, physical appearance, gender), conductors were able to make better and unbiased decisions as to who would play in their orchestras. Now if you had asked these conductors to articulate their reasons for accepting or rejecting any particular auditioner prior to the implementation of screened auditions, they probably would have expressed those reasons in terms of performance and sound quality, as would be expected. They wouldn't have referenced any irrelevant information such as appearance or facial expressions, being fully ignorant of the effect of such information on their perceptions. But the reality was that their perceptions were significantly affected by this meaningless information. As the book points out, they were listening with their eyes.
Those are a couple examples from the book. I am also reminded of something similar I observed several years back. Josh, my roommate during college, at one point bought a 1980ish Lincoln Towncar car from his parents because he [I] was tired of [him] bumming rides [from me]. The thing was a freakin' battleship. We called it the pimpmobile because it was anything but. Now Josh also happened to be a good-looking, very athletic volleyball player. He would often tell me: "Aaron, don't knock my car--girls think it is so cool!" (He actually might have used the word "sick," because we were bros back then and got stoked over all sorts of sick stuff.) I would always retort: "No Josh, girls don't like your car. They like you." And that's still my position. If Josh had been an acne-ridden geek weighing out at a buck twenty-five, I don't think girls would have been real thrilled about his set of wheels. It probably would have been just one more nail in his coffin. But I'm pretty sure if I had asked the girls Josh dated what they thought of his car or why they thought it was cool, they would have come up with some semi-plausible reasons. Maybe it was "quaint" or "cute" or reminded them of their grandparents. Who knows. Of course, the real reason would be that they just liked Josh and so who really cares what he drives. That was my point.
Other examples abound, I'm sure. The book is full of them--I'd highly recommend it. What's the take-away from all this? I'm not entirely sure. It seems counterintuitive to attempt a conscious examination of your unconscious mind. I don't know if that's even possible. Over time you might be able to identify certain stereotypes you are susceptible to and try to limit the information you get that would relate to those stereotypes, so that your decisions and judgment remain unclouded--just like the orchestra conductors. My take-away will probably be to conduct impromptu social experiments on my friends and then psychoanalyze them based on the results. Because, you know, I'm evil like that.
Friday, June 25, 2010
An excuse to fail, or an opportunity to succeed?
I think there's an important attitudinal difference that separates the lazy person from the hard worker, the cynic from the optimist. That attitude is expressed in the title of this post. It can be an uncomfortable introspection when applied to various areas of one's life. Are you looking for an excuse to fail? To maintain a dismal status quo? Or, are you eagerly on the lookout for an opportunity to succeed.
When someone spends their energy coming up with an excuse for their predicament, they are necessarily diverting energy that could otherwise be spent coming up with a solution. Invariably, the solution will require doing something differently, which usually means effort, work, and change.
Does the atheist spend more time thinking of excuses that justify the perceived impossibility of knowing any greater power, rather than looking for opportunities to find out what he thinks he cannot know?
Does the chronically unemployed person more readily blame his environment for his lack of employment, rather than getting off the couch and looking for a job?
Does the single person make excuses for not dating, rather than looking for ways to meet people? (Hmm, I don't like that one.)
Does the student who just failed an exam come up with excuses for failure, or an opportunity to learn from mistakes?
This is all just another take on what differentiates optimists from pessimists. I think optimists would be on the lookout for opportunities, while pessimists are content with playing the blame game.
When someone spends their energy coming up with an excuse for their predicament, they are necessarily diverting energy that could otherwise be spent coming up with a solution. Invariably, the solution will require doing something differently, which usually means effort, work, and change.
Does the atheist spend more time thinking of excuses that justify the perceived impossibility of knowing any greater power, rather than looking for opportunities to find out what he thinks he cannot know?
Does the chronically unemployed person more readily blame his environment for his lack of employment, rather than getting off the couch and looking for a job?
Does the single person make excuses for not dating, rather than looking for ways to meet people? (Hmm, I don't like that one.)
Does the student who just failed an exam come up with excuses for failure, or an opportunity to learn from mistakes?
This is all just another take on what differentiates optimists from pessimists. I think optimists would be on the lookout for opportunities, while pessimists are content with playing the blame game.
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
Woah now, calm down everyone
You know something I've noticed? Politicians are often two-faced. One year they're saying one thing, the next they're saying the exact opposite, all depending on what is popular at the time. I find it inexcusable.
But, I do find it understandable. If politicians want to keep their jobs, they have to cater to the wants and desires and moods of their constituents. These constituents are irrational, emotional creatures caught up in whatever flavor of the week the media is feeding them.
Let's take big oil as an example. One concern is dependence on foreign oil. We want less of that, so a politician advocates off-shore drilling. Then a rig blows up down off the coast of Louisiana, and now the masses are in an uproar over off-shore drilling. Now, if the politician wants to stay popular, he'll talk about the evils of off-shore drilling and oil in general. Most likely he'll come off looking two-faced and no doubt be ridiculed on the Daily Show with Jon Stewart.
Again, I find stuff like this inexcusable. But if I were a politician, I know I'd probably drive myself crazy trying to please everyone and actually stay in a position where I can actually DO something (theoretically). So none of this surprises me.
But while the doublespeak of politicians is irritating, equally bothersome is the irrational kool-aid that the masses imbibe daily. One oil rig explosion does NOT mean we need to rethink the entire concept of off-shore drilling. I understand it's a big deal. I understand it's an environmental disaster. But it's also the price we pay to continue our way of life. There's a certain measure of danger in any form of energy production. There are costs to it. Oil rigs explode. Coal mines do, too. Semi-trucks hauling oil can also explode. And gas stations a la Zoolander. Nuclear power plants can melt down. People can get electrocuted. Bad stuff happens and things blow up. That's just part of how it all works. The fact that a particular accident happens doesn't mean that we need to rethink the whole concept of oil drilling. Instead, we should learn from our mistakes, establish or enforce stricter safety standards, and maybe invent some better gadgets that will hopefully prevent a repeat.
So Obama and Co., I don't blame you for all of a sudden putting a "hold" on the offshore oil drilling that was being contemplated in the new energy bill. I get it. You're dealing with millions of irrational thinkers that get worked into a frenzy by irresponsible media. What else are you supposed to do?
Am I too cynical? Probably.
But, I do find it understandable. If politicians want to keep their jobs, they have to cater to the wants and desires and moods of their constituents. These constituents are irrational, emotional creatures caught up in whatever flavor of the week the media is feeding them.
Let's take big oil as an example. One concern is dependence on foreign oil. We want less of that, so a politician advocates off-shore drilling. Then a rig blows up down off the coast of Louisiana, and now the masses are in an uproar over off-shore drilling. Now, if the politician wants to stay popular, he'll talk about the evils of off-shore drilling and oil in general. Most likely he'll come off looking two-faced and no doubt be ridiculed on the Daily Show with Jon Stewart.
Again, I find stuff like this inexcusable. But if I were a politician, I know I'd probably drive myself crazy trying to please everyone and actually stay in a position where I can actually DO something (theoretically). So none of this surprises me.
But while the doublespeak of politicians is irritating, equally bothersome is the irrational kool-aid that the masses imbibe daily. One oil rig explosion does NOT mean we need to rethink the entire concept of off-shore drilling. I understand it's a big deal. I understand it's an environmental disaster. But it's also the price we pay to continue our way of life. There's a certain measure of danger in any form of energy production. There are costs to it. Oil rigs explode. Coal mines do, too. Semi-trucks hauling oil can also explode. And gas stations a la Zoolander. Nuclear power plants can melt down. People can get electrocuted. Bad stuff happens and things blow up. That's just part of how it all works. The fact that a particular accident happens doesn't mean that we need to rethink the whole concept of oil drilling. Instead, we should learn from our mistakes, establish or enforce stricter safety standards, and maybe invent some better gadgets that will hopefully prevent a repeat.
So Obama and Co., I don't blame you for all of a sudden putting a "hold" on the offshore oil drilling that was being contemplated in the new energy bill. I get it. You're dealing with millions of irrational thinkers that get worked into a frenzy by irresponsible media. What else are you supposed to do?
Am I too cynical? Probably.
Sunday, April 11, 2010
Silly little people
I believe that by and large, people tend to behave rationally. However, they aren't always honest about the reasons for their behavior. Thus, they appear crazy, dishonest, or irrational.
We see this happen all the time. For example, often when women get mad, they'll clamp up and start giving their man the silent treatment. "What's the matter, honey?" "Nothing." "No really, what's bothering you?" "I've just got a really bad headache. Now drive." Now of course something is wrong, and it's probably not a headache, but chances are you're going to have to discover on your own that she's mad that you forgot that today was her cat's birthday, and you didn't do anything to celebrate. See? Perfectly rational explanation--she just wouldn't tell you what it was.
But wait, wasn't that "reason" more emotional than rational? Maybe so. But because we're all emotional creatures to some extent, I think "rational" explanations should always account for potentially emotional responses or bases for behavior. Put differently: it's reasonable to expect people to respond emotionally to any given situation. However, this doesn't apply to clinically crazy people. Who knows what they're thinking.
We see this happen all the time. For example, often when women get mad, they'll clamp up and start giving their man the silent treatment. "What's the matter, honey?" "Nothing." "No really, what's bothering you?" "I've just got a really bad headache. Now drive." Now of course something is wrong, and it's probably not a headache, but chances are you're going to have to discover on your own that she's mad that you forgot that today was her cat's birthday, and you didn't do anything to celebrate. See? Perfectly rational explanation--she just wouldn't tell you what it was.
But wait, wasn't that "reason" more emotional than rational? Maybe so. But because we're all emotional creatures to some extent, I think "rational" explanations should always account for potentially emotional responses or bases for behavior. Put differently: it's reasonable to expect people to respond emotionally to any given situation. However, this doesn't apply to clinically crazy people. Who knows what they're thinking.
Monday, March 15, 2010
Please stop inviting me to your groups
A little bone to pick with facebook and its users.
Please stop inviting me to all your random groups and fan pages. "1,000,000 for world peace" is a pointless group. Instead, go donate to some charity that actually DOES something.
Also, you don't need to join a club or become a fan of a page called "I love pickles" to communicate the fact that you are a pickle fiend. Facebook created this little section called "about me" (it's under your "info" tab) to store little tidbits of information about you that no one ever reads or cares about. The same goes for everyone joining that "I go out of my way to step on a really crunchy-looking leaf" group. Why? Are you going to get on the discussion board and talk about this amazing leaf you saw and stepped on the other day? Are you going to plan get-togethers with fans in your area and talk and laugh about how much you have in common because of this tiny quirk in your personality? Now if you want to join a group called "Dr. Seuss was a fabulous writer," go right ahead. There you might actually find people with whom you have something in common that is a little more profound than your love of pickles and leaf-stomping. Who knows, maybe you'll even find a date (I have a friend who met her boyfriend/fiance through an online book club).
One last thing--all you opportunists who think facebook is a great way to promote your business, I know what you're doing. You're not only creating fan pages and groups, but you're actually creating PROFILES and trying to add me as your buddy! Not gonna work. Yeah, maybe some of my friends were dumb enough to add you so they can get spammed with your event announcements and new products, but I'm a little less dumb than they are. You'll have to be a really hot chick or sell something really cool (like a slinky that goes upstairs) to catch my eye and possibly get me to hit that "accept" button.
"Dude, relax, people are just having their fun." Yeah, well their "fun" is clogging up my facebook "news" feed like the shower drain in a girls dorm bathroom. For whatever reason, facebook chose to make the main news feed a torrent of useless information that you can in no way filter or control, other than screening people altogether that you don't care to hear about. Because the geniuses at Facebook's command center do pretty much whatever they want, all I can do is complain about it.
Please stop inviting me to all your random groups and fan pages. "1,000,000 for world peace" is a pointless group. Instead, go donate to some charity that actually DOES something.
Also, you don't need to join a club or become a fan of a page called "I love pickles" to communicate the fact that you are a pickle fiend. Facebook created this little section called "about me" (it's under your "info" tab) to store little tidbits of information about you that no one ever reads or cares about. The same goes for everyone joining that "I go out of my way to step on a really crunchy-looking leaf" group. Why? Are you going to get on the discussion board and talk about this amazing leaf you saw and stepped on the other day? Are you going to plan get-togethers with fans in your area and talk and laugh about how much you have in common because of this tiny quirk in your personality? Now if you want to join a group called "Dr. Seuss was a fabulous writer," go right ahead. There you might actually find people with whom you have something in common that is a little more profound than your love of pickles and leaf-stomping. Who knows, maybe you'll even find a date (I have a friend who met her boyfriend/fiance through an online book club).
One last thing--all you opportunists who think facebook is a great way to promote your business, I know what you're doing. You're not only creating fan pages and groups, but you're actually creating PROFILES and trying to add me as your buddy! Not gonna work. Yeah, maybe some of my friends were dumb enough to add you so they can get spammed with your event announcements and new products, but I'm a little less dumb than they are. You'll have to be a really hot chick or sell something really cool (like a slinky that goes upstairs) to catch my eye and possibly get me to hit that "accept" button.
"Dude, relax, people are just having their fun." Yeah, well their "fun" is clogging up my facebook "news" feed like the shower drain in a girls dorm bathroom. For whatever reason, facebook chose to make the main news feed a torrent of useless information that you can in no way filter or control, other than screening people altogether that you don't care to hear about. Because the geniuses at Facebook's command center do pretty much whatever they want, all I can do is complain about it.
Tuesday, March 9, 2010
How to make enemies, get on everyone's nerves, and generally be shunned
I don't mean to toot my own horn, but I feel like I'm a pretty decent arguer. This is kind of the idea, since I am a lawyer and all. I think I've identified a few guidelines to follow if you want to end up on the winning side of an argument more often than not. However, the following is not intended as a license to argue. Only do it if you have to, or if you get paid to do it (like me!).
Choose Your Battles Wisely
When you have the liberty to choose, only fight the battles you know you can win. Don't engage in arguments where your position is indefensible. For example, don't say something like "Men's Health Magazine is only for gym rats and perverts and the articles are written at a grade school level." Because if you say something like that, I will call you ignorant and then proceed to show how ridiculous that position is. You will probably feel dumb and you may even cry a little. Another example: one time President Obama broke out some mad ninja skills and swatted a fly with his hand. Enter the idiots manning the helm at PETA, crying about him swatting that fly. See, PETA, when you choose your battles this unwisely, people have trouble taking you seriously. They get sidetracked from other valid positions you might have (like tough laws on animal cruelty), because you're making a fool of yourself on this one. Lesson learned from PETA? You lose credibility across the board when you choose your battles unwisely.
Also, avoid battles where the stake is inconsequential. If "winning" means nothing, then you still might end up looking like a loser. For example, parents, let's say your child came home an hour after curfew. You could throw a tantrum and ground the kid, and you'd probably be absolutely right--they broke the rules and that might be a justifiable punishment. But chances are you'll still end up looking like the loser in the kid's eyes. Would that be a fight worth going to war over? Doubt it. Choose a more important matter on which to stand ground, like when your kid decides it'd be cool to sell his/her body for cocaine.
Don't have kids? Here's another example. It's your spouse/significant other/roommate's turn to take out the trash. I mean, you've done it like the last FIVE times in a row. Go ahead, scream and scold them for their laziness and neglect. You can even do it nicely, if you want, it doesn't matter. You're absolutely right, it IS their turn. But guaranteed that on the way out to the trash can they're not thinking "Wow, you're right, it was my turn, thanks for reminding me." Take a wild guess what they're thinking.
Qualify Everything You Say
See what I did there? Okay, okay, maybe not everything. But when you don't know what you're talking about, qualified statements are extremely useful in creating the illusion of being "right." Let's take the Men's Health magazine comment. Now, if that person had said something like "A lot of Men's Health readers are gym rats or perverts, and I find many of the articles to be written in an unprofessional manner." See how different that statement is from the one before? Doesn't it sound so intelligent and reasonable? That's because it's much more defensible. No longer are we speaking in absolutes; instead, we've sought the sanctuary of qualifiers, such as "a lot," "I find," and "many." This time we used the disjunctive "or" which is much more noncommittal than the conjunctive "and" used previously. Also, by saying "I find," you've couched your statement in opinion, which again is much more defensible than a bare assertion of fact. I still might argue with you and demand that you back up your qualified statements with some evidence, but you really don't have to: your statement is sufficiently qualified to withstand nearly every attack. So what am I left to do? Fume and mutter under my breath, maybe pace back and forth a bit, but in the end you won't be hearing these triumphant words from my lips: "You were WRONG!" (However, you might hear something like: "You don't know what you're talking about." See below.)
But a couple caveats with qualified statements. First, you can't overuse them. Sooner or later, you've got to take a more concrete stand on the issue. If you don't, then even slower minds will eventually realize that you really don't know anything, and your qualified statements are merely a ruse to hide your lack of knowledge. If you don't have a concrete stand to make, that's when you disengage and retreat before you embarrass yourself and bring further disgrace to your family name.
Also, qualified statements, when left alone, really don't provide much information. Take the second Men's Health comment, for example. It doesn't give you any numbers, statistics, or frame of reference with which to judge the person's opinion. If left alone, it might be a true and defensible statement, but it doesn't really tell you anything. Now if you expand on the statement by describing people you know who are perverts or gym rats, and who read the magazine, then you're getting somewhere. If you define your idea of professional and unprofessional writing, and then show me a few articles that clearly meet your "unprofessional" definition, then you've won. Take home lesson? Qualified statements are wonderful, just be prepared to back them up with something of substance.
Take the Middle Ground
You can know absolutely nothing about a particular topic and still come off sounding very wise and reasonable, as long as you advocate moderation. Let's say your friend has decided to start up some fringe diet like only eating fried snickers bars and kool-aid. Even if you've never had a snickers bar or a sip of kool-aid in your life, you'll be 100% right if you say something like "I'm pretty sure you should still eat other stuff like skittles and root beer. Most diets require a healthy balance." (Oh check out that sick qualifier I used there.)
Not all situations will be so easy. As a general rule, anytime someone takes a position that deviates from moderation and approaches the extreme, you'll hold your own by staying in middle earth, which is the term I use for the land of moderation. (I know, I know. I'm hilarious.) Try it next time a friend or family member tries to sell you some miracle juice or enroll you in their pyramid scheme. You'll feel empowered.
Well, that's all I've got so far. Maybe I'll add more to this list as I think of other points. Who knows, maybe I'll write a book someday and be famous. You can all have an autographed copy.
Choose Your Battles Wisely
When you have the liberty to choose, only fight the battles you know you can win. Don't engage in arguments where your position is indefensible. For example, don't say something like "Men's Health Magazine is only for gym rats and perverts and the articles are written at a grade school level." Because if you say something like that, I will call you ignorant and then proceed to show how ridiculous that position is. You will probably feel dumb and you may even cry a little. Another example: one time President Obama broke out some mad ninja skills and swatted a fly with his hand. Enter the idiots manning the helm at PETA, crying about him swatting that fly. See, PETA, when you choose your battles this unwisely, people have trouble taking you seriously. They get sidetracked from other valid positions you might have (like tough laws on animal cruelty), because you're making a fool of yourself on this one. Lesson learned from PETA? You lose credibility across the board when you choose your battles unwisely.
Also, avoid battles where the stake is inconsequential. If "winning" means nothing, then you still might end up looking like a loser. For example, parents, let's say your child came home an hour after curfew. You could throw a tantrum and ground the kid, and you'd probably be absolutely right--they broke the rules and that might be a justifiable punishment. But chances are you'll still end up looking like the loser in the kid's eyes. Would that be a fight worth going to war over? Doubt it. Choose a more important matter on which to stand ground, like when your kid decides it'd be cool to sell his/her body for cocaine.
Don't have kids? Here's another example. It's your spouse/significant other/roommate's turn to take out the trash. I mean, you've done it like the last FIVE times in a row. Go ahead, scream and scold them for their laziness and neglect. You can even do it nicely, if you want, it doesn't matter. You're absolutely right, it IS their turn. But guaranteed that on the way out to the trash can they're not thinking "Wow, you're right, it was my turn, thanks for reminding me." Take a wild guess what they're thinking.
Qualify Everything You Say
See what I did there? Okay, okay, maybe not everything. But when you don't know what you're talking about, qualified statements are extremely useful in creating the illusion of being "right." Let's take the Men's Health magazine comment. Now, if that person had said something like "A lot of Men's Health readers are gym rats or perverts, and I find many of the articles to be written in an unprofessional manner." See how different that statement is from the one before? Doesn't it sound so intelligent and reasonable? That's because it's much more defensible. No longer are we speaking in absolutes; instead, we've sought the sanctuary of qualifiers, such as "a lot," "I find," and "many." This time we used the disjunctive "or" which is much more noncommittal than the conjunctive "and" used previously. Also, by saying "I find," you've couched your statement in opinion, which again is much more defensible than a bare assertion of fact. I still might argue with you and demand that you back up your qualified statements with some evidence, but you really don't have to: your statement is sufficiently qualified to withstand nearly every attack. So what am I left to do? Fume and mutter under my breath, maybe pace back and forth a bit, but in the end you won't be hearing these triumphant words from my lips: "You were WRONG!" (However, you might hear something like: "You don't know what you're talking about." See below.)
But a couple caveats with qualified statements. First, you can't overuse them. Sooner or later, you've got to take a more concrete stand on the issue. If you don't, then even slower minds will eventually realize that you really don't know anything, and your qualified statements are merely a ruse to hide your lack of knowledge. If you don't have a concrete stand to make, that's when you disengage and retreat before you embarrass yourself and bring further disgrace to your family name.
Also, qualified statements, when left alone, really don't provide much information. Take the second Men's Health comment, for example. It doesn't give you any numbers, statistics, or frame of reference with which to judge the person's opinion. If left alone, it might be a true and defensible statement, but it doesn't really tell you anything. Now if you expand on the statement by describing people you know who are perverts or gym rats, and who read the magazine, then you're getting somewhere. If you define your idea of professional and unprofessional writing, and then show me a few articles that clearly meet your "unprofessional" definition, then you've won. Take home lesson? Qualified statements are wonderful, just be prepared to back them up with something of substance.
Take the Middle Ground
You can know absolutely nothing about a particular topic and still come off sounding very wise and reasonable, as long as you advocate moderation. Let's say your friend has decided to start up some fringe diet like only eating fried snickers bars and kool-aid. Even if you've never had a snickers bar or a sip of kool-aid in your life, you'll be 100% right if you say something like "I'm pretty sure you should still eat other stuff like skittles and root beer. Most diets require a healthy balance." (Oh check out that sick qualifier I used there.)
Not all situations will be so easy. As a general rule, anytime someone takes a position that deviates from moderation and approaches the extreme, you'll hold your own by staying in middle earth, which is the term I use for the land of moderation. (I know, I know. I'm hilarious.) Try it next time a friend or family member tries to sell you some miracle juice or enroll you in their pyramid scheme. You'll feel empowered.
Well, that's all I've got so far. Maybe I'll add more to this list as I think of other points. Who knows, maybe I'll write a book someday and be famous. You can all have an autographed copy.
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
It's that time again...
The new season of The Bachelor just started. Finally!!!
Okay, I lie. I actually didn't know it had started until a friend just asked me if I was watching it. Of course she knew I wasn't. She knows how I feel about those kind of shows.
But then I got to thinking. Shouldn't I want to watch this show? If television is one way we all escape into fantasy and forget the real world, then The Bachelor should be the #1 most-watched show by men everywhere. It should also be the least-watched show of women everywhere. Why? Because the show depicts a regiment of beautiful women desperately throwing themselves at one lucky guy. Sounds pretty nice, right guys? I'll take it.
But girls? Why do you watch it? Granted, situations like The Bachelor, while rare, do sometimes occur in the real world. But such situations aren't particularly proud moments for the female species. When one guy is being doted on and fawned over by a group of girls vying for his attention, do you think the girls feel very good about themselves? And even if you're a girl just standing back and watching this fantastic scene, do you find it entertaining? Or do you roll your eyes and wish you could dissociate yourself from your pathetic sisters? Don't you girls always insist on how it's the man's job to make the first move--to pursue the woman? If that's the case, why do you obsess over The Bachelor? The show is like a televised slap in the face. It's a contradiction to everything you've been trying to teach your brothers and guy friends for centuries. The message it sends to guys is: "Sit back and keep playing that Xbox, the ladies will come to you." Fortunately for you, the damage probably isn't too great, because guys think the show is stupid and aren't even watching it. (They're playing Xbox.)
Now I can understand girls going crazy over The Bachelorette, because then the situation is reversed: platoon of guys fighting over one girl. Sounds pretty good, doesn't it ladies! Now there's a fantasy land I can see you girls wanting to get lost in. Furthermore, it's probably a better representation of reality because attractive women typically have to sift through a large number of potential suitors.
In sum, I am confused. If any of you would care to enlighten me, I would be most grateful.
Sunday, January 10, 2010
Time Travel: WHEN will it end?
Here I am, embarrassingly hooked on "Lost" and midway through season five. What does a deteriorating plot of a prime-time drama television series turn to after the show has jumped the shark? Time travel.
When are we, as a species, going to let this whole "time travel" theme just disappear? Sure, I understand the obsession we have with time. There's not a single one of us who has never wished for an opportunity to "go back" and do something a little differently to avoid some bad result. Many of us often yearn to know of what may come in the future. There are also industries devoted to prolonging our youth and extending our life expectancy. So yeah, I get it. But can't we give it a rest? Clearly going back in time is impossible (or we would have had future visitors by now), and going forward is all theoretical metaphysical mumbo-jumbo.
My first conscious exposure to the time travel theme was probably the "Back to the Future" series. I think these movies are classic, because they were well done and as I recall they seemed to avoid the circular reasoning fallacy that befalls most other stories based on time travel. You can't have anything in the present ("future") caused by anything that occurs during the time travel. Think about it. The circularity will boggle your mind.
But other than Back to the Future and maybe a few other exceptions, most stories that involve time-travel are downright terrible, or at the very least, the time-travel element detracts from an otherwise decent plot. The latest Star Trek movie, for example. I was really enjoying it for a while. And then "old" Spock showed up (it's been out long enough for that not to be a spoiler) and I sighed inwardly. Why? Did you really feel like a storyline without time-travel would have been bland and uninteresting? Were you so anxious to cater to the die-hard star trek fans that you had to throw in a relic from the original series? Please. Oh and don't even get me started on the Terminator series.
In my mind, introducing time-travel into your story really only means one thing: you lack creativity. You couldn't come up with a story that had enough individual appeal to it to grab your audience, so you had to put on the time-travel training wheels and kowtow to this obsession we all have with "time." Why don't you go and cast your time-travelers as scantily-clad supermodels while you're----oh, you did? Oh, all right then.
Now let's relate this back to "Lost." Any of you familiar with this series might agree with me that it started out all right. Left you hanging, could be taken somewhat seriously, and you got the impression that explanations for all the mystery and intrigue would be forthcoming. By the end of season four, I still barely had a clue what was going on. You, like the characters in the show, are totally in the dark. (Maybe the show is called "Lost" not in the physical sense, but more in the "What the hell is going on?" sense.) The funny thing is, you kind of get the impression that not even the show writers have any idea where they're going with all this. It's like they're introducing one crazy, inexplicable phenomenon after the other, without ever cluing you in on the last one. I guess they think that we'll become so absorbed in the current puzzle that we'll forget that we never figured out the last one? There are still things from the first season that have never been explained. Even the characters whom you would expect to know what is going on are in the dark. Phrases like "I just know," "I don't know, it just has to be this way," "No, it doesn't work like that," are abundant. There are a lot of ways the world of "Lost" doesn't work, apparently. We still have yet to discover how it DOES work.
And so what happens after season four? Season five we're all about TIME TRAVEL! Go figure. "Hey guys....our viewers are getting frustrated that our show doesn't make any sense. Any ideas?" And thus, we get smacked upside the head with their sloppy take on the tired old time travel theme. I don't expect much of an explanation for it. I barely even care at this point. But sadly, I am hooked, so I must continue. If they offer no further resolution in this series, I demand there be something really really bizarre in the last episode, like purple unicorns that crap cotton candy. Why not? You already know you've hit rock-bottom when you have to resort to time travel, so I think the purple unicorns are in order.
When are we, as a species, going to let this whole "time travel" theme just disappear? Sure, I understand the obsession we have with time. There's not a single one of us who has never wished for an opportunity to "go back" and do something a little differently to avoid some bad result. Many of us often yearn to know of what may come in the future. There are also industries devoted to prolonging our youth and extending our life expectancy. So yeah, I get it. But can't we give it a rest? Clearly going back in time is impossible (or we would have had future visitors by now), and going forward is all theoretical metaphysical mumbo-jumbo.
My first conscious exposure to the time travel theme was probably the "Back to the Future" series. I think these movies are classic, because they were well done and as I recall they seemed to avoid the circular reasoning fallacy that befalls most other stories based on time travel. You can't have anything in the present ("future") caused by anything that occurs during the time travel. Think about it. The circularity will boggle your mind.
But other than Back to the Future and maybe a few other exceptions, most stories that involve time-travel are downright terrible, or at the very least, the time-travel element detracts from an otherwise decent plot. The latest Star Trek movie, for example. I was really enjoying it for a while. And then "old" Spock showed up (it's been out long enough for that not to be a spoiler) and I sighed inwardly. Why? Did you really feel like a storyline without time-travel would have been bland and uninteresting? Were you so anxious to cater to the die-hard star trek fans that you had to throw in a relic from the original series? Please. Oh and don't even get me started on the Terminator series.
In my mind, introducing time-travel into your story really only means one thing: you lack creativity. You couldn't come up with a story that had enough individual appeal to it to grab your audience, so you had to put on the time-travel training wheels and kowtow to this obsession we all have with "time." Why don't you go and cast your time-travelers as scantily-clad supermodels while you're----oh, you did? Oh, all right then.
Now let's relate this back to "Lost." Any of you familiar with this series might agree with me that it started out all right. Left you hanging, could be taken somewhat seriously, and you got the impression that explanations for all the mystery and intrigue would be forthcoming. By the end of season four, I still barely had a clue what was going on. You, like the characters in the show, are totally in the dark. (Maybe the show is called "Lost" not in the physical sense, but more in the "What the hell is going on?" sense.) The funny thing is, you kind of get the impression that not even the show writers have any idea where they're going with all this. It's like they're introducing one crazy, inexplicable phenomenon after the other, without ever cluing you in on the last one. I guess they think that we'll become so absorbed in the current puzzle that we'll forget that we never figured out the last one? There are still things from the first season that have never been explained. Even the characters whom you would expect to know what is going on are in the dark. Phrases like "I just know," "I don't know, it just has to be this way," "No, it doesn't work like that," are abundant. There are a lot of ways the world of "Lost" doesn't work, apparently. We still have yet to discover how it DOES work.
And so what happens after season four? Season five we're all about TIME TRAVEL! Go figure. "Hey guys....our viewers are getting frustrated that our show doesn't make any sense. Any ideas?" And thus, we get smacked upside the head with their sloppy take on the tired old time travel theme. I don't expect much of an explanation for it. I barely even care at this point. But sadly, I am hooked, so I must continue. If they offer no further resolution in this series, I demand there be something really really bizarre in the last episode, like purple unicorns that crap cotton candy. Why not? You already know you've hit rock-bottom when you have to resort to time travel, so I think the purple unicorns are in order.
Tuesday, December 29, 2009
This was unexpected
Nope, I'm not pregnant, relax. A couple weeks ago I was really bored and posted the following entry. Now, every guy who gets spammed by this bot and mistakenly cuts and pastes the link it gives them into their GOOGLE search field rather than the URL field seems to end up at my blog. Apparently that entry is the second of three google hits that come up when the link is google searched. If you look to the right at my little map that tracks hits, you will see dozens and dozens all throughout the world that weren't there a few weeks ago. What can I say, I'm famous.
Some of these guys post comments to that entry. My favorite so far is "Anres" who posted a comment as if he were talking to Megan the sexy spam-bot. Apparently the website wasn't accepting his username. Poor fella. Needless to say this whole situation is a very welcome twist to the otherwise boring material I post here.
Some of these guys post comments to that entry. My favorite so far is "Anres" who posted a comment as if he were talking to Megan the sexy spam-bot. Apparently the website wasn't accepting his username. Poor fella. Needless to say this whole situation is a very welcome twist to the otherwise boring material I post here.
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
"Hoping for the best, but expecting the worst."
Does this phrase even make sense? We hear it all the time. I know I've uttered it more than once. But isn't it impossible? Isn't that phrase a contradiction of terms?
Now I'm no linguistics expert, but it seems like English has the luxury of two different words (which have roughly the same meaning) to make this phrase work. In Portuguese (and probably Spanish) the word "esperar" means both "to expect" and "to hope." So in Portuguese, the phrase would be "Esperando o melhor, mas esperando o pior." Obviously, a direct contradiction.
Perhaps a better word would be "wanting" the best, rather than "hoping." I can wrap my mind around that a little easier. But even then, I think the whole expectation of the worst possible outcome can handicap one's ability to avoid that outcome. Imagine you have a big exam coming up. If your mind is consumed with the expectation of failure, you'll have less mental faculties to devote to your studying, and thus you might perform more poorly.
Defensive Pessimism is what psychologists have come up with to describe the chronically pessimistic. A defensive pessimist always expects the worst, so that if it does happen, then hey no biggie: that's what he/she already expected. On the other hand, if something better than the "worst" happens, then the defensive pessimist may see it as a pleasant surprise. I think there's value to such an approach, but not in every situation.
I think the distinguishing factor that determines when defensive pessimism is appropriate is the degree of control you have over the situation. In the case of the upcoming exam, you are in nearly complete control over how you will fare, depending on how much you study. So in that scenario, I don't think defensive pessimism is helpful. To the extent possible, I think it's best to just put the "outcome" out of your mind altogether and focus on the task at hand--studying. This is one reason my friends in law school rarely found me anxious about exams. In my mind, that anxiety isn't going to help me, so why bother?
Now fast forward a bit: you have just finished taking the exam. There's absolutely nothing more you can do that can affect the outcome. Here, I think, you might have a better argument for indulging in a little bit of pessimism. At this point, there's no personal performance you can handicap. The only thing you can change is your state of mind. If you walk out of the exam thinking "I maybe got an average score," then your mind will be insulated from the disappointment that might ensue if you think you aced it, when in fact your performance was average. On the other hand, if you really did ace it, well then what a pleasant surprise. Everyone likes surprises, right?
That's one clear-cut example. In the case of an exam, it's easy to determine when everything you can do has been done and is in the past. Other situations won't be so clear. That's why it's important to do your best to cover all your bases, and do everything you can, before lowering your expectations (i.e. being pessimistic). I can envision this process introducing a whole new array of obsessive-compulsive thinking for the anxiety-prone, so obviously it shouldn't be taken too far. For instance, in a first-date scenario with a person you're very interested in, during the date you want to make sure that you do all the right things to increase the chances of a second date. After the date is when you can go ahead and not expect there to be a second date (defensive pessimism). However, becoming pessimistic before the date is over will probably lead you to do things that will increase the likelihood of that negative outcome.
In Mormon circles, I've heard the phrase "Work like it's all up to you, and pray like it's all up to God." This is the same idea. Even for people who don't believe in God, they might ascribe the nebulous forces of the unknown to "Fate" or the "Universe."
I admit, it's kind of a cognitive trick you have to play on yourself. But to the extent you can do it successfully, in appropriate situations, it may actually insulate you from some unhappiness in life, and possibly generate happiness you wouldn't have experienced otherwise. Happiness is all about your perspective, anyway.
Now I'm no linguistics expert, but it seems like English has the luxury of two different words (which have roughly the same meaning) to make this phrase work. In Portuguese (and probably Spanish) the word "esperar" means both "to expect" and "to hope." So in Portuguese, the phrase would be "Esperando o melhor, mas esperando o pior." Obviously, a direct contradiction.
Perhaps a better word would be "wanting" the best, rather than "hoping." I can wrap my mind around that a little easier. But even then, I think the whole expectation of the worst possible outcome can handicap one's ability to avoid that outcome. Imagine you have a big exam coming up. If your mind is consumed with the expectation of failure, you'll have less mental faculties to devote to your studying, and thus you might perform more poorly.
Defensive Pessimism is what psychologists have come up with to describe the chronically pessimistic. A defensive pessimist always expects the worst, so that if it does happen, then hey no biggie: that's what he/she already expected. On the other hand, if something better than the "worst" happens, then the defensive pessimist may see it as a pleasant surprise. I think there's value to such an approach, but not in every situation.
I think the distinguishing factor that determines when defensive pessimism is appropriate is the degree of control you have over the situation. In the case of the upcoming exam, you are in nearly complete control over how you will fare, depending on how much you study. So in that scenario, I don't think defensive pessimism is helpful. To the extent possible, I think it's best to just put the "outcome" out of your mind altogether and focus on the task at hand--studying. This is one reason my friends in law school rarely found me anxious about exams. In my mind, that anxiety isn't going to help me, so why bother?
Now fast forward a bit: you have just finished taking the exam. There's absolutely nothing more you can do that can affect the outcome. Here, I think, you might have a better argument for indulging in a little bit of pessimism. At this point, there's no personal performance you can handicap. The only thing you can change is your state of mind. If you walk out of the exam thinking "I maybe got an average score," then your mind will be insulated from the disappointment that might ensue if you think you aced it, when in fact your performance was average. On the other hand, if you really did ace it, well then what a pleasant surprise. Everyone likes surprises, right?
That's one clear-cut example. In the case of an exam, it's easy to determine when everything you can do has been done and is in the past. Other situations won't be so clear. That's why it's important to do your best to cover all your bases, and do everything you can, before lowering your expectations (i.e. being pessimistic). I can envision this process introducing a whole new array of obsessive-compulsive thinking for the anxiety-prone, so obviously it shouldn't be taken too far. For instance, in a first-date scenario with a person you're very interested in, during the date you want to make sure that you do all the right things to increase the chances of a second date. After the date is when you can go ahead and not expect there to be a second date (defensive pessimism). However, becoming pessimistic before the date is over will probably lead you to do things that will increase the likelihood of that negative outcome.
In Mormon circles, I've heard the phrase "Work like it's all up to you, and pray like it's all up to God." This is the same idea. Even for people who don't believe in God, they might ascribe the nebulous forces of the unknown to "Fate" or the "Universe."
I admit, it's kind of a cognitive trick you have to play on yourself. But to the extent you can do it successfully, in appropriate situations, it may actually insulate you from some unhappiness in life, and possibly generate happiness you wouldn't have experienced otherwise. Happiness is all about your perspective, anyway.
Monday, November 23, 2009
So I was bored one night
And had the following conversation with an automated spam-bot on msn:
Megan says: (12:56:41 AM)
hello..?
Aaron says: (12:56:48 AM)
hi
Megan says: (12:57:03 AM)
Hey I saw you on hi5? i dont remember if we are friends.
Aaron says: (12:57:16 AM)
yeah, we are
Aaron says: (12:57:19 AM)
long time no talk
Megan: (12:57:31 AM)
so whats up with you today?
Megan says: (12:57:45 AM)
yeah im just a lil bored have off of work today
Aaron says: (12:57:48 AM)
horrible, my family was killed in a shark-eating accident
Megan says: (12:58:03 AM)
currently im working for a fashion design company
Aaron says: (12:58:34 AM)
how boring
Megan says: (12:58:48 AM)
im entered in a fashion and talent contest and your rating would mean alot to me
Aaron says: (12:59:04 AM)
no, I think you have terrible fashion sense
Megan says: (12:59:19 AM)
I have a bunch of lingirie to choose from... whats your favorite color? im tryin to decidelol
Aaron says: (12:59:45 AM)
just keep your clothes on, fattie
Megan says: (1:00:00 AM)
hmmm.... lol I think i might be able to do that, go to http://www.myhomecamnetwork.com/swtmegan scroll ALL the way DOWN to the bottom u will see "Friends of Megan", tell me when you get the password page!
Aaron says: (1:00:31 AM)
yeah right! why would I want to see your fat ass in lingerie
Megan says: (1:00:45 AM)
put in the password: myfriend4
Aaron says: (1:01:18 AM)
I'll pass, I don't like viruses on my computer
Megan says: (1:01:33 AM)
yea, fill out your info,first and last name, make sure you put your correct b-day k?
Aaron says: (1:01:51 AM)
why? so you can steal my identity?
Megan says: (1:02:05 AM)
kk, if you entered as our friend, it should say 0.00 at the bottom, if so you are good for our friend's pass
Aaron says: (1:02:28 AM)
no, I'm your enemy, actually. it was your shark that ate my family
Megan says: (1:02:43 AM)
CC is just to verify your age hun,its the sites policy, we had to to do the same thing .. it won't charge, u got the free password
Megan says: (1:03:25 AM)
Where did you go?
Aaron says: (1:03:47 AM)
oh sorry, I was finding an old expired credit card to use
Aaron says: (1:03:58 AM)
if you're not going to charge me, I guess it won't matter
Megan says: (1:04:02 AM)
I just found some booty shorts lol i think im gonna put a skirt on!!!!!!!
Megan says: (1:04:16 AM)
k let me know when you get in so I can invite you directly to my room cam.
Aaron says: (1:04:51 AM)
oh dear, I had no idea they made booty shorts that big
Aaron says: (1:05:02 AM)
you do realize that "booty" is a diminutive term?
Megan says: (1:05:06 AM)
k, you in yet babe?? Don't keep me hot stuff!
Aaron says: (1:05:18 AM)
heck no, I just ate
Megan says: (1:05:20 AM)
sweet k
Megan says: (1:05:33 AM)
when u login click LIVEWEBCAMS k?
Aaron says: (1:06:03 AM)
no, you
Megan says: (1:06:18 AM)
alright, i am in the middle section, its the 3rd one down in that section, the cam name is random so i dont know what it is till i get in
Aaron says: (1:06:51 AM)
yeah I feel sorry for your next victim
Megan says: (1:07:06 AM)
yup
Aaron says: (1:07:12 AM)
yup indeed
Megan says: (1:07:27 AM)
yeah im the one laying on my bed, do you see me?
Megan says: (1:08:09 AM)
...?
Aaron says: (1:08:22 AM)
that poor bed
Megan says: (1:08:37 AM)
k babe talk to me in the chat
Aaron says: (1:08:46 AM)
no thanks
Megan says: (1:09:00 AM)
Whats your username so I can send you an invite?
Megan says: (1:09:42 AM)
...?
Aaron says: (1:10:10 AM)
"sharksatemyfamily"
Megan says: (1:10:25 AM)
My msn lagging out... ill be on my site... the link again is http://www.myhomecamnetwork.com/swtmegan (secret code myfriend4) once you sign up you will see me on the front page
Aaron says: (1:10:58 AM)
about time
Megan says: (12:56:41 AM)
hello..?
Aaron says: (12:56:48 AM)
hi
Megan says: (12:57:03 AM)
Hey I saw you on hi5? i dont remember if we are friends.
Aaron says: (12:57:16 AM)
yeah, we are
Aaron says: (12:57:19 AM)
long time no talk
Megan: (12:57:31 AM)
so whats up with you today?
Megan says: (12:57:45 AM)
yeah im just a lil bored have off of work today
Aaron says: (12:57:48 AM)
horrible, my family was killed in a shark-eating accident
Megan says: (12:58:03 AM)
currently im working for a fashion design company
Aaron says: (12:58:34 AM)
how boring
Megan says: (12:58:48 AM)
im entered in a fashion and talent contest and your rating would mean alot to me
Aaron says: (12:59:04 AM)
no, I think you have terrible fashion sense
Megan says: (12:59:19 AM)
I have a bunch of lingirie to choose from... whats your favorite color? im tryin to decidelol
Aaron says: (12:59:45 AM)
just keep your clothes on, fattie
Megan says: (1:00:00 AM)
hmmm.... lol I think i might be able to do that, go to http://www.myhomecamnetwork.com/swtmegan scroll ALL the way DOWN to the bottom u will see "Friends of Megan", tell me when you get the password page!
Aaron says: (1:00:31 AM)
yeah right! why would I want to see your fat ass in lingerie
Megan says: (1:00:45 AM)
put in the password: myfriend4
Aaron says: (1:01:18 AM)
I'll pass, I don't like viruses on my computer
Megan says: (1:01:33 AM)
yea, fill out your info,first and last name, make sure you put your correct b-day k?
Aaron says: (1:01:51 AM)
why? so you can steal my identity?
Megan says: (1:02:05 AM)
kk, if you entered as our friend, it should say 0.00 at the bottom, if so you are good for our friend's pass
Aaron says: (1:02:28 AM)
no, I'm your enemy, actually. it was your shark that ate my family
Megan says: (1:02:43 AM)
CC is just to verify your age hun,its the sites policy, we had to to do the same thing .. it won't charge, u got the free password
Megan says: (1:03:25 AM)
Where did you go?
Aaron says: (1:03:47 AM)
oh sorry, I was finding an old expired credit card to use
Aaron says: (1:03:58 AM)
if you're not going to charge me, I guess it won't matter
Megan says: (1:04:02 AM)
I just found some booty shorts lol i think im gonna put a skirt on!!!!!!!
Megan says: (1:04:16 AM)
k let me know when you get in so I can invite you directly to my room cam.
Aaron says: (1:04:51 AM)
oh dear, I had no idea they made booty shorts that big
Aaron says: (1:05:02 AM)
you do realize that "booty" is a diminutive term?
Megan says: (1:05:06 AM)
k, you in yet babe?? Don't keep me hot stuff!
Aaron says: (1:05:18 AM)
heck no, I just ate
Megan says: (1:05:20 AM)
sweet k
Megan says: (1:05:33 AM)
when u login click LIVEWEBCAMS k?
Aaron says: (1:06:03 AM)
no, you
Megan says: (1:06:18 AM)
alright, i am in the middle section, its the 3rd one down in that section, the cam name is random so i dont know what it is till i get in
Aaron says: (1:06:51 AM)
yeah I feel sorry for your next victim
Megan says: (1:07:06 AM)
yup
Aaron says: (1:07:12 AM)
yup indeed
Megan says: (1:07:27 AM)
yeah im the one laying on my bed, do you see me?
Megan says: (1:08:09 AM)
...?
Aaron says: (1:08:22 AM)
that poor bed
Megan says: (1:08:37 AM)
k babe talk to me in the chat
Aaron says: (1:08:46 AM)
no thanks
Megan says: (1:09:00 AM)
Whats your username so I can send you an invite?
Megan says: (1:09:42 AM)
...?
Aaron says: (1:10:10 AM)
"sharksatemyfamily"
Megan says: (1:10:25 AM)
My msn lagging out... ill be on my site... the link again is http://www.myhomecamnetwork.com/swtmegan (secret code myfriend4) once you sign up you will see me on the front page
Aaron says: (1:10:58 AM)
about time
Thursday, November 12, 2009
Reality TV: anything but real
I still don't know why this whole "Reality TV" thing has gotten so popular. There is little if anything "real" about it.
Let's take the bachelor/bachelorette. They take one man/woman, and then hire a bunch of starving actresses/actors trying to get their break in Hollywood to compete for that person's affection. That's right, I said hire. Hopefully you aren't so naive to think that they're actually doing that for FREE? Of course not. Each of them is getting paid, probably according to how long they are able to stay on the show. Most of them probably have little or no interest in the actual bachelor/bachelorette. Now tell me, where can I find such a scenario that naturally occurs in the REAL world? Nowhere.
To subtract even further from the reality of these shows, you've got cameras everywhere. Do people behave exactly how they would naturally when they're being filmed? What if there were cameras all around your house and office? Would you do anything different?
The only reality TV that ever came close to being real was shows like "Punk'd" and "Boiling Point." These shows relied on hidden cameras, and the "actors" didn't know they were being filmed. Furthermore, any compensation that the actors received was only offered after they were informed that it was a setup.
You know, some of these shows do occasionally have glimmers of reality. Take that ridiculous "Kendra" show, for example. It's all about the life of air-headed Kendra, former girlfriend of Hugh Heifner. I was at a friend's house a while back and she and her sister sat in rapt attention as this bland and boring show went on and on. At one point, it was Kendra, her fiance, and her friend sitting around the table having a really uninteresting conversation about their dog or something. I looked at my friend and her sister, perplexed that they were deriving entertainment from what was on the television. (From a male perspective, the only part of all this I found even remotely interesting was the fact that Kendra got a huge boob job and wasn't wearing a bra.) I thought to myself "I could probably have a more interesting conversation about the federal rules of civil procedure." You know it's bad television when law students (who have a very high tolerance for boring subjects) are bored stiff. So yes, THAT is reality. People sitting around a dinner table discussing topics in which you, an already disinterested third-party, have absolutely no interest. It also makes for horrible television. Which is why I think reality TV sucks.
Another problem with reality TV is that the cattle-like audience that finds a way to be entertained by such drivel might also be misled into thinking that it actually depicts reality. Then you'll get brides-to-be going absolutely crazy because they think that's okay and normal after watching "Bridezilla." Perhaps they don't realize that the producers are paying for the extraordinary antics. I had a roommate who told me that he had a really good relationship with a girl one time, and after a few months, she remarked that they never fought about anything, and wanted to know what was wrong. Seems like she was under the false impression that a normal relationship requires fighting, and if there hasn't been any, then it's not normal. It's false messages like these that reality TV sends to us. I just feel sorry for the people who actually believe them.
Not convinced? See here.
And here.
This too.
(Google is a wonderful thing.)
Let's take the bachelor/bachelorette. They take one man/woman, and then hire a bunch of starving actresses/actors trying to get their break in Hollywood to compete for that person's affection. That's right, I said hire. Hopefully you aren't so naive to think that they're actually doing that for FREE? Of course not. Each of them is getting paid, probably according to how long they are able to stay on the show. Most of them probably have little or no interest in the actual bachelor/bachelorette. Now tell me, where can I find such a scenario that naturally occurs in the REAL world? Nowhere.
To subtract even further from the reality of these shows, you've got cameras everywhere. Do people behave exactly how they would naturally when they're being filmed? What if there were cameras all around your house and office? Would you do anything different?
The only reality TV that ever came close to being real was shows like "Punk'd" and "Boiling Point." These shows relied on hidden cameras, and the "actors" didn't know they were being filmed. Furthermore, any compensation that the actors received was only offered after they were informed that it was a setup.
You know, some of these shows do occasionally have glimmers of reality. Take that ridiculous "Kendra" show, for example. It's all about the life of air-headed Kendra, former girlfriend of Hugh Heifner. I was at a friend's house a while back and she and her sister sat in rapt attention as this bland and boring show went on and on. At one point, it was Kendra, her fiance, and her friend sitting around the table having a really uninteresting conversation about their dog or something. I looked at my friend and her sister, perplexed that they were deriving entertainment from what was on the television. (From a male perspective, the only part of all this I found even remotely interesting was the fact that Kendra got a huge boob job and wasn't wearing a bra.) I thought to myself "I could probably have a more interesting conversation about the federal rules of civil procedure." You know it's bad television when law students (who have a very high tolerance for boring subjects) are bored stiff. So yes, THAT is reality. People sitting around a dinner table discussing topics in which you, an already disinterested third-party, have absolutely no interest. It also makes for horrible television. Which is why I think reality TV sucks.
Another problem with reality TV is that the cattle-like audience that finds a way to be entertained by such drivel might also be misled into thinking that it actually depicts reality. Then you'll get brides-to-be going absolutely crazy because they think that's okay and normal after watching "Bridezilla." Perhaps they don't realize that the producers are paying for the extraordinary antics. I had a roommate who told me that he had a really good relationship with a girl one time, and after a few months, she remarked that they never fought about anything, and wanted to know what was wrong. Seems like she was under the false impression that a normal relationship requires fighting, and if there hasn't been any, then it's not normal. It's false messages like these that reality TV sends to us. I just feel sorry for the people who actually believe them.
Not convinced? See here.
And here.
This too.
(Google is a wonderful thing.)
Monday, November 2, 2009
Is this so wrong?
I think you can tell a lot about a person by their favorite movies, or the movies they tend to watch. It speaks to how they are entertained. I imagine there's a big scientific explanation for what happens in the brain when someone is entertained. As I see it, you're entertained through some combination of empathy and understanding of whatever it is that is entertaining you. As you're watching a comedy flick, you see the exaggerated ridiculousness of the scene, recognize the why and how, and laugh accordingly. In a suspense thriller, you recognize the tension and imagine what the main character must be experiencing, and thus have a vicarious experience through her.
Some movies require more effort on your part in order to empathize with the characters or understand what is going on in the plot. Let's take the Matrix trilogy as an example. Everyone loved the first one. The plot was straightforward and the themes were simple (although if you watch the commentary you'll discover how replete the film was with philosophical nods and references): it's man vs. machine. Good vs. evil. Simple love story. Zero to hero. But then everyone hates the second and third parts of the trilogy. You've still got plenty of action. It's still man vs. machine. You've got the love thing going on. But now it's getting deeper. The producers are trying to communicate more of the history and background to their story. They're building up the "Christ" theme that culminates at the end of the third movie. But come on, people don't want that crap! Stuff like that requires way too much effort, empathy, and understanding. Thus, the connections are not made and people are not entertained.
I had a friend who didn't like the second and third movies. He also loved all the fast & furious movies. Does it mean anything? Am I wrong to make any sort of inference about his I.Q. on that basis? Is it all just a matter of varying interests? Could be.
What about the person who only likes horror films? What does that say about the person? The way I see it, it requires minimal mental faculties to empathize with or understand the entertainment value of a horror film. Horror films provide entertainment in the form of shock and surprise. Anyone can get scared. Even animals feel fear. But animals don't possess higher reasoning capabilities. They also don't crack jokes (as far as I know). So if someone only likes horror films and can't appreciate comedies or other genres, what does that say about them? Am I again wrong to infer that they may not be the sharpest tool in the shed?
I often pride myself on being non-judgmental. This post may make me a hypocrite. But let's face it, we make judgments as to someone's character based on all sorts of things. If someone derives entertainment/pleasure from killing kittens, then most of us would make a negative character judgment of him/her. My personal favorite is whether a person likes "The Office." If someone doesn't like the office, then I feel like I can at least conclude that we have drastically different senses of humor. If I'm feeling evil then I'll further conclude that they're not too bright. The Office, like most humor, is funny because it satirizes and exaggerates familiar, everyday occurrences. But to appreciate satire, one has to make the connection between reality and exaggeration. If you don't make the connection, you don't "get" the humor. It takes some mental effort, sometimes, to make such connections. I think you see where I'm going with this. :)
Some movies require more effort on your part in order to empathize with the characters or understand what is going on in the plot. Let's take the Matrix trilogy as an example. Everyone loved the first one. The plot was straightforward and the themes were simple (although if you watch the commentary you'll discover how replete the film was with philosophical nods and references): it's man vs. machine. Good vs. evil. Simple love story. Zero to hero. But then everyone hates the second and third parts of the trilogy. You've still got plenty of action. It's still man vs. machine. You've got the love thing going on. But now it's getting deeper. The producers are trying to communicate more of the history and background to their story. They're building up the "Christ" theme that culminates at the end of the third movie. But come on, people don't want that crap! Stuff like that requires way too much effort, empathy, and understanding. Thus, the connections are not made and people are not entertained.
I had a friend who didn't like the second and third movies. He also loved all the fast & furious movies. Does it mean anything? Am I wrong to make any sort of inference about his I.Q. on that basis? Is it all just a matter of varying interests? Could be.
What about the person who only likes horror films? What does that say about the person? The way I see it, it requires minimal mental faculties to empathize with or understand the entertainment value of a horror film. Horror films provide entertainment in the form of shock and surprise. Anyone can get scared. Even animals feel fear. But animals don't possess higher reasoning capabilities. They also don't crack jokes (as far as I know). So if someone only likes horror films and can't appreciate comedies or other genres, what does that say about them? Am I again wrong to infer that they may not be the sharpest tool in the shed?
I often pride myself on being non-judgmental. This post may make me a hypocrite. But let's face it, we make judgments as to someone's character based on all sorts of things. If someone derives entertainment/pleasure from killing kittens, then most of us would make a negative character judgment of him/her. My personal favorite is whether a person likes "The Office." If someone doesn't like the office, then I feel like I can at least conclude that we have drastically different senses of humor. If I'm feeling evil then I'll further conclude that they're not too bright. The Office, like most humor, is funny because it satirizes and exaggerates familiar, everyday occurrences. But to appreciate satire, one has to make the connection between reality and exaggeration. If you don't make the connection, you don't "get" the humor. It takes some mental effort, sometimes, to make such connections. I think you see where I'm going with this. :)
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
I'm offended!
There's a saying I heard long ago, I can't remember where, or who said it. It goes something like this: "The only thing stupider than taking offense when it isn't intended is taking offense when it IS intended." It's a little sound bite of wisdom I try to live by (and yes, "stupider" is a word).
Ultimately you are the person who decides whether something or someone is offensive to you. Of course you could say something like "That would be offensive to the average person." Often, you would be right. But since when has "average" been the goal? Average is merely the adjective that most often applies to each of us, as much as our self-serving bias might object; it's not the goal.
Every time you take offense to something, you exhibit weakness. You demonstrate that the person or thing that offended you has power over you. "That person is offensive" is not an entirely accurate statement. Rather: "I am offended by that person." There's a difference. The fact that you are offended might be more of a statement about yourself than it is about the other person.
Does this mean it's okay to go around recklessly or intentionally pissing people off and then blaming it on their weaknesses? Of course not. That makes you worse than a jerk. This is simply a mindset for dealing with the everyday things that people do, whether intentionally or unintentionally, that bother you.
I should also say that this concept isn't a "get out of jail free" card for the socially inept. I'm sure we all know people who speak before they think, not having inherited the gene for tact. While it's important to try to remain unphased by the unfortunate things that proceed from these peoples' mouths, we should also try to make them aware of how their words might affect others. Especially if you are close to these people and have to be around them on a regular basis. Because, come on, it can be pretty embarrassing.
I should also say that this concept isn't a "get out of jail free" card for the socially inept. I'm sure we all know people who speak before they think, not having inherited the gene for tact. While it's important to try to remain unphased by the unfortunate things that proceed from these peoples' mouths, we should also try to make them aware of how their words might affect others. Especially if you are close to these people and have to be around them on a regular basis. Because, come on, it can be pretty embarrassing.
So the next time you find yourself worked up over something, pause and ask whether whatever it is was done intentionally or unintentionally. If intentionally, then realize you have reacted very stupidly. If unintentionally, then take comfort in that you haven't yet hit the rock bottom of stupidity. Either way, the mere act of reflection will probably make it less likely to reoccur.
Sunday, July 26, 2009
Pinback
I've been a little crazy about this new band I discovered recently. "Pinback." They're a mellow, indie band, and quite frankly I find their music addictive. I'll post the youtube playlist I created for them. My favorites are probably "Fortress," "Penelope," and "Seville," but really, they're all good. Check them out! Remember to listen to a song at least twice before deciding if you like it or not.
Fortress
Penelope
Seville
Barnes
How We Breathe
Avignon
Tres
Good to Sea
Non Photo Blue
Don't ask me what they're singing about. I've never been one to really pay attention to lyrics. I will either like or hate a song based on its composition, beat, structure, and general tune. Lyrics are just an afterthought, in my mind. This is why I can go years listening to a song and never figure out what they're saying.
Anyway, I better stop before I start making fun of Snoop Dogg's "music." Listen to the links when you've got a minute! Tell me what you think.
Fortress
Penelope
Seville
Barnes
How We Breathe
Avignon
Tres
Good to Sea
Non Photo Blue
Don't ask me what they're singing about. I've never been one to really pay attention to lyrics. I will either like or hate a song based on its composition, beat, structure, and general tune. Lyrics are just an afterthought, in my mind. This is why I can go years listening to a song and never figure out what they're saying.
Anyway, I better stop before I start making fun of Snoop Dogg's "music." Listen to the links when you've got a minute! Tell me what you think.
Monday, July 13, 2009
I take the "Phone" out of iPhone
I've been on the iPhone bandwagon for a while now. Here is a list of what I use my iPhone for most:
1. Solitaire
2. Maps (checking traffic, getting directions, finding places)
3. Texting
4. Facebook
5. Listening to the radio
6. Making/Receiving phone calls
7. Messing around with themes and apps (I jail-broke it)
8. Crawling the web
9. Playing other games besides solitaire
10. Youtube
If this represents the typical uses of most iPhone owners, then I think they should start calling it something else.
1. Solitaire
2. Maps (checking traffic, getting directions, finding places)
3. Texting
4. Facebook
5. Listening to the radio
6. Making/Receiving phone calls
7. Messing around with themes and apps (I jail-broke it)
8. Crawling the web
9. Playing other games besides solitaire
10. Youtube
If this represents the typical uses of most iPhone owners, then I think they should start calling it something else.
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
Choose your battles wisely
Case in point:
PETA wishes Obama hadn't swatted that fly.
Video here
Here's the thing, PETA. When you choose to make ANY fuss over something so trivial (not to mention ridiculous), you lose credibility on all fronts, even those where your position is valid.
This, ladies and gentleman, is why you should choose your battles wisely.
PETA wishes Obama hadn't swatted that fly.
Video here
Here's the thing, PETA. When you choose to make ANY fuss over something so trivial (not to mention ridiculous), you lose credibility on all fronts, even those where your position is valid.
This, ladies and gentleman, is why you should choose your battles wisely.
Saturday, June 13, 2009
A rising generation of horrible spellers
The benefits of the internet are many, as are the disadvantages; I shan't attempt to number them all. Let me focus your attention on one aspect of this world I dwell in.
The internet is an information superhighway. Ideas can be shared and propagated to the world with the click of a button. Or, a few buttons, actually, because of this keyboard thing. But what if that idea is a bad one? Or rather, what if that idea is a really good one, but the idiot who came up with it used some variation of "there/their/they're" incorrectly. ("Hey guys! Their giving free slurpees at 7-11 this Thursday!!!") Well, now you've got millions of the idiot's friends of friends of friends forwarding this great idea, bad grammar and all. Then all these millions of friends start coming up with their own great ideas, with little regard to how they're using "you're/your."
If you own an email account, you've also probably been forwarded some kind of outrageous tidbit which may or may not be true. The original genius who revealed this newsworthy masterpiece probably described the event as ridiculous. Except he spelled it "rediculous." All the people who receive that email react in indignant outrage, quickly searching for the forward button to let all their friends and family know just how messed up the world is. Before you know it, millions of people have seen this email. They're also gathering around the water cooler talking about how "rediculous" it is.
We are a spoiled and lazy generation. Spoiled because most internet browsers and word processors immediately alert us to misspelled words. Lazy because we apparently don't care enough to right click on that word with the dotted red line under it to see what's wrong.
It's getting so bad that every time I see a correct usage of "you're," I actually do a double-take, instinctively thinking something must be wrong. Then I realize, "Oh, no that's right." I just see it wrong so often that I get confused when people do it right. Another culprit of this embarrassing development is internet and text messaging shortcuts (e.g. "ur"). "Ur" of course can mean one of three things: your, you're, and you are. Once people start using "ur" for everything, they must forget the correct usages of the above terms, and just go with the easiest one ("your").
Even rediculous bloggers who rant about stupid stuff like this are not immune. On rare occasion, I'm ashamed to admit, I've caught myself slipping up and using some simple contraption incorrectly. If purists like myself aren't even safe from this epidemic, then who is? What does our future hold? Will our newspapers someday read like the warning label of a Chinese firecracker?
Here are the most frequently misspelled words that I encounter. In all honesty I think the incorrect spellings/usages may one day oust the correct words from their rightful place.
The internet is an information superhighway. Ideas can be shared and propagated to the world with the click of a button. Or, a few buttons, actually, because of this keyboard thing. But what if that idea is a bad one? Or rather, what if that idea is a really good one, but the idiot who came up with it used some variation of "there/their/they're" incorrectly. ("Hey guys! Their giving free slurpees at 7-11 this Thursday!!!") Well, now you've got millions of the idiot's friends of friends of friends forwarding this great idea, bad grammar and all. Then all these millions of friends start coming up with their own great ideas, with little regard to how they're using "you're/your."
If you own an email account, you've also probably been forwarded some kind of outrageous tidbit which may or may not be true. The original genius who revealed this newsworthy masterpiece probably described the event as ridiculous. Except he spelled it "rediculous." All the people who receive that email react in indignant outrage, quickly searching for the forward button to let all their friends and family know just how messed up the world is. Before you know it, millions of people have seen this email. They're also gathering around the water cooler talking about how "rediculous" it is.
We are a spoiled and lazy generation. Spoiled because most internet browsers and word processors immediately alert us to misspelled words. Lazy because we apparently don't care enough to right click on that word with the dotted red line under it to see what's wrong.
It's getting so bad that every time I see a correct usage of "you're," I actually do a double-take, instinctively thinking something must be wrong. Then I realize, "Oh, no that's right." I just see it wrong so often that I get confused when people do it right. Another culprit of this embarrassing development is internet and text messaging shortcuts (e.g. "ur"). "Ur" of course can mean one of three things: your, you're, and you are. Once people start using "ur" for everything, they must forget the correct usages of the above terms, and just go with the easiest one ("your").
Even rediculous bloggers who rant about stupid stuff like this are not immune. On rare occasion, I'm ashamed to admit, I've caught myself slipping up and using some simple contraption incorrectly. If purists like myself aren't even safe from this epidemic, then who is? What does our future hold? Will our newspapers someday read like the warning label of a Chinese firecracker?
Here are the most frequently misspelled words that I encounter. In all honesty I think the incorrect spellings/usages may one day oust the correct words from their rightful place.
- Rediculous (Correct: "This blog is ridiculous.")
- They're/Their/There (I'm not even going to try. If people can't figure this out, our education system is in worse shape than we can possibly imagine.)
- You're/Your/You are (see above)
- Its/It's (Correct: "It's late; you should go." Also: "The blogger reared its ugly head.")
- Then/Than (Correct: "Then she said, 'You're way more ridiculous than my ex.")
- Lose/Loose
- to/too/two (Maybe not so much that last one, but I wouldn't be surprised.)
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
My Fashion Advice
Sometimes I'll have girl friends send me links to clothing items they're thinking of purchasing, to see if I think they're cute. I'm always happy to give an opinion (well, maybe not happy to...but I do it anyway), but here is the fundamental problem with asking me these questions--cute clothes don't make a girl look good; cute girls make clothes look good.
From my facebook quotes section: "I'm really not a shallow person: it doesn't matter to me what type of clothes people wear. It's what's underneath those clothes that really counts." -Me
This "quote," which I think I just kind of made up one day (though I doubt it's an original thought), betrays my inherent bias. If I think a girl is attractive, I'm probably going to think she'll look good in just about anything. Because it's true--she will. And while guys may not articulate the above attitude, they all think it. If my friends are attractive (and they are), I'll often just tell them they can save the $300 they're about to spend on that cute summer dress and just throw on a burlap sack. They'll look good in that, too. When a guy says he likes your dress, or your shirt, or your belt (come on, a belt??), what he really means is he thinks you're hot.
This is why models are good looking. An attractive model immediately creates a positive association with the outfit he/she is wearing. The unspoken false message conveyed is that if you buy this dress or shirt, you'll look as good as this model. And we eat it right up. If designers started hiring unattractive people to do their modeling, I have no doubt sales would take a nose dive. Nobody wants to look like THAT guy/girl! So that's another problem with asking my opinion on which dress is best: I'm going to be inclined to favor the outfits worn by the models that I find most attractive.
(The nerdy former psychology major in me wants to do a study that would quantify the effect of attractiveness on people's perceptions of clothing. It wouldn't be hard to set up. It has probably already been done...)
Having said all that, I will agree that some clothing is flattering while some is not (i.e. a burlap sack). However, that person's inherent attractiveness remains largely unaffected. Clothes, like so many other things, represent a "quick fix" in people's minds: "If I wear the most popular and trendy clothes, I will be beautiful!" In reality, there is no shortcut to beauty or attractiveness (or awesomeness); it's a combination of personality, physical appearance, and demeanor, among many other things. And these characteristics are a function of your lifestyle and everyday behavior--they're not things that can be changed like a pair of underwear.
And no, those jeans don't make you look fat. Your butt makes you look fat. Time to hit the stair machine!
From my facebook quotes section: "I'm really not a shallow person: it doesn't matter to me what type of clothes people wear. It's what's underneath those clothes that really counts." -Me
This "quote," which I think I just kind of made up one day (though I doubt it's an original thought), betrays my inherent bias. If I think a girl is attractive, I'm probably going to think she'll look good in just about anything. Because it's true--she will. And while guys may not articulate the above attitude, they all think it. If my friends are attractive (and they are), I'll often just tell them they can save the $300 they're about to spend on that cute summer dress and just throw on a burlap sack. They'll look good in that, too. When a guy says he likes your dress, or your shirt, or your belt (come on, a belt??), what he really means is he thinks you're hot.
This is why models are good looking. An attractive model immediately creates a positive association with the outfit he/she is wearing. The unspoken false message conveyed is that if you buy this dress or shirt, you'll look as good as this model. And we eat it right up. If designers started hiring unattractive people to do their modeling, I have no doubt sales would take a nose dive. Nobody wants to look like THAT guy/girl! So that's another problem with asking my opinion on which dress is best: I'm going to be inclined to favor the outfits worn by the models that I find most attractive.
(The nerdy former psychology major in me wants to do a study that would quantify the effect of attractiveness on people's perceptions of clothing. It wouldn't be hard to set up. It has probably already been done...)
Having said all that, I will agree that some clothing is flattering while some is not (i.e. a burlap sack). However, that person's inherent attractiveness remains largely unaffected. Clothes, like so many other things, represent a "quick fix" in people's minds: "If I wear the most popular and trendy clothes, I will be beautiful!" In reality, there is no shortcut to beauty or attractiveness (or awesomeness); it's a combination of personality, physical appearance, and demeanor, among many other things. And these characteristics are a function of your lifestyle and everyday behavior--they're not things that can be changed like a pair of underwear.
And no, those jeans don't make you look fat. Your butt makes you look fat. Time to hit the stair machine!
Monday, May 25, 2009
Clif Bars
.jpg)
In the aftermath of Costco discontinuing the protein bars I used to buy, I've been searching for a substitute. In short, Clif bars are not it.
To the makers of Clif bars: if you're going to create something that tastes like crap, the least you could do is make it resemble anything BUT crap. Seriously, if I stepped on one of these at the park, I'd probably utter a few of my favorite swears, and then look around for the irresponsible pet owner.
Of course, I guess I should expect as much from the hippies out of Berkeley, where these things are produced. The saddest part is I bought these in bulk at Costco, so now I've got like 50 of them I have to suffer through. I'm getting kind of sick just thinking about it.
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
I gave Chipotle a second chance, and I regret it
Why? Because I was really hungry and my friend told me that I needed to get the chicken rice bowl--it was "the best." I've heard that one before.
Besides being rather tasteless, another problem with what is served at chipotle is that it's COLD. Let me illustrate. Here is what goes in a chicken rice bowl:
Rice (warm)
Beans (warm)
Chicken (warm)
Salsa (cold)
Sour cream (cold)
Cheese (cold)
I also could have gotten guacamole and lettuce in there too (also cold). The ingredients go in the bowl in that order. Thus you have cold grated cheese sprinkled on top of two other cold items. How is that supposed to melt? Why would I want unmelted cheese in something like this? So after I sat down and kind of mixed this chicken rice bowl a little bit, it became a tasteless, lukewarm mess unfit for Guantanamo. The only reason I ate it all is because I was starving and had just paid six bucks for it.
Their burritos are even worse. In the burrito, you have all the above ingredients, plus maybe cold guacamole, all wrapped in a cold tortilla and then put in foil. Chipotle: serving cold "mexican" food fresh off the grill since '93! If I wanted burrito popsicles, I'd go to costco and buy them in bulk. Oh, I'd also heat them up in the microwave.
Now, consider what goes into a burrito at Cafe Rio:
Now I don't know about you, but when I'm eating mexican food (or "mexican" food, I should say--I know that neither chipotle nor cafe rio serves traditional mexican food), unless I'm eating a salad or dessert, I expect it to be hot. Cold food is what I get when I open my refrigerator and have leftovers (I then heat them up). I don't expect the food I just saw prepared in front of my eyes to be cold the second it's handed to me. Are my expectations unreasonable? Again, this is why I am baffled by Chipotle's popularity. Not only are they getting away with fooling people that the food itself actually tastes good, but they're also serving it to them cold! And the people are eating it up!
I'm truly perplexed that two Chipotle restaurants actually exist in Salt Lake City, because I always presumed that where Cafe Rio and its assorted rip-offs were present, Chipotle could not possibly thrive. Honestly this blows my mind. I'm not saying that Cafe Rio serves the best food on the planet, oh no. What I am saying is that in the world of burritos made in front of your eyes, as is done at both of these places, Cafe Rio serves food that is overwhelmingly better than anything you'll get at Chipotle. And, Cafe Rio has much more variety in their menu. But for all Californians who read this and have still not had the opportunity to experience Cafe Rio, fear not, for salvation is nigh. In 2010 Cafe Rio will be opening a location down in Lake Forest. I know, I know, "Where's Lake Forest?" I'm not entirely sure myself. I know it's way down in south county somewhere. I intend to look it up once 2010 rolls around. Until then, enjoy your Chipotle. I'll be at taco bell.
Besides being rather tasteless, another problem with what is served at chipotle is that it's COLD. Let me illustrate. Here is what goes in a chicken rice bowl:
Rice (warm)
Beans (warm)
Chicken (warm)
Salsa (cold)
Sour cream (cold)
Cheese (cold)
I also could have gotten guacamole and lettuce in there too (also cold). The ingredients go in the bowl in that order. Thus you have cold grated cheese sprinkled on top of two other cold items. How is that supposed to melt? Why would I want unmelted cheese in something like this? So after I sat down and kind of mixed this chicken rice bowl a little bit, it became a tasteless, lukewarm mess unfit for Guantanamo. The only reason I ate it all is because I was starving and had just paid six bucks for it.
Their burritos are even worse. In the burrito, you have all the above ingredients, plus maybe cold guacamole, all wrapped in a cold tortilla and then put in foil. Chipotle: serving cold "mexican" food fresh off the grill since '93! If I wanted burrito popsicles, I'd go to costco and buy them in bulk. Oh, I'd also heat them up in the microwave.
Now, consider what goes into a burrito at Cafe Rio:
- A warm tortilla that they just made fresh right in front of your eyes (they have a rotating grill on which they cook the thin sheets of dough).
- Seasoned rice (hot) (and none of this tasteless crap with just some green stuff thrown in there--the rice actually tastes GOOD. What a concept!)
- Beans (hot--you can actually see steam rising from the containers)
- Meat of your choice (hot--same as the beans)
- Cheese (cold, but quickly melts because the other items are kept hot)
- Sauce-mild, medium, or hot (all of which are heated)
Now I don't know about you, but when I'm eating mexican food (or "mexican" food, I should say--I know that neither chipotle nor cafe rio serves traditional mexican food), unless I'm eating a salad or dessert, I expect it to be hot. Cold food is what I get when I open my refrigerator and have leftovers (I then heat them up). I don't expect the food I just saw prepared in front of my eyes to be cold the second it's handed to me. Are my expectations unreasonable? Again, this is why I am baffled by Chipotle's popularity. Not only are they getting away with fooling people that the food itself actually tastes good, but they're also serving it to them cold! And the people are eating it up!
I'm truly perplexed that two Chipotle restaurants actually exist in Salt Lake City, because I always presumed that where Cafe Rio and its assorted rip-offs were present, Chipotle could not possibly thrive. Honestly this blows my mind. I'm not saying that Cafe Rio serves the best food on the planet, oh no. What I am saying is that in the world of burritos made in front of your eyes, as is done at both of these places, Cafe Rio serves food that is overwhelmingly better than anything you'll get at Chipotle. And, Cafe Rio has much more variety in their menu. But for all Californians who read this and have still not had the opportunity to experience Cafe Rio, fear not, for salvation is nigh. In 2010 Cafe Rio will be opening a location down in Lake Forest. I know, I know, "Where's Lake Forest?" I'm not entirely sure myself. I know it's way down in south county somewhere. I intend to look it up once 2010 rolls around. Until then, enjoy your Chipotle. I'll be at taco bell.
Thursday, April 30, 2009
Just another little rant: sunglasses indoors
I'm sitting here studying in the library, on the second floor, and a student walks by with sunglasses on, presumably going outside. A few minutes later, he passes by again, in the same condition. He is not carrying anything in his arms that would prevent him from removing the sunglasses from his face. I am confused. I was under the impression sunglasses were intended to protect your eyes from the sun and bright reflections while outside.
However, I do recognize that there may be some good reasons for wearing sunglasses indoors. Something else sunglasses do is obscure your face, making you harder to be recognized. Thus, they can be very useful to people such as celebrities and criminals. Celebrities, because they don't want to be mobbed by fans everywhere they go. Criminals, because they don't want to get caught and turned in.
But what about when people who are neither of these wear sunglasses indoors? What's the point? Is this some attempt at looking cool? At remaining aloof and disinterested in the affairs of people so unimportant they don't even deserve eye contact? Or is this a way for you to check out girls without them knowing it? I'm going with all of the above. Therefore, the only explanation I have is that these people are tools. Well here's some advice pal: if you want to look good or tough, hit the gym and lose weight. That'll do a lot more for you than those sunglasses.
(One notable exception to this rule is the people in the Matrix. Everyone seems to like wearing sunglasses there, regardless of where they are in the matrix. There's probably some deeper meaning behind this (the movies are quite deep, actually), of which I am not aware. So I'll refrain from holding the matrix people to the same standard...for now.)
Monday, April 13, 2009
I could care less that people could care less
Ok I don't mean to mince words, but this oft-used expression has always bothered me. People use it incorrectly. Typically, people will use this expression to convey the notion that they really don't care about something or other. For example: "I could care less what people think of me." Now what this literally means is that the person does care what people think of him, even if just a tiny amount, because if he didn't care at all, then the correct expression would be "I couldn't care less what people think of me." The latter version correctly expresses the thought that this person cares so little what people think, that he couldn't possibly care less. Try as hard as he might, he just can't do it. It is beyond his capability to care any less than he cares now. This is how the expression should be used. (This of course assumes that it is impossible to have "negative" caring, if that even makes sense. P.S. It doesn't.)
By saying "I could care less," you're actually selling yourself far short of even the less-emphatic "I don't care." This latter expression actually denotes a lesser degree of caring than the incorrect "I could care less," because it uses a more absolute negative than the former: "do not" as opposed to "less." I think it's safe to assume that, absent any modifier, "I don't care" should be properly understood as "I don't care [at all]" as opposed to "I don't care [much] or [a lot]." On the other hand, "I could care less" is a qualified statement from the get-go. The listener is left wondering, "Well, how much less could you care?" If the listener is at all like me, he's probably stopped paying attention to exactly what you could care less about, and instead is now pondering how much less you might care about it. He'll probably snap out of it in a few seconds and then smile and nod, and then change the subject. If you're lucky, he won't lecture you on your poor mastery of idiomatic expressions and the english language.
But wait, you hypocrite! You just used this expression incorrectly in the subject line to this post! Perhaps you are smugly thinking this to yourself. Well look again. By saying "I could care less that people could care less" I am telling you that there is a lot of non-caring I could do about this subject, compared to the caring that is currently going on here. For example, I could care so much less that I wouldn't have had the desire to write this ridiculous blog about it. See how that works?
Anyway, readers of my blog, I implore you to spread the word. The correct expression is as follows:
"I COULDN'T CARE LESS!"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)