1. Reality T.V. shows about preppy up beat little 'starlets' whom no one has ever heard of.
2. People who move to the big city with their giant dog and then refuse to clean up after them because they never had to clean up their parents back yard when the dog took a dump back there.
3. Words ending in '-izzle.'
4. People who end words in '-izzle.'
5. Ipads, PDA's, I-Phones, Kindles, Nooks, EReaders, tablets, anything and everything ever made by apple, because its just so user friendly that any dumb schmuck at the apple store can fix it for 250 bucks by hitting the reset button.
6. Computer technicians who's primary method of "customer support", is repeatedly telling you to try power cycling your computer.
7. Canned Air. (Yes it is real).
8. Every single business that has you add their club card to your key chain until you have more bar codes attached to it than keys.
9. The word "Post-Modern".
10. Parents who push around empty strollers.
11. Parents who push around full strollers while ignoring their children for their cell phones.
12. Parents who push around full strollers while ignoring their children for their cell phones, right up until their phone reception dies, and then appear to be driven to interact with their children because of only this fact.
13. People who end words in '-izzle.' (I REALLY HATE THAT).
14. Fruit sellers in France. Ask Eddie Izzard.
15. Printers that seem to 'think' that they're out of ink, when really, you know you just refilled the bastard.
16. Republicans.
17. Democrats.
18. People who say their communist/socialist because they think that's the ONLY OTHER ALTERNATIVE to either of the a fore mentioned parties.
19. Fat people who feel that they are entitled to extra room in elevators, train cars, airplanes, because that was the way 'god' made them. Fat is a burden, not a right or privilege, and your eating habits made you fat, not your god.
20. Unsolicited advice.
21. People who say "I accept you for who you are, no matter what," because we all know their lying.
22. Gentrification, because its made every Black person in my neighborhood look at me like an outsider, when I've lived there longer than ANY OF THEM!
23. People who argue semantics.
24. People who insist that "Intelligent Design" is a valid theory even though at some point in the scientific process of that theory, it breaks down into "Cause...it did."
25. The word 'Hate'.
Wednesday, April 27, 2011
Tuesday, April 26, 2011
Book's
I've been reading for a long time. It's a useful skill, and its interesting that our brains have adapted the ability to preform this skill without conscious thought. I read everything I move my eyes to, regardless of whether it was my intention or not. It is a reflexive motion, like breathing. Over the years, my tastes have changed gravitation's slightly. At eleven or so I started reading novels, there wasn't any of this "Teen Fiction" crap we have today, so I was reading, well, real books. Stuff that probably shouldn't have been given to a small child. But I read them. When I was sixteen, I started reading more philosophical work and was very interested in Shakespeare (not for the whiny teen angsty crap, but because the verse is really quite amazing). Stuff having to deal with the tiny thoughts people have. Love, hate, need, greed, want, lust, apathy, revenge, anger, vengeance, justice, sadness, melancholy, depression, repression, inception, and every other subconscious mental meandering that someone thinks they might have an insight to.
Then (I'd say finally, but it isn't really an end, just another page break), I started reading things on science. NeuroLinguistics, Rationality, Logic, Chemistry, Physics, Astronomy (Never Never Never astrology) Sociology, Psychology, Anthropology, Statistics, Economics. All of this stuff is still interesting to me, even the stuff from my teen years. Through it all though, has been an unhealthy smattering of fantasy and science fiction books. I say unhealthy because I realized something, starring at my bookshelves the other day.
I realized that these book lie to you. They're all the same, there is your hero, and your "Bad Guys". Some of them maybe have the misunderstood guys, or the 'they-might-be-good-if-we-had-just' guys. There is the crew of supportive friends, maybe a few role models. And while there is some horrible battle or confrontation to be done, at the end, everything is fine and everyone is happy, and deep down, even the bad guys are basically good people. This is a load of shit. We all know full well that there are some people in the world, and actual percentage of people, who are not good and decent. But lets forget about that 2% (yes ladies and gentlemen 2% of the male population are psychopaths) who have no concept of pain, fear or any other emotions outside of themselves. What about the politicians, the spin doctors, the advertising executives, the C.E.O's, the Stock Jockeys, professional sports players, big business owners, small business owners, drug addicts, drug pushers, dirty cops, dirty judges, racists, bigots, hypocrites, abusers, movie producers, movie stars, all the self involved self important nincompoops? That's a huge list of people that at one point or another, we've all looked at and said to ourselves "How can they/we live like/with them(selves)?"
Well, lets face it, its really really easy to be a terrible person to someone. We're rude to people all the time, we plot and scheme, talk about people behind their backs, work out ways to cut out the competition at work or in a love life. It's just a fact that people don't get along all the time. We don't feel shame about these things, or beat ourselves up. It isn't in our nature. The only difference between most evils we hear about is scale, or possibly inventiveness, but the base motivation is the same. We all have them, the desire to do well, to out do others, to be the best, be recognized, honored and remembered. There are no people who are wholly good, every level of a persons behavior is really motivated by one thing, to be human. So yes, there is shame in kicking a man who's down, or pushing an old grandma, but most every evil we face isn't some amorphous controlling entity, its just humanity.
Its our humanity that makes us great as a species, but its also our greatest flaw. There is good and bad in everyone, that's the rub. It's easy to look at a person who defrauded us and assign them evil status, and to look at our own 'unselfish' deeds and proclaim ourselves good. But I've found, the best of people are the ones who accept their own flaws. They're the ones who are most comfortable with themselves, but atypically, cannot fit into society. They see all people as human, not one thing or another, not a singular persistent trait, but a collection of mutable, changing ideas, feelings, and actions. Being human isn't just altruism, courage, selflessness, and all the other good things we can be, its also being some of the worst. Self-serving, jealous, hording our time and feelings. You can't grow as a person if you cannot accept the fact that sometimes, things have to be about you.
Then (I'd say finally, but it isn't really an end, just another page break), I started reading things on science. NeuroLinguistics, Rationality, Logic, Chemistry, Physics, Astronomy (Never Never Never astrology) Sociology, Psychology, Anthropology, Statistics, Economics. All of this stuff is still interesting to me, even the stuff from my teen years. Through it all though, has been an unhealthy smattering of fantasy and science fiction books. I say unhealthy because I realized something, starring at my bookshelves the other day.
I realized that these book lie to you. They're all the same, there is your hero, and your "Bad Guys". Some of them maybe have the misunderstood guys, or the 'they-might-be-good-if-we-had-just' guys. There is the crew of supportive friends, maybe a few role models. And while there is some horrible battle or confrontation to be done, at the end, everything is fine and everyone is happy, and deep down, even the bad guys are basically good people. This is a load of shit. We all know full well that there are some people in the world, and actual percentage of people, who are not good and decent. But lets forget about that 2% (yes ladies and gentlemen 2% of the male population are psychopaths) who have no concept of pain, fear or any other emotions outside of themselves. What about the politicians, the spin doctors, the advertising executives, the C.E.O's, the Stock Jockeys, professional sports players, big business owners, small business owners, drug addicts, drug pushers, dirty cops, dirty judges, racists, bigots, hypocrites, abusers, movie producers, movie stars, all the self involved self important nincompoops? That's a huge list of people that at one point or another, we've all looked at and said to ourselves "How can they/we live like/with them(selves)?"
Well, lets face it, its really really easy to be a terrible person to someone. We're rude to people all the time, we plot and scheme, talk about people behind their backs, work out ways to cut out the competition at work or in a love life. It's just a fact that people don't get along all the time. We don't feel shame about these things, or beat ourselves up. It isn't in our nature. The only difference between most evils we hear about is scale, or possibly inventiveness, but the base motivation is the same. We all have them, the desire to do well, to out do others, to be the best, be recognized, honored and remembered. There are no people who are wholly good, every level of a persons behavior is really motivated by one thing, to be human. So yes, there is shame in kicking a man who's down, or pushing an old grandma, but most every evil we face isn't some amorphous controlling entity, its just humanity.
Its our humanity that makes us great as a species, but its also our greatest flaw. There is good and bad in everyone, that's the rub. It's easy to look at a person who defrauded us and assign them evil status, and to look at our own 'unselfish' deeds and proclaim ourselves good. But I've found, the best of people are the ones who accept their own flaws. They're the ones who are most comfortable with themselves, but atypically, cannot fit into society. They see all people as human, not one thing or another, not a singular persistent trait, but a collection of mutable, changing ideas, feelings, and actions. Being human isn't just altruism, courage, selflessness, and all the other good things we can be, its also being some of the worst. Self-serving, jealous, hording our time and feelings. You can't grow as a person if you cannot accept the fact that sometimes, things have to be about you.
My Thing Of Today
I get it. We live in 'The Information Age'. A time where every conceivable thing which grabs our interest, every minute detail, all the tedious minutia, is at our very finger tips. This can cause a huge overload. It would be inconceivable to read every book, play every game, watch every TV show or movie, so the rational behind reviewers is there. You wind up asking other people you know about these things, if they liked them, why you might like them. If you have an interest that none of your friends does, or they aren't around, you might check up on customer reviews, or professionally written ones. These things make sense to do. Its painful to waste time and money on something that turns out to be stupid and annoying for the general public, let alone personally. You don't want to waste your time reading a book to find out the ending is trash, that's a huge investment of time for a small return.
My problem is with those people who will literally do nothing without the approval of an outside source. The people who know them aren't good enough, they couldn't possibly be able to, with their years of experience dealing with them, be able to predict these things accuratly. The must have the opinion of that outside source. They're like a god, with premonitory abilities on your tastes and dislikes. They have a plan for you and your money, and they are never wrong. These types of people are horrid.
Whats the point of listening to one person for you needs on a specific topic. You don't do it with medical professionals, lawyers, or your $500 an hour therapist. But games, fashion, movies, books; no those people have their heads on right. With four years at some college that teaches you how to critique and write compellingly, they are obviously qualified to tell you what to like, and it isn't as if its in their best interest, right? And I'm not saying that getting an opinion on something is a terrible idea, its those individuals who only listen to that one other voice. Sure, they may be right all the time about what is good, but they have no rational for not lying to you, or to tell you to branch out. There is no telling how many opportunities you've missed by not exploring outside that box. To be trapped by a couple of well written paragraphs that tell you everything you want to hear, that's not independent thinking, being avant garde, separatist, or a non-conformist. Its doing exactly what that person is getting paid to do, give you an acceptable rational, which appeals to your sense of self and style, to buy something.
That's what baffles me about "Fashion". The art of wearing clothing (in my head i spell it c-loathing). Certainly a well dressed individual is ascetically pleasing, but by art we mean taking a base medium, canvas, marble, the human body, and turning it into a means to convey an important message or vision to as many people as possible for as long as possible. If it were an art in that way, we would see every possible type of person at fashion shows, and designers would be scrambling to get their messages to everyone, not the few and proud. Instead, we only find six foot tall slender behemoths who make up about 1% of the possible population, and the latest fashions are in and out every three months for ginormous prices. Picasso, Monet, Pierre de Wiessant, Hitchcock, statues from the Roman Empire, those thing that have endured for decades, centuries, millennium, those are things we consider art. We can still learn from them, feel something from them, teach using them. Ask any person on the street about what is art, the last thing that comes from their mouths will be "fashion". Fashion isn't an art, its a business, its prime motivation isn't to tell you something about the world, or share pain and joy with you. It isn't even about the human condition. It's about getting a bunch of people to feel better about themselves through manipulation and bilk them out of thousands of dollars by telling them their special. No artist I've ever heard of (outside the fashion "industry") would every put those motives down on their portfolio.
My problem is with those people who will literally do nothing without the approval of an outside source. The people who know them aren't good enough, they couldn't possibly be able to, with their years of experience dealing with them, be able to predict these things accuratly. The must have the opinion of that outside source. They're like a god, with premonitory abilities on your tastes and dislikes. They have a plan for you and your money, and they are never wrong. These types of people are horrid.
Whats the point of listening to one person for you needs on a specific topic. You don't do it with medical professionals, lawyers, or your $500 an hour therapist. But games, fashion, movies, books; no those people have their heads on right. With four years at some college that teaches you how to critique and write compellingly, they are obviously qualified to tell you what to like, and it isn't as if its in their best interest, right? And I'm not saying that getting an opinion on something is a terrible idea, its those individuals who only listen to that one other voice. Sure, they may be right all the time about what is good, but they have no rational for not lying to you, or to tell you to branch out. There is no telling how many opportunities you've missed by not exploring outside that box. To be trapped by a couple of well written paragraphs that tell you everything you want to hear, that's not independent thinking, being avant garde, separatist, or a non-conformist. Its doing exactly what that person is getting paid to do, give you an acceptable rational, which appeals to your sense of self and style, to buy something.
That's what baffles me about "Fashion". The art of wearing clothing (in my head i spell it c-loathing). Certainly a well dressed individual is ascetically pleasing, but by art we mean taking a base medium, canvas, marble, the human body, and turning it into a means to convey an important message or vision to as many people as possible for as long as possible. If it were an art in that way, we would see every possible type of person at fashion shows, and designers would be scrambling to get their messages to everyone, not the few and proud. Instead, we only find six foot tall slender behemoths who make up about 1% of the possible population, and the latest fashions are in and out every three months for ginormous prices. Picasso, Monet, Pierre de Wiessant, Hitchcock, statues from the Roman Empire, those thing that have endured for decades, centuries, millennium, those are things we consider art. We can still learn from them, feel something from them, teach using them. Ask any person on the street about what is art, the last thing that comes from their mouths will be "fashion". Fashion isn't an art, its a business, its prime motivation isn't to tell you something about the world, or share pain and joy with you. It isn't even about the human condition. It's about getting a bunch of people to feel better about themselves through manipulation and bilk them out of thousands of dollars by telling them their special. No artist I've ever heard of (outside the fashion "industry") would every put those motives down on their portfolio.
Friday, April 15, 2011
Television
I don't watch a lot of t.v, or maybe I watch to much. Its hard to gauge against another person, who can talk to you about all the characters on various vapid shows designed solely to titillate and arouse the public, to my own watchings; which are restricted to just watching every episode, in order, of every season, of a television show within the course of a couple of weeks. Though I don't have the television on simply for noise, but for a reason. That reason, I assumed up until now, was because I liked the show, or the actors, or the writer. But for now, I'm going with the theory that its for socialization. While I cannot get my hands on current material, I can still assess the norms and morals of the past few years, and since societies change so slowly, this is still a pretty good map.
Socialization is defined as a process of acclimating ones self to the surrounding cultural environment which persists from birth, until death. This gives me great hope of one day, being able to understand people, or at least get really good at guessing at their motives. A lot of people think that socialization occurs within person to person communication. This is partly true, as for the first years of any of our lives we interact with very few people. However, as we age, the sphere of those we see and talk with expands, both in quantity and in quality. But socialization for humans isn't just the words people say, there are all sorts of nuances to communication. Body language, inflection, context, tone of voice, and prior attributions. So even though a television show, or magazine ad, or even a book, doesn't provide you with interactive face time with the subjects, it allows messages far more powerful than whats funny or what deodorant to buy. It shows the concept of truth and obfuscation in language, appropriate physical responses, to recognize facial reactions.
I often mock people for citing T.V, (I also like to just mock people), for the basis for their observations about reality. Mostly because its the only compelling piece of commentary they can relate to the subject being discussed. But sometimes I over look the fact that while television is structured specifically to convey a message the writer or producer wants, that doesn't mean it lacks humanity. We have a tendency, as a species, to equate dislike with non-human, which makes judgements like these easy. If you don't like someone, it makes it easier to take advantage of them, or degrade them, or manipulate them into doing what you want. But with television, while the messages are designed by people you never see, they are still attempts at human communication. So while it might be repugnant to acknowledge the fact that watching television may teach you something, it isn't necessarily false. You just have to make sure that you take away the human lessons, and not the social, cultural, or economic lessons (i.e. the ideological ones this particular group holds).
But in this case there is another reason why sometimes citing television is stupid, and why it may also not be. Television doesn't always reflect reality. Sure there are the laws of gravity and physics maybe even thermodynamics, but the way people interact is not there. Most shows are constructed so that the watchers can feel superior, laugh at the incompetence of people who don't know how to deal with their feelings or miss obvious verbal and facial clues the studio audience clearly didn't. Things like that are traps for the imagination. We begin to feel better about our selves, because we would never be that stupid. So we continue to watch, to continue to feel superior, and it gets popular, so more shows just like it are made, and so on in a happy death spiral. Though, sometimes, it can reflect reality, because the writers who made the dialogue, and the actors who show it to use, even the director of photography frames it in just the right way to share something with us, the audience. These are all people, trying to get a message across to us (but these guys I'm talking about positively right here, they're on good t.v. shows).
So sometimes I go on a t.v. binge. And I start to thinking, am I feeling the way I do because the t.v. is telling me this is how I feel? Not really, certainly I'm reacting to it, but it doesn't have the ability to permeate every thought. And even if I am, I'm being informed but real people. They are trying to convey emotion, pain, hurt, anger, love, and to not react to that would be worse. And besides, if reality is constructed solely within our minds, any outside stimuli which influences our perception of reality, and is part of that reality because of its origin, is a reflection of that reality (optical illusions not withstanding).
Socialization is defined as a process of acclimating ones self to the surrounding cultural environment which persists from birth, until death. This gives me great hope of one day, being able to understand people, or at least get really good at guessing at their motives. A lot of people think that socialization occurs within person to person communication. This is partly true, as for the first years of any of our lives we interact with very few people. However, as we age, the sphere of those we see and talk with expands, both in quantity and in quality. But socialization for humans isn't just the words people say, there are all sorts of nuances to communication. Body language, inflection, context, tone of voice, and prior attributions. So even though a television show, or magazine ad, or even a book, doesn't provide you with interactive face time with the subjects, it allows messages far more powerful than whats funny or what deodorant to buy. It shows the concept of truth and obfuscation in language, appropriate physical responses, to recognize facial reactions.
I often mock people for citing T.V, (I also like to just mock people), for the basis for their observations about reality. Mostly because its the only compelling piece of commentary they can relate to the subject being discussed. But sometimes I over look the fact that while television is structured specifically to convey a message the writer or producer wants, that doesn't mean it lacks humanity. We have a tendency, as a species, to equate dislike with non-human, which makes judgements like these easy. If you don't like someone, it makes it easier to take advantage of them, or degrade them, or manipulate them into doing what you want. But with television, while the messages are designed by people you never see, they are still attempts at human communication. So while it might be repugnant to acknowledge the fact that watching television may teach you something, it isn't necessarily false. You just have to make sure that you take away the human lessons, and not the social, cultural, or economic lessons (i.e. the ideological ones this particular group holds).
But in this case there is another reason why sometimes citing television is stupid, and why it may also not be. Television doesn't always reflect reality. Sure there are the laws of gravity and physics maybe even thermodynamics, but the way people interact is not there. Most shows are constructed so that the watchers can feel superior, laugh at the incompetence of people who don't know how to deal with their feelings or miss obvious verbal and facial clues the studio audience clearly didn't. Things like that are traps for the imagination. We begin to feel better about our selves, because we would never be that stupid. So we continue to watch, to continue to feel superior, and it gets popular, so more shows just like it are made, and so on in a happy death spiral. Though, sometimes, it can reflect reality, because the writers who made the dialogue, and the actors who show it to use, even the director of photography frames it in just the right way to share something with us, the audience. These are all people, trying to get a message across to us (but these guys I'm talking about positively right here, they're on good t.v. shows).
So sometimes I go on a t.v. binge. And I start to thinking, am I feeling the way I do because the t.v. is telling me this is how I feel? Not really, certainly I'm reacting to it, but it doesn't have the ability to permeate every thought. And even if I am, I'm being informed but real people. They are trying to convey emotion, pain, hurt, anger, love, and to not react to that would be worse. And besides, if reality is constructed solely within our minds, any outside stimuli which influences our perception of reality, and is part of that reality because of its origin, is a reflection of that reality (optical illusions not withstanding).
Wednesday, April 6, 2011
Random
I love the random things that happen which I get to view as providence. I know in reality that random happenstance is really just that, a statistically generated possibility of outcomes. But my brain gets to see it as the universe taking a little time out to string together a sequence of events that come out in my favor. I've said before that this happens frequently to me, so I have ample opportunity to analyze this phenomenon at the personal level. It’s odd however, that my first visceral reaction is to think that the sequence of events was supposed to play out the way it did. I then step back and think. If it events hadn't happened in this way, they would have happened in an equally random way. Some people will think this takes the magic out of miracles, but think about it. Which is more miraculous, that an omnipotent being with a grand plan, an interest in our every move, and observing only this one planet in the multitudes of the cosmos? OR, that in a universe so vast as to be near infinite, we are on this one spheroid, are born out of a random pairing of two distinct genetic sequences, have varying degrees of talent and ability, create things and share them with others, and after all that, my Ipod will put two songs next to each other on shuffle that counter point each other and my mood? The likely-hood of the latter is so vastly impossible that it doesn't merit computation.
Of course, you could break down every bit of the second question into different probability functions, with variables for each sections, and express it in a formula, but I don't do any of that in my head.
But speaking on this particular random event which I am enamored of, it was beautiful. I was on the train home after confronting, and being comforted about, a particularly intense phobia I have, and reading. I was reading about two cosmologists, Beatrice Tinsley and Allan Sandage arguing about whether the universe is open or closed. I paused for a moment in my reading to digest a little bit of information, and realized this has been a big week for me. I've been faced with everyday, huge fears that have until this point ruled my life. People. I'm terrified of them because on the whole, I understand that I will never know someone like I know myself. But this week I've begun this blog, attempted extroversion, and attended a social gathering with people I'd never met all alone in someone’s home. I've done these things for the simple reason of defying myself.
However, I realized that I hadn't given myself sufficient time to celebrate these achievements. So I took my Ipod off shuffle. This is big, because I feel like I must keep it on there so that I can at least be reminded of all the music I own and justify its existence on the device. But I treated myself to listening to something I really wanted to. So I put on "Mumford and Son's" song White Blank Page because it speaks to me of tranquility and then onslaught of horrid emotion into the calm of your soul. The keynote point in the song of course is the crescendo which accompanies two phrases, "a white blank page, and a swelling rage," which pretty much sums up writers block for me.
I read some online blogs, all of which have the connecting thread that their authors are people I admire. One of them, Jerry "Tycho" Holkins, writer for Penny Arcade, has said in interviews that he feels that he has to keep justifying the work he does, that if he doesn't live up to the standards, it will be taken away from him. I can say many nice things about this man, but I will simply say that he has a talent no one can take from him. But this is very much how I feel sometimes, staring at a blank piece of paper, or white computer screen. I MUST fill it, or I will lose it all. This is very true in that not exercising my linguistic talents may cause them to atrophy. However, the reverse is also true, writing this much over this short a period of time has caused me to think about things that I want to write about almost constantly. This in turn makes me wonder if I will ever, even with my diverse areas of curiosity, run out of things to write/think about. I don't think so, but if I ever draw a blank I'll make a game out of it.
Tuesday, April 5, 2011
Crime Drama Science
These shows fascinate me for a variate of reasons, but I always find my self wondering something. How real is the science they're showing us. If I were in the crime fighting business such as the people depicted in these shows are, I wouldn't want a bunch of people going around, spreading my trade secrets. I mean, there is a reason besides protecting his loved ones that Bruce Wayne doesn't advertise he's Batman. It gives him an edge over his competition. Not just super villains would take advantage of that knowledge, his business rivals would start working at night, when he was busiest, or taking advantage of the fact that he's sleep deprived.
So are the things they show on CSI, NCIS, Law & Order, Criminal Minds, Castle, Bones, Lie to Me* reflections of technology that actually exists? Are the writers of the show giving more tools to the otherwise inept criminals of our society? Are we crafting better criminals through television? Or is it a campaign of misinformation. I can see writers playing down the possibilities of our technology so criminals make errors; or inventing a device which detects some piece of evidence which leads real criminals to act as if it exists, thereby making their life harder.
The real quandary comes with the possibility that the technology and science portrayed is real. Certainly there is a bases for all or most of it, but is it all real? Can you learn about pathology, micro expressions, or investigative techniques from watching these shows? I find my self watching Castle after seeing Lie to Me and wondering if the Castle actors are coached to act as if they are lying, or don't believe what they're saying, or just to act like what they are saying is true. Does the science of micro-expressions work against trained actors?
The main reason I like Crime Dramas, being by far the majority of my limited television watching, is that they show our humanity. They dissect, quite logically, human motivations, emotions and thoughts. Quite a large portion of them are devoted to teasing out the motive which causes these people to commit crimes. It follows a special kind of human logic, people get angry, jealous, greedy, lonely, or selfish and act on these feelings. The characters we follow are the flawed, horrid people we fear we all are, and they chase the even more flawed. They combat not the deformed monsters from the pits of hell or medical anomalies or teen angst, but the deformed monsters of human psychology.
Medical shows have a tendency to trend towards displaying human tenacity. I don't have the hormone levels to watch teen dramas. And "Fantasy" show's are well, fantastic. They portray people as the pinnacle of life, the epitome of vitality. With a show about the foibles and problems of humans, we get to see not just the heroics of our protagonists, but the corrosive damage the negative influences have. They aren't these indefatigable rocks which take everything that comes there way and go home to make dinner and have a perfect relationship. (There are a few exceptions that prove the rule, Doctor Who, most anything by Joss Whedon). They are humans in such a real way that we rarely can imagine a better way for them to go.
So are the things they show on CSI, NCIS, Law & Order, Criminal Minds, Castle, Bones, Lie to Me* reflections of technology that actually exists? Are the writers of the show giving more tools to the otherwise inept criminals of our society? Are we crafting better criminals through television? Or is it a campaign of misinformation. I can see writers playing down the possibilities of our technology so criminals make errors; or inventing a device which detects some piece of evidence which leads real criminals to act as if it exists, thereby making their life harder.
The real quandary comes with the possibility that the technology and science portrayed is real. Certainly there is a bases for all or most of it, but is it all real? Can you learn about pathology, micro expressions, or investigative techniques from watching these shows? I find my self watching Castle after seeing Lie to Me and wondering if the Castle actors are coached to act as if they are lying, or don't believe what they're saying, or just to act like what they are saying is true. Does the science of micro-expressions work against trained actors?
The main reason I like Crime Dramas, being by far the majority of my limited television watching, is that they show our humanity. They dissect, quite logically, human motivations, emotions and thoughts. Quite a large portion of them are devoted to teasing out the motive which causes these people to commit crimes. It follows a special kind of human logic, people get angry, jealous, greedy, lonely, or selfish and act on these feelings. The characters we follow are the flawed, horrid people we fear we all are, and they chase the even more flawed. They combat not the deformed monsters from the pits of hell or medical anomalies or teen angst, but the deformed monsters of human psychology.
Medical shows have a tendency to trend towards displaying human tenacity. I don't have the hormone levels to watch teen dramas. And "Fantasy" show's are well, fantastic. They portray people as the pinnacle of life, the epitome of vitality. With a show about the foibles and problems of humans, we get to see not just the heroics of our protagonists, but the corrosive damage the negative influences have. They aren't these indefatigable rocks which take everything that comes there way and go home to make dinner and have a perfect relationship. (There are a few exceptions that prove the rule, Doctor Who, most anything by Joss Whedon). They are humans in such a real way that we rarely can imagine a better way for them to go.
Monday, April 4, 2011
Emotions.
Sometimes, I have them. Its weird though, because when I say I have them, I mean I Have them. They are a thing, tangible, noticeable, measurable. I can pick them up, turn them around in the hand of my mind and notice how they work. I can even PUT THEM DOWN. I can literally turn off some of my emotions, or at least that's how I think of it. It doesn't actually happen that way, I just stop feeling them until its more convenient, but that's what it looks like. Sometimes, the opposite happens, and I am had by my emotions. It sounds dirty and graphic, but that's exactly how I feel when I come down off of the anger or mad happiness. I am taken over, my reactions aren't mine. I can look at them and be utterly mystified by them. I sometimes feel like the Hulk, just less cool.
That's one of the things that always confuses me about people and their response to emotions. It is a commonly held belief that emotional < rationality, which I don't agree with. Emotions are stimuli responses. Your friend dies, you mourn the loss. You win the lottery, you are excited/pleased by the possibilities. The break down comes when your emotions stop responding to rationality. They are instead replaced by the reality you construct in your head based off of multiple errors in attributable. Your friend does something stupid, scary stupid, and instead of rationalizing it, (people do stupid things sometimes, learning from them is important), it becomes this enduring, persistent attribute of that person. They aren't flawed and human, they are a bad person and no amount of wanting to change will help them.
I think the worst part of being rational is waking up and realizing that all of these bias, pitfalls, and arguments aren't just out in the world, assaulting us; They are in your own mind. Sometimes, against all logic, you convince yourself that something is true. Your don't actually take out your thoughts, one by one, and question them, that would take forever. But sometime, infrequently, more often would be helpful, one of your foundation beliefs is knocked out from under you. For a really really long time you'll sit there, on the ground surrounded by shards of thought and bits of belief, inspecting each and every one for that glimmering of logic. But in the end, you sigh and stand, realizing that there isn't one shred of rational thought anywhere in the pile of broken hopes. As you walk away from that pillar of false hope, its foundation sugar coated dreams and pure spun fantasy you take one, last bite to see how it tastes. Its bitter friends. Lies, false hope, and broken promises taste exactly like ash covered glass.
That's one of the things that always confuses me about people and their response to emotions. It is a commonly held belief that emotional < rationality, which I don't agree with. Emotions are stimuli responses. Your friend dies, you mourn the loss. You win the lottery, you are excited/pleased by the possibilities. The break down comes when your emotions stop responding to rationality. They are instead replaced by the reality you construct in your head based off of multiple errors in attributable. Your friend does something stupid, scary stupid, and instead of rationalizing it, (people do stupid things sometimes, learning from them is important), it becomes this enduring, persistent attribute of that person. They aren't flawed and human, they are a bad person and no amount of wanting to change will help them.
I think the worst part of being rational is waking up and realizing that all of these bias, pitfalls, and arguments aren't just out in the world, assaulting us; They are in your own mind. Sometimes, against all logic, you convince yourself that something is true. Your don't actually take out your thoughts, one by one, and question them, that would take forever. But sometime, infrequently, more often would be helpful, one of your foundation beliefs is knocked out from under you. For a really really long time you'll sit there, on the ground surrounded by shards of thought and bits of belief, inspecting each and every one for that glimmering of logic. But in the end, you sigh and stand, realizing that there isn't one shred of rational thought anywhere in the pile of broken hopes. As you walk away from that pillar of false hope, its foundation sugar coated dreams and pure spun fantasy you take one, last bite to see how it tastes. Its bitter friends. Lies, false hope, and broken promises taste exactly like ash covered glass.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)