Here's a question for you to ponder: Does getting something for free affect the chances of you liking it? Whatever it may be.
There are basically 3 ways to get something:
Buying it
Getting it for free
Receiving it as a gift
I would include winning something in either of the second options depending on the circumstances.
I'd like to approach this as a question of Psychology but I have no research or references to draw upon so this is purely observation.
If you are given clothes for free e.g. from a Family Member or at some type of promotional event, how likely are you to actually like the item? Is your judgement affected by the fact that you got it for free? If your judgement is affected, in what way? One could argue that you would be biased to like the item because it was free and everyone loves something they get free, right? Well, I don't know about that, I would actually argue the opposite would be true.
I believe if you get something for free you will judge the item with less bias than someone who paid for it. I believe this because I believe the fact that you paid for the item forces you on some level to like the item or find something good about it to stave off buyers' remorse.
Similarly I think receiving something as a gift is as bad as buying it yourself, you will in most cases strive to find something positive about the gift - in most cases but not all cases.
There is of course the obvious argument that if you actually buy something it is because you like it, but I would argue that this is not necessarily true for all items. It can't be true for food you have never tried and one of the more controversial areas - it can't be true for Movies, Games and Music which you haven't watched, played or listened to before. Even more interesting to me here is something I must point out: ALL of these products are exempt from most money-back guarantee schemes. In fact in the UK once you purchase a Movie, Game or CD you can't return it unless it is damaged - in other words if you use it once and realise it's shit you can't return it [unless you get a pair of scissors and score a massive scratch in the disk and return it saying "it was like that when I bought it"].
Is this really fair on the consumer however? If you buy food and it turns out to be expired, taste completely horrible or be of any inferior quality you can demand your money back. You can't get your money back after watching a Movie that turned out to be crap. If you buy clothes that fall apart or tear at the seems you are perfectly entitled to a refund you can even get a refund if it doesn't fit.
So in all of these cases and in those where the odds are stacked in favour of the vendor not the consumer you can be pressured to find something to cling on to, something positive no matter how small in order to justify the purchase. In essence this entire system amounts to 'reverse bribery' namely, you pay the vendor to influence your opinion.
This post is primarily aimed at friends from busuu.com who have asked about food in the UK, but may also be interesting for all of you around the world.
First and foremost the UK is made up of 3 or 4 countries [depending on where you stand but let's not go down that route now let's just go with 4 countries] they are, England, Scotland Wales and Northern Ireland. As such there exists a range of influences over what people eat. Beyond these four countries though food in the UK is heavily influenced by the countries and cultures that at one point existed as part of the British Empire or that remain to this day within the Commonwealth.
Also known as the Sunday Roast owing to the day it is traditionally served this dish comprises of Roast Beef sliced thinly served with Gravy, Peas, Roast Potatoes and Yorkshire Pudding. A Yorkshire Pudding is a type pastry shaped into small 'bowls'.
This one isn't for the the squeamish and I personally have neither ate it nor have I any overwhelming desire to try it.
Haggis is basically a Sheep's Stomach stuffed with a mince made from the heart, liver and lungs of the Sheep mixed with onion, oatmeal, suet, spices, salt, and stock. It is traditionally simmered in the Sheep's stomach for approximately three hours. Most Haggis sold in shops and restaurants is prepared in a casing rather than the actual stomach.
Cawl is the Welsh word for Soup, Broth or Stew. There are various different types and variations you can see an example of a recipe here: at BBC Food
Northern Ireland - Ulster Fry
Of all the National dishes here this is by far the heaviest. Some locals here like to refer to it rather affectionately as a heart attack on a plate. Despite this it is traditionally ate at breakfast time usually on the weekend, Saturday and Sunday although some people have them a lot more than this.
The staple of the dish would be: 2 fried eggs, 2 sausages, 2 slices of Bacon, 2 fried Soda Farls [A type of flat bread similar to Damper which is ate in Australia] 2 slices of potato bread [another type of flat bread, more like a pancake but traditionally square] Vegetable Roll [a type of Sausage meat] Black Pudding - a type of Blood Sausage similar to Blutwurst [don't knock it until you've tried it! I LOVE this] White Pudding [similar to Black Pudding but made without Blood] Fried Tomatoes, Fried Mushrooms and Wheaten Bread
Optional additions include Toast and Baked Beans [although similar styled beans exist outside the UK, the variety made here is Unique and unlike anything produced elsewhere]
I'll move on to Fast Food in the next post on this topic. For now the above should whet your appetite. From these four dishes alone you should already get a picture of how different cultures outside the UK have influenced our food and how despite the stereotypes we are anything but prudish in experimenting with what we eat.
EDIT: I should note here these are the 'official' National dishes. The Favourite dishes of each Nation is an entirely different topic and can greatly contrast to those above for example Chicken Tikka Masala, a type of Curry is regarded as an unofficial National Dish due to it's popularity, along with Fish and Chips among others.
If you have never met my family and Christmas time was the first time you ever entered our house, you would be forgiven for thinking we were a bit "eccentric" to put it politely.
Christmas is perhaps the biggest event of the year in our Household. We never have relatives join us for Christmas dinner it's only ever me, my parents and my brother, but that doesn't stop us making a Christmas dinner that could feed 14 people. Actually that's probably an understatement, I am actually serious.
These dishes are taken from the Good Housekeeping Step by Step Cookbook, this book is my Kitchen Bible. I cannot praise it enough. The original book is incredibly hard to find circa 1977 you can read about it here.
Christmas Dinner usually consists of:
Starter: Prawn Cocktail or Melon wedges sprinkled with Cinnamon
Main Course: Brussel Sprouts in Buttered Breadcrumbs Spiced Carrots and Vegetable mix Honey roast Parsnips Roast Turkey [Usually says "serves 12" or 16 but it never does] Roast Gammon cooked with a brown sugar glaze covered in Oranges and Clove Roast Gammon in a honey and mustard glaze [yes we cook 2 Gammons as well as a Turkey] Roast Potatoes Mashed Potatoes with Butter and Spring Onions Cranberry Sauce Bramley Apple Sauce
Dessert: Traditional Christmas Pudding with Cream or Custard
This year however I want to try something new. Both Gammons will remain but instead of a full Turkey we will get Turkey breast and slice it and in place of the actual Bird we are considering buying Pheasant. There is a Scottish Farm on Amazon.co.uk which sells Pheasant and Partridge selection packs which consist of 1 Pheasant and 2 partridges. So I was thinking of buying 2 so that we will each have 1 Partridge and half a pheasant. Together with the sliced Turkey breast that should be enough I think.
Also to convince you how seriously we take Christmas, we have already started buying Christmas food and Christmas Decorations. Our main Tree [yes we have more than 1] will be decorated in Green and Silver decorations and possibly blue fairy lights this year. In case you were wondering we have 4 Christmas Trees but we usually only have 2 up, one in the Lounge and one in the Kitchen, sometimes I put a small one in my Bedroom. We also have several garlands, wreathes and general festivity around the House, oh and a model village with snow and a working Train that chugs its way through.
There are those who would say that commitment outright does not exist in Gay World. I for one am not of this belief, I do believe Gay people can commit to one another. Although I do have a theory, that perhaps in Gay World the period of time devoted to seeking Love is longer than that of Straight World. Whether that entails finding Mr Right or ultimately settling for Mr Close-Enough.
The question is - How long do you spend looking for Love? At what age is it expected or what age do you expect to get married by or be in a serious committed long term relationship? I know a few people who opt for the 'married by 30' rule but likewise I know a few who got married before they hit 20 a few more who had kids before they hit 20 - although that in itself is a entire topic of conversation.
In Gay World at least there are those who don't seem to commit until they have been around the block several times not just in the number of partners or notches in the bed-post but in years too. A quick perusal of any number of Gay dating websites and you will find your fair share of 'Old Queens' who are 40 - 50 and still single. Early 50s seems to be the limit however - although a sweet naive thing you may be dear reader, I would not be inclined to believe the age anyone has placed on their profile so it may just be a case of 'passing for 50'. If the superficiality is to be believed however it would seem that past the late 50s mark Gay men seem to drop out of the dating world altogether. Maybe they pair off with those in a similar situation, or maybe they pair off with younger gays looking for a sugar Daddy or maybe they just give up on dating altogether. Mind you this might all be a misnomer and there may be some over 50 dating site or some form of network they belong to that I as a young Gay man am blissfully unaware.
If I reached 50 having never had a serious long-term relationship with some level of commitment then I would probably have to reassess not just my love life but my entire life as a whole. To me to have avoided Love for so long could mean one of three things - that I was an impossible person to live with, that I was incredibly picky about who I want to be with or that I was destined to be single. The last option is rather depressive but I know that I am not impossible to live with - while at University I lived with 3 friends who were completely random in terms of their personalities in my second year and then in my third year I lived with two friends who were in many ways mirrors of my personality. Admittedly the latter was a lot easier than the former and from the former I learned a lesson about who I can and can not live with. Therein lies the second option that I would be too picky. Now albeit in none of these living arrangements was I romantically involved with anyone nevertheless their personality traits and their living habits taught me a lot about what I can and can not endure over a longer period of time. Knowing this, and taking into account the fact that bar one or two areas of my life, when I learn a lesson I take it to heart and I live by the wisdom I have realised. Knowing all this I can full-well believe that I could be incredibly picky about who I would ever consider living with never-mind factoring in the inexperienced variable of living with someone I'm romantically involved with.
Being destined to be single isn't all that bad - it doesn't imply that you will be alone, just not in a relationship. The problem with that is your friends will eventually drift away as they get married and you will evermore increasingly find yourself as the third wheel. This is unavoidable, it's as simple as that bar having friends who remain single with you this is something that cannot be escaped. You will stay friends but you will spend less time together.
So what happens then? I don't know. Like I said there are those who have fulfilling relationships. Commitment does exist in Gay World so all hope is not lost. How do you find Love? How do you know it hasn't already found you and passed you by? How do you know when it finds you?
And after all this it has suddenly dawned on me that a post about Commitment has turned into a post about Love. Are the two really synonymous can you ever have one without the other? What does it say about me that I search for commitment as a path to Love? - shouldn't it really be the other way round? Love first then commit?
I thought it might be a good idea to write some Movie Reviews, and since Movie Reviews are a penny a dozen on the Internet I thought I'd focus on a genre that isn't addressed on the same scale. So I have decided to write a series of Movie Reviews on Gay themed Movie or Movies of Gay Interest. I wrote a few of these before for another web-site which I have since left and thought I would begin again. The original reviews were somewhat lacking in detail anyway.
I have short-listed a few Movies I intend to review and since some of them are quite dark and touch on some heavy hearted subject matter I thought I would start with something light and warm hearted. This is a review of the Movie 'Shelter' which was originally released in 2007. The Movie revolves around a guy named Zach who's an artist living in California. He's very much a victim of circumstance and finds himself trapped in a life with ever mounting responsibilities that he never asked for all of which take their toll.
He uses his art as an escape but when his friend's brother who is a writer comes to town he finds a kindrance. The pair have a growing relationship which becomes the main focus on the film. Ultimately Zach develops as a character learning how to take control of his life and put his own desires and his own interests first rather than being the peripheral to others.
The Movie covers some issues with coming to terms with sexuality but the main focus of the Movie is a Love story. It's not all plain sailing or surfing as the case may be but I found this Movie quite warm natured as a whole. It doesn't fully embrace the darker side and the challenges faced by many LGBT people but I think this is mainly due to the Movie being a US production. Many US produced Movies as far as LGBT issues go seem to prefer the Rose Coloured Glasses approach to life with many Movies being soppy or overly comedic case in point 'Another Gay Movie' which I will review later.
Overall I would give this Movie 6 out of 10 It had many positive points but I felt it was a bit under developed.
I recently wrote a blog post about Nystagmus the condition I was born with which reduces my vision. I touched on a few issues and where it can create barriers in life. It has occurred to me that there is another barrier it has posed to me and that is one of Language.
Learning English in school when I was younger wasn't the easiest of tasks - initially - because many of my teachers did not understand how Nystagmus affected my reading and the school even concluded that I was Dyslexic - I'm not, but I do have many symptoms of Dyslexia. The main symptom is that I will sometimes miss words when reading or read them in the wrong order - I hated reading aloud in class because of this. I had no difficulty in understanding what I managed to read and my reading ability developed over time compensating for the Nystagmus.
The specialist teacher who was trained in working with children with special needs quite quickly realised the other teachers were wrong and soon after the teachers apologised to my parents and staff were sent on training days to learn how to deal with these issues. Thankfully my reading aptitude soon increased and a few years later I was ahead of my class. Since then I have managed to amass an extensive vocabulary and develop my articulation to the level it now stands. However if you had never read any of my writings and had you only ever experienced conversation with me face to face you would be forgiven for thinking my writings were written by someone else. If you follow me on twitter you will gain a more realistic insight into my level of diction in everyday life.
What all this has to do with language is to draw your attention to the initial barrier vision played in learning the language. I have an interest in languages and I have tried to learn quite a few over the years. Spanish is the only language I actually had the determination to follow however it will soon be followed by Portuguese, Italian, German and of course French - these languages aren't listed in the order I will learn them though.
Apart from these languages however I have tried to learn a few others and there is a surprising barrier that crops up - the visual barrier. However this time it is more literal, this isn't just a case of reading words in the wrong order etc, this is a case of reading the words at all.
Those languages that carry this barrier are primarily those that are not written in Latin script. For those of you who aren't linguistically inclined, this article is written in Latin Script. Our alphabet as you know it is a sub-set of Latin Script. Languages which aren't written in Latin Script include:
Arabic: بياض الثلج That says Snow White in Arabic. Arabic is perhaps the hardest I have seen, the calligraphy is so intricate you really need perfect vision to be able to read it at all.
Russian: Белоснежка I may not have highlighted this in the other post but one of the main difficulties in reading with Nystagmus is distinguishing letters or any vertical line for example, I would not be able to count how many lines are printed here: ||||| - so reading scripts like this where letters from an English point of view are 'ALL CAPS' and 'small caps' it gets very difficult to read. [That also says Snow White in case you were wondering]
As you can imagine I did not pursue these languages very far, beyond reading the Wikipedia article about their alphabets. Surprisingly though not all Languages seem to be this ignorant of those with visual impairments. Mandarin and Japanese are two prime examples, both these languages use non-Latin scripts and both have intricate detailing on these symbols. [Mandarin and Japanese do share some symbols but their meanings aren't shared in most cases] Despite this, when displayed on web-pages and in print they are usually printed large enough to the point where reading them is quite easy. For that reason I would consider them 'Accessible' Languages.
As well as Arabic and Russian there's also Hebrew and Bengali two other languages with the same caveats as Arabic - namely it is nigh impossible to read.
In conclusion I think I count myself very lucky to have been born in a country where English is the native language. Although Spanish, French, German and Italian at least all share the same Accessibility so being born in any of those countries would also be a great stroke of luck for anyone else in my position.
In the wonderful world of Capitalism there is one economic sub-culture that has emerged called the Middle Class. This culture is however a delusion in my opinion, an excellent marketing ploy. In my eyes there are two classes of people, Working Class and Upper Class.
I justify this belief on one simple ground: if you cannot afford to live for the rest of your life without ever working again - in other words if you need to work to live then you are working class. If you could choose not to work for the rest of your life and support yourself on your own money without any help from the state then you are upper class.
I believe that in Capitalism as a whole the above holds true as the entire economic model requires a privileged few and a large working populous. I believe that in modern society as we grow in terms of technology and in terms of our own capabilities we have become more and more conscious of the our standing in society and most imperatively we want to move up. It is a natural desire to further yourself. However if too many were to rise into the upper class then capitalism as it stands would not function, simply put, capitalism needs people to stay poor in order to exist.
Here enters the Middle Class Delusion, the excellent marketing ploy that spans centuries, that convinced the working class to stay working class. Ask many people who are identified or self-identify as Middle Class and you will see a large quantity would like to remain that way. Convinced that the path of either direction holds no real gain they choose to live 'a comfortable life' with their luxuries and their salaries that in comparison to those below seem to be very good.
At present I do not think there is any economic model that can provide equality and eliminate exploitation. I just wish that those who think they are not working class would realise the simple truth:
If you have to work to live, you are working class.
You can perhaps divide the working class into sections, lower working class, and middle working class, but the delusion that the Middle Class perpetuates of distance between themselves and the people they label as beneath them is laughable at best.
Psychology is one of my favourite subjects yet surprisingly my posts on here are quite lacking in topics of this nature. I thought I would change this though so I thought the best place to start would be with something relevant and something that I am sure a lot of you may have come across online or in book shops.
This post follows on loosely from another post about luck. There is a book called 'The Secret' which has been in circulation for a while and has been heralded by many celebrities including Oprah Winfrey who even included it in her book club which boosted sales and brought it to the world's attention.
Before I continue I must disclaim:
The Secret does indeed work, but not for the reasons it claims it does but for other reasons. If you have used this book and it has improved your life do not read on, once you read what I have to say below and become aware of it then it will stop working.
Our first video is in order: It is 25 minutes Long, you really only need to watch the first 5, or skip it if you intend on reading the rest of this post.
The Secret does work, in a manner of speaking. It does fulfil all the claims it makes for those who follow what it says and take it to heart. It does not work however because of any grand design of the Universe or of any hidden power within it. The book claims to utilise the law of attraction and it also claims that The Secret has been known throughout History and been covered up. Well that's not entirely true, the reasons I will lay out below have been known throughout History and for the most part ignored by the populous at large. As for the Law of Attraction, this does not apply to Humans in the manner the book claims.
First of all you must understand the distinction between knowing a truth and being aware of a truth. These are two different things in terms of Psychology. To know a truth is to simply possess the knowledge of that truth for example that 1 + 1 = 2. To be aware of a truth is to know and understand a truth, that is to know that 1 + 1 = 2, know why 1 + 1 = 2 and ultimately to know when 1 + 1 is not equal to 2 [this IS possible as addition in other numeral bases changes the composition of mathematics and the truth of 1 + 1 = 10 can be defined e.g. in binary] the distinction herein is what defines the line between conscience and omniscience - knowing and knowing all.
In relevance to the Secret, to know of the Secret is to know its basic concepts: that what you think of, positive or negative is attracted to you by thought. To think of things which are negative and bad for you is to attract these onto you. Therefore the Secret says that you should only think about the positive things in life. Do not dwell on your problems instead dwell on the solutions. Think of the things you want in life and focus all your effort and you will receive what you think of by attracting it onto you.
To be fully aware of the Secret is not only to know what it is but to understand how it really works. A few simple Psychological principles need to be grasped first. Emotions are not completely out of our control. We have significant influence over them and the most important emotions we have influence over are there of happiness and those of sadness and despair. If you are Sad, you are sad because you choose to be, or you simply choose not to be happy. At first most people take this statement as an insult and argue of the many things that happen to them that make their lives miserable etc. I don't care. That sounds harsh but it is true. I don't care, and neither should you.
If you focus on the negative aspects of life your mentality will follow suit and your emotions too. If you focus on the negatives in your life and drown out everything else you will become sad and depressed. This is a very basic concept in Psychology, or specifically in Behavioural Psychology. On the flip-side the inverse does hold true as well. If you focus only on the positives then your mentality will again follow suit and your emotions too. Think positive and you will be happy. Think negative and you will be sad.
Now, once you have understood this you now need to understand a second principle - selective observation and recall. You are probably familiar or at least have heard of the term 'selective memory', where in an argument with another person they will recall only certain things, usually points they believe help to sway the argument in their favour, often forgetting and outright denying the other points which contradict their argument. This behaviour extends beyond recall it also extends into live observation. A person who has something they would like to prove will search for points that back up their argument and they will gloss over those points that contradict themselves. This is called selective observation. We retain only that which we think is useful and more importantly that which we think is relevant.
Time for another video: Watch the Video and answer the question:
If the video caught you off guard then now you should see perfectly well that you will ignore anything and everything that you are not looking for - in other words, you will ignore anything that doesn't promote your own interests.
Now in relation to the Secret, the basic principle states that you should focus only on positive thoughts, as the law of attraction supposedly does not distinguish between good and bad thoughts but instead is drawn to whatever occupies the most of your thoughts. This puts into practice the principle of Psychology that says that when we think positive thoughts we are happy - this includes desires which fill us with hope and optimism. This accounts for the increased elation and happiness followers of the secret who truly believe it works for them experience. There is no rouse here though, this isn't a lie and the gains are real and can be beneficial.
However in terms of the aspects of the secret that state that you will receive what you focus and devote your energy to this is somewhat more clouded. The belief in the law of attraction has to be strong in order for the secret to work, this is the mantra of the secret. The reason this is the mantra is because this aspect of the secret invokes the principle of selective observation and selective recall. When a person believes in this secret and devotes their energy to it they become blind to anything negative and anything that contradicts their belief. They will recall the positive aspects only. They may devote time to thinking of several desires over the course of a year, lets say 12 working on average as 1 per month. Even if they achieve only two of their desires they will forget the 10 failed attempts and chalk it up to a weak desire. Instead they will put emphasis on the desires that where fulfilled.
In talking to friends those who say the secret works for them will recall the times it worked, the times they got what they desired and neglect to tell their friends of the times it didn't work. Even to the point where newly introduced followers whose desires are not fulfilled are fed the same line "your desire wasn't strong enough".
The final piece in the whole jigsaw puzzle falls onto one simple truth about the secret - if you are lazy it won't work. A final principle of Psychology is involved here and it is the principle of unconscious suggestion. The Secret uses language in an exquisite manner. If said with rude and abhorrent bluntness the Secret would simply say "If you don't work for it you wont get it" - instead of being blunt the secret pans out to a few hundred pages the above statement using subtle nuances ultimately the core principle of the secret that thought attracts things to us is contradicted by the book itself although not in a direct manner, it is subtly suggested to the reader that they must put some conscious effort other than thought into fulfilling your desires.
Therein lies the ultimate lie - The Secret is a self-help book, at its core it is simply designed to give people the confidence to achieve their goals and to repress the negativity in their life and to focus on the positives. Of course once you know this the Secret can never work for you as you know that the reality of the situation is that you are making your path alone. The Universe is not guiding you and it is not helping you.
These principles of Psychology and the understanding of the self that makes the secret work have been known throughout history. It has been known in various cultures in various ways through teachings whether they be religious teachings or old wives tales, folklore, myths and legends. The great irony here is that the Secret does contain a Secret - the secret of how it really works.
I'd like to pose a question concerning the state of our Economy in the UK:
Should we amend our Monopoly laws to allow businesses to grow larger than they are currently permitted?
Case in point: Tesco. For anyone who does not know [where have you been living? Seriously?] Tesco is a Grocery Store - more than that it has many divisions and sells everything including the kitchen sink. Anyway, Tesco is severely restricted in terms of Growth in the UK because it has hit a barrier that is imposed by our legal system. We have a set of legal protections called Monopoly Laws - in a nut shell these prevent one company from establishing a far too great a stake in any given market.
I would propose that these laws be relaxed somewhat. I know that most of these laws are in place to prevent a business from abusing its position but I believe similar precautions can be made to prevent this that don't prevent the expansion of these businesses - in other words release the limits on size and create other methods of monitoring and auditing the business practices of these organisations as well as increasing the fines that can be levied on these businesses for abuse of their positions.
I love independent retailers as much as the next person but I can't help but think of this in terms of raw figures: If an independent retailer employs 200 people in the local area and a large corporation such as Tesco wants to open a super store in the area bringing 2,000 jobs, I can't help but feel the Independent store should be sacrificed in order to produce a net gain of 1,800 jobs for the local area - not only that but the construction of the store itself would create jobs too.
If independent stores value customer loyalty and believe in local traditions and local produce then they should have nothing to fear from a large store opening in the area - it should be the public who decide their loyalties and after all, if customers flock to the large store in the end that only proves the independent store's prices and produce was inferior to that which the larger chain offers. You can argue that independent stores can't always compete in price wars - but really what justification is this argument for denying the large chain a presence in the area? Ultimately is the Independent store with its presence and pricing not holding a Monopoly of its own albeit on a smaller scale?
No-one has ever forced someone to shop at a large chain instead of an independent. People choose where they want to shop and if they opt for the cheaper store whichever that may be it is because the other store's prices are not delivering the value for money the consumer wants.
So if any politician or anyone with influence should read this, or even someone who can perform some maths and evaluate whether or not this idea would have any degree of impact on our economy I would be eternally grateful if you were to take the time to do so.
I do not think there is a single Economic of Societal model that exists on this Planet that could ensure fairness and equality for all. I don't think the real question to ask is of the flaws in our current conceptions - no - I think the real question you have to ask yourself is why: Why is it that we have never perfected a strategy in these areas?
Is it really true to say that man-kind lacks the foresight, ingenuity and creativity to build a social and economic system that works? Personally I think this is a misnomer, I think the reality is that we could if we wanted to but it wouldn't work.
The reason I think it wouldn't work is because I believe man-kind has a sadistic self-inflicted desire to be persecuted. I think as much as your heart and your head may convince you otherwise, deep down on some level as a race we want confrontation, we want persecution - we want something to fight about.
Animosity and Anger are after all as much human emotions as Love and Happiness. I recently read a quote critiquing the Planet of the Apes Movies as epitomising the Human Condition by saying: 'they perfectly represent our most primal fear of being placed in a position where we are not Alpha'. Borrowing even more from the world of Hollywood the Movie the Matrix went a little further and said in the story line that the first Matrix ever designed was a Utopian society, but it was a complete failure, Humans rejected the programming because they craved hardship and the struggle of life.
I'm not saying these elements of life are enjoyable or at all pleasurable - maybe to some they are but to most they are not; however we cannot deny that Humanity has strived to become the dominant race, the dominant life form on this Planet. Something has to be said about the plethora of Hollywood blockbusters and TV Series about Aliens coming to Earth that often cast these Aliens as the Antagonist here to enslave / dominate / wipe-out Humanity, the plot eventually producing a Human protagonist who saves the day and restores the "natural order" where Humanity is once again Alpha.
Movies are fiction, but they were dreamt up by Humans and their plots and characters are as much an insight into our collective Psyche as any work of Fact - maybe even more-so than fact, after all Fiction represents our imagination and desires - the things we would do, if we could.
So I'll leave you with a thought: if a Utopian Society was established, how long do you think it would last?
It seems as though the old belief that there is no pleasure without pain has been extended into other areas of our lives. In particular there is a trend in the perception of luck and of good favour. A perception that many people hold, whereby the subject associates periods of luckiness with a forthcoming period of unluckiness.
There are a few ways to look at this. The first is from a Psychological perspective and would be along the inclination that luck is purely a mentality and does not actually exist. A mentality that associates positive events in our lives as being caused by good luck and negative events being caused by bad luck. This association is on a personal level. The basic principle here is that where there are those who believe that a period of bad luck is forthcoming as a consequence for their present good luck, these people ultimately have an inferiority complex. A complex where they believe that they are not worthy of good luck and therefore they believe that bad luck will ensue and "even out" the field.
Another way to look at this aspect of life is from a Philosophical point of view where multiple theories exist on the matter of luck. Some follow loosely the principles of Karma while others focus on whether or not luck is something which we as humans can actually control.
Personally I would rather approach luck from the Psychological perspective which essentially states that luck cannot be proven to exist but cannot be disproved, simply choosing the conclusion that if it does exist we cannot control it. In this scenario in response to the question, should you feel guilty when lucky? I would reply, no. I would like to think that good luck was a reward but then the inverse would state that bad luck is a punishment which I cannot accept therefore I would conclude that luck is indiscriminate. We can easily say that this is true as we can draw upon those who are considered lucky and show their various backgrounds as being incredibly diverse.
When I was born, I was diagnosed with a rare condition called Nystagmus. It affects around 1 in 1,000 individuals according to my Ophthalmologist or 1 in 5,000 to 10,000 according to the Wiki Article, I'd rather believe the former over the latter in terms of reliability though.
What it basically means for me is that my eyes are constantly moving. Their motion is the same as rolling a coin back and forth with your forefinger while balancing it on your thumb. In other words they 'wobble'. The eyes themselves have perfect vision apparently, but due to the fact they are always moving they cannot focus properly resulting in yours truly being short-sighted.
It's a bit of a bitch to think that there's nothing actually wrong with the eyes themselves when you associate all the difficulties the condition brings, with your vision. Beyond the physical strain there is also an emotional and a psychological element involved in terms of the effects the condition causes in the individual - i.e. lack of confidence in social situations, lack of understanding from others and in some cases ridicule on account of the fact that you are different.
Simple frequently asked questions out of the way first:
Does everything appear to move? No. If you were to acquire Nystagmus now yes it would move for you, and within the first 6 to 12 months of my life everything would have moved for me, which as my parents tell me must have been traumatic as I never stopped crying as a baby. The moving imagery condition is called Oscillopsia but my brain would have adapted to this within the first year or so of life. Individuals acquiring Nystagmus later in life may or may not adapt and may live the rest of their lives with this moving imagery - kind of glad I developed this at birth and not later in life as things could be horrible.
Is it contagious? No it's not.
What causes it? I have Congenital idiopathic Nystagmus which means I was born with it, there is no known cause. Some people experience it while drunk but in this case it is considered acquired Nystagmus and usually subsides when the person sobers up. It can also develop after severe blunt force trauma such as a car accident.
Is there a cure? No, not at the moment although there are currently some trials involving steroids being tested although I read that this involves injection of the steroids into the muscles behind the eye and the thought of needles anywhere near my eyes is cringe-worthy.
How does it affect you personally? There are mobility issues due to difficulty in traveling, namely not being able to read timetables for buses, see the numbers on buses to call them when they approach [buses only stop if you hail them here] as well as difficulty in Airports reading flight info displays and train station displays too.Focusing on moving objects is a nightmare so knowing when to get off a bus is a problem too - partly why I never travel alone, unless its on the Tube [Underground] where the train stops at every station and the maps are huge. The things I find it hardest to cope with though are the social situations it provokes and the lack of understanding from others.
Everyone in my circle of friends knows about my condition and has asked me everything they needed to know and they are the best form of support I have. The situations I refer to mainly involve strangers. That moment of awkwardness when they notice it, stop for a moment and stare, then realise and pretend like nothing happened or worse start asking questions. It's like this, if I am never going to see you again just don't ask questions just do your job. I tend to avoid eye contact with people because of this.
To put things into perspective for you, to show I am not overreacting, if you had a red birth mark under your eye that was so obvious it looked like one of Ronald McDonald's red cheeks, and people stared at it and put you in the same situation, highlighting something you were self conscious about, something you couldn't change and something you likely answered the same questions about a million times before, do you think you could retain the ability to smile and go through the same routine? Would you not find it rude people asking about your physical appearance, complete strangers?
Finally owing to the cruelty of children, I'm sure you can imagine school wasn't exactly the most accepting and supportive environment.
You can feel free to ask me any questions about this and within reason I will answer them, on this blog, please don't hold back no matter how silly I assure you I've heard it all before.
Update: March 2014
In the interest of providing other people's point of view on this subject I found 2 videos below which I would like anyone reading this post to watch. The girl in these videos covers a lot of the areas I covered and goes on to add, particularly in the second video, about the challenges the confidence aspect can play and specifically the challenges in dating and relationships that crop up - something which I haven't really had to deal with yet on account of not really dating.
