If you and someone else want the same thing, should it ever matter if the reasons why are the same?
As an example, let's say you and your partner are in a relationship and you both want to be exclusive, both sexually and romantically. Should it matter whether the reasons why you both want the same thing match up, or does it only matter that you both want the same thing?
In an attempt to answer that question I have considered a number of view points and the one I have settled on is that the motivation is as important as the desire, but more importantly the intent is perhaps the most crucial point.
Desires are relatively simple they can be defined loosely as what we want. Wanting the same thing is a good way to build cooperation but it is short lived and it is very weak in terms of forging bonds. Motivations are as important as they give us an idea of how people react to events in their lives. Our desires are after all just responses to circumstances. The easiest example to give is the desire to be rich which is motivated by poverty - actual or perceived.
If you want to know how someone might act in the future the best place to start is their past. In our relationship example you want to know why they want the same thing so you can get an idea of how that desire will evolve. Intent is the most important aspect here, while desire serves to answer what we want, and motivation serves to answer why we want it, intent serves to answer what we will do when we get it. A Past, Present, and Future scenario.
The underlying issue for me personally in all of this is whether or not what you both want can or will lead to conflict in the future. Understanding what we want, why we want it, and what we intend to do with it can give us a clearer picture of whether or not conflict is likely to arise. Take an extreme example of a weapon of mass destruction. The atomic bomb for example. During its development there were a number of competing projects by different nations all with the same goal, to engineer a working atomic bomb. This is an example of a shared desire. What we know from history is that although the desire was the same, the motivation and the intent were different. I'll go no further on this as it will likely cause division.
In our relationship example you need to understand all three aspects and determine whether they might cause conflict. If they are likely to do so, then you should discuss this before you get what you want, as having it before you discuss it will add unnecessary pressure and could lead to resentment.
That was my idea!
I've had a number of ideas over the years that I have researched only to find that it has already been done. In some cases what has already been achieved surpasses what I had intended, but in others it falls short of what I would have wanted. In these scenarios I don't think either should discourage you from pursuing an idea. Competition is healthy and leads to choice. Failure to have competition leads to monopolization and exploitation, even extortion.
Moving away from the competitive aspect however there is something which is at play here which I have often taken issue with. There is an idea that what you imagine has to be original to be worthy of merit or credit. I take issue with this for a number of reasons but the crux of my argument is simply, if you had no idea that it already existed, and you were not influenced by he existing idea, then you should be given merit for what you can come up with, and in some cases you should still be credited with the idea - even if it was already done.
As an example the modern day battery was largely developed as a result of a complex process of engineering, it stems from the Leyden Jar described by Benjamin Franklin in 1748. This is an example of an individual who had an idea and was given both merit and credit for it, as they were seen as the first person to create it, and did so with no previous exposure to the concept.
However this was not the first battery that existed. There have been several others throughout history and the most notable is the Baghdad Battery dating as far back as 250 BC, some 2,000 years before Franklin had the same idea. The use of the Baghdad Battery does not change what it could be used for - it was capable of being used for electroplating gold and silver however this is now dismissed as its possible use for the time period; this dismissal does not change the design of the object however, what it was capable of, and crucially it does not change the fact that it was a battery.
Who should be given credit and who should be given merit for creating the battery? If you pick one over the other I would say you are showing bias. Both are deserving, regardless of who was first, and regardless of how they intended their creations to be used. They both had the same idea, independent of one another. The inventive process and the creativity and ingenuity should be praised in itself, and should not be validated nor invalidated by which came first.
Moving away from the competitive aspect however there is something which is at play here which I have often taken issue with. There is an idea that what you imagine has to be original to be worthy of merit or credit. I take issue with this for a number of reasons but the crux of my argument is simply, if you had no idea that it already existed, and you were not influenced by he existing idea, then you should be given merit for what you can come up with, and in some cases you should still be credited with the idea - even if it was already done.
As an example the modern day battery was largely developed as a result of a complex process of engineering, it stems from the Leyden Jar described by Benjamin Franklin in 1748. This is an example of an individual who had an idea and was given both merit and credit for it, as they were seen as the first person to create it, and did so with no previous exposure to the concept.
However this was not the first battery that existed. There have been several others throughout history and the most notable is the Baghdad Battery dating as far back as 250 BC, some 2,000 years before Franklin had the same idea. The use of the Baghdad Battery does not change what it could be used for - it was capable of being used for electroplating gold and silver however this is now dismissed as its possible use for the time period; this dismissal does not change the design of the object however, what it was capable of, and crucially it does not change the fact that it was a battery.
Who should be given credit and who should be given merit for creating the battery? If you pick one over the other I would say you are showing bias. Both are deserving, regardless of who was first, and regardless of how they intended their creations to be used. They both had the same idea, independent of one another. The inventive process and the creativity and ingenuity should be praised in itself, and should not be validated nor invalidated by which came first.
Giant Aliens
Here's a question for you to ponder, what size would an alien be?
To answer that question you need to define a few things, let's start by saying we mean intelligent alien life, not just bacterial or microbial form. Next we need to define what scale we would use to measure their size. Let's use a single Human as our method of measurement. So in this case a "giant" alien would be one that is considerably larger than a human maybe 10 times as an example.
We have to stop and think for a moment, what size do we expect an alien would be, and whether that is realistic to assume. In terms of humanity our size is largely determined by gravity here on Earth. If gravity were to be stronger then humans would get shorter as a result and likewise if gravity were to be weakened we would become taller as a result. When you stop and think about that you can make assumptions of an alien's size dependent on the planet that it originated on and the gravity of that planet. The problem with that assumption is that we are not the only species on this planet and there are many which are considerably larger or considerably smaller than humans by comparison.
This brings us back to square one, as there are many variable to consider here, why is it that in science fiction, even in the realms of science fact which actually takes the possibility seriously, our vision of an alien is always proportional in size to a human? Is that even realistic to assume? Given the likelihood that life exists what is the likelihood that it would look anything like us?
This all inspires another big question - or a small question to be more precise: what if aliens do exist and in reality they are incredibly small by human standards? What if aliens exist 100th the size of a human - would we even detect their spacecraft enter our atmosphere? Would we notice their descent, and crucially would the even be able to communicate with us? Imagine if we found a planet 1,000 times the size of Jupiter inhabited be a race of aliens that were 100 times our size. How would you even get them to notice you? Would you even be able to communicate with them?
If you make assumptions based on technological advancement and assume they discover much of the same technology that we have such as Radio Frequency Communication then consider the idea of trying to communicate with a radio antenna 100, maybe even 1,000 times the size of our own - it would be impractical for us to even create a transmitter capable of generating a signal with enough power to be noticeable. As for the idea that they would spot our communication that relies on minute barely detectable signals being scrutinized. How much attention do we pay to such minute fluctuations ourselves?
There is also the intriguing question of whether or not the human race would be prejudiced and deem an alien race so small as being insignificant - that prejudice would likely be the same we would face if we found a race considerably larger than us.
To answer that question you need to define a few things, let's start by saying we mean intelligent alien life, not just bacterial or microbial form. Next we need to define what scale we would use to measure their size. Let's use a single Human as our method of measurement. So in this case a "giant" alien would be one that is considerably larger than a human maybe 10 times as an example.
We have to stop and think for a moment, what size do we expect an alien would be, and whether that is realistic to assume. In terms of humanity our size is largely determined by gravity here on Earth. If gravity were to be stronger then humans would get shorter as a result and likewise if gravity were to be weakened we would become taller as a result. When you stop and think about that you can make assumptions of an alien's size dependent on the planet that it originated on and the gravity of that planet. The problem with that assumption is that we are not the only species on this planet and there are many which are considerably larger or considerably smaller than humans by comparison.
This brings us back to square one, as there are many variable to consider here, why is it that in science fiction, even in the realms of science fact which actually takes the possibility seriously, our vision of an alien is always proportional in size to a human? Is that even realistic to assume? Given the likelihood that life exists what is the likelihood that it would look anything like us?
This all inspires another big question - or a small question to be more precise: what if aliens do exist and in reality they are incredibly small by human standards? What if aliens exist 100th the size of a human - would we even detect their spacecraft enter our atmosphere? Would we notice their descent, and crucially would the even be able to communicate with us? Imagine if we found a planet 1,000 times the size of Jupiter inhabited be a race of aliens that were 100 times our size. How would you even get them to notice you? Would you even be able to communicate with them?
If you make assumptions based on technological advancement and assume they discover much of the same technology that we have such as Radio Frequency Communication then consider the idea of trying to communicate with a radio antenna 100, maybe even 1,000 times the size of our own - it would be impractical for us to even create a transmitter capable of generating a signal with enough power to be noticeable. As for the idea that they would spot our communication that relies on minute barely detectable signals being scrutinized. How much attention do we pay to such minute fluctuations ourselves?
There is also the intriguing question of whether or not the human race would be prejudiced and deem an alien race so small as being insignificant - that prejudice would likely be the same we would face if we found a race considerably larger than us.
Time goes by so quickly
I definitely think our perception of time changes with age. To the point where I think time accelerates the older you get. I remember when I was a kid and I would get summer holidays from school. We would finish first week of June and start back first week of September. Those 3 months lasted an eternity. You could do so much in that time. You could sleep late, get up and still have a whole day to do whatever you wanted.
I spent hours with mates and hours playing on my consoles and my computer. We spent hours playing games in the streets. The one thing there wasn't a lack of was time.
I'm older now and while I do have a lot more obligations in life, I do still have more or less the same amount of time when I get a break as I did when I was younger. It doesn't feel the same however, time runs out quicker, and everything you do ends too soon. It's been 7 months of this year so far and that has flown by in the blink of an eye. 3 months lasted an eternity as a kid but now it passes like a week or two felt back then.
There are times when our perception of time elongates and we feel like time is dilating - "A microwave minute is longer than a normal minute" - when we are waiting for something. That scrutiny of time seems to affect how quickly it passes.
I know some people will be thinking this is all in the mind, but what if it's not? The Heisenberg uncertainty principle causes some peculiar behaviour, it states that the more precisely you observe momentum the more erratic position will become and vice versa, as demonstrated by the beam of light between two pieces of card experiment - the more you narrow the card the light projection gets smaller and smaller until it starts to expand contravening intuition.
What if a similar principle applies to time itself, what if time itself dilates the more precisely you observe it? The inverse would be true that the less you observe time the faster it would become. We know the saying, "time flies when you're having fun" and consider it a behavioural quirk but what if there is an effect being caused by a principle of physics we have not yet defined? What if time really does accelerate the less attention you pay to it? You climb into bed at night and you fall asleep and you wake the next day, you feel like only just few moments passed, what if that really were true and time accelerated while you slept? If this was true and we knew it then how could we use that to our advantage?
I spent hours with mates and hours playing on my consoles and my computer. We spent hours playing games in the streets. The one thing there wasn't a lack of was time.
I'm older now and while I do have a lot more obligations in life, I do still have more or less the same amount of time when I get a break as I did when I was younger. It doesn't feel the same however, time runs out quicker, and everything you do ends too soon. It's been 7 months of this year so far and that has flown by in the blink of an eye. 3 months lasted an eternity as a kid but now it passes like a week or two felt back then.
There are times when our perception of time elongates and we feel like time is dilating - "A microwave minute is longer than a normal minute" - when we are waiting for something. That scrutiny of time seems to affect how quickly it passes.
I know some people will be thinking this is all in the mind, but what if it's not? The Heisenberg uncertainty principle causes some peculiar behaviour, it states that the more precisely you observe momentum the more erratic position will become and vice versa, as demonstrated by the beam of light between two pieces of card experiment - the more you narrow the card the light projection gets smaller and smaller until it starts to expand contravening intuition.
What if a similar principle applies to time itself, what if time itself dilates the more precisely you observe it? The inverse would be true that the less you observe time the faster it would become. We know the saying, "time flies when you're having fun" and consider it a behavioural quirk but what if there is an effect being caused by a principle of physics we have not yet defined? What if time really does accelerate the less attention you pay to it? You climb into bed at night and you fall asleep and you wake the next day, you feel like only just few moments passed, what if that really were true and time accelerated while you slept? If this was true and we knew it then how could we use that to our advantage?
Wasted Effort
The feeling of a wasted effort is one of the most annoying and disparaging feelings I can have. Annoying in that the realisation that the time and effort I have put into something is wiped out in an instant, and disparaging in that it completely negates everything you did, reducing your work to nothing.
There are many ways in which this can happen but perhaps most of all for me as a programmer is when this happens as the result of bad design. Online in the websites we use, and offline in the programs and apps we use. "save early and save often" is quoted by many who have fallen victim to this inadequacy and the negative ramifications that is has. Whether it is a document you spend the better part of an hour on and click save only to have to program crash or a in image you spend ages editing and save multiple versions only to realise the original has been replaced.
A bad software designer criticises the user. If a piece of software behaves in a way that is counter-intuitive it is not the fault of the user for not expecting the software to behave that way, it is the fault of the designer for creating a piece of software that does not do what it is expected to do. This applies to websites too - which I believe now constitute software in themselves but that is another post entirely.
This post came about as the result of an experience I had with a website tonight. I won't name it for legal reasons, notably the fact I want to bash the shit out of it. I used this website which provides a tool which is "free" to use - this was made abundantly clear before I began using it, what the website neglected to mention was that you need an account in order to save your work - which requires registration, which was indeed free, that's not my qualm. My qualm is the fact that you enter the site, click "get started" which launches the app in-browser for you to use. I then proceed to do so, spending quite some time on a project, and when finished I clicked the "Save and download" option - I must clearly state here it is not possible to save as you go along, only possible to save once you are finished and ready to download. That should have been the first red flag for me, however, I naively decided that was probably to do with server bandwidth etc and had some technical reason. So I went to work on my project and when I was happy with it I clicked save and download, at which point it said I needed an account, there were two options, either login, or create an account. So as I had no account yet, I clicked create an account. Filled out the registration etc and when done I was relieved, then dismayed. You can probably guess what happened. The project I was working on was now blank. Everything lost.
I have to say this is infuriating. This is bullshit design. This is an incredibly bad experience that will lead me never to use the site again. When you click "Save and download" you expect the fucking thing to save. When it says you need an account at that stage you assume it will save the progress and attribute it to the account you create or the one you log into. You assume that if it did not, then it would have told you that you need an account before it let you use the fucking app in the first place. At no point did the site say your progress would be lost if you did not log in before you start. I even went back to check, if it had said and I did not see, but no, it hadn't. This has pissed me off.
There are many ways in which this can happen but perhaps most of all for me as a programmer is when this happens as the result of bad design. Online in the websites we use, and offline in the programs and apps we use. "save early and save often" is quoted by many who have fallen victim to this inadequacy and the negative ramifications that is has. Whether it is a document you spend the better part of an hour on and click save only to have to program crash or a in image you spend ages editing and save multiple versions only to realise the original has been replaced.
A bad software designer criticises the user. If a piece of software behaves in a way that is counter-intuitive it is not the fault of the user for not expecting the software to behave that way, it is the fault of the designer for creating a piece of software that does not do what it is expected to do. This applies to websites too - which I believe now constitute software in themselves but that is another post entirely.
This post came about as the result of an experience I had with a website tonight. I won't name it for legal reasons, notably the fact I want to bash the shit out of it. I used this website which provides a tool which is "free" to use - this was made abundantly clear before I began using it, what the website neglected to mention was that you need an account in order to save your work - which requires registration, which was indeed free, that's not my qualm. My qualm is the fact that you enter the site, click "get started" which launches the app in-browser for you to use. I then proceed to do so, spending quite some time on a project, and when finished I clicked the "Save and download" option - I must clearly state here it is not possible to save as you go along, only possible to save once you are finished and ready to download. That should have been the first red flag for me, however, I naively decided that was probably to do with server bandwidth etc and had some technical reason. So I went to work on my project and when I was happy with it I clicked save and download, at which point it said I needed an account, there were two options, either login, or create an account. So as I had no account yet, I clicked create an account. Filled out the registration etc and when done I was relieved, then dismayed. You can probably guess what happened. The project I was working on was now blank. Everything lost.
I have to say this is infuriating. This is bullshit design. This is an incredibly bad experience that will lead me never to use the site again. When you click "Save and download" you expect the fucking thing to save. When it says you need an account at that stage you assume it will save the progress and attribute it to the account you create or the one you log into. You assume that if it did not, then it would have told you that you need an account before it let you use the fucking app in the first place. At no point did the site say your progress would be lost if you did not log in before you start. I even went back to check, if it had said and I did not see, but no, it hadn't. This has pissed me off.
It's been done before
When I talk to people about writing, and specifically when I talk to them about ideas to write about, one of the common criticisms that I often hear is "it's been done before" - which they often assert as a reason not to pursue the idea at all. The problem I have with this is the idea that innovation is the only valid form of production, which is inherently flawed as an argument.
You tend not to think of writing as a production process, due to the industrial connotations of the word. You tend to think of production as something that is reserved for factories that produce physical products for consumers. The reality however is that production in and of itself is a much broader concept. Production is anything that results in a product. That product is anything that can be consumed. Consumption can be defined in a wide variety of ways. It doesn't have to be something you can eat, drink, or wear etc. It can be something you watch, read, look at, or even something you just think about. Movies, books, artwork, and even simply ideas are all products to consume.
Originality, however noble by intent, is restrictive. If you are not able to use what already exists as a foundation to build on then you will literally back yourself into a corner where you have to constantly reinvent the wheel. Taking an existing idea and developing it helps to evolve the concept. If you restrict a concept to that of its inception you effectively halt evolution.
You should not be afraid to take an idea that has been done before and use it, provided you have something new to add to it. If you can evolve the idea then do so; as with evolution in the physiological sense only those advancements that prove beneficial are retained. So too with your work, it shall be retained and grow, if people like what you do with it.
You tend not to think of writing as a production process, due to the industrial connotations of the word. You tend to think of production as something that is reserved for factories that produce physical products for consumers. The reality however is that production in and of itself is a much broader concept. Production is anything that results in a product. That product is anything that can be consumed. Consumption can be defined in a wide variety of ways. It doesn't have to be something you can eat, drink, or wear etc. It can be something you watch, read, look at, or even something you just think about. Movies, books, artwork, and even simply ideas are all products to consume.
Originality, however noble by intent, is restrictive. If you are not able to use what already exists as a foundation to build on then you will literally back yourself into a corner where you have to constantly reinvent the wheel. Taking an existing idea and developing it helps to evolve the concept. If you restrict a concept to that of its inception you effectively halt evolution.
You should not be afraid to take an idea that has been done before and use it, provided you have something new to add to it. If you can evolve the idea then do so; as with evolution in the physiological sense only those advancements that prove beneficial are retained. So too with your work, it shall be retained and grow, if people like what you do with it.
God versus God
There are two types of people in this world, those that believe in a God or Gods, and those who believe they are God. The latter does not imply the same dominion and power as the former however.
What I mean in the sense of the latter is that those who deny the possibility of a God or Gods are ultimately people who assert that they are God, as far as their own lives are concerned at least. While some may have delusions of grandeur that extend beyond their own life the majority are more self centric. Being God of their own lives they assert that every single thing that they do is either the result of their own action or the action of others and that this is where the puck stops. It goes no higher. While this is based on logic and reasoning it does not account for many other things which they often assert as being random or coincidence.
In my own experience I quite like the quote of Sherlock [BBC Series]:
Mycroft Holmes: "Oh, Sherlock, what do we say about coincidence?"
Sherlock Holmes: "Universe is rarely so lazy"
This is my reasoning for many things - what is random is rarely random it may appear as such but it is not, it is part of a larger sequence that you have not rationalised. As a programmer I assert this more than anything as I know for example with computers it is not possible to generate a random number at all it is only possible to produce pseudo-random numbers through increasingly complex algorithms that derive results that create a series of numbers with a distribution that is ever more increasingly closer to a truly random sequence even to the point where the two can become mathematically indistinguishable however the point remains persistent never being dismissed - with the algorithm in hand and seed used to commence it you can systematically reproduce the exact same series of numbers as many times as you wish.
To extend this beyond programming and the restrictions of computing, entering instead into the realm of Physics this same idea has been proposed in the field of determinism, in the form of Laplace's Demon whereby, however unlikely, if you were to know the exact position of every single atom in the Universe at this moment, and where to know their previous positions, you could predict their every movement from now until the end of time. While there are many problems with this theory as too with the pseudo-random limitations of computing the same point still remains: complexity does not negate connectivity. Two points should not be considered disconnected even if their connection is infinitely complex. Limiting the validity of connectivity by complexity is naive and shows a lack of reasoning - or to be more accurate, a limitation of reasoning.
This all relates to the God v God concept insofar as to say that those who believe that they are entirely responsible for actions are attempting to exempt themselves from cause and effect, refusing the idea that their actions can be the effect resulting from an outside cause unknown to them. This by definition is to assert that you are above the laws of this Universe - in other words you are a God. To accept your humanity and deny the inference of deism is to accept that you are not accountable for every single action you take and that others are not accountable for every single action they take either. While those of a religious disposition label such coercions as demonic, their reasoning is an abstract realisation of the reality that many actions we undertake are not the result of our own reasoning, but the effect of an outside cause.
There is a third type of person however it is one that has not yet been realised. It is one that is slowly emerging in the world with the growth of agnosticism, but they are yet to bridge science and religion successfully. While I consider myself on the religious side more so for the spiritual element, less so for the organised religion component [of which I do not follow any] I am not in a position to bridge the two. While I have strong beliefs that stem from both sides and I have found harmony and resolution between many of these points, there are many more that still sit in stark opposition. Until there comes a time when the two can converse without resorting to conflict they will remain in opposition. That time is drawing nearer however with the growth of agnosticism and with the realisation that both sides are guilty of causing conflict. Religion and Science have both attacked one another like warring nations.
A balance can be found. Only those who are willing to accept peace can resolve conflict. Sadly conflict is in human nature and as much as we have strived to overcome our animalistic impulses this nature is one that we still find hard to escape. Those that say one side or the other have spawned conflict and assert that in the absence of it, there would be no conflict are naive. In the absence of either side people would simply find another reason to cause conflict - Science and Religion combined are not the sole causes of Wars throughout history, there have been many others, territory, culture, race, ethnicity, and economic paradigm, to name but a few. The real issue is conflict itself and the sadistic side of human nature that desires it.
What I mean in the sense of the latter is that those who deny the possibility of a God or Gods are ultimately people who assert that they are God, as far as their own lives are concerned at least. While some may have delusions of grandeur that extend beyond their own life the majority are more self centric. Being God of their own lives they assert that every single thing that they do is either the result of their own action or the action of others and that this is where the puck stops. It goes no higher. While this is based on logic and reasoning it does not account for many other things which they often assert as being random or coincidence.
In my own experience I quite like the quote of Sherlock [BBC Series]:
Mycroft Holmes: "Oh, Sherlock, what do we say about coincidence?"
Sherlock Holmes: "Universe is rarely so lazy"
This is my reasoning for many things - what is random is rarely random it may appear as such but it is not, it is part of a larger sequence that you have not rationalised. As a programmer I assert this more than anything as I know for example with computers it is not possible to generate a random number at all it is only possible to produce pseudo-random numbers through increasingly complex algorithms that derive results that create a series of numbers with a distribution that is ever more increasingly closer to a truly random sequence even to the point where the two can become mathematically indistinguishable however the point remains persistent never being dismissed - with the algorithm in hand and seed used to commence it you can systematically reproduce the exact same series of numbers as many times as you wish.
To extend this beyond programming and the restrictions of computing, entering instead into the realm of Physics this same idea has been proposed in the field of determinism, in the form of Laplace's Demon whereby, however unlikely, if you were to know the exact position of every single atom in the Universe at this moment, and where to know their previous positions, you could predict their every movement from now until the end of time. While there are many problems with this theory as too with the pseudo-random limitations of computing the same point still remains: complexity does not negate connectivity. Two points should not be considered disconnected even if their connection is infinitely complex. Limiting the validity of connectivity by complexity is naive and shows a lack of reasoning - or to be more accurate, a limitation of reasoning.
This all relates to the God v God concept insofar as to say that those who believe that they are entirely responsible for actions are attempting to exempt themselves from cause and effect, refusing the idea that their actions can be the effect resulting from an outside cause unknown to them. This by definition is to assert that you are above the laws of this Universe - in other words you are a God. To accept your humanity and deny the inference of deism is to accept that you are not accountable for every single action you take and that others are not accountable for every single action they take either. While those of a religious disposition label such coercions as demonic, their reasoning is an abstract realisation of the reality that many actions we undertake are not the result of our own reasoning, but the effect of an outside cause.
There is a third type of person however it is one that has not yet been realised. It is one that is slowly emerging in the world with the growth of agnosticism, but they are yet to bridge science and religion successfully. While I consider myself on the religious side more so for the spiritual element, less so for the organised religion component [of which I do not follow any] I am not in a position to bridge the two. While I have strong beliefs that stem from both sides and I have found harmony and resolution between many of these points, there are many more that still sit in stark opposition. Until there comes a time when the two can converse without resorting to conflict they will remain in opposition. That time is drawing nearer however with the growth of agnosticism and with the realisation that both sides are guilty of causing conflict. Religion and Science have both attacked one another like warring nations.
A balance can be found. Only those who are willing to accept peace can resolve conflict. Sadly conflict is in human nature and as much as we have strived to overcome our animalistic impulses this nature is one that we still find hard to escape. Those that say one side or the other have spawned conflict and assert that in the absence of it, there would be no conflict are naive. In the absence of either side people would simply find another reason to cause conflict - Science and Religion combined are not the sole causes of Wars throughout history, there have been many others, territory, culture, race, ethnicity, and economic paradigm, to name but a few. The real issue is conflict itself and the sadistic side of human nature that desires it.
How much do you have in common with your 16 year old self?
11 years have passed since I turned 16. My birthday was my last day of high school - well, the last day of classes in high school, I had exams among other things in time after that day. I had a few close friends who despite telling them pretty much everything else, never knew I was gay. I was in a class with guys I didn't connect with partly because I kept everyone at a distance from me but partly because they kept a distance from me too which at the time I was quite grateful for. Outside school I lived in a small town which didn't have a lot to do for young people, and being under 18 in the UK a lot of things were off limits. I wasn't the sort of kid that flouted those kinds of laws and neither were the guys I hung around with at the time. I was planning on going to college, and the plan after that was University.
Fast forward to today and high school which was a nightmare for me in many respects is well behind me. College was a lot more enjoyable than I thought it would be and I met a lot of people I really connected with which really brought me out of my shell. I went to University in the end but the degree I chose turned out to be a disappointment. It wasn't anything like I imagined it would be and it didn't help me with my career prospects at all. I had a few jobs since and learned a lot, the long period between graduation and my first actual job [full time, not part time as the others were] was long. For a time I thought I would be unemployed forever but that was pessimism at it's core. While the jobs I had did not work out, they did teach me a lot about who I am and more importantly they showed me where my limits really were and what I can do. I know now what I am capable of and what I am not and that will work to my benefit in future.
My circle of friends was almost completely replaced only 2 managed to survive the cull and they became closer to me than anyone. When I came out to my friends, those that supported me stayed and those that didn't I cut off. It was a shame that I had to say goodbye to everyone that I did but it was needed for me to be comfortable with who I was. I focus on the negatives enough myself I don't need other people to make me feel worse about that. The 2 that managed to stay are the 2 people I have known the longest and beyond them others that entered my life went through periods where they either accepted who I was or they feigned interest for a while then lost contact. Today I am happy with my circle of friends because they all know the real me and I can tell them anything.
I am in many ways different from the person I was when I was 16, but there are many things that still hold true. We still share the same interests, while they have grown and others have been added, I still enjoy the games, movies, and TV shows I did when I was 16. My taste in food has evolved, and become a little more extreme. I always loved spicy food but as I have got older I like it even hotter. The things I liked I've revelled in and the things I didn't like I've abandoned almost completely. My music taste has fluctuated a bit, I do still listen to some of what I listened to back then but a lot of it was quite depressing so that's become less of a staple for me.
I would say I am a lot happier than I was back then. 16 was by no means my lowest point, that was several years before and the recovery from it was slow and at times an uphill climb that I struggled with. I have a fair bit left to climb to become the person I want to be at the top of the hill, but that climb has been made easier by the people in my life and by the mentality that I have adapted. Being so open about my life and bearing all to people made me vulnerable but it also made me braver for it. I'm not the person I was, and I don't have a lot in common with him anymore but deep down we are the same. The layers change and the fashion is restyled but at it's core, the heart that beats is the same heart.
Fast forward to today and high school which was a nightmare for me in many respects is well behind me. College was a lot more enjoyable than I thought it would be and I met a lot of people I really connected with which really brought me out of my shell. I went to University in the end but the degree I chose turned out to be a disappointment. It wasn't anything like I imagined it would be and it didn't help me with my career prospects at all. I had a few jobs since and learned a lot, the long period between graduation and my first actual job [full time, not part time as the others were] was long. For a time I thought I would be unemployed forever but that was pessimism at it's core. While the jobs I had did not work out, they did teach me a lot about who I am and more importantly they showed me where my limits really were and what I can do. I know now what I am capable of and what I am not and that will work to my benefit in future.
My circle of friends was almost completely replaced only 2 managed to survive the cull and they became closer to me than anyone. When I came out to my friends, those that supported me stayed and those that didn't I cut off. It was a shame that I had to say goodbye to everyone that I did but it was needed for me to be comfortable with who I was. I focus on the negatives enough myself I don't need other people to make me feel worse about that. The 2 that managed to stay are the 2 people I have known the longest and beyond them others that entered my life went through periods where they either accepted who I was or they feigned interest for a while then lost contact. Today I am happy with my circle of friends because they all know the real me and I can tell them anything.
I am in many ways different from the person I was when I was 16, but there are many things that still hold true. We still share the same interests, while they have grown and others have been added, I still enjoy the games, movies, and TV shows I did when I was 16. My taste in food has evolved, and become a little more extreme. I always loved spicy food but as I have got older I like it even hotter. The things I liked I've revelled in and the things I didn't like I've abandoned almost completely. My music taste has fluctuated a bit, I do still listen to some of what I listened to back then but a lot of it was quite depressing so that's become less of a staple for me.
I would say I am a lot happier than I was back then. 16 was by no means my lowest point, that was several years before and the recovery from it was slow and at times an uphill climb that I struggled with. I have a fair bit left to climb to become the person I want to be at the top of the hill, but that climb has been made easier by the people in my life and by the mentality that I have adapted. Being so open about my life and bearing all to people made me vulnerable but it also made me braver for it. I'm not the person I was, and I don't have a lot in common with him anymore but deep down we are the same. The layers change and the fashion is restyled but at it's core, the heart that beats is the same heart.
He's not Gay he's married
Within the LGBT community from the outside you would be forgiven for thinking there is unity and that our community is concrete without cracks. The truth is there is a helluva lot of division within the LGBT community and internal conflict.
To begin with there's the name "LGBT" and those that argue for it to be shortened or lengthened. Those that advocate shortening take the point that Trans issues are a matter of gender and identity not a matter of sexuality and think the community should incorporate LGB people only. Historically the T community in itself was included as those within it experience much of the same discrimination as LGB people with the same outward hostility. As more rights are won for LGB people the division is accentuated, as Trans issues linger on unresolved there are those in the LGB community who are less willing to support the T community in return for the support they were given in the past.
Those that advocate the expansion to LGBTQ or LGBTI+, or any other addendum, argue that many other smaller communities should be incorporated into one whole. These smaller communities cover those who are Asexual, or Intersex, or who have no specific label choosing to identiy simply as Queer.
Side note, the word Queer in itself has been embraced by many within the LGBT community as a term of unity, an umbrella, catch-all term. As for the derogatory connotations those only exist in how the word is used not in the word itself due to the empowerment movement.
Even within the LGB communities there is division. On the outside it is easy for many people who have no real exposure to theese communities to label all gay men as effeminate and think that they would be very close to women in general and that there would be little conflict. This is far from the truth however. Misogyny is rife in the gay communities. There are large swathes of Gay men who are very misogynistic and have a very low opinion of women. They are not without recourse however as there are many women within the lesbian community who are outwardly hostile to all men regardless of sexuality for this reason.
Then there's the 'G' community which despite being "Gay" a word which can apply to any homosexual regardless of gender, tries to claim the word for Gay Men alone. Within that community there is further division between effeminate, often camp gay men, and butch gay men or as many choose to identify as "Masc" meaning masculine. The hatred that exists between these factions of gay men is immense. I have wrote about this before when Russell Tovey made his controversial comments.
All this addresses the LGT and + communities. Then we come to the Bi community, one that is somewhat phantom in its existence within the larger LGBT community for many reasons. First and foremost there exists a stigma and a stereotype within the LGBT community and beyond it that perceives bisexual men and women as being "on the road to gay" or "have not made their mind up yet" both of which are incredibly diminutive. I am a gay man and I know what I am because I know who and what I am attracted to. The idea that someone is incapable of knowing that is incredibly insulting it is as much of an insult as those that say to you when you first come out as gay "you haven't met the right woman yet" - fuck off.
The reason I wrote this post is not just to stand up for bisexual people and assert their sexuality should not be demeaned but to refute the idea that marriage changes your sexuality. This is bullshit. I have known bisexual men who have got married only to have themselves branded the sexuality that corresponds to their spouse - gay if they married a man and straight if they married a woman. That's infuriating. Their sexuality does not magically change. They are still bisexual.
Many times I have seen people ask if someone I know or a celebrity is gay only to have "nah he married a woman" as the response to say "he's straight" and end speculation. The fact they got married does not determine their sexuality. Who they married does not determine their sexuality.
To begin with there's the name "LGBT" and those that argue for it to be shortened or lengthened. Those that advocate shortening take the point that Trans issues are a matter of gender and identity not a matter of sexuality and think the community should incorporate LGB people only. Historically the T community in itself was included as those within it experience much of the same discrimination as LGB people with the same outward hostility. As more rights are won for LGB people the division is accentuated, as Trans issues linger on unresolved there are those in the LGB community who are less willing to support the T community in return for the support they were given in the past.
Those that advocate the expansion to LGBTQ or LGBTI+, or any other addendum, argue that many other smaller communities should be incorporated into one whole. These smaller communities cover those who are Asexual, or Intersex, or who have no specific label choosing to identiy simply as Queer.
Side note, the word Queer in itself has been embraced by many within the LGBT community as a term of unity, an umbrella, catch-all term. As for the derogatory connotations those only exist in how the word is used not in the word itself due to the empowerment movement.
Even within the LGB communities there is division. On the outside it is easy for many people who have no real exposure to theese communities to label all gay men as effeminate and think that they would be very close to women in general and that there would be little conflict. This is far from the truth however. Misogyny is rife in the gay communities. There are large swathes of Gay men who are very misogynistic and have a very low opinion of women. They are not without recourse however as there are many women within the lesbian community who are outwardly hostile to all men regardless of sexuality for this reason.
Then there's the 'G' community which despite being "Gay" a word which can apply to any homosexual regardless of gender, tries to claim the word for Gay Men alone. Within that community there is further division between effeminate, often camp gay men, and butch gay men or as many choose to identify as "Masc" meaning masculine. The hatred that exists between these factions of gay men is immense. I have wrote about this before when Russell Tovey made his controversial comments.
All this addresses the LGT and + communities. Then we come to the Bi community, one that is somewhat phantom in its existence within the larger LGBT community for many reasons. First and foremost there exists a stigma and a stereotype within the LGBT community and beyond it that perceives bisexual men and women as being "on the road to gay" or "have not made their mind up yet" both of which are incredibly diminutive. I am a gay man and I know what I am because I know who and what I am attracted to. The idea that someone is incapable of knowing that is incredibly insulting it is as much of an insult as those that say to you when you first come out as gay "you haven't met the right woman yet" - fuck off.
The reason I wrote this post is not just to stand up for bisexual people and assert their sexuality should not be demeaned but to refute the idea that marriage changes your sexuality. This is bullshit. I have known bisexual men who have got married only to have themselves branded the sexuality that corresponds to their spouse - gay if they married a man and straight if they married a woman. That's infuriating. Their sexuality does not magically change. They are still bisexual.
Many times I have seen people ask if someone I know or a celebrity is gay only to have "nah he married a woman" as the response to say "he's straight" and end speculation. The fact they got married does not determine their sexuality. Who they married does not determine their sexuality.
It's not new, but it's new to me
I have spoken before about content creation in the media, referring specifically to children's television as an example. I made a point that content generation wasn't dropping because the market no longer existed, but rather that demand was returning to an organic level free from over saturation.
No matter what niche you are interested in, for most people at some point it will go mainstream and become over saturated. After a while the growth stagnates and the mainstream interest moves on and your interest returns to being niche again.
This has happened a lot and today when you switch on a TV - which I avoid as I use catch up services instead - you will see a lot of programming that's all very similar. This in part is due to the fact that networks have moved away from creating something new and moved into finding something new. The distinction here being in years gone by, a network would pilot programmes and run a limited number of episodes and pick up the ones that do well for further production. That doesn't happen as much anymore instead they use market research to find out what people like and then create content centred around that. This discards the idea that people can like something they haven't seen or thought about before, and perpetuates the idea that you need to regurgitate what already exists.
If you are going to do this and not risk creating something completely new then I have a better suggestion. Revive older shows. I don't mean looking through your own back catalogue and picking something out, I mean looking at what people have seen before and reviving what they haven't. We are an ever increasingly global society but that globalisation is not retrospective. I can name several old TV shows from the UK like 2.4 Children which people in the UK will have heard of [some younger readers perhaps not] but people in other countries will not. Likewise there will be old TV shows from those countries that no-one will have heard of in the UK - the majority at least. This creates the assertion, it's not new, but it's new to me - or to be more precise, it's not new, but it will be something your viewers haven't seen before.
You don't have to rebroadcast the old shows, which I know some networks would be wary of as they think they look dated - you can remake the show in its entirety, the scripting etc will already be done for you all you need is a refresh of some references to bring it up to date and push it out again. As for the criticism of the remake against the old versions, only those who have seen it before - who are not the target audience - would be likely to criticise. The remainder will be subjective or objective as the case may be.
This extends far beyond TV into many other areas of our lives however. We tend to think of our past as something that we have been through and forget about - save for a few choice moments or particularly traumatic experiences; but when you meet someone for the first time you know nothing about their past and everything they have been through and the same goes for them and you. What you tell one another and choose to share isn't new to you and might even be quite boring to you now, but it's new to them and you will often find they think it's fascinating. The reason being we think we all go through the same experiences but we don't and even when something happens we both experience, the way we deal with it or react to it varies. What you did next is often more interesting than what happened in the first place.
So like TV networks and the media in general, don't try and appeal to what people like because you'll find they are so often bored of it because they have seen it all before. Be yourself and do what you like to do and share the things you used to do and used to love as much as you share what you do now, because your past is old to you but it's new to me. So don't be afraid to be different or do something which is not mainstream because people will respond to it. Things which are different stand out more than the things that are the same. As I said in other posts we are conditioned when young to think this is bad and then told the opposite as we get older. Learning to accept this as you get older can be hard but it's the way you should have been all along. They say with age you reach a point where you stop giving a fuck and be yourself whether people like it or not - that point is when you realise who likes you for being you.
No matter what niche you are interested in, for most people at some point it will go mainstream and become over saturated. After a while the growth stagnates and the mainstream interest moves on and your interest returns to being niche again.
This has happened a lot and today when you switch on a TV - which I avoid as I use catch up services instead - you will see a lot of programming that's all very similar. This in part is due to the fact that networks have moved away from creating something new and moved into finding something new. The distinction here being in years gone by, a network would pilot programmes and run a limited number of episodes and pick up the ones that do well for further production. That doesn't happen as much anymore instead they use market research to find out what people like and then create content centred around that. This discards the idea that people can like something they haven't seen or thought about before, and perpetuates the idea that you need to regurgitate what already exists.
If you are going to do this and not risk creating something completely new then I have a better suggestion. Revive older shows. I don't mean looking through your own back catalogue and picking something out, I mean looking at what people have seen before and reviving what they haven't. We are an ever increasingly global society but that globalisation is not retrospective. I can name several old TV shows from the UK like 2.4 Children which people in the UK will have heard of [some younger readers perhaps not] but people in other countries will not. Likewise there will be old TV shows from those countries that no-one will have heard of in the UK - the majority at least. This creates the assertion, it's not new, but it's new to me - or to be more precise, it's not new, but it will be something your viewers haven't seen before.
You don't have to rebroadcast the old shows, which I know some networks would be wary of as they think they look dated - you can remake the show in its entirety, the scripting etc will already be done for you all you need is a refresh of some references to bring it up to date and push it out again. As for the criticism of the remake against the old versions, only those who have seen it before - who are not the target audience - would be likely to criticise. The remainder will be subjective or objective as the case may be.
This extends far beyond TV into many other areas of our lives however. We tend to think of our past as something that we have been through and forget about - save for a few choice moments or particularly traumatic experiences; but when you meet someone for the first time you know nothing about their past and everything they have been through and the same goes for them and you. What you tell one another and choose to share isn't new to you and might even be quite boring to you now, but it's new to them and you will often find they think it's fascinating. The reason being we think we all go through the same experiences but we don't and even when something happens we both experience, the way we deal with it or react to it varies. What you did next is often more interesting than what happened in the first place.
So like TV networks and the media in general, don't try and appeal to what people like because you'll find they are so often bored of it because they have seen it all before. Be yourself and do what you like to do and share the things you used to do and used to love as much as you share what you do now, because your past is old to you but it's new to me. So don't be afraid to be different or do something which is not mainstream because people will respond to it. Things which are different stand out more than the things that are the same. As I said in other posts we are conditioned when young to think this is bad and then told the opposite as we get older. Learning to accept this as you get older can be hard but it's the way you should have been all along. They say with age you reach a point where you stop giving a fuck and be yourself whether people like it or not - that point is when you realise who likes you for being you.
A Different World Online
The Internet is a strange place. You get to see and experience things that you would otherwise never do. You also get to meet people who likewise you would never have met otherwise. In this context I define 'meet' as either online or offline, it doesn't have to be one or the other it can be either or both.
I'm 27 and by my age my parents had got married, had their first child and bought their first house, that was a different time though, and a different world. While some of the things they did like that illude me and many in my generation, there are many things we have and that we do now that they did not. For one not just online but offline too we are more mobile. It does not break the bank to fly to another country anymore, while the level of comfort you want to live in might, the opportunity is there and with the likes of couch surfing you can visit another country and stay with someone for free, all it will cost is the travel.
In terms of connectivity many people say we are anti-social now and that we don't talk to each other anymore. I don't think that's true, I think we talk to one another more than we did - it's just less likely that the people we talk to will actually be physically close to us. The Internet is a barrier that many embrace, it allows you to open up to some people more than you would because you think they are on the other side of the world and you'll likely never meet them face to face so you can be as honest as you want, there'll be less consequence. Whereas the people that live around us are there and they likely will be for some time, so we don't want to damage what little relations we have with them.
I embraced the Internet in this way as a young gay man. I lived in a very socially conservative atmosphere, where there was a paralysing fear of anyone ever finding out I was gay. I did tell a few people but they were very few in number and only ever guys who I was convinced were gay too, or who outed themselves to me first. The Internet connected me with like-minded people and showed me that I was not alone. While that desire to reach out for people to connect with was originally driven by my sexuality it is not guided by it alone anymore. Now when I reach out it is to form connections with people who share my interests in other areas. There is the expectation that the people around you won't be interested in the same things you are, mainly caused by their lack of expression of interest in them.
If you like something a lot and you don't know anyone else that does, the first place you're likely to go is the internet. Social media where you like, favourite, share, and comment on the things you have an interest in, forums if you can find them, blogs if you are a reader, even running one of your own if you are a writer [*waves hand* hi] - to that end you do meet people online who share your interests and you don't have to feel shame in what you like.
I have met many people online over the years, each for various different things. When I wanted to learn Spanish I posted an ad looking for a tutor who'd be willing to teach me for free and I got the response I was looking for and spent months chatting to different guys one from Argentina, one from Brasil, and one surprisingly, from Germany. It helped me improve my Spanish but not to the level I had wanted as we inevitably ended up talking about other things and found out we shared a lot of other interests, the professional capacity we had met in turned to friendship. They were people I would never have met. I would never have travelled to any of those countries and even if I had the chance we would have met would have been slim. In fact one of them lived in London for a year while I was there at University - years before we met online. So we lived in the same city for a time completely unaware of one another's existence.
We live on a much more global scale, and with that the pool of people we can connect with expands from our small communities we live in to the world as a whole - or at least the world with Internet. The list of countries I have met people online from and got to know has grown. Those I can remember are listed at the end of this post. The point of this post is to encourage people to be more social online. Social networking has the capacity to connect people, some sites like facebook were a lot better at that in their early days, they are less social today and have become more anti-social. That's one of the things I like about twitter, it's still quite open and you can still engage with people you've never met before and find you have a connection.
The people I have met and got to know have been from:
United Kingdom, Ireland, Argentina, Australia, Brasil, Canada, China, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Egypt, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, India, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Spain, The Netherlands, Ukraine, United States of America.
Apologies if you're not in the list, this is all I could recall off the top of my head, I am convinced I have forgotten a few - that in itself will be another post.
I'm 27 and by my age my parents had got married, had their first child and bought their first house, that was a different time though, and a different world. While some of the things they did like that illude me and many in my generation, there are many things we have and that we do now that they did not. For one not just online but offline too we are more mobile. It does not break the bank to fly to another country anymore, while the level of comfort you want to live in might, the opportunity is there and with the likes of couch surfing you can visit another country and stay with someone for free, all it will cost is the travel.
In terms of connectivity many people say we are anti-social now and that we don't talk to each other anymore. I don't think that's true, I think we talk to one another more than we did - it's just less likely that the people we talk to will actually be physically close to us. The Internet is a barrier that many embrace, it allows you to open up to some people more than you would because you think they are on the other side of the world and you'll likely never meet them face to face so you can be as honest as you want, there'll be less consequence. Whereas the people that live around us are there and they likely will be for some time, so we don't want to damage what little relations we have with them.
I embraced the Internet in this way as a young gay man. I lived in a very socially conservative atmosphere, where there was a paralysing fear of anyone ever finding out I was gay. I did tell a few people but they were very few in number and only ever guys who I was convinced were gay too, or who outed themselves to me first. The Internet connected me with like-minded people and showed me that I was not alone. While that desire to reach out for people to connect with was originally driven by my sexuality it is not guided by it alone anymore. Now when I reach out it is to form connections with people who share my interests in other areas. There is the expectation that the people around you won't be interested in the same things you are, mainly caused by their lack of expression of interest in them.
If you like something a lot and you don't know anyone else that does, the first place you're likely to go is the internet. Social media where you like, favourite, share, and comment on the things you have an interest in, forums if you can find them, blogs if you are a reader, even running one of your own if you are a writer [*waves hand* hi] - to that end you do meet people online who share your interests and you don't have to feel shame in what you like.
I have met many people online over the years, each for various different things. When I wanted to learn Spanish I posted an ad looking for a tutor who'd be willing to teach me for free and I got the response I was looking for and spent months chatting to different guys one from Argentina, one from Brasil, and one surprisingly, from Germany. It helped me improve my Spanish but not to the level I had wanted as we inevitably ended up talking about other things and found out we shared a lot of other interests, the professional capacity we had met in turned to friendship. They were people I would never have met. I would never have travelled to any of those countries and even if I had the chance we would have met would have been slim. In fact one of them lived in London for a year while I was there at University - years before we met online. So we lived in the same city for a time completely unaware of one another's existence.
We live on a much more global scale, and with that the pool of people we can connect with expands from our small communities we live in to the world as a whole - or at least the world with Internet. The list of countries I have met people online from and got to know has grown. Those I can remember are listed at the end of this post. The point of this post is to encourage people to be more social online. Social networking has the capacity to connect people, some sites like facebook were a lot better at that in their early days, they are less social today and have become more anti-social. That's one of the things I like about twitter, it's still quite open and you can still engage with people you've never met before and find you have a connection.
The people I have met and got to know have been from:
United Kingdom, Ireland, Argentina, Australia, Brasil, Canada, China, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Egypt, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, India, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Spain, The Netherlands, Ukraine, United States of America.
Apologies if you're not in the list, this is all I could recall off the top of my head, I am convinced I have forgotten a few - that in itself will be another post.
Work and Pay
The word 'work' has a very broad definition. In terms of employment we tend to think of work as the duration of time we are reimbursed for through wage. However the time we devote to work often extends beyond what we are actually paid for doing. In many jobs there will be requirements that take up personal time as well as the time we spend at our place of work.
If you think of a rugby player for example, their main place of work ultimately is the grounds and the pitch they play on, and the time they spend at work is the length of the match they play. Except in their job there is also training, both structured and scheduled as part of a team, as well as unstructured and unscheduled such as working out at the gym.
If you take another example such as a comedian, they are paid for the gigs they perform at. Those performances can be short as part of a larger show maybe 15 minutes, or they can be long as an entire show on their own, and hour maybe more. They are paid for the time they are on stage and the number of tickets they managed to sell. They're not paid directly for the time and effort they spend writing material and rehearsing it to themselves and to people they try out their material on.
Would you rather work in a job where you were paid a lot for a short period of time worked, or be paid the same amount for a longer period of time? Bearing in mind with the former, you'd be expected to put more effort in outside work, not doing so would reflect in the quality of your work. Assume in the latter you did not have to do much outside.
To break that down with figures, would you rather:
Work 40 hours a week for £15k p.a. with no work needed to be completed outside those hours. How good or bad you are at your job won't affect your pay grade, and you get to keep your job as long as you are competent, something which is ultimately decided by someone other than you.
or
Work 1 hour a week for up to £15k p.a. depending on performance, the better you are at your job the more you make, the more natural that work is to you the less time you need to devote to preparation. Make no preparation and perform badly and you will earn very little if anything, so ultimately it's up to you to decide how much effort you put in.
Admittedly there are less jobs that offer the latter, and it is less secure. That doesn't necessarily mean it's the worse option from the two. The third option would be a job that combines the two and offers a base salary and base expectations with the provision of higher pay depending on performance.
Which would you prefer?
If you think of a rugby player for example, their main place of work ultimately is the grounds and the pitch they play on, and the time they spend at work is the length of the match they play. Except in their job there is also training, both structured and scheduled as part of a team, as well as unstructured and unscheduled such as working out at the gym.
If you take another example such as a comedian, they are paid for the gigs they perform at. Those performances can be short as part of a larger show maybe 15 minutes, or they can be long as an entire show on their own, and hour maybe more. They are paid for the time they are on stage and the number of tickets they managed to sell. They're not paid directly for the time and effort they spend writing material and rehearsing it to themselves and to people they try out their material on.
Would you rather work in a job where you were paid a lot for a short period of time worked, or be paid the same amount for a longer period of time? Bearing in mind with the former, you'd be expected to put more effort in outside work, not doing so would reflect in the quality of your work. Assume in the latter you did not have to do much outside.
To break that down with figures, would you rather:
Work 40 hours a week for £15k p.a. with no work needed to be completed outside those hours. How good or bad you are at your job won't affect your pay grade, and you get to keep your job as long as you are competent, something which is ultimately decided by someone other than you.
or
Work 1 hour a week for up to £15k p.a. depending on performance, the better you are at your job the more you make, the more natural that work is to you the less time you need to devote to preparation. Make no preparation and perform badly and you will earn very little if anything, so ultimately it's up to you to decide how much effort you put in.
Admittedly there are less jobs that offer the latter, and it is less secure. That doesn't necessarily mean it's the worse option from the two. The third option would be a job that combines the two and offers a base salary and base expectations with the provision of higher pay depending on performance.
Which would you prefer?
Can you handle the truth?
Is there ever a place in life for false pretences? When someone treats you well and you thank them for it you feel gratitude and you feel a degree of happiness. When you later find out their efforts were insincere and that underneath the amicable projection they actually hated you - that hurts more than someone outright telling you so from the beginning.
I'm not deluded I know that not everyone in life is going to like you, and in fairness I gave up on that idea long ago. I don't expect everyone to like me, I expect to be treated with some respect. If you don't like me I would rather you said so, then I know where I stand. That to me is honesty, whereas the false pretence feels deceptive.
When someone is a cunt and quite openly admit to being so, you know what to expect from them. In a strange way you can trust them more than anyone else because you know if they don't agree with something or they have any negative thought they will share it. When someone acts nice on the surface but underneath they are a cunt, that is deceptive. By nature they are hiding things from you. Those people are harder to trust. This is one of the reasons I stand by my stance, that I do not trust people who smile all the time and are always happy. It is a fact of life that things will go wrong, and you will have bad days. It happens and we deal with it. Bottling that up and not sharing your emotions in moments like that casts you in the light of a closed heart.
The question however still stands, should you care what anyone really thinks of you and how they really feel? Or should you only care about how they treat you and act towards you?
Is it important to feel loved by someone who genuinely loves you, or is it enough to feel loved by someone who actually hates you but treats you as if they loved you? From your point of view unknowing of the truth they both look and feel exactly the same, and for those we trust, the latter won't even cross our minds as a possibility.
I'm not deluded I know that not everyone in life is going to like you, and in fairness I gave up on that idea long ago. I don't expect everyone to like me, I expect to be treated with some respect. If you don't like me I would rather you said so, then I know where I stand. That to me is honesty, whereas the false pretence feels deceptive.
When someone is a cunt and quite openly admit to being so, you know what to expect from them. In a strange way you can trust them more than anyone else because you know if they don't agree with something or they have any negative thought they will share it. When someone acts nice on the surface but underneath they are a cunt, that is deceptive. By nature they are hiding things from you. Those people are harder to trust. This is one of the reasons I stand by my stance, that I do not trust people who smile all the time and are always happy. It is a fact of life that things will go wrong, and you will have bad days. It happens and we deal with it. Bottling that up and not sharing your emotions in moments like that casts you in the light of a closed heart.
The question however still stands, should you care what anyone really thinks of you and how they really feel? Or should you only care about how they treat you and act towards you?
Is it important to feel loved by someone who genuinely loves you, or is it enough to feel loved by someone who actually hates you but treats you as if they loved you? From your point of view unknowing of the truth they both look and feel exactly the same, and for those we trust, the latter won't even cross our minds as a possibility.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)