Happy New You

Should auld acquaintance be forgot,

And never brought to mind?

Should auld acquaintance be forgot,

And auld lang syne!

-

For auld lang syne, my dear,

For auld lang syne,

We'll take a cup o' kindness yet,

For auld lang syne.

...

It's the end of another year, and what a year it has been.  As the new year's revellers prepare for the night ahead, I find myself looking back on the year.  'Auld Lang Syne' is traditionally sang at midnight as one year ends and the new one begins.  I've included an excerpt of the lyrics, the first verse and the chorus perhaps the most well known.  They are quite sombre, filled with sorrow but also filled with hope.  I've never dwelled on them much before but never have I had a year that I am so happy to see the back of, so this is a time of reflection for me.  I'm only 28 and I know some people will call me a Summer Child but I would argue against that given what I had to see growing up, but that's for another time. 

"Should auld acquaintance be forgot" - this lyric is the one I am dwelling on the most.  I said goodbye to a few people this year, one or two were very difficult to part ways with but it was necessary.  Still the fact that this year is the year we parted on top of everything else that happened makes me dwell on it if only for a few moments at a time.  I don't want them back in my life, nothing has changed, we would only repeat the same problems over again.  This year has brought the true colours out in many people and it's made me realise how ugly some of those are.  When you look at websites online and see the mix of designs that range from elegant to complete train wrecks it really makes you think about who should and shouldn't be able to make decisions.  Putting aside whose side you want to be on I think everyone can agree they think the other's demonstrates a severe lack of judgement.

Arguments over personality conflicts, and life decisions whilst disconnected from politics, take on the same characteristics.  An argument is an argument, no matter what the subject is, both people always think they are right and it's not usually possible for them both to be so.  When you reach an impasse you have a choice to make, either agree to disagree, or see the difference as irreconcilable and part ways.  In a few cases this year I chose the latter and to be honest I am happy I did.  I am not happy I lost the people but people grow apart.  Memories are just memories.  Reality is the present and the future, the past is just a dream - one that actually happened.  It does not do to dwell on dreams and forget to live.

The question the song asks - should old acquaintances be forgotten? - I think the answer is no, don't forget them, keep the memories, but accept that the people you knew are gone, because we all change as we grow, we become different people in time, and that's ok, sometimes people grow apart because the people we become don't get along.

I was going to end this post with a video of the song, but I've decided to end it with a video from Doctor Who instead, a speech by Matt Smith before he regenerated into Peter Capaldi, because I think it's appropriate.

Happy New Year, Happy New You.

New Year's Resolutions

As the year draws to a close, the inevitable question of new year's resolutions arises.  I have a mixed record when it comes to these like most people.  I've made many that have barely lasted a day, whilst making others that I managed to keep for a few months.  The fault I think, or the reason for failure for me, comes from the attempt to make a permanent change pegged against what is essentially an arbitrary date.  I've made resolutions to learn languages, give up certain foods, commit to exercise regimens amongst other things over the years.  Rather than make permanent changes this time around, I've decided instead to set temporary goals, or time-limited goals.

Firstly I've decided to return to Duolingo, but, I've decided not to specify which languages I will focus on, simply to use the site more, either to learn something new or revise what I already know.  I would like to improve my writing ability in Spanish, I can already read with proficiency.  I'd like to continue studying Greek and learn more about the country and its history.

Secondly I've decided to learn a new programming language.  As to which, I haven't decided that.  I can already program in quite a few, but I would like to learn something new, ideally something I've never used before, or even seen examples of, if possible.

Thirdly I want to finish a fantasy novel I have been working on and add it to my bookshelf on Kindle Direct Publishing, I've decided when it's finished I will make it free; I've been thinking over the pros and cons to doing this and I think it's something I'd like to do.  I've already published a few other books through Kindle, sales have been, disappointing, nowhere near what I would like, but not surprising as I don't have the time and resources to commit to marketing and it's really just a hobby.  I've made a few of these books free for short periods of time before as promotions and that's given them a lot more attention.

Apart from these three things I'm not going to set out anything I do or do not want to do in 2017.  This year has been full of unexpected twists and turns and I've decided the best approach to 2017 is probably just to approach it with no expectations whatsoever.

Last Minute

I have a mixed record when it comes to doing things to a schedule.  I normally get things done on time, that bit isn't the problem.  My problem like most people is putting things off.  With most of my coursework when I was in College and University I did it more or less when I got it so that it was out of the way, same with most things professionally I tend to get things done as early as I can so I can get feedback or amend it if I need to, it's my personal life where procrastination comes into play.

This blog for example I have to write posts for it in advance and schedule them, because when I do it as I go along I always leave it to the last minute to write posts and end up with writer's block with no idea what to write.  Even when I write posts in advance though, I establish a "buffer" of posts that are scheduled, I should really keep going to increase that buffer but I usually end up leaving it, until I've only got one or two posts left on the schedule then write another batch of them.  I've spoken about batch processing mentality in a previous post, and in many ways this is an extension of that.  Procrastination is in essence a deference to batch processing, essentially "not now, later" and when later comes, you're left with everything to do at once.

I've tried many different approaches in an attempt to alter this behaviour.  I've tried the reward based system where you promise yourself something positive or enjoyable if you do something now rather than putting it off, but ultimately I find myself weighing up the two outcomes and the idea that I don't achieve the reward usually ends up winning, the motivation isn't strong enough, that and there's a lack of discipline there as you can still have the reward later without doing the work.

I've tried the ultimatum approach, where you set a condition for failure if you don't achieve your objective - but this usually ends up ineffective too as it is basically a negative reward based approach, and has the same lack of enforcement mentioned above.

I've tried the rigorous schedule approach with endless lists of smaller tasks breaking down the overall task so you can feel a sense of progress.  This one proves the most effective for me.  I have lists for everything.  Things to do and when for those that need certain times they're also on my calendar which is getting a bit crowded now, it's a busy time of year and that old saying "you can't see the forest for the trees" is ringing true.  While the list and schedule approach has proven the most effective for me, and ultimately the most organised, it still falls short since there's an underlying lack of imperative to enforcement.  When it came to academia and professional life, I achieve what I need to achieve because you either get kicked off the course or you don't get paid so there's an obvious incentive and crucially you aren't the one in control of the enforcement.

I need a better way to motivate myself to do things earlier rather than leaving it to the last minute.

Merry Christmas

Jingle Bells and festive smells,
The Yuletide is forever gay,
As the food is ate the stomach swells,
And the alcohol makes your whole world sway,

Eat, drink, and of course be merry,
Have your fill and smile with joy,
A glass of wine, port or maybe sherry,
Express yourself it's not a time to be coy,

Tis the season come one come all,
Sing and dance and eat and drink a plenty,
Embrace the warmth and bask in heaven's call,
Share a smile, a hug, or a kiss for four hours and twenty,

Good will to all men, and women too of course,
The spirit of this day transcends faith and religion,
You need no God to be happiness and love's true source,
If only for a day, forget the walls and division,

Do something good for which you can feel proud,
Spread light in a world feeling darker than ever,
Then you too can stand and say these words out loud,
This is a day we wish could truly last forever.

10 Questions for a Gay Man

Sometimes we have questions that we want to ask but we're afraid to do so.  Whether that be because we're afraid of the answer, or we're afraid of how the person we ask will take the question, or some other deterrent, when we finally get the opportunity to ask whatever we want, our minds sometimes go blank.

I am a gay man, and for the first 18 or so years of my life I had no contact with anyone who was openly gay, who identified as gay and I could have an actual conversation with.  Given that fact I've decided to create this post, which is a list of questions I had when I was younger, and questions which others often ask me now as an openly gay man.  This post is an attempt to give my point of view and my answers, in the hope that someone out there who might not have someone to ask them of, might read this and have a little more clarity in their life.

1 - When did you know you were gay?

For everyone it is different, but the answer I hear a lot from other gay men is that they just always knew.  For me I don't know what age I was when I first realised.  When I look back though, as young as 5 years old I remember having friends who were boys and friends who were girls, but there was one boy who I liked more than the others.  I didn't know what it was or why but I really liked him and just wanted to be with him all the time.  Personally I'd consider that the first inkling of knowing I was gay, but I wouldn't have it confirmed for many years to come.

2 - Did you ever think you were straight?

As I grew up I noticed that other boys around me were taking interest in girls, but I had none.  When puberty hit and I started having a sexual awakening, the thought of women didn't do anything for me - the thought of guys however did.  I knew then that I was at least turned on by the thought of gay sex and not straight sex.  Since all I was doing was masturbation which was a solo activity which I didn't speak to anyone about, I didn't resist the fact I had gay thoughts, and made no attempt to pursue straight.  There was no definitive moment I can say for sure that I knew I wasn't straight. 

3 - When did you lose your virginity?

This one is complicated for two reasons.  First is the question of what counts as sex - some say oral counts, others say only anal counts as losing your virginity.  Personally I'd say oral counts.  The second reason this is complicated is personal to me.  I'd rather not go into details about this, so suffice to say for the purpose of the question I'll define it as the first consensual time as being the time you lost your virginity.  For Oral I was 17, I was in my final year of college and it was with a guy I had a crush on for years we had finally hooked up as we knew we wouldn't see each other possibly ever after college.  For Anal I was 19 I think, it was during my second year of University but I can't remember when exactly, it was with a guy I had gotten to know.  We met online, he was older than me by about 10 years.  I had told him how much I had worked it up in my head and the nerves I had.  Prior to him I had tried with two other guys who I couldn't relax enough with and it just wouldn't happen.  I told this guy everything about my trust issues.  He was someone I felt very comfortable with.  I had known him a while and he let me set the pace and it remains to be one of the best guys I've ever had sex with.

4 - How many guys have you had sex with?

This might surprise some people, I'll be totally honest here.  Anal I've been with 3 guys that made it, and 2 guys that tried but it was a no-go.  Oral, I have lost count.  I am reasonably confident it's still double figures but I can't be certain because I lost count after 50.  I tried making a list once, and I made it to around 30, then for the next few days I kept thinking "oh and that guy from X" - yeah probably worth saying right now if you're a virgin, sex is something which ends up being a lot less of a big deal to you in the long run.  Some people do it a lot, with a lot of people, some people don't.  It's entirely up to you what you choose to do. 

5 - When did you come out?

There was a guy I went to school with, he was in my class for 7 years and then in another class but same school for 5 years.  Throughout the 12 years I knew him he was always pretty laid back and nothing really bothered him.  I told him when I was 16 because he was the one person I knew for sure wouldn't have a problem with it.  His first reaction was "oh, that explains a lot" - referring mainly to the fact I never had a girlfriend, refused to be set up with anyone, and had actively avoided social functions. 

When I was 17 in my final year of college I told my brother, and a few months later I told my mother.  My Mum's first reaction was disarray, not knowing why I was gay, or how I knew I was gay - I didn't want to have the conversation that I had hooked up with someone I felt awkward enough coming out, so I just reiterate that I knew I was.  After our first conversation and the confusion she hugged me and told me she loved me and that she always would.  She's never had a problem with it, I think her reaction was just shock.  I am not a stereotype, which I know some people might find surprising if they've never actually met me.  If you met me then you'd know that unless you knew I was gay you'd not have a clue.  My Mum thought I was straight as everyone else did.

When I told my brother he said he wouldn't tell anyone as it was nobody's business.  He never told our Mum, and by her reaction I believe that.  When I told my Mum I asked her not to tell my Dad.  I don't know whether she did or not, he never said anything at the time if she did.  I didn't come out to my Dad until I was at University.  It was in my second year.  I wrote a letter to him and sent it home.  I know that may sound like I was a coward, and to be honest there is cowardice in it, but I had so much to say and I wasn't confident that I could remember it all in person and my Dad was never one for talking on the phone to anyone so it seemed the simplest way.  I wasn't there when he read it.  All I remember was the first phone-call after it when he told me he loved me and told me not to let it stop me coming home.

When I look back on my life, my parents gave me so much freedom and let me make my own choices and be who I wanted to be and live my life the way I wanted to live - I wonder why I ever doubted how they would react.  Living all those years in the closet, not telling a single person builds up an incredible amount of anxiety that gets attached to one little detail that when you're in the closet you can feel at times it is life or death if people ever find out.  In all my years since, [I'm 28 now so that's 10ish years] I have "came out" over and over to people, it's something you never really stop doing, but you stop thinking about it.  "Oh yeah I'm gay" is often the way it ends up being dropped in passing conversation when it's relevant.  In that time I've never actually had a single person react badly, I'm thankful for that.  When I was in high school I heard rumours about guys at other schools who came out as gay and heard about how they ended up being bullied.  One guy in particular I know had to change schools because of it.  No-one in my school ever came out whilst I was at it so I have no idea how people there would have reacted.

6 - Why don't you act gay?

This one isn't always a question sometimes it's simply a statement "you don't sound gay" or "you don't look gay" etc.  This one is something people tend to struggle with who have never actually met a gay person.  Their perception of gay people mainly comes from the media, where characters accentuate certain behaviours, or they are always depicted in a similar way.  For a time in the UK for example all gay characters had a "gay lisp" to identify them as gay to the viewer.  These kind of things are negative in my opinion.  The bottom line when it comes to sexuality is that it's about who you are sexually attracted to, that's it.  Beyond that one simple thing, people are just people.  They'll have their own interests and they'll have their own views.  For every gay guy that hates football there are gay guys that love it, and there are gays that just don't care. 

The implication that being gay will mean you like a certain artist, or movie, or have a certain interest, all of these are unreliable in my experience.  One thing I see the most is the idea that all gay men are liberals - that's really not true.  I have had the misfortune of meeting some gays who are very right wing conservatives.  In a similar vein I see people who think all gay people are non-discriminatory, that they'd never be racist, or sexist etc.  That's total bullshit.  I get the reasoning behind the assumption, that having been on the receiving end of discrimination you would think they would not practice discrimination, but that's not how the world works.  I have seen gay men be sexist, racist, and discriminatory - "gays for Trump" springs to mind.  I am a feminist, but I can show you many gay men who are far from it, who epitomise male chauvinism.

7 - Do you have a lot of female friends?

I would say my friends break down to 45/45/10 as women [all sexualities] to gay men, to straight men.  I find women [whatever sexuality] the easiest to get along with.  Their thought process tends to line up with mine more than the others, I've read various theories over the years as to why that might be, some of which are very interesting reads but I think there's no real rhyme nor reason to it.  Straight men I think make up the minority of my friends for the simple reason I never really socialised in straight clubs.  I was the CTO for the LGBT society at University, my flatmate was the Treasurer, and I was friends with the President, so I was involved with a lot of LGBT events which skewed my friendships very heavily towards gay men.  I honestly don't know what way other gay guys friends balance would pan out, I've never actually asked someone this.

8 - Who's "the woman"?

I hate this question.  I find it offensive.  It usually comes from straight men when it's asked and it's their roundabout way of asking who's the top and who's the bottom but it's worded in the worst possible way.  There is no woman, I am a guy, whoever I have sex with is a guy, we are two guys.  I've had lesbians tell me they get the same question rephrased as "Which one is the man?" which just, I can't even.  I could write a whole post on this one question and everything that's wrong with it.

9 - How do I know if someone is gay?

Ask them.  It's the only way to know.  Everything else relies on outdated concepts and stereotypes and misdirection.  There's no way to know other than asking.  If you don't have the courage to ask them, ask someone close to them.  Liking certain artists etc is not an indicator.  Liking certain TV shows or characters is not an indicator.  I've watched hundreds of TV shows and liked hundreds of straight characters - I'm still gay.

10 - Can I ask you something else?

Sure, leave a comment below and I might make another one of these posts featuring it.

NHS Rant

When you start exploring Psychology, one of the things that becomes apparent quite quickly is the belief that there must be a reason for everything, and if that reason is not known, then the most likely, or the reason that seems to make the most sense, is accepted as the reason.  There's no tolerance for uncertainty and the unknown; you will rarely see a finite "It is not known why" instead there is always a clause "however studies have associated..." which in my view is a dangerous mentality.

Personally, I would rather hear the correct answer to a question or an outright statement that the correct answer is not known, than to have an answer presented that openly admits it's not correct.  I must add the condition here that this is something I feel in terms of academic study, not in terms of ideology and philosophy.  Explorative thought processes need to incorporate hypotheses and postulates to advance.   I take issue with assumptions made especially in a medical context where a definite response will be pursued based on that response.  When you are researching you pursue indefinite responses in order to find definite results.  In the context of treatment however I think it's dangerous to pursue definite action based on indefinite responses. 

To give an example, in terms of physical health, a person who has some symptoms of Cancer but has not been diagnosed Cancer, would not be treated for Cancer.  Chemotherapy would not be given to someone who might not actually have Cancer.  Yet when you leave physical health and venture into mental health there seems to be an attitude of "catch-all" conditions, where if you can't define the exact condition someone is suffering from you simply treat them for depression instead.  There is a disturbing willingness in Mental Health in the UK to assume that either stress, depression, or some physical condition is the cause of any mental problem that cannot be diagnosed precisely.

If you embrace causality, then you believe that every cause has an effect, or that every effect, has a cause, depending on which direction you are looking.  That has extended into many fields including healthcare where it has been somewhat modified to say that for every symptom there is a condition, or for every condition there are symptoms.  The interesting thing here is that when you read the former it is agreeable, that namely, for every symptom there is a condition, but, when you read the latter, something doesn't sit right and becomes immediately apparent to you - for every condition there are symptoms - your immediate thought, or mine at least, is "Well, some conditions don't have symptoms..." - this is where you begin to see the flaw in using this reasoning - healthcare just is not that simple.

Yet despite this, the notion that multiple symptoms must all correlate to a single condition, is something that seems too prevalent in the Healthcare Industry.  I should stress here I am speaking from experience of healthcare in the UK, but I would imagine this extends beyond the UK as I know a few other countries have a similar problem.  I don't like the laziness of healthcare professionals to jump to conclusions that the root of all your problems is a condition that you probably don't even have.  I don't like the fact GPs in the UK ask 3 things - do you smoke, drink, or do drugs - and if the answer to any is yes, they immediately try to link any symptoms you have to complications associated with those three.  I don't smoke, I don't do drugs, and I rarely drink, when you pass beyond those 3 questions most GPs end up in a state of confusion - that or they don't believe you and insist that you must and that those are the cause.  I dread to think what a visit to the doctor is like for people that do answer yes to any of those questions.  While these 3 tend to be the "go-to" reasons for GPs, the same mentality exists with Mental Health, there as I said above, stress, depression, or physical conditions are used as their 3 "go-to" reasons as well.

When did Healthcare become "googlised" - where the most popular result must be the one you need?  When did healthcare abandon the process of diagnosing people properly?  There have been several times I have visited a GP and had no offer of any further tests or diagnostics to try and find out what might be wrong.  GPs have effectively become a barrier to treatment rather than a gateway.  Mental Healthcare in this country is already woefully inadequate, general healthcare it seems is not far off the same fate.

I've had very positive experiences of the NHS in the past, some of which I have written about on this blog.  My overall opinion of it has been in steady decline for years now.  I know many people are going to immediately retort that the NHS needs more money.  It doesn't.  I've worked for the NHS.  The problems with the NHS are down to systemic failures, an idiotic Trust based structure that duplicates and triplicates work and propagates a postcode lottery, obfuscated policies and procedures that create goose-chase accountability where it's nigh on impossible to find out who is responsible for key services, and the widespread waste and mismanagement of resources.  I have seen millions spent on unnecessary purchases, computer systems that cost billions which the majority of staff hate and many don't even know how to use because they are so badly designed and are often counter-intuitive; all this whilst primary care suffers, acute facilities close, and other services are outsourced to community organisations and third party private companies.

Unemployment Figures in the UK

A few months ago, the BBC and other news outlets in the UK took an editorial decision to report the headline unemployment figure by itself and no longer report the claimant count in tandem.  That decision was I believe flawed, and ultimately represents a move away from reporting statistics and into the realm of propaganda.  I'll explain why I believe this below and let you decide for yourself who is being truthful.

Firstly it's important to know what these two statistics are and where they come from.  The first is the headline Unemployment Rate which is calculated by the Office for National Statistics using a mathematical model of the labour force survey.  The second is the Claimant Count which is a figure produced by the Department for Work and Pensions which states the number of people claiming benefits seeking work.  The former is an extrapolation from a survey of 40,000 households and has a confidence of +/- 79,000.  The latter is a statistic produced from the number of claims issued for benefits seeking work.  The former is an estimate, and the latter is a statement.

The difference here is crucial.  If you were told that your bank balance "rose" by £30 last month, with small print saying that figure may be as much as £79 wrong in either direction, the reality is that your bank account could have risen by £109 or fallen by £49.  If you had the choice between seeing your actual account statement each month and seeing the balance, or being told an estimate of how much your account went up or down, which would you choose to see?

This article from the BBC claimed that UK unemployment "fell" between May and July - that's based on the Office for National Statistics figure.  However if you look at the Claimant Count figure for the same period, unemployment rose by 15,100 people.  You might also notice that 7 out of the last 8 months reported a rise in claimants and the one month fall was a drop of 500 people - totalling 67,100 for the 8 month period.  Using August as a particular example the BBC reported a "55,000 fall in unemployment" - based on the Office for National Statistics figure, and even mentions the claimant count in passing but doesn't report the claimant count figure, which if you look at the link above for August was a rise of 9,900 people.  The difference between the headline estimate figure of 55,000 fall and the real figure of a 9,900 rise, is a 64,900 which is within the 79,000 confidence of the mathematical model.

So, there you have it.  On the one hand, a figure that is an estimate which can be wrong by 79,000 either way, which is now the primary method of reporting unemployment, and on the other hand you have the actual figure for unemployment claims produced by the government itself from the department itself responsible for unemployment, from the actual number of people claiming those benefits - which is no longer being reported by the media, because it conflicts with the estimate.

So who's lying to you?

I have written about this in a previous post when I mentioned the fine line these media outlets walk, knowing what they can report and how to report it in a way that they can be misleading without being held accountable for it.

I'll leave you with one thought to dwell on.  If you were told each month that your bank account rose by £30 when in reality it fell by £10, what would you do after a year when you look in your account and find out you have £120 less than when you started when you were expecting it to be £360 more? - A difference of £480.

You're not OK

I don't like it when people tell me what I am thinking or what I am feeling because the majority of times when people do it they're wrong.  In reality those people tell me what they think I am thinking or feeling rather than actually listening to me, or asking me.  I know how frustrating this can be to be on the receiving end of, because it is patronising when other people think they know you better than you know yourself.  That's the preface to this post.

On the flip side there are times when we delude ourselves.  When we convince ourselves we are okay when in reality we are really not.  Those who know us well can usually see right through this facade because we behave in a way that betrays what we say.  We say we're fine but we are quieter than usual or we say we're feeling great and we put on a smile for the world to see but they see us when we think no-one is looking and they can see we're not happy.

Right now I feel pretty level, not ecstatic but not despairing.  In this mindset I am quieter than usual and a lot more observant.  I look at other people closer than I normally would.  I've been in this position many times in my life and it has taught me a lot about other people and their behaviour.  You will never hear more than when you stop speaking.  What I have struggled with however is knowing how to approach someone when I can see they're not okay.  I don't know how to avoid being patronising.  I know people say just to ask how someone feels and talk to them but in my experience people are generally reluctant to speak about their feelings when they aren't positive.  "I'm fine" is a difficult response to handle when you know it's a lie.

Mental Health is an issue that has become more prominent in recent years in the UK but in many ways I feel it is still taboo.  The negative connotations outweigh the desire for a positive path forward for many; the dark clouds of negativity swirl and descend into a spiral that stops people from seeing the light, hiding blue skies with a vortex comprised of everything that's weighing them down.  Words like "depressed" aren't taken with weight and are dismissed by many as synonymous with words like "tired", "bored", and "sad", to name but a few.  A lack of understanding breeds ignorance of the true nature of depression, that it's more than these words, that it's not something you can talk yourself out of or go down the pub and have a few drinks with mates and you'll be fine.

When these issues go undiagnosed the impact they have on our lives are deepened with time.  Like most conditions they become harder to treat if left unchecked.  To that end a new paradigm is needed when it comes to mental health.  Not just in terms of how we diagnose conditions, or treat them, but in the way we see them in society as a whole.  We need to break away from the mentality that doesn't treat this as a serious issue.  We need to break away from the mentality that we can't say "I'm not okay" without feeling shame or feeling weak.  Above all this we need to break away from the mentality of hostility we hold when people say we're not okay.  If I can do anything to change the way people look at mental health then at the very least I can do that.  To recognise that if someone says it to me, it's not because they are trying to be patronising but because they care enough to say it and because they see something in me that makes them feel concern.  That's not something I or anyone else should be discouraging.

So if you are okay, and someone thinks you're not, then let them know, but thank them for their concern.  If you think someone is not okay, then talk to them, share your concern, and if they react negatively as I have done in the past, do not let it discourage you from showing that same concern for others.  Don't ignore your instincts, trust them, and if you care about someone, no matter who they are, no matter how close you are then show them.

"Keep Calm" - Fuck Off

2016 has not been a productive year for me.  It didn't start well, for health reasons I wasn't able to get much done for a few months, after which yet more health concerns racked my mind, this time that of a very close friend.  The year itself beyond these preoccupations was littered with events around the world that drew focus and attention on a level that has never been so hard to dismiss.  "Keep Calm and Carry On" as they say has at times proven to be the most difficult thing to do.

I do find myself asking why we have to keep calm though.  When you stop and think about it, panic, and fear, are perfectly normal reactions to worrying situations.  These responses are shared not only by humans but by a magnitude of animals we share this planet with.  Really when it comes down to it "Keep Calm and Carry On" really means "Repress It Don't Address It" which is a typically British response to problems.  Is it healthy though?  I know people will argue that panicking achieves nothing, but is that actually true?   Or is it simply seen as such because panic is typically seen as a negative emotion.  I would argue, if you look at crying, a behaviour which was also typically seen as being negative and of no benefit to an individual, and consider the fact that it has been shown that crying can actually be beneficial and therapeutic then consider the fact you wouldn't dream of telling someone at a funeral to stop crying, because something horrible happened where crying is a perfectly reasonable response, so why is the same mentality not extended to moments when moments of equal magnitude happen worthy of panic?

One could argue that most of the negativity associated with panic is to do with control and the idea that someone in a panic is hard to control; if we define the scope of behaviours we are allowed to exhibit as being within the limited scope of behaviours which we can consciously control then we would exhibit very little emotion if any at all. 

I would argue in moments of distress panic is an acceptable response because in the very least it shows you comprehend the severity of the situation.  Only once you accept the severity of a situation can you actually approach it with the weight that is needed.  To "keep calm" is to repress this, and to approach all situations with the same brevity.  I do not believe you should approach a mass shooting with the same mentality you would approach dropping a bottle of wine in a supermarket.  The extremity of your response should be proportionate to the severity of the situation you find yourself in.

So if you want to panic, then do so.  It's perfectly acceptable to show emotion.  Don't "Keep Calm and Carry On" because that's bullshit, it's repression.  It's a message that originated in Britain during the Second World War to motivate people.  Let's be clear here, this was propaganda at the time and it still is, it's repression of emotion.  Do you honestly believe people sitting in shelters beneath the streets of London during the Blitz weren't shitting themselves, weren't worrying about their futures, weren't worrying if they'd surface to find their homes in rubble, and weren't sitting thinking they might go to sleep that night and never wake up again?  Fuck off and don't be so condescending.  Emotion is not a crime.  Repressing it is not healthy.

Normalization of TV Characters

SPOILER ALERT:  This post contains plot points about The Big Bang Theory seasons 1 through 10.

There's a TV show called 'The Big Bang Theory' which I used to love, primarily focused on the story of two guys who could only be described as socially awkward.  One was named Sheldon and the other was named Leonard.  From the start they were portrayed as social outcasts because of their high intelligence - Sheldon more so than Leonard as he himself would profess.  Leonard was straight, that much was made obvious from the start as a love interest was introduced for him, whereas Sheldon was somewhat ambiguous at first, portrayed more so as asexual, someone with no experience of or interest in sexual attraction.  The premise of the show centred around the difficulties their professions caused them in terms of their social lives.  Sheldon was a Theoretical Physicist and Leonard was an Experimental Physicist.  Their circle of friends was very small and consisted of Howard and Raj, an Aerospace Engineer and an Astrophysicist respectively who were also social outcasts.

The show is now in its 10th season and during that time the characters have grown quite a bit.  One thing I have a problem with however is the idealisation of the characters' lives.  Each of the original four characters, and the periphery characters associated with them, have been "normalised" through the course of the 10 seasons.  Howard who was arguably the most repugnant of the four when it came to love interests, borderline perverted at times, was married off and is now expecting a child.  Raj who was physically incapable of speaking to women because of his social anxiety was also turned into a character that not only has no problem speaking to women anymore, they often want him to shut up now.  Raj is perhaps the most offensive transformation in the show to me as it completely undermines the struggle people have with social anxiety, his character experienced heartache that miraculously cured his anxiety and made him no only able to speak to women but actively lead conversations and speak with a confidence that betrays the notion he ever struggled in the first place.

Leonard was also married off to his love interest - Penny, someone who the show actually points out explicitly in one episode set at a convention how incredulous the storyline between them became.  As for Sheldon, the character who struggled the most with social interaction, unable to comprehend many human emotions and someone who arguably is depicted with many symptoms of Asperger's Syndrome throughout the early seasons - although the show's creators have explicitly stated he is not on the Autism Spectrum.  Nevertheless the depiction of the apparent ease the character has in overcoming his difficulties is rather unrealistic.

I do realise that the show is meant to be a sitcom, and I do realise many people will argue it's not meant to be realistic, but I would argue the word "sitcom" is a portmanteau of "situational comedy" and the show through its 10 seasons thus far has now basically abandoned the entire situation the comedy was derived from.  Through the course of 10 seasons the characters have been normalised to the point where they are now four "normal" people as defined by the mainstream media's narrow definition of what it is to be normal.  The show has reached a point where, for the most part, it's not funny anymore.  The show was never meant to be about laughing at the characters, but laughing at the situation they found themselves in and depicting that.  What it has become is a homogenised television series that at times becomes indistinguishable from the gargantuan mountain of crap the these networks purvey.

Batch Processing versus Real Time Processing Mentalities

In computing there are a number of different approaches to processing information.  Two rather antiquated concepts that for a time formed the fundamental approaches were Batch Processing and Real Time Processing.  I've been thinking about thought processes and how we as people often mirror the machines we create and act in the same way.  Specifically when it comes to workload and our approaches to repetitive tasks these two processing approaches can be found in human behaviour.

In computing, real time processing is the approach whereby you process data as and when it becomes available, whilst batch processing is the approach whereby you save data up until you reach a specified level before you process it all at once.  These processing approaches can be seen in human behaviour in things as simple as our washing.  People who hold a real time processing mentality will wash their clothes as they go along, doing smaller loads more often.  Whereas, those who hold a batch processing mentality will let their washing pile up until they reach a critical mass, either defined by the capacity of the washing machine, or until you run out of clean underwear for example.

Beyond daily tasks however, the distinction between the two mentalities interests me because I don't think it's accurate to say people conform to one or the other exclusively.  I've seen people who do certain tasks daily without complaint yet they let others pile up.  Personal and Professional lives provide a wealth of behaviours to examine.  Take shredding as another example.  I've seen many people, myself included, amass a mountain of paperwork to shred until they have the time to sit down and do it all at once.  The truth is if you actually did it as you went along you wouldn't need to alot a time to do it. 

Beyond computing, this concept extends into other industries, with equivalent approaches existing such as marginal accounting for example, where the cost of a purchase isn't just the principle cost but the associated expenditures factored in to the figure - "light bulbs" costing £50 on a balance sheet doesn't actually mean they spent £50 on a light bulb it means the cost of the bulb plus the resources used to purchase, fit, and dispose of the old bulbs - "parts and labour" in essence; this is equivalent to real time processing as it factors in complete cost of activity as you go.  The obverse of this is financial accounting, this is transaction based and states the actual cost of the light bulb which is settled later by accounts payable, the additional costs of labour etc appear separately as transactions in and of themselves.  This is equivalent to batch processing as whole amounts are exchanged at once to resolve outstanding balances.

The question this raises is which should you actually pursue personally and professionally?  Which is more efficient?  Is it better for example to write one article every day, or is it better to write a month's worth of articles in the first week of the preceding month?  Do you work better doing 5 different things each day, or would you work better devoting a day to each thing?  What do you do in a gym?  Do you have a full body workout you do each time you visit or do you have days where you target a specific area? 

At its base: "Bit by bit"  vs "All at once"

How can you define a game?

How can you define a game?  There are many things in life we do that must adhere to set rules but we wouldn't class all of these as games.  In our professional lives we have to follow rules, policies and procedures in everything we do, yet we wouldn't consider these games.  Likewise when it comes to fun and enjoyment, it's hard to use these as determining factors for games because there are many games we must play in life that aren't enjoyable.

There is the idea of players being the defining aspect of games, where a game is defined by the number of people that play it - single player, multiplayer, etc, but even then, if you choose not to play the game, you can still be part of it.  Others can play games with you even if you don't want to, likewise you can be placed in a single player game and refuse to play, the fact you refuse to play does not nullify the game, you simply lose the game because you never tried.

The next question, assuming you managed to define what a game is, would be, when does a game stop being a game?  If you explore game theory, one theme that recurs when trying to define a game is the existence of a winning strategy.  That is to say something you can do in order to win the game, a strategy which if adhered to religiously can allow you to play a perfect game.  What I find fascinating about this is the question that arises when you accept this as the defining aspect of gaming - what happens when you memorise the winning strategy?  Is it still a game if you always win, never lose, and never fault?  Take the Rubik's Cube for example, for most people the game of the cube is trying to solve it, but when you learn the algorithms which can be used to solve the cube, the random and strategic elements are removed and it simply becomes a memory test.  If you can lift the cube every time and solve it every time remembering the algorithm, is it still a game?

By extension of this concept you can also ask, if there exists no winning strategy and the game is endless, which you can therefore never win, is it still a game?  Taking Tetris as an example, the game is one that advances in difficulty as the player progresses, in some cases depending on the version the game can be endless, where you simply continue until you fail.  Is this still a game if you can never actually win?

So we are brought back to our original question, how can you define a game?  When does it start and end being a game?