As I might have mentioned, I'm in the process of trying to write something decent, in which I provide a series of Rules (and supporting commentary) for the benefit of guys, who are incapable of figuring things out for themselves. It's fun. Time consuming, and slow going - after spending all day sitting at a computer at work, I generally don't want to spend all evening sitting at a computer at home - but visible progress is being made.
But as I work through the Rules, and especially as I write the associated commentaries, the underlying theme has become increasingly crystal clear. And what it boils down to is this: Woman live their lives at the mercy of their hormones. Men live their lives at the mercy of their own egos.
Guys tend to get pissed off at women for being loopy, flighty, inconsistent, illogical, and occasionally downright bat-shit crazy. One of the Rules (The Lunar Cycle/Lunar Psycho Rule) actually reads: "She will occasionally flip out and do/say/feel crazy fucked up things. She cannot help it, she usually doesn't mean it, and she will get upset if you bring these things up at a later date. Weather the gale or jump ship of your own choice, but accept that there will be those storms." The reason for this, I have come to believe, is the continually fluctuating levels of hormones that she is suffering from. There is no possible way to tell what a woman is thinking, because - aside from a fairly constant buzzing of worrying about pretty much everything that's happening and might happen - women change their mind about whatever it is they're contemplating several times over the course of any given day/hour/minute. They can't help it. It's just the way their electro-chemical programming works.
As for guys, we generally don't have that problem with fluctuation. We spend pretty much our entire lives at fairly high levels of hormonally-induced sexual excitation, on the off chance that a woman might suddenly deign to put out. We need to be ready for that, because god knows it doesn't happen often. But as we don't suffer from the swings, it's hard for us to understand the various mood/mind swings.
Further, being continually amped-up on testosterone means that men are generally oblivious to most of what is happening around us. Male electro-chemical programming results in us perpetually thinking of ourselves as James Bond, or Walker, Texas Ranger (or some other character; I personally consider myself more a Thomas Crown type). Our lives are a movie - starring us, of course - and it is completely inconceivable that the script should call for such things as professional failure, angry girlfriends, or the idea that we are less than spectacular in bed. We're the Star, after all! None of that shit can happen to us! If it looks like that is happening, it must be a mistake, because there's simply NO WAY that the hero in the movie falls victim to that shit.
Most of the problems in our lives, and nearly all our problems with women, stem from the fact that, as guys, we are pretty much incapable of getting over ourselves to the point where we can actually notice what's going on around us. (Of course, all of this only applies to other guys. Not to me. I'm the Star in this flick, after all.)
The battle of the sexes is based on the genetic failings of the participants. That's the sum total of what I've learned from my current recreational writing project (other than blogging, that is). If you want to hear more about this, you'll probably have to read The Rules.
Thursday, May 29, 2008
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
Publication
I wish I could say that the reason that I've been less than diligent about blogging is that I've been devoting my artistically-oriented free time to working on something that might actually be publishable someday. I wish I could say that. And I really have been spending quite a bit of time working on something that might be publishable some day. But the simple fact is that I haven't been updating here very often because the last month has fairly well sucked, and I just haven't been able to work up the energy to sit down and start typing. Which, I'm convinced, is the true key to quality blogging; nobody who reads these things really cares all that much about the subject matter, we just like seeing what's going on in the lives of people we know, and if we can get an occasional laugh (either laughing along with the blogger, or laughing at their expense), so much the better.
Based on this theory, and also based on my recent experiences writing a little bit of this and a little bit of that, I've reached the conclusion that the VAST majority of aspiring writers are aiming for the wrong goal. Far too many people dream of coming up with the Next Great American Novel. Goes to show that they haven't thought the matter through. If you can score and score big (and I mean HUGE: think J. K. Rowling), you can come up with characters and storyline that both you and everyone else fall in love with, and spend a decade making it all come together, en route to becoming one of the wealthiest people in the world. Of course, the reason that J. K. Rowling is the only example of that sort of success is that she's the only one who's had that sort of success. Might as well aspire to winning the lottery; you'd probably have better chances of success with Lotto.
In any rate, for the vast rank and file of aspiring writers, that sort of thing will never happen, for a variety of reasons I won't go into right now. Although some writers make their careers on a single storyline (Card's Ender Saga, Jordan's Wheel of Time, Lucas' Star Wars), it's amazingly rare that anyone reaches that level of transcendental success. The hardest part about writing is rendering the storyline (that looks like gold inside your own head) into some concrete written form, and doing it in such a way that the storyline still looks like gold after the translation from loosely-defined ideas into clear text. Suffice to say that writing is hard work, sometimes for no other reason than that, while working on one storyline, you come up with something that strikes you as absolutely brilliant, but will need a storyline all its own. You have to put the shiny new storyline aside for weeks or months and finish up the old, less exciting, but closer to completion tale. Don't think for a second that writing is a cushy job that requires no discipline.
This train of thought has led me to the conclusion that the greatest job in writing is not the novelist. It's the columnist. Dave Barry needs to come up with a few pages of good stuff every week. But he only needs to come up with a few pages of good stuff every week. He can write about any damn thing he wants, so long as it's interesting enough that people are going to read it. Theoretically, he can come up with those pages and email them in to his editors from anywhere with an Internet connection. Since Dave does pretty well, I suspect he can afford a satellite connection, which means he can work from anywhere on the face of the planet, notably including Fiji, Cancun, St. Barts, and other sunny places where they serve fruity drinks with little umbrellas in them. I don't doubt for a second that Dave is an amazingly prolific writer, who at any given moment has 30 to 50 articles in various stages of development, but of publishable quality, so he's got some columns in the bank toward incidents of emergency, such as sudden attacks of overwhelming laziness and/or drunkenness.
The columnist is the ultimate literary profession. Which means that there's a long waiting list for the job. Generally speaking, you don't apply for a get a column. Instead, you make a name for yourself in some way shape or form, and then the job is offered to you on a trial basis. You get to keep the job for as long as people keep reading your stuff. It really is that simple. (The hard part is getting there, I gotta believe.)
Personally, I'm in the process of writing a commentary on male/female interaction, from the angle of rules and guidelines about love and life that guys REALLY need to know, but are not smart enough to reason out on their own. Little things like how to be good in bed: All you have to do is pay attention. When she gasps, moans, or tenses up, that means you did something right. Do it again. Don't do it harder. Don't do it faster. Just do it again. I honestly think that this is the sort of wisdom that guys REALLY need to know. And there's no fucking way a woman is ever going to boil things down into something that simple. So I'm writing The Rules. And incidentally, I'm seeking beta-testers to read the still-under-construction manuscript, so let me know if you're interested.
Now here's the twisted part: While I'm perhaps overly optimistic, I think my book is going to do well, because - while I write nothing but truth - the work as a whole is going to be something that just slightly offends every woman on the face of the planet. This is going to help me. The largest reading demographic in the world is the bored housewife; why do you think romance and self-help books sell so well. If a housewife reads my book, she will call up her friends and say "Oh my God. You're not going to believe what this guy says in this book I'm reading!" Then all her friends go buy my book, too. CHA-CHING!!! Victory is mine! The Holy Grail is where I end up on Oprah, facing down America's Unified Housewife Liberation Front, defending the things that I've dared put in print.
Besides being one HELL of a good time, that's the sort of thing that leads to cushy gigs like writing a column. I mean seriously, if a douche-bag like Adam Corolla can manage a regular social-commentary radio show, I can too. And the writing part is fun, even though I only really come up with a few pages of good stuff every week or so.
Based on this theory, and also based on my recent experiences writing a little bit of this and a little bit of that, I've reached the conclusion that the VAST majority of aspiring writers are aiming for the wrong goal. Far too many people dream of coming up with the Next Great American Novel. Goes to show that they haven't thought the matter through. If you can score and score big (and I mean HUGE: think J. K. Rowling), you can come up with characters and storyline that both you and everyone else fall in love with, and spend a decade making it all come together, en route to becoming one of the wealthiest people in the world. Of course, the reason that J. K. Rowling is the only example of that sort of success is that she's the only one who's had that sort of success. Might as well aspire to winning the lottery; you'd probably have better chances of success with Lotto.
In any rate, for the vast rank and file of aspiring writers, that sort of thing will never happen, for a variety of reasons I won't go into right now. Although some writers make their careers on a single storyline (Card's Ender Saga, Jordan's Wheel of Time, Lucas' Star Wars), it's amazingly rare that anyone reaches that level of transcendental success. The hardest part about writing is rendering the storyline (that looks like gold inside your own head) into some concrete written form, and doing it in such a way that the storyline still looks like gold after the translation from loosely-defined ideas into clear text. Suffice to say that writing is hard work, sometimes for no other reason than that, while working on one storyline, you come up with something that strikes you as absolutely brilliant, but will need a storyline all its own. You have to put the shiny new storyline aside for weeks or months and finish up the old, less exciting, but closer to completion tale. Don't think for a second that writing is a cushy job that requires no discipline.
This train of thought has led me to the conclusion that the greatest job in writing is not the novelist. It's the columnist. Dave Barry needs to come up with a few pages of good stuff every week. But he only needs to come up with a few pages of good stuff every week. He can write about any damn thing he wants, so long as it's interesting enough that people are going to read it. Theoretically, he can come up with those pages and email them in to his editors from anywhere with an Internet connection. Since Dave does pretty well, I suspect he can afford a satellite connection, which means he can work from anywhere on the face of the planet, notably including Fiji, Cancun, St. Barts, and other sunny places where they serve fruity drinks with little umbrellas in them. I don't doubt for a second that Dave is an amazingly prolific writer, who at any given moment has 30 to 50 articles in various stages of development, but of publishable quality, so he's got some columns in the bank toward incidents of emergency, such as sudden attacks of overwhelming laziness and/or drunkenness.
The columnist is the ultimate literary profession. Which means that there's a long waiting list for the job. Generally speaking, you don't apply for a get a column. Instead, you make a name for yourself in some way shape or form, and then the job is offered to you on a trial basis. You get to keep the job for as long as people keep reading your stuff. It really is that simple. (The hard part is getting there, I gotta believe.)
Personally, I'm in the process of writing a commentary on male/female interaction, from the angle of rules and guidelines about love and life that guys REALLY need to know, but are not smart enough to reason out on their own. Little things like how to be good in bed: All you have to do is pay attention. When she gasps, moans, or tenses up, that means you did something right. Do it again. Don't do it harder. Don't do it faster. Just do it again. I honestly think that this is the sort of wisdom that guys REALLY need to know. And there's no fucking way a woman is ever going to boil things down into something that simple. So I'm writing The Rules. And incidentally, I'm seeking beta-testers to read the still-under-construction manuscript, so let me know if you're interested.
Now here's the twisted part: While I'm perhaps overly optimistic, I think my book is going to do well, because - while I write nothing but truth - the work as a whole is going to be something that just slightly offends every woman on the face of the planet. This is going to help me. The largest reading demographic in the world is the bored housewife; why do you think romance and self-help books sell so well. If a housewife reads my book, she will call up her friends and say "Oh my God. You're not going to believe what this guy says in this book I'm reading!" Then all her friends go buy my book, too. CHA-CHING!!! Victory is mine! The Holy Grail is where I end up on Oprah, facing down America's Unified Housewife Liberation Front, defending the things that I've dared put in print.
Besides being one HELL of a good time, that's the sort of thing that leads to cushy gigs like writing a column. I mean seriously, if a douche-bag like Adam Corolla can manage a regular social-commentary radio show, I can too. And the writing part is fun, even though I only really come up with a few pages of good stuff every week or so.
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
Entertainment
I don't have an internet connection at home. Nor cable TV. Which means that I have fairly limited opportunities to keep myself amused, and occasionally fall into things like Star Wars marathons (excepting only Episode II, which not only do I not own, but which I deny the very existence of: there IS NO Star Wars Episode II), and drinking a lot. In fact, I went through a period a few weeks ago where I was doing my best to drink myself to death during movie marathons, but I kept passing out before I could reach fatal levels of alcohol toxicity. Hopefully I'll be able to correct that sort of behavior.
But it turns out that you can only spend so much time watching the same old movies while cleaning the same old guns and sharpening the same old knives, and you have to find something to do. When I reach that point, I usually go out to my backyard, sit around my campfire, and make s'mores while calling everyone I know. It's very relaxing; if you don't have a fire-pit in your yard, you really should get one. Nothing like beer and s'mores after a long day at work. Hell, I keep strategic reserves of chocolate and graham crackers on hand for that very purpose!
Alas, alack, eventually it gets late and I run out of things to burn (I am in the middle of the fucking desert, after all), and I have to go back inside. Sometimes when reaching that point, I'll close the blinds, change into sweats, dim the lights, and write. Lazarus Long says that there is nothing shameful about writing, so long as you do it in private and wash your hands afterward. (I like Heinlein, by the way. If you haven't read his stuff, you should.) It can be fun at times to see ideas you didn't know you had take shape, and to see what sort of interesting things you can come up with. I'm a big proponent of the idea that intelligence does not exist without expression, and vice versa. Liberal arts studies are nothing to be ashamed of. You're learning complex semantic and ideological building blocks that allow you to THINK. Our minds' abilities to comprehend and cognate are bounded by our vocabulary and our understanding of words; solid words, properly organized and coherently fused into concepts, form the basis for all intelligent analysis. If you don't have the words, you're not going to have the thoughts, much less express your ideas. Words are everything. Hell, even number are words, if they are to be effective. Symbolic representation will do in a pinch, but there's a reason the Romans never developed any higher math. XII + XXV is actually easier to instinctively calculate (XXXVII) than the same equation using hindu-arabic decimal characters. But you need a degree of intellectual abstraction (which decimal glyphs provide) to get anywhere near x = [(-b) plus/minus the square root of (b) squared minus 4(a)(c)] divided by 2(a).
The best place the find real art, whether you're talking about words or numbers, is in the grey area, between the pedantically simple and the amorphous abstract. People are generally bored with Roman numerals, and are generally stumped by the quadratic equation. But they are pleased with themselves when they remember that pi(r squared) gives the area of a circle. In words, people want to see words they know being used to paint a scene complex and diverse (and different enough from their own lives), that they can enjoy the created picture, without the scene becoming either so complex or so diverse that they lose their grasp of the picture being painted. Dr. Seuss gets real old, real fast, and nobody outside of professional literary critics spends any time at all on Flaubert. But Shakespeare's simple plots are still being adapted into screenplays, albeit divested of the complex iambic pentameter, which is beyond the masses. The Harry Potter books were astronomically successful for following a simple formula: a brightly colored world, not so different from our own but clearly not our own, into which people could escape. Complex characters and complex action, but where both the action and the words used to describe it all were simple enough that readers could follow the storyline, without needing a dictionary. I love the Harry Potter books, and I think J.K. Rowling deserves every one of the billions of cents she earned; she taught (or re-taught) several generations that reading could be fun. VERY well done. And I think it's ironic that romance novels are popular for the same reason; fantastic events, described in small words.
Of course, America excels at mediocrity, and the entertainment industry typically caters to the lowest common denominator, by capitalizing on the two primary passions of the American public: cynicism, and fleeting transcendence. How else is it possible that American Idol is a hit, when people can flip over to MTV and watch singers who's talent is already acknowledged? What that show is really predicated on is two simple things. First, the joy of people who can't sing (read: you, the viewer) watching while an asshole like Simon Cowell tears down people who can't sing either. Then, as the field thins, one contestant (who's entire back story, history of difficulties, and family problems you will learn), rises above all others, and faces down even the Mighty Simon to be crowned American Idol! People eat that shit up with a spoon, especially where their phone-in votes (at $1.99 per call) help choose the winner. I can't fucking stand Simon Cowell. But I do respect the man; he's playing the entertainment industry (and the TV-watching public) like a fucking harp.
Examples are everywhere. How did Jerry Springer makes his millions? Nothing like watching antics from the deepest depths of back-country in-bred trash to make you feel better about sitting at home jobless on a Tuesday afternoon. Phil Donahue had no successor because people were bored with his ho-hum stuff, although Geraldo stayed in business because he's willing to spew much the same trash Springer does. It warms my heart that Dr. Phil is marketed locally in a package time-block with Judge Judy and Divorce Court, but I still have to say that we'd be better off if all of them were replaced with Sesame Street re-runs. About the same intellectual content, but with the possibility of teaching the viewer something that prepares them for more involved lessons.
*Sigh*
The practical upshot of this line of thinking culminates in the classic artists' dilemma. What do I want to do? And what is going to sell? And how much must the artist sell out in order to sell. Fortunately, it's largely an academic debate for me; my income is based on billable hours, not buyable plots. But I do like to think that I might publish something someday. In fact, if anyone knows any literary agents, give me their contact info.
But it turns out that you can only spend so much time watching the same old movies while cleaning the same old guns and sharpening the same old knives, and you have to find something to do. When I reach that point, I usually go out to my backyard, sit around my campfire, and make s'mores while calling everyone I know. It's very relaxing; if you don't have a fire-pit in your yard, you really should get one. Nothing like beer and s'mores after a long day at work. Hell, I keep strategic reserves of chocolate and graham crackers on hand for that very purpose!
Alas, alack, eventually it gets late and I run out of things to burn (I am in the middle of the fucking desert, after all), and I have to go back inside. Sometimes when reaching that point, I'll close the blinds, change into sweats, dim the lights, and write. Lazarus Long says that there is nothing shameful about writing, so long as you do it in private and wash your hands afterward. (I like Heinlein, by the way. If you haven't read his stuff, you should.) It can be fun at times to see ideas you didn't know you had take shape, and to see what sort of interesting things you can come up with. I'm a big proponent of the idea that intelligence does not exist without expression, and vice versa. Liberal arts studies are nothing to be ashamed of. You're learning complex semantic and ideological building blocks that allow you to THINK. Our minds' abilities to comprehend and cognate are bounded by our vocabulary and our understanding of words; solid words, properly organized and coherently fused into concepts, form the basis for all intelligent analysis. If you don't have the words, you're not going to have the thoughts, much less express your ideas. Words are everything. Hell, even number are words, if they are to be effective. Symbolic representation will do in a pinch, but there's a reason the Romans never developed any higher math. XII + XXV is actually easier to instinctively calculate (XXXVII) than the same equation using hindu-arabic decimal characters. But you need a degree of intellectual abstraction (which decimal glyphs provide) to get anywhere near x = [(-b) plus/minus the square root of (b) squared minus 4(a)(c)] divided by 2(a).
The best place the find real art, whether you're talking about words or numbers, is in the grey area, between the pedantically simple and the amorphous abstract. People are generally bored with Roman numerals, and are generally stumped by the quadratic equation. But they are pleased with themselves when they remember that pi(r squared) gives the area of a circle. In words, people want to see words they know being used to paint a scene complex and diverse (and different enough from their own lives), that they can enjoy the created picture, without the scene becoming either so complex or so diverse that they lose their grasp of the picture being painted. Dr. Seuss gets real old, real fast, and nobody outside of professional literary critics spends any time at all on Flaubert. But Shakespeare's simple plots are still being adapted into screenplays, albeit divested of the complex iambic pentameter, which is beyond the masses. The Harry Potter books were astronomically successful for following a simple formula: a brightly colored world, not so different from our own but clearly not our own, into which people could escape. Complex characters and complex action, but where both the action and the words used to describe it all were simple enough that readers could follow the storyline, without needing a dictionary. I love the Harry Potter books, and I think J.K. Rowling deserves every one of the billions of cents she earned; she taught (or re-taught) several generations that reading could be fun. VERY well done. And I think it's ironic that romance novels are popular for the same reason; fantastic events, described in small words.
Of course, America excels at mediocrity, and the entertainment industry typically caters to the lowest common denominator, by capitalizing on the two primary passions of the American public: cynicism, and fleeting transcendence. How else is it possible that American Idol is a hit, when people can flip over to MTV and watch singers who's talent is already acknowledged? What that show is really predicated on is two simple things. First, the joy of people who can't sing (read: you, the viewer) watching while an asshole like Simon Cowell tears down people who can't sing either. Then, as the field thins, one contestant (who's entire back story, history of difficulties, and family problems you will learn), rises above all others, and faces down even the Mighty Simon to be crowned American Idol! People eat that shit up with a spoon, especially where their phone-in votes (at $1.99 per call) help choose the winner. I can't fucking stand Simon Cowell. But I do respect the man; he's playing the entertainment industry (and the TV-watching public) like a fucking harp.
Examples are everywhere. How did Jerry Springer makes his millions? Nothing like watching antics from the deepest depths of back-country in-bred trash to make you feel better about sitting at home jobless on a Tuesday afternoon. Phil Donahue had no successor because people were bored with his ho-hum stuff, although Geraldo stayed in business because he's willing to spew much the same trash Springer does. It warms my heart that Dr. Phil is marketed locally in a package time-block with Judge Judy and Divorce Court, but I still have to say that we'd be better off if all of them were replaced with Sesame Street re-runs. About the same intellectual content, but with the possibility of teaching the viewer something that prepares them for more involved lessons.
*Sigh*
The practical upshot of this line of thinking culminates in the classic artists' dilemma. What do I want to do? And what is going to sell? And how much must the artist sell out in order to sell. Fortunately, it's largely an academic debate for me; my income is based on billable hours, not buyable plots. But I do like to think that I might publish something someday. In fact, if anyone knows any literary agents, give me their contact info.
Wednesday, March 26, 2008
Little Green Bastards. And Us.
I like the Jedi. Or at least, I like the Jedi characters we get to see. But that having been said, I have to further opine that on just how thoroughly, completely, and overwhelmingly evil the Jedi can be. Especially that little green fucker, Yoda: the height of arrogant, altruistic oppression, sneering all who opposes his designs, belittling them for the sin of loving and hating. Mace Windu is not far behind, but he's just egotistical-condecending, rather than pedantic-condescending. He gets a pass by dint of still having some human emotions, to say nothing of (and I'm SURE this is true) having "Bad Mother Fucker" engraved on his lightsaber.
I'm talking about the actual Jedi philosophies and teaching of the Jedi Knights; the teaching that Yoda perpetually spouts until you're just dying for somebody to force-lightning him. Talk about an uncompromising totalitarian mindset! Obey your master. Follow the Code. "Empty your mind of questions." "Teach yourself to let go of everything you hold dear." No feeling, except the Force. Sounds a lot like Confucian China in terms of requiring impassive obedience, except that it's much, much worse, since you're not even allowed to get upset about it! Anger leads to the Dark Side. Hate leads to the Dark Side. Love leads to the Dark Side. FEELING leads to the Dark Side. Hell, if Yoda were to have his way, the Universe would be populated by untinking, unfeeling automatons, going blissfully about their business, never a thought or a feeling to distract them from the perfect harmony of the Force. And any student of cultural dynamics could tell you the result: the loss of invention, initiative, art, science, and progress. In a perfectly harmonious society there is no dissent, but there is no progress. There is no innovation. There is no invention, because nothing is needed. No development of idea or ideals. No pain. No hate. No anger. No love. No hopes. No dreams. No aspiration. An entire universe, blissfully ignorant. Thank god that there are dissidents like Qui Gon and Kenobi smiling and nodding at Yoda's understanding of the force, but still doing whatever the hell they think they must, emotional detachment be damned. But as a whole, and as gushed by Yoda, the Jedi preach detachment as they do their best to bring a chaotic univers into line.
Of course, we don't have that problem.
Instead, we have a different problem. The endless strife and competition and ebb and flow of ideas and commerce and information we see on a daily basis is nearly as stagnating as the pervasive silence of a passive universe. Our minds and senses can only grasp so much at any given time. Once we surpass the threshold of information and stimulation that we can wrap our minds around, it all simply becomes white noise, before which we stand in stunned awe, largely incapable of thought or action. What is the difference between a uinverse that is silent, and one so loud that nothing can be herd. I've seen it a lot here in town. Bumpkins coming in from pretty much any place that's not Las Vegas. They see the lights, the glitz, the grandeur, and they stand openmouthed in awe. In all the noise, they can hear nothing. All you need to do is walk the stip, and you'll see them too. Blided by the neon, the beautiful girls, the clink of coins into the dishes of the slot machines, and the cheers from winners in the craps pits. They jump in with both feet. They can't help themselves; they're blinded by it all, and beyond rational thought. They might not even think, even if they were able to, so amazing is it.
No thought. No fear. Just a plunge.
But, much like the universe as a whole, the glitz and glory of Las Vegas are illusion. The reality beneath is that this town is a machine. If you have a vice, it will find it, and give it to you. You will enjoy every second of it, and bask in things of fantasy of delight. Until it comsumes you. Tourists arrive, and go straight into the City's gaping maw, at the Bellagio, the Mirage, Ceasars Palace. Days, weeks, or months later, those same people, having cashed their plane tickets and spent their life savings for one last run at the 21 tables, get shit out onto Industrial avenue, utterly broke. Many of them will beg a way home, others will stay and find jobs. But some don't go home. There is a reason that none of the windows open on the high-rise towers, but the determined will still find a way to be done in, either by their own doing, or by someone else's doing.
And none of them will ever remember how it happened. Where all the money went. How they arrived at the Tables at a little after noon, and still found themselves there noon the next day. Where did the time go. It disappeared into the sensory overload. The flash and the sounds and the girls and the glitz and the free drinks. They sat blissfully in a sea of chaos so pervasive as to overcome them. And they fact that they lost $50,000 was just lost in the white noise.
The universe is like Las Vegas. Wonderful, terrible chaos, offering us the greatest of treasures for the highest of prices. It's just covered by a varyingly thin veneer of glitz and illusion. Hell, the only reason we can face it at all is because, in addition to the relatively thin and gaudy illusion, the Machine itself is so vast and expansive that, by virture of sheer size and complexity, is laregly beyond our perception and understanding. We can venture out into the world, because we don't know (or don't believe) just how dangerous it is.
Which brings us back to the Jedi. The greatest redeeming thing that I can see in the Jedi (other than lightsabers, which are near the top of the all-time bad-assness list) is their ability to perceive the greatness of the Universe, to see the chaos behind the illusion, and still control their responses to the stimulus that must result. Their ability to feel, through the Force, things happening lightyears away, yet still be rational. Their perceptions are vastly beyond and superior to our own, and they must thus know the terrible wonder and danger, yet somehow, they retain the ability to not be dazzled or drowned by the sea of white noise. I admire them for that. But I still detest the mindless, loveless, stagnant utopia they embrace. Yoda's rationality and impartiality come at the cost of his soul. Men are not machines, and are not meant to be.
But it must be comforting for the Jedi, to be able to feel nothing, and be unafraid of and unaffected while at the same time seeing and comprehending the whirling maelstom of things and thoughts surrounding them.
Of course, we mere mortals have a different solution. Rather than sacrificing our humanity to see the Whole, unfeeling, through the Force, we narrow our horizons down to a level that we can encompass. We look at things and thoughts in our immediate vicinity, outside of which the Noise pervades, thankfully concealing - beneath the ever-present illusion - the wonders and horrors we can't or choose not to deal with. We adjust our lives to contain an amount of chaos that we can handle, and remain blissfully ignorant of the rest. And problems really only arise when something from the Noise comes into the spheres in which we live our lives. But within those spheres, we are comfortable; we can live our lives ignorant of the dangers and wonders that all run together in the white noise.
It's a defense mechanism. We can't be impassive, so we become ignorant. We put things out of our mind, and don't worry about them. We trust (or kid ourselves) that the rest of the universe, outside our perceptions, is running along smoothly, just as it always has, without any help or imput from us. Si non confectus, non reficiat. Things work out, if you let them. And the up side is that we retain hope and dreams. We delve the White Noise at the edges of our lives, looking at the fringes of our lives for things and people to improve our existence. We enjoy the wonderful diversity and unpredictability of the utter chaos of our universe, yet keep it confined to a scale that we are comfortable with.
Of course, given that our lives consist of comfort zones of varying degrees of size (and comfort), determined according to our own tastes, we are faced with dilemma of how large (and how comfortable) we choose to make those zones. Since we can't, as the Jedi do, purge our minds of our feelings for the sake of Broader Understanding (nor do I think we should) we must pick and choose how, and how large, to build the lives we live. Naturally, the larger the life, the more maintenance involved in enforcing localized order onto ther universal chaos. The universe is inherently entropic, and requires the imput of energy to bring order from chaos. And people differ in the amount of energy they have to put into world-building. Phobics and neurotics confine themselves to small places, because of the threat and fear of the chaos overwhelming them. Catatonics confine themselves within the space of their own minds, for the same reason. But most of us find a larger space, where we deal with a fairly impressive amount of chaos, while (hopefully) avoiding situations that might pose the possibility of overwhelming us.
I'm sure I'll have more to say about this, but I need a drink first.
I'm talking about the actual Jedi philosophies and teaching of the Jedi Knights; the teaching that Yoda perpetually spouts until you're just dying for somebody to force-lightning him. Talk about an uncompromising totalitarian mindset! Obey your master. Follow the Code. "Empty your mind of questions." "Teach yourself to let go of everything you hold dear." No feeling, except the Force. Sounds a lot like Confucian China in terms of requiring impassive obedience, except that it's much, much worse, since you're not even allowed to get upset about it! Anger leads to the Dark Side. Hate leads to the Dark Side. Love leads to the Dark Side. FEELING leads to the Dark Side. Hell, if Yoda were to have his way, the Universe would be populated by untinking, unfeeling automatons, going blissfully about their business, never a thought or a feeling to distract them from the perfect harmony of the Force. And any student of cultural dynamics could tell you the result: the loss of invention, initiative, art, science, and progress. In a perfectly harmonious society there is no dissent, but there is no progress. There is no innovation. There is no invention, because nothing is needed. No development of idea or ideals. No pain. No hate. No anger. No love. No hopes. No dreams. No aspiration. An entire universe, blissfully ignorant. Thank god that there are dissidents like Qui Gon and Kenobi smiling and nodding at Yoda's understanding of the force, but still doing whatever the hell they think they must, emotional detachment be damned. But as a whole, and as gushed by Yoda, the Jedi preach detachment as they do their best to bring a chaotic univers into line.
Of course, we don't have that problem.
Instead, we have a different problem. The endless strife and competition and ebb and flow of ideas and commerce and information we see on a daily basis is nearly as stagnating as the pervasive silence of a passive universe. Our minds and senses can only grasp so much at any given time. Once we surpass the threshold of information and stimulation that we can wrap our minds around, it all simply becomes white noise, before which we stand in stunned awe, largely incapable of thought or action. What is the difference between a uinverse that is silent, and one so loud that nothing can be herd. I've seen it a lot here in town. Bumpkins coming in from pretty much any place that's not Las Vegas. They see the lights, the glitz, the grandeur, and they stand openmouthed in awe. In all the noise, they can hear nothing. All you need to do is walk the stip, and you'll see them too. Blided by the neon, the beautiful girls, the clink of coins into the dishes of the slot machines, and the cheers from winners in the craps pits. They jump in with both feet. They can't help themselves; they're blinded by it all, and beyond rational thought. They might not even think, even if they were able to, so amazing is it.
No thought. No fear. Just a plunge.
But, much like the universe as a whole, the glitz and glory of Las Vegas are illusion. The reality beneath is that this town is a machine. If you have a vice, it will find it, and give it to you. You will enjoy every second of it, and bask in things of fantasy of delight. Until it comsumes you. Tourists arrive, and go straight into the City's gaping maw, at the Bellagio, the Mirage, Ceasars Palace. Days, weeks, or months later, those same people, having cashed their plane tickets and spent their life savings for one last run at the 21 tables, get shit out onto Industrial avenue, utterly broke. Many of them will beg a way home, others will stay and find jobs. But some don't go home. There is a reason that none of the windows open on the high-rise towers, but the determined will still find a way to be done in, either by their own doing, or by someone else's doing.
And none of them will ever remember how it happened. Where all the money went. How they arrived at the Tables at a little after noon, and still found themselves there noon the next day. Where did the time go. It disappeared into the sensory overload. The flash and the sounds and the girls and the glitz and the free drinks. They sat blissfully in a sea of chaos so pervasive as to overcome them. And they fact that they lost $50,000 was just lost in the white noise.
The universe is like Las Vegas. Wonderful, terrible chaos, offering us the greatest of treasures for the highest of prices. It's just covered by a varyingly thin veneer of glitz and illusion. Hell, the only reason we can face it at all is because, in addition to the relatively thin and gaudy illusion, the Machine itself is so vast and expansive that, by virture of sheer size and complexity, is laregly beyond our perception and understanding. We can venture out into the world, because we don't know (or don't believe) just how dangerous it is.
Which brings us back to the Jedi. The greatest redeeming thing that I can see in the Jedi (other than lightsabers, which are near the top of the all-time bad-assness list) is their ability to perceive the greatness of the Universe, to see the chaos behind the illusion, and still control their responses to the stimulus that must result. Their ability to feel, through the Force, things happening lightyears away, yet still be rational. Their perceptions are vastly beyond and superior to our own, and they must thus know the terrible wonder and danger, yet somehow, they retain the ability to not be dazzled or drowned by the sea of white noise. I admire them for that. But I still detest the mindless, loveless, stagnant utopia they embrace. Yoda's rationality and impartiality come at the cost of his soul. Men are not machines, and are not meant to be.
But it must be comforting for the Jedi, to be able to feel nothing, and be unafraid of and unaffected while at the same time seeing and comprehending the whirling maelstom of things and thoughts surrounding them.
Of course, we mere mortals have a different solution. Rather than sacrificing our humanity to see the Whole, unfeeling, through the Force, we narrow our horizons down to a level that we can encompass. We look at things and thoughts in our immediate vicinity, outside of which the Noise pervades, thankfully concealing - beneath the ever-present illusion - the wonders and horrors we can't or choose not to deal with. We adjust our lives to contain an amount of chaos that we can handle, and remain blissfully ignorant of the rest. And problems really only arise when something from the Noise comes into the spheres in which we live our lives. But within those spheres, we are comfortable; we can live our lives ignorant of the dangers and wonders that all run together in the white noise.
It's a defense mechanism. We can't be impassive, so we become ignorant. We put things out of our mind, and don't worry about them. We trust (or kid ourselves) that the rest of the universe, outside our perceptions, is running along smoothly, just as it always has, without any help or imput from us. Si non confectus, non reficiat. Things work out, if you let them. And the up side is that we retain hope and dreams. We delve the White Noise at the edges of our lives, looking at the fringes of our lives for things and people to improve our existence. We enjoy the wonderful diversity and unpredictability of the utter chaos of our universe, yet keep it confined to a scale that we are comfortable with.
Of course, given that our lives consist of comfort zones of varying degrees of size (and comfort), determined according to our own tastes, we are faced with dilemma of how large (and how comfortable) we choose to make those zones. Since we can't, as the Jedi do, purge our minds of our feelings for the sake of Broader Understanding (nor do I think we should) we must pick and choose how, and how large, to build the lives we live. Naturally, the larger the life, the more maintenance involved in enforcing localized order onto ther universal chaos. The universe is inherently entropic, and requires the imput of energy to bring order from chaos. And people differ in the amount of energy they have to put into world-building. Phobics and neurotics confine themselves to small places, because of the threat and fear of the chaos overwhelming them. Catatonics confine themselves within the space of their own minds, for the same reason. But most of us find a larger space, where we deal with a fairly impressive amount of chaos, while (hopefully) avoiding situations that might pose the possibility of overwhelming us.
I'm sure I'll have more to say about this, but I need a drink first.
Thursday, March 13, 2008
All you have to do...
I'm not a believer in most relationships, for the same reason that I'm not a believer in most religions; anytime your happiness is dependant on the actions, opinions, or approval of someone other than you, you're just asking for grief. The simple fact of the matter is that relationships and religions are formed of people, and that people - by and large - suck.
With regard to religion, even if you are part of Marx's masses taking the opium, you must have noticed that religions these days are simply tools used to control people. Which is reasonable; it works better then pretty much any other means of control, something the was discovery pretty early. History seems to indicate that the actual teachings of Jesus were corrupted into 'Thou Shalt Nots' within just a few years of his death. The teaching themselves, as expressed in the Gospel of St. Thomas from the Dead Sea Scrolls, are actually very Zen-like in their expressions of life. 'The kingdom of heaven you are looking for is already here.' 'Split a piece if wood, and I am there. Lift a stone and you will find me.' Above all the lessons were live simply, be honest, and don't do what you hate. There is no discussion of sin, or fire or brimstone, and naturally the Catholic Church utterly denounces the writings as heretic. Can't have the sheep thinking thoughts about how the ultimate goal is to stop being a sheep. And if people lived simply and honestly, how would they afford tithing?
The only modern(ish) religion that seems to have things even remotely right are the Zen Buddhists. I don't believe in those teachings either, since I don't think wisdom and enlightenment necessarily require abandonment of worldly concerns. Why the hell is the world here, if not for us to enjoy it? But the Zen monks are all about personal empowerment, and have the right idea about philosophy: their position is that you do not learn wisdom, you find it. There's an old saying about holy hermits: the only wisdom you will find on a mountaintop is the wisdom that you carry there with you.
What does this tell you?
Stimulus for enlightenment is all around us, and free for the taking. Check out Richard Bach's Illusions (the book which saved my life, and concurrently did much of the damage that turned me into the person - for lack of a better word - that I am today). Don Shimoda, who quit his job as a mechanic to be a messiah, then decided that the job wasn't really for him, has this trick where he can use any written material to find the answer to any question. It works, too. The trick - as Don says - is usually as simple as asking the question the right way. Wisdom is everywhere; the trick is learning to see how the world reflects the wisdom you already have. It's not something Out There that you let in, its something within that you LET OUT.
Thus, it's no real surprise how rare it is. People these days typically learn self-empowerment from Tony Robbins seminars, and WANT to be led through their lives by rules and commandments from third-parties, because doing so is a hell of a lot easier than thinking for themselves. As in the Allegory of the Cave (or the Matrix), the vast majority of people are not ready to be unplugged, and will rebel violently against even the concept of non-conformity. They will never fly, because they can't let go of the ground. So why should we expect them to have enough confidence in themselves, their abilities, and their thoughts to give them credence over the rote teachings of the officially Ordained?
I think this is a direct parallel to modern educational systems, which are geared towards memorization of facts, and teaching kids WHAT to think instead of teaching them HOW to think. Parents take note: the greatest lesson you will ever teach your child is HOW TO LEARN. Don't teach them facts, or figures, or formulas. Instead, teach them that if they are interested in a subject, they are fully capable of learning about it. It is NOT beyond their ability, and how-tos are readily available at the library or on the internet. Do not teach them! Just show them how to learn about things they find engaging. They will do the rest, and will grow in their own time into something exponentially more vast than whatever facts and figures you might drill into their heads by rote.
But I digress. A bit; the confidence gained through a person who knows they can do anything is a huge step towards letting wisdom out, so a non-standard (and non-religious) upbringing will help in all sorts of areas of life.
The bottom line is that wisdom is everywhere. Which turns me to relationships. I was recently watching late-night TV on one of the five channels I get, and I heard Dr. John Dorien describing relationships. His position is that they all suck. They are never smooth, they are never easy, and are typically a lot of work. Even when you're in a good relationship, it's not a cake walk, its just a relationship where you care enough about the person that you face the fights and arguments and problems head on, because you refuse to let the relationship go. Where WHO you want becomes more important that WHAT you want. The summation line was one of the wisest things I have ever heard: if you want to make things work, all you have to do is WHATEVER IT TAKES.
Most relationships are not based on that sort of mutual dedication. In fact, I think most relationships are based on co-dependency. Where people end up togther because they are unwilling or unable to deal with being alone, and then fall into a rut where they've been with someone for so long, and they really don't want to disturb their comfortable status quo. So they stay together. Relationships based on symbiosis and convenience, rather than on love. How often do we linger in unpleasant situations, from inertia?
I'm not sure there's a point to all this; I just find it interesting.
With regard to religion, even if you are part of Marx's masses taking the opium, you must have noticed that religions these days are simply tools used to control people. Which is reasonable; it works better then pretty much any other means of control, something the was discovery pretty early. History seems to indicate that the actual teachings of Jesus were corrupted into 'Thou Shalt Nots' within just a few years of his death. The teaching themselves, as expressed in the Gospel of St. Thomas from the Dead Sea Scrolls, are actually very Zen-like in their expressions of life. 'The kingdom of heaven you are looking for is already here.' 'Split a piece if wood, and I am there. Lift a stone and you will find me.' Above all the lessons were live simply, be honest, and don't do what you hate. There is no discussion of sin, or fire or brimstone, and naturally the Catholic Church utterly denounces the writings as heretic. Can't have the sheep thinking thoughts about how the ultimate goal is to stop being a sheep. And if people lived simply and honestly, how would they afford tithing?
The only modern(ish) religion that seems to have things even remotely right are the Zen Buddhists. I don't believe in those teachings either, since I don't think wisdom and enlightenment necessarily require abandonment of worldly concerns. Why the hell is the world here, if not for us to enjoy it? But the Zen monks are all about personal empowerment, and have the right idea about philosophy: their position is that you do not learn wisdom, you find it. There's an old saying about holy hermits: the only wisdom you will find on a mountaintop is the wisdom that you carry there with you.
What does this tell you?
Stimulus for enlightenment is all around us, and free for the taking. Check out Richard Bach's Illusions (the book which saved my life, and concurrently did much of the damage that turned me into the person - for lack of a better word - that I am today). Don Shimoda, who quit his job as a mechanic to be a messiah, then decided that the job wasn't really for him, has this trick where he can use any written material to find the answer to any question. It works, too. The trick - as Don says - is usually as simple as asking the question the right way. Wisdom is everywhere; the trick is learning to see how the world reflects the wisdom you already have. It's not something Out There that you let in, its something within that you LET OUT.
Thus, it's no real surprise how rare it is. People these days typically learn self-empowerment from Tony Robbins seminars, and WANT to be led through their lives by rules and commandments from third-parties, because doing so is a hell of a lot easier than thinking for themselves. As in the Allegory of the Cave (or the Matrix), the vast majority of people are not ready to be unplugged, and will rebel violently against even the concept of non-conformity. They will never fly, because they can't let go of the ground. So why should we expect them to have enough confidence in themselves, their abilities, and their thoughts to give them credence over the rote teachings of the officially Ordained?
I think this is a direct parallel to modern educational systems, which are geared towards memorization of facts, and teaching kids WHAT to think instead of teaching them HOW to think. Parents take note: the greatest lesson you will ever teach your child is HOW TO LEARN. Don't teach them facts, or figures, or formulas. Instead, teach them that if they are interested in a subject, they are fully capable of learning about it. It is NOT beyond their ability, and how-tos are readily available at the library or on the internet. Do not teach them! Just show them how to learn about things they find engaging. They will do the rest, and will grow in their own time into something exponentially more vast than whatever facts and figures you might drill into their heads by rote.
But I digress. A bit; the confidence gained through a person who knows they can do anything is a huge step towards letting wisdom out, so a non-standard (and non-religious) upbringing will help in all sorts of areas of life.
The bottom line is that wisdom is everywhere. Which turns me to relationships. I was recently watching late-night TV on one of the five channels I get, and I heard Dr. John Dorien describing relationships. His position is that they all suck. They are never smooth, they are never easy, and are typically a lot of work. Even when you're in a good relationship, it's not a cake walk, its just a relationship where you care enough about the person that you face the fights and arguments and problems head on, because you refuse to let the relationship go. Where WHO you want becomes more important that WHAT you want. The summation line was one of the wisest things I have ever heard: if you want to make things work, all you have to do is WHATEVER IT TAKES.
Most relationships are not based on that sort of mutual dedication. In fact, I think most relationships are based on co-dependency. Where people end up togther because they are unwilling or unable to deal with being alone, and then fall into a rut where they've been with someone for so long, and they really don't want to disturb their comfortable status quo. So they stay together. Relationships based on symbiosis and convenience, rather than on love. How often do we linger in unpleasant situations, from inertia?
I'm not sure there's a point to all this; I just find it interesting.
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
Nature vs. Nurture
I realize that, contrary to all common sense, people do get bored of football, so I'll shift my monologue - at least temporarily - to another subject, brought to my attention by a recent TV documentary about psychological analysis of career crinimals. This got me to thinking about whether criminals (or other, less persecuted/prosecuted societal malcontents, including but not limited to performance artists, taxi drivers, lawyers, end democrats) arise as a result problems with themselves, or as a result of the society in which they move. And I refer to career malcontents, here. Not to the antics that all of us occasionally get up to, ranging from my own acts of breaking and entering and associated vandalism, to other people's desires to strip completely naked in the front seats of Cadillac SUVs. (I'll talk about those kinds of behavior later.) Those things are not where I'm going with this. Instead, I'm referring to people who either cannot function as upstanding individuals, or who simply choose not to. Where do they come from?
For the most part, I believe that the whole Nature vs. Nurture debate amounts to so much intellectual masturbation, in that it serves no purpose except the for the loving handling of choice ideas and concepts, devoid of any positive results or forward progress. For the most part, we are who we are, and while greater understanding of our origins is certainly fun to theorize on, we remain who we are. If we have children, we should do the best we can, strive to be better parents than we had, and accept that our children are going to become who they are, perhaps because of what we do, and perhaps in spite of what we do. Nature vs. Nurture is analysis without application; just as Freud could observe the behavior of a subject and proclaim from on-high how the behavior reflected the subject’s thoughts, a modern student of this subject can attribute modern social dysfunction to problems with the subject’s birth, upbringing, or both. But just as Freud was limited in his ability to project a subject’s behavior or divine their thoughts from their actions, modern disciples cannot reliably predict a person’s future or character by the circumstances of their birth or upbringing.
This is not to say that I consider the subject unworthy of consideration. Indeed, I am a firm proponent of masturbation of all varieties. Unending entertainment, victimless in the rare circumstances where it is a crime, and much more sanitary and risk-free than actual intercourse: masturbation is a quality pastime. And sometimes grows into more, as it may with Nature vs. Nurture. Just as social Darwinism drove the advancement of medical science to adapt manual masturbation into techniques of artificial insemination, the same Darwinistic process might eventually parlay this particular form of intellectual masturbation into some means to raise better kids. In the meantime, and even in the absence of direct applications for the research, intellectuals will continue to fondle and play with the subject matter, for no other reason than because it’s fun to do so.
All that having been said, things do look somewhat promising.
From the “Nurture” perspective, the issue is related to ingrained (learned) behavioral patterns, and the effect of external stimulus on the early development of the human mind and psyche. Even besides clear examples of learned behavior, there is a demonstrable statistical correlation between development of analytical intelligence and exposure to classical music at early ages. Likewise, children who receive positive reinforcement and who are continually told that they are intelligent and capable of solving problems show statistically higher levels of intelligence and problem solving ability than children who do not receive such encouragement. John Douglas, an expert on habitual violent behavior in humans if ever there was one, observes that virtually all violent serial criminals come from abusive or severely dysfunctional backgrounds. Is there more to this than these scientifically demonstrable examples of programmed-in-childhood levels of self-esteem among children who are encouraged, and a child’s learned reliance on behavioral models (abusive or otherwise)? Even if there is no more to this theory than what studies already indicate, how large a quotient of our adult lives is forged on that anvil? How much of one’s total adult intelligence is based on what one believes one can accomplish, based on mom’s encouragement? How much of one’s adult behavior is based on early-life observations of dad managing household affairs?
Rationally, the answer is quite a bit, particularly in the negative aspects. As above, John Douglas is a believer in the “Nurture” camp, at least insofar as it applies to the violent personalities he has spent his life hunting. Lt. Col. Dave Grossman, who has completed an excellent study of the history and psychology of killing, likewise gives great weight to the vast majority of killers’ need to be programmed to be able to take human life. Douglas and Grossman, scholars who focus on the darker nature of homo sapiens, generally agree that killers – in almost all cases – are made, rather than born. On the flip side from the dark half, no statistical analysis seems necessary to support the point that good families with successful heads tend to raise good kids with successful lives. By the by, if you’re a fan of written fiction, Michael Crighton’s Lost World explores the issue of the importance of learned behavior (Nurture) just as the predecessor novel explored genetic manipulation (Nature). Good read; you’ll like it.
Parents take note: poor upbringings can produce shaky or even dangerous adults. Quality parenting tends to produce positive results in kids. Water is wet. The sky is blue. Isn’t nice when theoretical science supports obvious factual realities? But let’s stroke this idea a bit longer, just to see what happens.
If intelligence, personality, and interpersonal behavior are based on learned factors, is it possible to reprogram individuals who have reached adulthood? The obvious application for such techniques – aside from, for example, the already highly-effective means used by the USMC to turn upstanding, well-adjusted members of the American youth into killers – is the possibility of turning programmed killers and other social malcontents into productive, or at least harmless members of society. Can a career violent criminal be turned into a home-body accountant through some form of reprogramming? The answer is: probably not, as the programming in question exists on levels that we are only beginning to understand.
If the issue involved only something as simple as human memories, we’d be home free. Memory itself does not pose a terribly great challenge, as human memory is amazingly flexible and remarkably subject to modification. Brainwashing as a technique is centuries old, and if you tell someone something often enough, they will ultimately believe it’s true, and conform their lives to such programmed memory. Memory modification is a fairly simple (albeit time and effort-intensive) feat, which can be performed even without the benefit of modern techniques such as – for example – direct electrochemical manipulation of the brain with exotic medications. In fact, one of the problems that the psychological community has to grapple with is that of therapist-implanted memories. Patients, vulnerable, trusting, and eager to please (read: susceptible to suggestion), are treated by well-meaning therapists who are so confident of what they will find, that they unintentionally brainwash the patient into giving the answers and relating “memories” which support the therapists’ in-hand expectations and diagnosis. So be careful about what it is that you really remember, especially if you’ve discussed those memories with any sort of therapist.
But the human Nurture issue encompasses far more than memory. It is highly notable that brain conditions which affect memory do not generally affect behavior. Patients suffering from severe dissociative disorders, including those rarest of bright-plumage birds, true multiple personality patients, relate entire histories and memory sets (of unknown origin) – including childhood recollections – between the disparate personalities. However, such divergent memories manifest as only token variances in behavior between personalities. While there will typically be a dominant and subservient personality, behavioral variances are seldom terribly drastic, notwithstanding differences in the memories of each personality.
Additionally, and perhaps more tellingly, traumatic amnesiacs with little or no recall of any factual memories nonetheless retain behavioral patterns, and also retain such abilities as reading, writing, setting up a chess board, or knowing how long they can run flat-out at a given altitude before their hands start shaking. Behavioral patterns (and functional skills) exist in the human brain independent of memories that can be medically or traumatically altered. Thus, we are back at the original Nature vs. Nurture question: are those underlying patterns and skills a result of neural patterns intrinsic in the human brain (Nature), or are they just a different and/or deeper level of learned behavior. What’s the next step? At this point, psychology is still grasping for semantic definitions for behavioral underpinnings, much less delving the actual realties.
But just as man discovered plastics through practical experimentation long before he understood nuances of hydrocarbon chemistry, the science of hands-on behavioral modification is stumbling forward (largely in the dark) through practical experimentation, mostly without the guiding light of clear understanding of the involved neurological and psychological factors. Realistically, it’s unlikely that we will be reprogramming serial killers anytime soon: the entire field of “criminal rehabilitation” presumes that the criminal personalities in question had some point in their history (to which they can be restored or “rehabilitated”) where they were capable of functioning as normal, well-adjusted human beings. Unfortunately, this is generally wishful thinking. Most criminals and malcontents lack prior, pre-criminal-career skills to fall back on, which creates problems in “restoring” them to a point in their past where they were well-adjusted individuals. As we lack the ability and/or inclination to reduce adults back to an early childhood mental state – assuming of course, that they’ve actually progressed beyond that intellectual state – and build them entirely new, well adjusted personalities, we’re still just wanking so far as “rehabilitating” habitual criminals is concerned.
But there has been progress, and we have the pharmaceutical industry to thank: results are being gained through trial and error, much as a blindfolded man running around a race-track will discover hurdles and obstacles as he falls over them. But as the process has been underway for a while, some behavior-altering medications are getting past the point of being an overused trend (“take your soma and be happy”); the attached body of science and chemistry has reached the critical mass necessary for reliable real-world application. Ask anyone who has suffered from ADD about their levels of functionality with and without their medication, and you’ll become a believer. While it is probably true that if Tom Sawyer were alive today, he would be diagnosed as a chronic problem child, medicated, and probably institutionalized, the science of behavioral adjustment appears to be moving in the right direction, by which I mean that the treatments are resulting in people who are better, healthier, and happier, and not just resulting in people (kids) who are easier (for parents) to control. Which is not to say that we have no need for treatments which render problem people (including kids) easier to control, but that’s neither here nor there. But while the medication can be a huge help, is it changing their nature, or is it making them easier to nuture?
I might have mentioned that the whole debate really has no end in sight.
But the next time that you’re getting your head shrunk, consider not just your answers, but where in your past those answers come from. I realize that this is an easy comment to make for one with a memory like mine, but still: the only point of Nature vs. Nurture worth taking seriously is considering not just the WHAT of who your are, but also the WHYs that formed the What. Also ask yourself if you’re telling your therapist the truth, of if you’re regurgitating responses and information that your therapist has programmed into you over the course of your treatment. While one of the functions of a therapist is, undoubtedly, the alteration of ingrained behavioral patterns (be they nurtured or natural) into “healthier” patterns, what should the limits of such reprogramming be, and are you the one who is setting the parameters? Just something to keep in mind.
You’re welcome.
For the most part, I believe that the whole Nature vs. Nurture debate amounts to so much intellectual masturbation, in that it serves no purpose except the for the loving handling of choice ideas and concepts, devoid of any positive results or forward progress. For the most part, we are who we are, and while greater understanding of our origins is certainly fun to theorize on, we remain who we are. If we have children, we should do the best we can, strive to be better parents than we had, and accept that our children are going to become who they are, perhaps because of what we do, and perhaps in spite of what we do. Nature vs. Nurture is analysis without application; just as Freud could observe the behavior of a subject and proclaim from on-high how the behavior reflected the subject’s thoughts, a modern student of this subject can attribute modern social dysfunction to problems with the subject’s birth, upbringing, or both. But just as Freud was limited in his ability to project a subject’s behavior or divine their thoughts from their actions, modern disciples cannot reliably predict a person’s future or character by the circumstances of their birth or upbringing.
This is not to say that I consider the subject unworthy of consideration. Indeed, I am a firm proponent of masturbation of all varieties. Unending entertainment, victimless in the rare circumstances where it is a crime, and much more sanitary and risk-free than actual intercourse: masturbation is a quality pastime. And sometimes grows into more, as it may with Nature vs. Nurture. Just as social Darwinism drove the advancement of medical science to adapt manual masturbation into techniques of artificial insemination, the same Darwinistic process might eventually parlay this particular form of intellectual masturbation into some means to raise better kids. In the meantime, and even in the absence of direct applications for the research, intellectuals will continue to fondle and play with the subject matter, for no other reason than because it’s fun to do so.
All that having been said, things do look somewhat promising.
From the “Nurture” perspective, the issue is related to ingrained (learned) behavioral patterns, and the effect of external stimulus on the early development of the human mind and psyche. Even besides clear examples of learned behavior, there is a demonstrable statistical correlation between development of analytical intelligence and exposure to classical music at early ages. Likewise, children who receive positive reinforcement and who are continually told that they are intelligent and capable of solving problems show statistically higher levels of intelligence and problem solving ability than children who do not receive such encouragement. John Douglas, an expert on habitual violent behavior in humans if ever there was one, observes that virtually all violent serial criminals come from abusive or severely dysfunctional backgrounds. Is there more to this than these scientifically demonstrable examples of programmed-in-childhood levels of self-esteem among children who are encouraged, and a child’s learned reliance on behavioral models (abusive or otherwise)? Even if there is no more to this theory than what studies already indicate, how large a quotient of our adult lives is forged on that anvil? How much of one’s total adult intelligence is based on what one believes one can accomplish, based on mom’s encouragement? How much of one’s adult behavior is based on early-life observations of dad managing household affairs?
Rationally, the answer is quite a bit, particularly in the negative aspects. As above, John Douglas is a believer in the “Nurture” camp, at least insofar as it applies to the violent personalities he has spent his life hunting. Lt. Col. Dave Grossman, who has completed an excellent study of the history and psychology of killing, likewise gives great weight to the vast majority of killers’ need to be programmed to be able to take human life. Douglas and Grossman, scholars who focus on the darker nature of homo sapiens, generally agree that killers – in almost all cases – are made, rather than born. On the flip side from the dark half, no statistical analysis seems necessary to support the point that good families with successful heads tend to raise good kids with successful lives. By the by, if you’re a fan of written fiction, Michael Crighton’s Lost World explores the issue of the importance of learned behavior (Nurture) just as the predecessor novel explored genetic manipulation (Nature). Good read; you’ll like it.
Parents take note: poor upbringings can produce shaky or even dangerous adults. Quality parenting tends to produce positive results in kids. Water is wet. The sky is blue. Isn’t nice when theoretical science supports obvious factual realities? But let’s stroke this idea a bit longer, just to see what happens.
If intelligence, personality, and interpersonal behavior are based on learned factors, is it possible to reprogram individuals who have reached adulthood? The obvious application for such techniques – aside from, for example, the already highly-effective means used by the USMC to turn upstanding, well-adjusted members of the American youth into killers – is the possibility of turning programmed killers and other social malcontents into productive, or at least harmless members of society. Can a career violent criminal be turned into a home-body accountant through some form of reprogramming? The answer is: probably not, as the programming in question exists on levels that we are only beginning to understand.
If the issue involved only something as simple as human memories, we’d be home free. Memory itself does not pose a terribly great challenge, as human memory is amazingly flexible and remarkably subject to modification. Brainwashing as a technique is centuries old, and if you tell someone something often enough, they will ultimately believe it’s true, and conform their lives to such programmed memory. Memory modification is a fairly simple (albeit time and effort-intensive) feat, which can be performed even without the benefit of modern techniques such as – for example – direct electrochemical manipulation of the brain with exotic medications. In fact, one of the problems that the psychological community has to grapple with is that of therapist-implanted memories. Patients, vulnerable, trusting, and eager to please (read: susceptible to suggestion), are treated by well-meaning therapists who are so confident of what they will find, that they unintentionally brainwash the patient into giving the answers and relating “memories” which support the therapists’ in-hand expectations and diagnosis. So be careful about what it is that you really remember, especially if you’ve discussed those memories with any sort of therapist.
But the human Nurture issue encompasses far more than memory. It is highly notable that brain conditions which affect memory do not generally affect behavior. Patients suffering from severe dissociative disorders, including those rarest of bright-plumage birds, true multiple personality patients, relate entire histories and memory sets (of unknown origin) – including childhood recollections – between the disparate personalities. However, such divergent memories manifest as only token variances in behavior between personalities. While there will typically be a dominant and subservient personality, behavioral variances are seldom terribly drastic, notwithstanding differences in the memories of each personality.
Additionally, and perhaps more tellingly, traumatic amnesiacs with little or no recall of any factual memories nonetheless retain behavioral patterns, and also retain such abilities as reading, writing, setting up a chess board, or knowing how long they can run flat-out at a given altitude before their hands start shaking. Behavioral patterns (and functional skills) exist in the human brain independent of memories that can be medically or traumatically altered. Thus, we are back at the original Nature vs. Nurture question: are those underlying patterns and skills a result of neural patterns intrinsic in the human brain (Nature), or are they just a different and/or deeper level of learned behavior. What’s the next step? At this point, psychology is still grasping for semantic definitions for behavioral underpinnings, much less delving the actual realties.
But just as man discovered plastics through practical experimentation long before he understood nuances of hydrocarbon chemistry, the science of hands-on behavioral modification is stumbling forward (largely in the dark) through practical experimentation, mostly without the guiding light of clear understanding of the involved neurological and psychological factors. Realistically, it’s unlikely that we will be reprogramming serial killers anytime soon: the entire field of “criminal rehabilitation” presumes that the criminal personalities in question had some point in their history (to which they can be restored or “rehabilitated”) where they were capable of functioning as normal, well-adjusted human beings. Unfortunately, this is generally wishful thinking. Most criminals and malcontents lack prior, pre-criminal-career skills to fall back on, which creates problems in “restoring” them to a point in their past where they were well-adjusted individuals. As we lack the ability and/or inclination to reduce adults back to an early childhood mental state – assuming of course, that they’ve actually progressed beyond that intellectual state – and build them entirely new, well adjusted personalities, we’re still just wanking so far as “rehabilitating” habitual criminals is concerned.
But there has been progress, and we have the pharmaceutical industry to thank: results are being gained through trial and error, much as a blindfolded man running around a race-track will discover hurdles and obstacles as he falls over them. But as the process has been underway for a while, some behavior-altering medications are getting past the point of being an overused trend (“take your soma and be happy”); the attached body of science and chemistry has reached the critical mass necessary for reliable real-world application. Ask anyone who has suffered from ADD about their levels of functionality with and without their medication, and you’ll become a believer. While it is probably true that if Tom Sawyer were alive today, he would be diagnosed as a chronic problem child, medicated, and probably institutionalized, the science of behavioral adjustment appears to be moving in the right direction, by which I mean that the treatments are resulting in people who are better, healthier, and happier, and not just resulting in people (kids) who are easier (for parents) to control. Which is not to say that we have no need for treatments which render problem people (including kids) easier to control, but that’s neither here nor there. But while the medication can be a huge help, is it changing their nature, or is it making them easier to nuture?
I might have mentioned that the whole debate really has no end in sight.
But the next time that you’re getting your head shrunk, consider not just your answers, but where in your past those answers come from. I realize that this is an easy comment to make for one with a memory like mine, but still: the only point of Nature vs. Nurture worth taking seriously is considering not just the WHAT of who your are, but also the WHYs that formed the What. Also ask yourself if you’re telling your therapist the truth, of if you’re regurgitating responses and information that your therapist has programmed into you over the course of your treatment. While one of the functions of a therapist is, undoubtedly, the alteration of ingrained behavioral patterns (be they nurtured or natural) into “healthier” patterns, what should the limits of such reprogramming be, and are you the one who is setting the parameters? Just something to keep in mind.
You’re welcome.
Monday, January 14, 2008
Told You So
Let me preface by saying that I am not a New England fan. Nor really a fan of any other team. During the off-season, I follow San Francisco (hoping they do something get better), Dallas (hoping they do something to get worse), and SD, PIT, and NE to further my education as to how to do things right. During the season itself, I have no interest in even watching (much less cheering for) the 49ers, because - more than anything else - I'm a fan of good football, and you don't generally see much of it during 'Niners games.
I admit that I am cheering for NE this season, for two reasons. First, if ever there was a bunch of arrogant pretentous fucks who deserve to get knocked off their pedestal, it's the '72 Dolphins. The Dolphins won 12 regular season games, and their opponents' combined records was 70-108-4; they spend the season whipping on losing teams. The Pats this season went 16-0 against teams that were 94-89, including wins against SIX playoff teams. They won more games against better opponents, in the age of parity. Please Jesus, let the Pats win in all, so we never need to hear another word from the '72 Dolphins. Second, I'm cheering for the Pats because I'm a fan of good football, and right now, the Patriots are playing the best football that anyone has ever seen.
Moving along: I let the title of this post stand for itself, and only add as afterthoughts that NE's "weak" running game gained more yards against JAX's "excellent" run defense that JAX's "excellent" run against NE's "weak" defense. NE also led in time of possession. Bottom line: NE would have won that game even if the two teams had the same number of possessions, and was helped by winning the turnover battle.
On the other games, my heart is doing a little dance that the Cowboys lost, but I fell asleep during the game, so I'm not qualified to comment on how the game actually went.
In SD at IND, anyone going back to the old saw about Peyton being unable to win the big game needs to watch the game tape, because he wasn't the reason they lost. They lost because their highly rated defense couldn't shut down SD, even with Gates hurt and Tomlinson on the sidelines. The problem with the offense wasn't Manning, it was the receivers. Yes, balls were tipped and defelected a few times, but even so, they were still ctachable. The IND receivers (especially sans Marvin Harrison) looked soft: they are so used to the ball hitting them in the chest that they're not very good at fighting to make a big catch, which they needed to do in a hard-fought game. And they're so used to all the blame falling on Manning (justifiably or not) that they didn't come through for him when he needed them to.
The SEA at GB game was a snooze-fest after the first quarter, and hammers home the point that - as good as they are at home - SEA is not a threat to the elite teams in the league. GB spotted them 14 fucking points! The SEA defense, especially their astronomically hyped LB corps, should be embarrassed for the way things turned out. Also, Shaun Alexander will be cut in the off-season, and rightly so.
Turning to the upcoming games: last weak, I would have said that SD is a tougher opponent for NE than JAX: better overall defense that's mcuh less predictable (lots of blitz packages in SD's 3-4 set than in JAX's plain-vanilla 4-3), a more explosive ground game, and - most importantly - SD generates a lot of turnovers.
But there are recent developments: Gates, Rivers, and Tomlinson are all injured. While all of them are expected to play, none will be at 100%. Per my last post, winning games is simple: you either need to outscore the other team on an equal number of possessions, or else you need to find some way to get more possessions. Even with LT, PR, and AG intact, San Diego is not going to outscore New England given equal possessions. Banged-up, it will be even less close. But SD leads the league this season in having more possessions than its opponents: they led the league in turnover ratio, at +24. (NE is third, at +16.)
Here's how I see it shaking out: San Diego will be able to get some pressure on Brady, which is something not a lot of teams have been able to do. But it won't matter. Lots of people compare Brady to Montanna, for various reasons. I agree, and the biggest parallel I see is their demeanor. Joe never got tight, he never got tense. No matter if he got hit, sacked, or knocked down, he went right back out and ran the next play utterly unfazed. It was just simply impossible to rattle him. Brady is the same way. SD might knock him down, but they won't be able to get to him, and he will continue to do what he's done all season, and score touchdowns instead of field goals.
On the other side of the ball, SD will score points as well. Their offensive line is excellent, and will be able to create room for LT (or Turner) to run. But it won't matter. The NE defense will continue to do what it has all season: bend but not break. They will stop a few drives in the red zone, force SD to settle for field-goals instead of touchdowns, and that will be it.
The only things that might change the outcome are if SD can significantly win the turnover battle (+2 or +3) or else get some "free" points on special teams (a punt or kick-return for a TD). I don't think either is very likely against NE in NE.
As for the NFC championship, I wouldn't bet either way. Both teams can play in bad weather with their running games. Both teams have up-and-down QBs. Both teams are solid in their front-7 defensively. These are two pretty well-matched teams. So, barring either team getting two or three turnovers, my gut tells me this game is going to be decided by who melts down. I don't think it's going to be Brett Farve; he's been good all season, and has enough talent around him that he hasn't had to force it this season the way he had to the last few seasons. He's enjoying himself and looking good. So the melt-down will either be Eli Manning, or the GB secondary. Eli can be flustered pretty easily, and does some dumb things with the ball that lead to turnovers, both fumbles and INTs. But if Eli can get a few seconds in the pocket, the GB corners and safeties are not going to be able to keep up with big, fast receivers (see: Burress, Plaxico), and will take penalties, just like they have all season (see: Harris, Al). They will simply grab on to the receiver, and get flagged for it. The result will be a couple interference or illegal contact penalties that revive Giants drives, or else put them in scoring position.
To protect the secondary, the GB defense will need to put pressure on Manning to get him to throw early in the pattern, before Burress and Toomer can get downfield. Getting that pressure will be tough to do and still play solid against the Giants' running game, but will be a bit easier since they won't need to worry about Shockey in the flat. All in all, if the Pack can get to Eli and shake him up, they will win. If it were me, I call some big blitzes early, to try to get into Eli's head, even if it means giving up some yards and/or scores. Some Green Dog assignments, or blitzes from the corners or secondary (Harris and Bigby are good tacklers who'd love a run at Eli). Might get burned early, but I'd rather play from behind against a battered Eli than with a lead against a comfortable Eli.
On the flip side, if I were running things for the Giants, I spend the week polishing plays to keep the Pack defense honest. Some max-protect schemes, since if Eli can stay upright for long enough to throw downfield, it probably won't matter if Plax catches it or not, since a flag will fly. I also dust off the screen-pass and end-around sections of play-book, to take advantage of a possibly over-agressive rush from the Pack LBs. Slow down the rush, keep Eli calm, and take what they give you.
Should be fun to watch either way.
I admit that I am cheering for NE this season, for two reasons. First, if ever there was a bunch of arrogant pretentous fucks who deserve to get knocked off their pedestal, it's the '72 Dolphins. The Dolphins won 12 regular season games, and their opponents' combined records was 70-108-4; they spend the season whipping on losing teams. The Pats this season went 16-0 against teams that were 94-89, including wins against SIX playoff teams. They won more games against better opponents, in the age of parity. Please Jesus, let the Pats win in all, so we never need to hear another word from the '72 Dolphins. Second, I'm cheering for the Pats because I'm a fan of good football, and right now, the Patriots are playing the best football that anyone has ever seen.
Moving along: I let the title of this post stand for itself, and only add as afterthoughts that NE's "weak" running game gained more yards against JAX's "excellent" run defense that JAX's "excellent" run against NE's "weak" defense. NE also led in time of possession. Bottom line: NE would have won that game even if the two teams had the same number of possessions, and was helped by winning the turnover battle.
On the other games, my heart is doing a little dance that the Cowboys lost, but I fell asleep during the game, so I'm not qualified to comment on how the game actually went.
In SD at IND, anyone going back to the old saw about Peyton being unable to win the big game needs to watch the game tape, because he wasn't the reason they lost. They lost because their highly rated defense couldn't shut down SD, even with Gates hurt and Tomlinson on the sidelines. The problem with the offense wasn't Manning, it was the receivers. Yes, balls were tipped and defelected a few times, but even so, they were still ctachable. The IND receivers (especially sans Marvin Harrison) looked soft: they are so used to the ball hitting them in the chest that they're not very good at fighting to make a big catch, which they needed to do in a hard-fought game. And they're so used to all the blame falling on Manning (justifiably or not) that they didn't come through for him when he needed them to.
The SEA at GB game was a snooze-fest after the first quarter, and hammers home the point that - as good as they are at home - SEA is not a threat to the elite teams in the league. GB spotted them 14 fucking points! The SEA defense, especially their astronomically hyped LB corps, should be embarrassed for the way things turned out. Also, Shaun Alexander will be cut in the off-season, and rightly so.
Turning to the upcoming games: last weak, I would have said that SD is a tougher opponent for NE than JAX: better overall defense that's mcuh less predictable (lots of blitz packages in SD's 3-4 set than in JAX's plain-vanilla 4-3), a more explosive ground game, and - most importantly - SD generates a lot of turnovers.
But there are recent developments: Gates, Rivers, and Tomlinson are all injured. While all of them are expected to play, none will be at 100%. Per my last post, winning games is simple: you either need to outscore the other team on an equal number of possessions, or else you need to find some way to get more possessions. Even with LT, PR, and AG intact, San Diego is not going to outscore New England given equal possessions. Banged-up, it will be even less close. But SD leads the league this season in having more possessions than its opponents: they led the league in turnover ratio, at +24. (NE is third, at +16.)
Here's how I see it shaking out: San Diego will be able to get some pressure on Brady, which is something not a lot of teams have been able to do. But it won't matter. Lots of people compare Brady to Montanna, for various reasons. I agree, and the biggest parallel I see is their demeanor. Joe never got tight, he never got tense. No matter if he got hit, sacked, or knocked down, he went right back out and ran the next play utterly unfazed. It was just simply impossible to rattle him. Brady is the same way. SD might knock him down, but they won't be able to get to him, and he will continue to do what he's done all season, and score touchdowns instead of field goals.
On the other side of the ball, SD will score points as well. Their offensive line is excellent, and will be able to create room for LT (or Turner) to run. But it won't matter. The NE defense will continue to do what it has all season: bend but not break. They will stop a few drives in the red zone, force SD to settle for field-goals instead of touchdowns, and that will be it.
The only things that might change the outcome are if SD can significantly win the turnover battle (+2 or +3) or else get some "free" points on special teams (a punt or kick-return for a TD). I don't think either is very likely against NE in NE.
As for the NFC championship, I wouldn't bet either way. Both teams can play in bad weather with their running games. Both teams have up-and-down QBs. Both teams are solid in their front-7 defensively. These are two pretty well-matched teams. So, barring either team getting two or three turnovers, my gut tells me this game is going to be decided by who melts down. I don't think it's going to be Brett Farve; he's been good all season, and has enough talent around him that he hasn't had to force it this season the way he had to the last few seasons. He's enjoying himself and looking good. So the melt-down will either be Eli Manning, or the GB secondary. Eli can be flustered pretty easily, and does some dumb things with the ball that lead to turnovers, both fumbles and INTs. But if Eli can get a few seconds in the pocket, the GB corners and safeties are not going to be able to keep up with big, fast receivers (see: Burress, Plaxico), and will take penalties, just like they have all season (see: Harris, Al). They will simply grab on to the receiver, and get flagged for it. The result will be a couple interference or illegal contact penalties that revive Giants drives, or else put them in scoring position.
To protect the secondary, the GB defense will need to put pressure on Manning to get him to throw early in the pattern, before Burress and Toomer can get downfield. Getting that pressure will be tough to do and still play solid against the Giants' running game, but will be a bit easier since they won't need to worry about Shockey in the flat. All in all, if the Pack can get to Eli and shake him up, they will win. If it were me, I call some big blitzes early, to try to get into Eli's head, even if it means giving up some yards and/or scores. Some Green Dog assignments, or blitzes from the corners or secondary (Harris and Bigby are good tacklers who'd love a run at Eli). Might get burned early, but I'd rather play from behind against a battered Eli than with a lead against a comfortable Eli.
On the flip side, if I were running things for the Giants, I spend the week polishing plays to keep the Pack defense honest. Some max-protect schemes, since if Eli can stay upright for long enough to throw downfield, it probably won't matter if Plax catches it or not, since a flag will fly. I also dust off the screen-pass and end-around sections of play-book, to take advantage of a possibly over-agressive rush from the Pack LBs. Slow down the rush, keep Eli calm, and take what they give you.
Should be fun to watch either way.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)