I’m going to make this post even less coherent than usual, because the entire inspiration was a series of disconnected thoughts experienced first thing in the morning in the shower. For reference, that’s the time of day that I reserve for difficult tasks like remembering my name, wondering if I got up because I have a job or something, and trying to figure out what my toothbrush is for. (Note: So far, experimentation has not been required in remembering what my toothbrush is for.)
I mention this because I want to make it clear from the start that the following sequence of events should not be considered me at my best.
I was trying to figure out what day it was, which eventually gave rise to thoughts of what my plans for the week were. This turned my attention to the weekend. I had spent the past few days making plans for the next several weekends, so many such plans were fresh in my mind, though not in order. One of these plans involved me likely seeing an old friend in early June.
Now, you have to remember, it was early. We’re talking 3:50 AM early, because that’s the way I roll. So when I say I was thinking about plans in early June, that’s not a very good representation of things. More accurately, I would say that I was thinking about my plans at the start of one of the mid-year J-months, without yet being able to tell the difference between them. (If I’m losing people here, please note that the middle of the year contains June and July.)
So as my thoughts on this topic began to cohere, it occurred to me that this friend I might see has a birthday at the start of a J-month. Normally, I can’t remember birthdays at all. But this one is easy for two reasons. First, it’s exactly the same as the birthday of someone else I met at almost exactly the same time, and second, it’s close to another memorable birthday (more on that later).
At this point, I’m confused. It seemed inexplicable that this friend would want to hang out with me on his birthday, because we’re not really that close. I started to wonder if I should ask him if he wanted to cancel our tentative plans because he wasn’t paying attention when he made them.
Then it occurred to me that June and July are different, and that the plans were for early June, while the birthday is on July 3rd. Now here’s where it gets funny. When I had that epiphany, the first thought that I had was, “Right, I should have remembered that. His birthday is the one around Bastille Day.” (Bastille Day is July 14th. The French celebrate it as something not too different from our 4th of July.)
The fog was starting to clear. A few seconds after I had that clever thought, it occurred to me that if the local Republican Party did not already have a bounty out for me, they would probably have been able to monitor that thought somehow and would dispatch a hit man immediately. Even I was somewhat perplexed as to why Bastille Day seemed to follow after thoughts of the 3rd of July in my head.
In my defense, by the time I got out of the shower, I was able to explain the whole thing. Though it doesn’t jump to mind as easily as it once did, Bastille Day became linked to thoughts of birthdays when I was in high school. One of my close friends’ birthday is on Bastille Day. (And if she’s reading this, she should know that we haven’t spoken in too long!) Thus, it became a reference point on the completely inadequate birthday calendar that I do manage to keep in memory. In contrast, I don’t know anyone whose birthday is on the 4th. Thus, when I think about birthdays, the 4th of July does not come up, because it’s completely off-topic.
Of course, since that explanation makes about as much sense as the thought crime, I doubt my execution for treason will be held up much on account of this defense.
Thursday, May 31, 2007
Thursday, May 24, 2007
Snakes On a Plane
So did you hear that an Egyptian man was caught trying to board an airplane with a bag stuffed full of 700 live snakes? It’s apparently true, if CNN can be trusted. (http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/05/24/egypt.snakes.ap/index.html)
Of course, this comes as no surprise to me. As I sat through the recent Hollywood blockbuster on this topic, sending text messages to several friends while still somehow managing to follow the intricate plot, I was busy pondering the greatest philosophical question of our age. Specifically, “How could I make my life better imitate this apex of the arts?”
I’ll admit, all these months I had been stumped. But as soon as I read that CNN article, I was impressed by the man’s creative vision. His solution was perfect in its elegant subtlety. In order to truly know the experience of “Snakes on a Plane,” he was trying to bring a duffle bag full of snakes… onto a plane.
I am reasonably certain they hand out genius grants for this sort of innovation. Alas, the Egyptian officials, clearly Communists, did not see the underlying philosophical treatise and prevented the snakes/plane merger.
Any nation that would so brazenly trample such basic human rights is obviously a threat to our way of life. It is therefore only logical to redeploy our troops to Egypt immediately. It’s time to spread some democracy.
Some people will argue that Egypt is already a democracy, since its government is a standing republic and holds regular elections. However, we know for a fact that this is false because of the following:
1) A republic is not a real democracy. Duh.
2) Low voter turnout indicates the people have no faith in the system
3) Complicated mechanisms are in place to ensure that candidates are chosen based on factors other than ability or appropriateness, such as having existing pull in the government, or by nepotism.
4) Candidates who do not fall readily into expected niches have no hope of being elected, thus the government is static and can be compared to an almost hereditary rule.
From these four points, it is clear that, just like Iran, Egypt is a threat to the American government and way of life.
Ok, enough of that. I actually have to apologize for this blog entry. I haven’t had a lot of sleep this week, and I am literally nodding off at the keyboard. Looking this post over, it’s pretty clear that I let the topic drift for no particular reason, and never had any real plan to relink back to the original premise.
On the other hand, a quick glance up makes me think this might well be my most sarcastic post yet. It might just end up being hugely popular, even if I can’t remember writing it after I wake up tomorrow.
Of course, this comes as no surprise to me. As I sat through the recent Hollywood blockbuster on this topic, sending text messages to several friends while still somehow managing to follow the intricate plot, I was busy pondering the greatest philosophical question of our age. Specifically, “How could I make my life better imitate this apex of the arts?”
I’ll admit, all these months I had been stumped. But as soon as I read that CNN article, I was impressed by the man’s creative vision. His solution was perfect in its elegant subtlety. In order to truly know the experience of “Snakes on a Plane,” he was trying to bring a duffle bag full of snakes… onto a plane.
I am reasonably certain they hand out genius grants for this sort of innovation. Alas, the Egyptian officials, clearly Communists, did not see the underlying philosophical treatise and prevented the snakes/plane merger.
Any nation that would so brazenly trample such basic human rights is obviously a threat to our way of life. It is therefore only logical to redeploy our troops to Egypt immediately. It’s time to spread some democracy.
Some people will argue that Egypt is already a democracy, since its government is a standing republic and holds regular elections. However, we know for a fact that this is false because of the following:
1) A republic is not a real democracy. Duh.
2) Low voter turnout indicates the people have no faith in the system
3) Complicated mechanisms are in place to ensure that candidates are chosen based on factors other than ability or appropriateness, such as having existing pull in the government, or by nepotism.
4) Candidates who do not fall readily into expected niches have no hope of being elected, thus the government is static and can be compared to an almost hereditary rule.
From these four points, it is clear that, just like Iran, Egypt is a threat to the American government and way of life.
Ok, enough of that. I actually have to apologize for this blog entry. I haven’t had a lot of sleep this week, and I am literally nodding off at the keyboard. Looking this post over, it’s pretty clear that I let the topic drift for no particular reason, and never had any real plan to relink back to the original premise.
On the other hand, a quick glance up makes me think this might well be my most sarcastic post yet. It might just end up being hugely popular, even if I can’t remember writing it after I wake up tomorrow.
Wednesday, May 16, 2007
Craziness
This one is probably not going to get any comments whatsoever, because most of the people who read it are going to assume that it was written specifically about them, no matter what I write to try to convince them otherwise.
I have to start by defining what I mean by "crazy." Today, as is typical, I am going to annoy psychologists by disregarding the vast majority of their field as an exercise in vocabulary and misapplied statistics. I am putting this in the preface for two reasons. First, my argument makes no sense if you think I'm referencing psychology manuals in this post. Second, by pointing that out myself, it eliminates the instinct for people to feel clever by pointing out that my vocabulary is too vague for any of this to be of any psychological importance. Put directly, this post is of zero classical psychological value. Think of it as a thought exercise, much like all my other posts.
That out of the way, humor me by temporarily accepting the definition of crazy as: "Predictably and reliably choosing to act in such a way as to defeat (rather than advance) one's own goals while at the same time possessing sufficient experience and/or knowledge to be able to logically evaluate the effectiveness of one's choices." That's a big old clusterfuck of words, so let me give some examples. By that definition, frequently eating tubs of ice cream and huge boxes of chocolate while actively trying to lose weight is crazy. However, doing the same thing after being misled to believe it would cause you to lose weight is not. Actively humiliating everyone around you while trying to become popular is crazy. Doing the same thing as an on-the-clock dominatrix is not.
I frequently notice that practically everyone, say, with a telephone number stored in my cell phone is completely crazy in at least one, if not many ways. Most people, by contrast, have a relatively small number of crazy people with whom they are in touch. People are going to argue with me on this. Everybody knows people who down tubs of Ben and Jerry's while on a diet. But remember, if they call it taking a break from the diet, or they hate themselves for it, that's not crazy, it's just gross mismanagement of life goals.
This "everyone I know is crazy" premise raises a few fascinating questions for me. To try to make sense of it, it's best to take a few steps back and try to move inward objectively. First off, the question of causality has to be considered. A few theories suggest themselves immediately:
1) The entire premise is wrong. I know just as many crazy people as your typical person, but for some reason, I have convinced myself incorrectly that everyone I know is actually crazy while those that I do not know are not.
2) I encounter just as many crazy people as you'd expect, but something about being in casual contact with me drives people to disorder.
3) On some level, I weed saner people out of my circle of associates leaving only crazy people to represent.
4) The observation is correct, but due to nothing more than random chance.
Theory four is extremely unlikely, given the fact that the trend spans my entire life and symptoms are rarely (if ever) vague.
Theory one seems likely, except for the fact that my definition of crazy is so easily verified. If peer-accepted, verifiable proofs can be written that agree that what I'm calling crazy is completely irrational, then the problem is not on my end. I actually check that sort of thing more often than people are willing to believe. Theory one does not seem to be the answer.
Theory two will make many people happy, so I'm not going to argue it. But if you're indifferent to it, let's assume it can be easily disproved.
That leaves theory three. I am not qualified to objectively judge that one, but it strikes me as very likely. People living unremarkable, but generally successful lives earn my general respect, and some polite chit-chat. But I don't spend a lot of time thinking about them or seeking them out. However, people whose lives seem irrational to me are fascinating.
I need to break here to clarify something. Some people are TOO crazy for my taste. People who are so out of it that they actually manage to destroy their lives do not interest me. I know a lot of crazy people who fit this bill. They make me nervous, but I generally find them harmless unless they seem to wield undue influence on my friends or family. That's it. I like crazy people who, despite isolated pockets of complete, vested insanity, lead interesting and overall successful lives. I know lots of them.
I am then left trying to explain why this might be. It's certainly not a planned thing. But I think I have come a long way towards explaining the attraction. The act of discovering the rationality behind what I call crazy behavior is a way for me to experience the craziness for myself in a controlled environment. Put differently, I am instinctually, fanatically pragmatic. That's an excellent trait to have if you are the sort of person who enjoys abundances of creature comforts and basic needs. It's a terrible trait if you only take pleasure from risk.
I am sort of a hybrid of the two. I am not even remotely inclined to create huge risk in my life, but I love the sense of adventure that comes from knowing people who create small pockets of it instinctively. Further, I eventually hit a point where I can emulate the adventurous mindset in my head without actually causing all the real world trouble.
This goes a long way toward explaining why I never get bored.
How many of these classics can you perform?
--I have a strong instinct to be romantically involved, but I make sure that I never am by rationalizing that the only people worth having are the ones who by definition are unable to return my feelings.
--I hold myself back from getting involved with other people because I believe that I am dating someone who does not realize this fact.
--I believe that the only way to be sure that people like me is by repeatedly testing if they are willing to put up with me while I am being contentious.
--I believe that the best way to evaluate details about my own appearance (fashion, hairstyle, mannerisms, etc.) is by how attractive I think they are, not how other people in my life react to them.
--I believe that I and everyone else should comply to accepted fashions, trends, and brand names without regard to function or objectivity because the trends are widespread.
--I believe that I am capable of judging people's choices in life without trying to understand the circumstances or mindsets in which they were made.
--I believe that my strongest-felt instincts and opinions are the ones that will serve me best in life.
--I believe that the best way to manage my insecurities is by accusing other people of being worse.
--I believe that I can behave however I want towards other people, because there is no limit to the amount of time I can spend happily alone.
--I believe that society or family members are inherently indebted to me and must cover for me such that I need not take any responsibility or make efforts to prevent damage from my greatest weaknesses.
--I do not believe that fortuitous choices in my life might be unwise in the lives of others.
--I believe that correlation implies causality.
--I prefer to be unaware that I live my life in response to lies people create for me, if I think that I will be unable to feel as secure in the face of facts.
I have to start by defining what I mean by "crazy." Today, as is typical, I am going to annoy psychologists by disregarding the vast majority of their field as an exercise in vocabulary and misapplied statistics. I am putting this in the preface for two reasons. First, my argument makes no sense if you think I'm referencing psychology manuals in this post. Second, by pointing that out myself, it eliminates the instinct for people to feel clever by pointing out that my vocabulary is too vague for any of this to be of any psychological importance. Put directly, this post is of zero classical psychological value. Think of it as a thought exercise, much like all my other posts.
That out of the way, humor me by temporarily accepting the definition of crazy as: "Predictably and reliably choosing to act in such a way as to defeat (rather than advance) one's own goals while at the same time possessing sufficient experience and/or knowledge to be able to logically evaluate the effectiveness of one's choices." That's a big old clusterfuck of words, so let me give some examples. By that definition, frequently eating tubs of ice cream and huge boxes of chocolate while actively trying to lose weight is crazy. However, doing the same thing after being misled to believe it would cause you to lose weight is not. Actively humiliating everyone around you while trying to become popular is crazy. Doing the same thing as an on-the-clock dominatrix is not.
I frequently notice that practically everyone, say, with a telephone number stored in my cell phone is completely crazy in at least one, if not many ways. Most people, by contrast, have a relatively small number of crazy people with whom they are in touch. People are going to argue with me on this. Everybody knows people who down tubs of Ben and Jerry's while on a diet. But remember, if they call it taking a break from the diet, or they hate themselves for it, that's not crazy, it's just gross mismanagement of life goals.
This "everyone I know is crazy" premise raises a few fascinating questions for me. To try to make sense of it, it's best to take a few steps back and try to move inward objectively. First off, the question of causality has to be considered. A few theories suggest themselves immediately:
1) The entire premise is wrong. I know just as many crazy people as your typical person, but for some reason, I have convinced myself incorrectly that everyone I know is actually crazy while those that I do not know are not.
2) I encounter just as many crazy people as you'd expect, but something about being in casual contact with me drives people to disorder.
3) On some level, I weed saner people out of my circle of associates leaving only crazy people to represent.
4) The observation is correct, but due to nothing more than random chance.
Theory four is extremely unlikely, given the fact that the trend spans my entire life and symptoms are rarely (if ever) vague.
Theory one seems likely, except for the fact that my definition of crazy is so easily verified. If peer-accepted, verifiable proofs can be written that agree that what I'm calling crazy is completely irrational, then the problem is not on my end. I actually check that sort of thing more often than people are willing to believe. Theory one does not seem to be the answer.
Theory two will make many people happy, so I'm not going to argue it. But if you're indifferent to it, let's assume it can be easily disproved.
That leaves theory three. I am not qualified to objectively judge that one, but it strikes me as very likely. People living unremarkable, but generally successful lives earn my general respect, and some polite chit-chat. But I don't spend a lot of time thinking about them or seeking them out. However, people whose lives seem irrational to me are fascinating.
I need to break here to clarify something. Some people are TOO crazy for my taste. People who are so out of it that they actually manage to destroy their lives do not interest me. I know a lot of crazy people who fit this bill. They make me nervous, but I generally find them harmless unless they seem to wield undue influence on my friends or family. That's it. I like crazy people who, despite isolated pockets of complete, vested insanity, lead interesting and overall successful lives. I know lots of them.
I am then left trying to explain why this might be. It's certainly not a planned thing. But I think I have come a long way towards explaining the attraction. The act of discovering the rationality behind what I call crazy behavior is a way for me to experience the craziness for myself in a controlled environment. Put differently, I am instinctually, fanatically pragmatic. That's an excellent trait to have if you are the sort of person who enjoys abundances of creature comforts and basic needs. It's a terrible trait if you only take pleasure from risk.
I am sort of a hybrid of the two. I am not even remotely inclined to create huge risk in my life, but I love the sense of adventure that comes from knowing people who create small pockets of it instinctively. Further, I eventually hit a point where I can emulate the adventurous mindset in my head without actually causing all the real world trouble.
This goes a long way toward explaining why I never get bored.
How many of these classics can you perform?
--I have a strong instinct to be romantically involved, but I make sure that I never am by rationalizing that the only people worth having are the ones who by definition are unable to return my feelings.
--I hold myself back from getting involved with other people because I believe that I am dating someone who does not realize this fact.
--I believe that the only way to be sure that people like me is by repeatedly testing if they are willing to put up with me while I am being contentious.
--I believe that the best way to evaluate details about my own appearance (fashion, hairstyle, mannerisms, etc.) is by how attractive I think they are, not how other people in my life react to them.
--I believe that I and everyone else should comply to accepted fashions, trends, and brand names without regard to function or objectivity because the trends are widespread.
--I believe that I am capable of judging people's choices in life without trying to understand the circumstances or mindsets in which they were made.
--I believe that my strongest-felt instincts and opinions are the ones that will serve me best in life.
--I believe that the best way to manage my insecurities is by accusing other people of being worse.
--I believe that I can behave however I want towards other people, because there is no limit to the amount of time I can spend happily alone.
--I believe that society or family members are inherently indebted to me and must cover for me such that I need not take any responsibility or make efforts to prevent damage from my greatest weaknesses.
--I do not believe that fortuitous choices in my life might be unwise in the lives of others.
--I believe that correlation implies causality.
--I prefer to be unaware that I live my life in response to lies people create for me, if I think that I will be unable to feel as secure in the face of facts.
Tuesday, May 8, 2007
Looks Predicting Occupation
I’m topic stealing from Scott Adams today. He has just suggested a theory that a person’s occupation can be predicted with great accuracy from physical appearance. More specifically, he includes the question of “Do you look suspiciously similar to other people who have jobs like yours?”
I can see his point for many lines of work. If we ignore the causality question (do looks create occupation, or do occupations create looks?), we’re left with what I decided to type about today.
I look nothing like a chemical engineer. I look even less like a graduate level chemical engineer. But yet I am both. It’s actually really funny at times. I routinely call in contractors twice my age to do large projects at work. (I’ve spent about five million dollars in my career so far.) Whenever a new one sees me, you can see the confusion in his eyes. Despite the fact that I choose to show up when they ask the receptionist where I could be found, as I approach, they skeptically ask me who I am. This question is usually followed up a bit later by questions as to my exact job title.
I don’t hold it against them. Most chemical engineers, regardless of physical age, appear to be at least fifty years old. This is true even of graduate students in the field. Homely is another adjective that is well represented.
By contrast, I am not aware of anyone ever having called me homely, and I tend to be mistaken for someone much younger than I am. Blockbuster and theaters routinely card me for R-rated movies, and my Japanese teacher thought I was a high school senior on the first day of class (poor vision was later ruled out entirely).
So the question then is what I do look like. At first, I was tempted to say that I don’t look like anything. But then it occurred to me that people actually tell me that I look like things all the time. I was just ignoring them as jokes. In order of occurrence, they are:
1) Assassin
2) International Spy
3) Bouncer (bar patrons think this all the time)
4) Satan
It would at first appear that I am in the wrong line of work. But then it occurred to me that the main job perks of all of those, namely acting clever and having lots of power sex, I have managed to gather together via a select group of friends and philosophies.
Nothing seems to bar the conclusion, then, that I am a morally ambiguous, intimidating spy/assassin with an eccentric side job (hobby) in engineering. This is what many people conclude anyway, so it seems to pass the sniff test.
I can’t decide if that’s cheating the original question or not.
I can see his point for many lines of work. If we ignore the causality question (do looks create occupation, or do occupations create looks?), we’re left with what I decided to type about today.
I look nothing like a chemical engineer. I look even less like a graduate level chemical engineer. But yet I am both. It’s actually really funny at times. I routinely call in contractors twice my age to do large projects at work. (I’ve spent about five million dollars in my career so far.) Whenever a new one sees me, you can see the confusion in his eyes. Despite the fact that I choose to show up when they ask the receptionist where I could be found, as I approach, they skeptically ask me who I am. This question is usually followed up a bit later by questions as to my exact job title.
I don’t hold it against them. Most chemical engineers, regardless of physical age, appear to be at least fifty years old. This is true even of graduate students in the field. Homely is another adjective that is well represented.
By contrast, I am not aware of anyone ever having called me homely, and I tend to be mistaken for someone much younger than I am. Blockbuster and theaters routinely card me for R-rated movies, and my Japanese teacher thought I was a high school senior on the first day of class (poor vision was later ruled out entirely).
So the question then is what I do look like. At first, I was tempted to say that I don’t look like anything. But then it occurred to me that people actually tell me that I look like things all the time. I was just ignoring them as jokes. In order of occurrence, they are:
1) Assassin
2) International Spy
3) Bouncer (bar patrons think this all the time)
4) Satan
It would at first appear that I am in the wrong line of work. But then it occurred to me that the main job perks of all of those, namely acting clever and having lots of power sex, I have managed to gather together via a select group of friends and philosophies.
Nothing seems to bar the conclusion, then, that I am a morally ambiguous, intimidating spy/assassin with an eccentric side job (hobby) in engineering. This is what many people conclude anyway, so it seems to pass the sniff test.
I can’t decide if that’s cheating the original question or not.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
