I use three sites based here in the UK to check my credit rating. Experian which only gives you a score for free, you have to pay for full access, which I'm not going to do. CreditWise by Capital One which is powered by Equifax which gives you more information and is also free, and I use Credit Karma [formerly Noddle] most of all which is powered by TransUnion [formerly CallCredit]. There are premium offerings by each, but I only use the free levels in each product because that's all I need.
Credit Karma gives the most information for free, and it was the site I used first [as Noddle] before any of the others. Since I started paying attention to my credit score however I have realised how infuriating it actually is. You would think it would remain somewhat fixed or would improve over time as long as your circumstances didn't change much, but that's not the case, it fluctuates and often with no rhyme nor reason as to why.
Fluctuations aside however, the thing I find most perplexing and causes me the most consternation is the fact that all three return completely different scores, and some things appear on one but not the other. My credit score is 200 points lower on Equifax than it is on CallCredit and the CallCredit score is about 50 points lower than the Experian score. This makes the whole management of credit even more confusing.
"Why should you care?" most people ask, well if you get credit and accept that as the best deal you will ever get then you will waste hundreds, if not thousands of pounds in interest over time. Credit issuers have 0% offers you can take advantage of in order to reduce or even avoid interest entirely. Knowing what impacts your credit score can increase your chances of approval and allow you to save yourself money in the long run.
I was never this conscious of my credit score until a few years ago when I spent a year working for a credit card company in their call centre and realised how these systems actually work. I really had my eyes opened to how much they exploit people for profit, which made me adamant that I would minimize the profit they made from me wherever I could and maximize the amount of credit I could access at the lowest cost in the process.
There are two pieces of advice I would give anyone out there who wants to improve their finances. First, know your score and know what is impacting it. Second, whenever anything goes wrong, complain, even if you are in the wrong, complain anyway. Most credit card companies will refund fees and charges if you ask them to, you have to ask though, they won't offer to do it. To the point on complaining, they are charged a fine by the financial ombudsman for any complaint they cannot resolve within 8 weeks regardless of who is at fault. Most credit card companies will appease you before the 8 week period is up to avoid the fine - unless the amount being discussed is more than the fine - so as a general rule if the amount you want to complain about is less than a few hundred pounds then complain.
As for the staff that work in their call centres, be patient with them. In almost all situations they don't actually work for the bank you're calling, but a third party company that owns the call centre. There's a limit to what they can do, using computer systems that don't show them everything, and often only let them see but not edit details. Just remember at the end of the day it's a person on the other side of the line, who is just doing their job. Most people will be understanding if you just explain yourself. Banks have so many bad practices and the staff of these call centres are under as much pressure as you are as a customer. In an ideal world there would be no need for credit but life is expensive and it's not always possible to wait to buy the things we need to survive. Credit is often seen as an indulgence or a frivolity, but for many people it is the only way they can survive on the finances they have. Most people who work in these call centres understand that, they have to work after all, they aren't wealthy enough not to have the luxury to choose not to. There's a human on the other side - for now at least - appeal to the humanity.
Up is Down, Black is White
If you play 5 notes on a piano each an octave higher than the last, a person who hears this scale would perceive it to be happy. If you play 5 notes on a piano each an octave lower than the last, a person who hears this scale would perceive it to be sad. The progression creates an emotive connection. From this you could posit that in life things that go up are happy and things that go down are sad, except life is like a roller coaster, where quite literally the fall can be the enjoyment. The best part of a roller coaster is the plunge and the speed that creates a rush and releases adrenaline, there is no rush when climbing slowly.
You could posit then that direction alone doesn't determine happiness but rather speed which creates exhilaration determines whether we have a positive or negative experience. Again however, this doesn't hold true in practice, the faster you eat, the less enjoyment you get from the food you eat, the slower you eat the more you get to relax and enjoy the experience.
You soon come to the conclusion that direction, and speed, and all manner of measurements as a means to achieving happiness are not conclusive. Sooner or later you have to conclude that happiness is relative, defined by where you are, where you were, and where you want to be - or whether you are moving towards the place you want to be. "Up" in the physical sense only becomes an up side in the metaphorical sense if it is the direction you want to go, otherwise up can be down. That argument is one that is paradoxical because of the limitation of language in expressing complex ideas that are easier to think about than they are to explain.
With such relativism playing such a pivotal role in our lives you soon begin to question why we deal in absolutes at all. We define rich and poor in absolute terms, we define happy and sad too in absolutes. The reality is happy and sad, rich and poor don't exist, what really exists are the relative comparisons of happier, sadder, richer, poorer, all in respect of the state we were in, or the state we want to be in. This extends far beyond our emotions and our social standing but into the very perceptions of the world we have. Hot and cold, black and white, sharp and soft, none of these absolutes actually exist when you begin to break down the language construct. Something is blacker than something else, or whiter than something else, "black" and "white" in and of themselves don't exist - if you've ever tried to buy a "black" jumper and a "black" pair of trousers and compared them side by side the variation in colour tone is apparent, there is no definitive example that all others need to conform to in order to truly qualify as absolute. Everything is relative.
There is an attempt at least as far as the colour black is concerned to actually find an absolute in practice. The Vantablack project developed by Surrey NanoSystems is a research project that has created a material that is blacker than black, designed to absorb as much light as physically possible. The extremity of this material can be demonstrated when you see 3D objects coated in it which completely lose their form and definition. So little light escapes its surface that our brains don't know how to deal with what we see. The brain interprets what it sees as a "hole" in our vision and is perplexed at it. You can watch videos of this material in action, although there is a limit to how black something can be on your computer screen due to the way the hardware works, nevertheless the complete lack of light is somewhat unsettling and entrancing all at the same time.
You could posit then that direction alone doesn't determine happiness but rather speed which creates exhilaration determines whether we have a positive or negative experience. Again however, this doesn't hold true in practice, the faster you eat, the less enjoyment you get from the food you eat, the slower you eat the more you get to relax and enjoy the experience.
You soon come to the conclusion that direction, and speed, and all manner of measurements as a means to achieving happiness are not conclusive. Sooner or later you have to conclude that happiness is relative, defined by where you are, where you were, and where you want to be - or whether you are moving towards the place you want to be. "Up" in the physical sense only becomes an up side in the metaphorical sense if it is the direction you want to go, otherwise up can be down. That argument is one that is paradoxical because of the limitation of language in expressing complex ideas that are easier to think about than they are to explain.
With such relativism playing such a pivotal role in our lives you soon begin to question why we deal in absolutes at all. We define rich and poor in absolute terms, we define happy and sad too in absolutes. The reality is happy and sad, rich and poor don't exist, what really exists are the relative comparisons of happier, sadder, richer, poorer, all in respect of the state we were in, or the state we want to be in. This extends far beyond our emotions and our social standing but into the very perceptions of the world we have. Hot and cold, black and white, sharp and soft, none of these absolutes actually exist when you begin to break down the language construct. Something is blacker than something else, or whiter than something else, "black" and "white" in and of themselves don't exist - if you've ever tried to buy a "black" jumper and a "black" pair of trousers and compared them side by side the variation in colour tone is apparent, there is no definitive example that all others need to conform to in order to truly qualify as absolute. Everything is relative.
There is an attempt at least as far as the colour black is concerned to actually find an absolute in practice. The Vantablack project developed by Surrey NanoSystems is a research project that has created a material that is blacker than black, designed to absorb as much light as physically possible. The extremity of this material can be demonstrated when you see 3D objects coated in it which completely lose their form and definition. So little light escapes its surface that our brains don't know how to deal with what we see. The brain interprets what it sees as a "hole" in our vision and is perplexed at it. You can watch videos of this material in action, although there is a limit to how black something can be on your computer screen due to the way the hardware works, nevertheless the complete lack of light is somewhat unsettling and entrancing all at the same time.
Naivety vs Honesty
What's the difference between naivety and honesty? When it comes to honesty, the definition we use most often is to measure the level of truthfulness of someone's responses, or conversely, to measure the level of deception we perceive to have been employed. If you ask a question and someone replies with truth then they are considered honest, and conversely if you ask someone a question and we perceive deception in their response then they are deemed to be dishonest - it's important to note here that the latter deals with perception, not reality, as you need to know the actual answer in order to measure their honesty, whether we deem someone dishonest often has no bearing on the underlying truthfulness of that person, there need only exist doubt. Of course you can immediately see that there is a problem here, that honesty encompasses more than just responses, it also applies to actions and behaviours, it's not just about right and wrong.
As for naivety, this we often define as the act of taking something complex and reducing it to something simple. Some would argue that naivety necessitates childishness but I would argue this isn't the case, I would instead argue that naivety is the acceptance of a simple answer as being complete. If we take political issues that are complex and ask simple questions then we are sometimes perceived as being naive, there is a tendency here to label someone who asks those simple questions as naive as judgement for thinking you could give them a simple answer to a question you regard as broaching a complex issue. I would go further and argue in these situations it's actually the person asking the question that is exhibiting honesty and you are the one displaying naivety in truth for not giving a simple answer as there is no requirement that your answer actually encompass every facet of the issue the question touches upon, it is your own perception that leads you to believe there is a requirement to do so.
I believe the reason naivety is used as the label applied in these situations is not because of what the person asked but quite simply because we can't answer the question and we don't want to admit that. The truth is if someone asks a simple question then you should be able to give a simple answer, without complicating the question or the answer it should serve only as a starting point for further discussion. If you are incapable or uncomfortable giving a simple answer then you might want to take a step back and look at the question and the answer and ask yourself why it makes you uncomfortable. When we think of children trying to learn about complex issues and subjects, we understand that their thought process usually follows a train of questions, i.e. they'll ask something simple and then continually ask questions until their understanding deepens or until their curiosity is satisfied - or perhaps most irritatingly for many adults, they will ask 'why' repeatedly until they reach the point where you can't actually provide them with an answer.
So, taking a step back for a moment, ask yourself, is a child naive for asking a question? The answer to that question should obviously be 'no', with the understanding that any attempt to further their own knowledge and understanding should be encouraged, and that a child's curiosity should never be seen as naive, yet the reality is whether we view it as naive seems to depend entirely on their age and our perception of whether or not we believe they should have figured out the answer by now for themselves, or that they should have learned by now not to ask that question - therein lies my greatest gripe with the concept of naivety, that ultimately it's not about what you ask or how you ask it, at it's core naivety is about authority and whether you are allowed to question it, if you're not allowed to question it then you're labelled as naive when you do.
One of the easiest examples of this that I can give here is that of quantitative easing. If you don't know what that is, it's a policy response used by central banks in extenuating economic circumstances which basically involves deliberately devaluing a currency to make it more appealing to outside investors or to boost exports. The theory goes, if you reduce it to something incredibly simple, that in extreme economic circumstances a central bank will print more money to stimulate the economy, reducing the value of the currency. If that doesn't make sense then imagine that I have 10 tonnes of gold in a vault and print 10 tickets each entitles you to 1/10th of the gold, when quantitative easing is used I can print another 90 tickets so that 100 tickets exist in total, each one ends up being worth 1/100th of the gold. This in theory is what happens when quantitative easing is used, or at least it would be if the value of the currency was linked to something tangible like gold - something that is actually quite rare, this is known as the gold standard and it has a lot of problems, namely that you can't supply enough gold to match the growth of the economy so it's not practical, instead the value of most currencies is determined by foreign exchange markets that float the currency in a similar way to shares of a company.
Returning to the concept of naivety, when a child asks the question "If they run out of money why don't they just print more?" - most people will immediately recognise the issue isn't that simple, but understanding that the child has a limited understanding of finance and economics, they would likely attempt to explain why you can't just do that. The trouble is, in this situation when asked this question, an honest answer is simple - "Sometimes they do" - that's an appropriate response to give to a child as it reduces the complexity of the concept to something simple in response, it's not all encompassing and doesn't deal with all the facets of quantitative easing but the point is it doesn't have to, it need only answer the question that was asked. How we answer that question however changes with the age of the person who asked it in the first place, the older they become the more we begin to perceive them as naive for asking that question when in reality the child who asked it in our first scenario did so because of genuine curiosity, they had an honest question and we attempted to answer it without judgement, but we don't extend that grace to adults.
We conflate naivety with honesty, when we're asked simple questions about complex issues that we can't give simple answers to, then we perceive the one who asks as being naive. We do this because we don't know the answer, not because the person asking exhibited any behaviour that truly merits being labelled naive.
Ask a simple question, get a simple answer. This alone isn't a difficult concept to grasp, but it is something we afford to children and people we perceive as still learning about the world. Maybe if we weren't so quick to label people as naive when they had honest questions then we might actually evolve into a society that still values learning beyond the halls of academia. Venture into any forum or website that specialises in any given field and start asking questions and you will very quickly be met with indignation. Those who already know, or who have gained an understanding of a topic that is complex will deride those who ask simple questions - because they have forgotten how to approach things without complication and give simple responses. I think one of the reasons why this is the case is because there is an intellectual elitism that emerges, where individuals treat their knowledge the way many people treat money, the more of it they acquire, the more they hold disdain for those without it and attempt to separate themselves and prevent those with aspirations who they deem unworthy.
I believe society as a whole has reached this point, particularly in regards to information. As the Internet has become more ubiquitous in our lives, the access to information we have has also grown. To that end, many more people now have access to information that they may not understand, the trouble is when they ask questions, rather than taking the time to explain and educate those who ask, society as a whole seems to respond first and foremost with the belief that they should go and figure it out for themselves - the real problem here is that there are no elements of verification or validation with self-teaching, if a false conclusion is made without someone with greater understanding present who is able to correct that mistake, the individual will continue to build upon that broken foundation until they have built up a fundamentally flawed understanding of complex issues. The greater the weight of understanding that rests on that broken foundation, the harder it becomes to remove it or fix it after the fact. The result is that we end up with a society where people hold their beliefs so deeply that it becomes impossible to challenge them as doing so would cause the whole thing to fall apart, so much to the point where the builder recognises this and will not only prevent you from ever getting near the foundation but will become actively aggressive in the process.
What is the solution? There are only 2 in so far as I can see, the first is to limit the access of information so that it is only accessible in environments where it will be given the context necessary to process it, or the second is to require individuals to demonstrate an understanding of the information that they request, in order to ensure that the information is only accessed by those who have the understanding necessary to process it. The trouble with both of these solutions is that neither one would prevent those who access it from then disseminating false information afterwards safe in the knowledge that the vast majority of people they pass the information on to will not be able to verify it for themselves - although it is worth noting here that transparency and verification in and of itself does not ensure security or accuracy, if you take open source software for example, disclosing the source code will only provide both of these things if those who wish to use it take the time to read it, are able to understand it, or have a wide enough community of people who are informed who can do this for them. Transparency in and of itself is not a panacea.
As for naivety, this we often define as the act of taking something complex and reducing it to something simple. Some would argue that naivety necessitates childishness but I would argue this isn't the case, I would instead argue that naivety is the acceptance of a simple answer as being complete. If we take political issues that are complex and ask simple questions then we are sometimes perceived as being naive, there is a tendency here to label someone who asks those simple questions as naive as judgement for thinking you could give them a simple answer to a question you regard as broaching a complex issue. I would go further and argue in these situations it's actually the person asking the question that is exhibiting honesty and you are the one displaying naivety in truth for not giving a simple answer as there is no requirement that your answer actually encompass every facet of the issue the question touches upon, it is your own perception that leads you to believe there is a requirement to do so.
I believe the reason naivety is used as the label applied in these situations is not because of what the person asked but quite simply because we can't answer the question and we don't want to admit that. The truth is if someone asks a simple question then you should be able to give a simple answer, without complicating the question or the answer it should serve only as a starting point for further discussion. If you are incapable or uncomfortable giving a simple answer then you might want to take a step back and look at the question and the answer and ask yourself why it makes you uncomfortable. When we think of children trying to learn about complex issues and subjects, we understand that their thought process usually follows a train of questions, i.e. they'll ask something simple and then continually ask questions until their understanding deepens or until their curiosity is satisfied - or perhaps most irritatingly for many adults, they will ask 'why' repeatedly until they reach the point where you can't actually provide them with an answer.
So, taking a step back for a moment, ask yourself, is a child naive for asking a question? The answer to that question should obviously be 'no', with the understanding that any attempt to further their own knowledge and understanding should be encouraged, and that a child's curiosity should never be seen as naive, yet the reality is whether we view it as naive seems to depend entirely on their age and our perception of whether or not we believe they should have figured out the answer by now for themselves, or that they should have learned by now not to ask that question - therein lies my greatest gripe with the concept of naivety, that ultimately it's not about what you ask or how you ask it, at it's core naivety is about authority and whether you are allowed to question it, if you're not allowed to question it then you're labelled as naive when you do.
One of the easiest examples of this that I can give here is that of quantitative easing. If you don't know what that is, it's a policy response used by central banks in extenuating economic circumstances which basically involves deliberately devaluing a currency to make it more appealing to outside investors or to boost exports. The theory goes, if you reduce it to something incredibly simple, that in extreme economic circumstances a central bank will print more money to stimulate the economy, reducing the value of the currency. If that doesn't make sense then imagine that I have 10 tonnes of gold in a vault and print 10 tickets each entitles you to 1/10th of the gold, when quantitative easing is used I can print another 90 tickets so that 100 tickets exist in total, each one ends up being worth 1/100th of the gold. This in theory is what happens when quantitative easing is used, or at least it would be if the value of the currency was linked to something tangible like gold - something that is actually quite rare, this is known as the gold standard and it has a lot of problems, namely that you can't supply enough gold to match the growth of the economy so it's not practical, instead the value of most currencies is determined by foreign exchange markets that float the currency in a similar way to shares of a company.
Returning to the concept of naivety, when a child asks the question "If they run out of money why don't they just print more?" - most people will immediately recognise the issue isn't that simple, but understanding that the child has a limited understanding of finance and economics, they would likely attempt to explain why you can't just do that. The trouble is, in this situation when asked this question, an honest answer is simple - "Sometimes they do" - that's an appropriate response to give to a child as it reduces the complexity of the concept to something simple in response, it's not all encompassing and doesn't deal with all the facets of quantitative easing but the point is it doesn't have to, it need only answer the question that was asked. How we answer that question however changes with the age of the person who asked it in the first place, the older they become the more we begin to perceive them as naive for asking that question when in reality the child who asked it in our first scenario did so because of genuine curiosity, they had an honest question and we attempted to answer it without judgement, but we don't extend that grace to adults.
We conflate naivety with honesty, when we're asked simple questions about complex issues that we can't give simple answers to, then we perceive the one who asks as being naive. We do this because we don't know the answer, not because the person asking exhibited any behaviour that truly merits being labelled naive.
Ask a simple question, get a simple answer. This alone isn't a difficult concept to grasp, but it is something we afford to children and people we perceive as still learning about the world. Maybe if we weren't so quick to label people as naive when they had honest questions then we might actually evolve into a society that still values learning beyond the halls of academia. Venture into any forum or website that specialises in any given field and start asking questions and you will very quickly be met with indignation. Those who already know, or who have gained an understanding of a topic that is complex will deride those who ask simple questions - because they have forgotten how to approach things without complication and give simple responses. I think one of the reasons why this is the case is because there is an intellectual elitism that emerges, where individuals treat their knowledge the way many people treat money, the more of it they acquire, the more they hold disdain for those without it and attempt to separate themselves and prevent those with aspirations who they deem unworthy.
I believe society as a whole has reached this point, particularly in regards to information. As the Internet has become more ubiquitous in our lives, the access to information we have has also grown. To that end, many more people now have access to information that they may not understand, the trouble is when they ask questions, rather than taking the time to explain and educate those who ask, society as a whole seems to respond first and foremost with the belief that they should go and figure it out for themselves - the real problem here is that there are no elements of verification or validation with self-teaching, if a false conclusion is made without someone with greater understanding present who is able to correct that mistake, the individual will continue to build upon that broken foundation until they have built up a fundamentally flawed understanding of complex issues. The greater the weight of understanding that rests on that broken foundation, the harder it becomes to remove it or fix it after the fact. The result is that we end up with a society where people hold their beliefs so deeply that it becomes impossible to challenge them as doing so would cause the whole thing to fall apart, so much to the point where the builder recognises this and will not only prevent you from ever getting near the foundation but will become actively aggressive in the process.
What is the solution? There are only 2 in so far as I can see, the first is to limit the access of information so that it is only accessible in environments where it will be given the context necessary to process it, or the second is to require individuals to demonstrate an understanding of the information that they request, in order to ensure that the information is only accessed by those who have the understanding necessary to process it. The trouble with both of these solutions is that neither one would prevent those who access it from then disseminating false information afterwards safe in the knowledge that the vast majority of people they pass the information on to will not be able to verify it for themselves - although it is worth noting here that transparency and verification in and of itself does not ensure security or accuracy, if you take open source software for example, disclosing the source code will only provide both of these things if those who wish to use it take the time to read it, are able to understand it, or have a wide enough community of people who are informed who can do this for them. Transparency in and of itself is not a panacea.
Theory and Practice
"At least, that's how it works in theory, in practice however, things can be very different"
A theory is a structured belief. Sometimes that belief is empowered by blind faith, where it is held as true with no evidence to back it up, with the intent being to discern evidence through experience. Sometimes that belief is backed up by evidence in which case it becomes open faith, where the faith is not placed in the theory or the evidence themselves but in the body that supplied the evidence. You can minimize the amount of faith required by going as deep as you can and verifying evidence along the way, but unless you can follow that pursuit to its very end, it is unlikely that you will be able to check the work of everyone who came before you upon whom you have built.
A theory is a structured belief that represents an expected outcome or represents a logical or reasonable argument that has been made - whether that is flawed or not is irrelevant, the validity of a theory does not determine whether it is a theory, even theories which can be proven to be false are still theories even when disproved.
Theories often explain things in the context of ideal situations, or ideal scenarios. The reason they often fail in practice even when regarded as accurate and valid, is because a theory by its very nature is static and constant, whilst practice is dynamic and changing in the moment.
A theory once posited is fixed and does not change. Whenever you attempt to change all or part of it, you create a new theory in the process. You can force the new theory to replace the old one, and your changes can be as major or minor as you wish, but with each change and variation a new theory is being created and the old one supplanted - even when you refer to it by the same name and use it in the same context.
The implementation of a theory depends on which version is taken and tested. As we have said when put into practice it is often the case that a theory fails, even when it is regarded as accurate or correct. Practice by its very nature is dynamic, and creates new situations and new scenarios with each iteration. The most proficient algorithms designed to tackle things such as playing a game of Chess, do not attempt to create a rule for every possible scenario, instead they deal with probabilities, and work with three guiding factors. These are beliefs, desires, and intentions. These three factors define in the first instance the rules of the game, in the second instance the objective of the game, and in the third instance how the algorithm will attempt to achieve the first two.
When it comes to developing a theory we must make a commitment. If however we want to create a theory that can change over time, we need to develop a strategy instead. A strategy can be considered a dynamic theory. Strategies have a theoretical foundation but they factor in experience as they evolve. A strategy uses theory only for direction and guidance, it does not conform so strictly to it, and is able to rewrite that theory when new evidence comes along to contradict it. When this process is done in real-time on the spot it can be referred to as real time strategy.
Returning to the idea of a Chess game, as a game which has been around for centuries, some 1400 years, there are a plethora of sites and sources of information that attempt to explain the game and the theory that underpins it. One thing I see most frequently is the expression by learners that theories they are presented with "don't work in practice" and that they follow those theories to a T and they still lose. The reason for this is because Chess is a strategy game, and as such requires a strategy - something which is dynamic - not simply a theory - something which is static. If you want to get better at playing the game you need to develop your understanding of the game and your understanding of your opponent. Whether you play against a person, or a computer, the same principles or beliefs, desires, and intentions come into play. You need to be aware of their beliefs - the rules of the game, desires - what they want to achieve, and intentions - how they intend to achieve it. If you want to master Chess you need to pay as much attention to your opponent's game as you do your own.
This divergence between theory and practice is not something that is unique to gaming, both digital and physical. It is relevant to almost every part of our lives. Everyone is driven by these three things, in life in general not just when playing games. People have beliefs, desires, and intentions, and if you want to be able to predict what people will do then you need to be able to discern what those three things are for the people you want to observe. You need to think about things in much greater depth than you have before, or like someone who simply plays for fun and does not read of theories or strategies then you should just go with the flow and hope for the best.
A theory is a structured belief. Sometimes that belief is empowered by blind faith, where it is held as true with no evidence to back it up, with the intent being to discern evidence through experience. Sometimes that belief is backed up by evidence in which case it becomes open faith, where the faith is not placed in the theory or the evidence themselves but in the body that supplied the evidence. You can minimize the amount of faith required by going as deep as you can and verifying evidence along the way, but unless you can follow that pursuit to its very end, it is unlikely that you will be able to check the work of everyone who came before you upon whom you have built.
A theory is a structured belief that represents an expected outcome or represents a logical or reasonable argument that has been made - whether that is flawed or not is irrelevant, the validity of a theory does not determine whether it is a theory, even theories which can be proven to be false are still theories even when disproved.
Theories often explain things in the context of ideal situations, or ideal scenarios. The reason they often fail in practice even when regarded as accurate and valid, is because a theory by its very nature is static and constant, whilst practice is dynamic and changing in the moment.
A theory once posited is fixed and does not change. Whenever you attempt to change all or part of it, you create a new theory in the process. You can force the new theory to replace the old one, and your changes can be as major or minor as you wish, but with each change and variation a new theory is being created and the old one supplanted - even when you refer to it by the same name and use it in the same context.
The implementation of a theory depends on which version is taken and tested. As we have said when put into practice it is often the case that a theory fails, even when it is regarded as accurate or correct. Practice by its very nature is dynamic, and creates new situations and new scenarios with each iteration. The most proficient algorithms designed to tackle things such as playing a game of Chess, do not attempt to create a rule for every possible scenario, instead they deal with probabilities, and work with three guiding factors. These are beliefs, desires, and intentions. These three factors define in the first instance the rules of the game, in the second instance the objective of the game, and in the third instance how the algorithm will attempt to achieve the first two.
When it comes to developing a theory we must make a commitment. If however we want to create a theory that can change over time, we need to develop a strategy instead. A strategy can be considered a dynamic theory. Strategies have a theoretical foundation but they factor in experience as they evolve. A strategy uses theory only for direction and guidance, it does not conform so strictly to it, and is able to rewrite that theory when new evidence comes along to contradict it. When this process is done in real-time on the spot it can be referred to as real time strategy.
Returning to the idea of a Chess game, as a game which has been around for centuries, some 1400 years, there are a plethora of sites and sources of information that attempt to explain the game and the theory that underpins it. One thing I see most frequently is the expression by learners that theories they are presented with "don't work in practice" and that they follow those theories to a T and they still lose. The reason for this is because Chess is a strategy game, and as such requires a strategy - something which is dynamic - not simply a theory - something which is static. If you want to get better at playing the game you need to develop your understanding of the game and your understanding of your opponent. Whether you play against a person, or a computer, the same principles or beliefs, desires, and intentions come into play. You need to be aware of their beliefs - the rules of the game, desires - what they want to achieve, and intentions - how they intend to achieve it. If you want to master Chess you need to pay as much attention to your opponent's game as you do your own.
This divergence between theory and practice is not something that is unique to gaming, both digital and physical. It is relevant to almost every part of our lives. Everyone is driven by these three things, in life in general not just when playing games. People have beliefs, desires, and intentions, and if you want to be able to predict what people will do then you need to be able to discern what those three things are for the people you want to observe. You need to think about things in much greater depth than you have before, or like someone who simply plays for fun and does not read of theories or strategies then you should just go with the flow and hope for the best.
Pilots and Prototypes
I love to watch old TV shows, I've said this probably a million times. Whenever I watch them I usually find some structure or an order to watch them in. For example, watching the Treehouse of Horror episodes of The Simpsons back to back at Halloween, or watching every Christmas special of a series around Christmas time. For some series however I like to watch them start to finish. Whenever I've finished the show in its entirety I will leave it for weeks or months or even in some cases for years before I watch them again, to give the memory time to fade just a little and allow the content to remain engaging.
Whenever you go back and watch a series from start to finish however, you often get to see the progression and the evolution of the production value change over time in a condensed period that brings up new levels of scrutiny. In particular for shows which made their pilot episodes public, you get to see how the concept was reworked, and in some cases that is quite drastic. Sex And The City is one of my favourite old TV shows, but every time I go back to the beginning to rewatch it all, the first season always throws me initially. For those that have never watched it, in the first series there are soliloquies made by Carrie played by Sarah Jessica Parker which are played out on screen with the character herself looking directly at the camera and speaking to the viewer, breaking the fourth wall. This was abandoned after the first series, relying from then on upon the disembodied voice of the narrator, still voiced by Sarah Jessica Parker as Carrie but not directly to the viewer. These narratives are framed as her writing for her column in a newspaper so even with narration it's incorporated into the plot, not directed at you in a way that breaks the fourth wall.
Pilots are usually one episode in a series, they are a proof of concept, a prototype if you will, and like most prototypes they are only intended to show the concept works, they're not intended to be the final product. Indeed the final product often ends up looking nothing like the prototype and the final production often ends up looking almost nothing like the pilot. Sex And The City is an example of what I would call a pilot series, where the first series, or season if you prefer, is in itself the pilot.
It's always interesting to see the origins of the things we like, but in a way that acknowledges the evolution rather than trying to create prologues and prequels to shoe horn in later to explain away that which was eventually accepted as cannon. As pilots have evolved as a concept over the years however, there is less tolerance for a lack of polish when it comes to the first production. If you want a series to be picked up now, the first episode must be representative of the series as a whole, that puts a lot of pressure on those making it to create a final product without the resources they would have if it were already picked up. It also makes it difficult to continue producing it at the same level as the pilot even after it is picked up, without compromising the integrity and continuity by the greater abundance of resources that become available. In other words you need to be consistent from the jump. There's no understanding or tolerance from the viewer or the studio, or anyone else of the fact it's only a pilot.
The same idea has been gathering traction outside of the entertainment industry. We live in a time where venture capital has never been more accessible both through traditional avenues and through innovative means such as crowd funding. Nevertheless that same expectation of gloss and polish persists, no-one wants to see a prototype, they want a final product from the start. The trouble with this mentality, just as with the entertainment industry is that often the bulk of the budget is spent on the first production, and the existing resources and techniques and research that was compiled for it is reused for the mass production phase. Meaning if there's a 95% / 5% split in first versus mass, then if you can actually produce the first product then arguably you don't need the mass production funds. This is why despite the prevalence of venture capital and its accessibility, approval still remains low. There is still a barrier to entry.
The only solution to this problem which people end up pursuing most often is to use marketing, and specifically sales teams, to try and pitch the idea in a convincing way without having a prototype or pilot at all. As you can imagine, this is incredibly difficult and that is why this isn't as widespread despite the cost being much lower, it relies entirely on psychology, and persuasion. So the question becomes, how capable are you at selling your idea?
Whenever you go back and watch a series from start to finish however, you often get to see the progression and the evolution of the production value change over time in a condensed period that brings up new levels of scrutiny. In particular for shows which made their pilot episodes public, you get to see how the concept was reworked, and in some cases that is quite drastic. Sex And The City is one of my favourite old TV shows, but every time I go back to the beginning to rewatch it all, the first season always throws me initially. For those that have never watched it, in the first series there are soliloquies made by Carrie played by Sarah Jessica Parker which are played out on screen with the character herself looking directly at the camera and speaking to the viewer, breaking the fourth wall. This was abandoned after the first series, relying from then on upon the disembodied voice of the narrator, still voiced by Sarah Jessica Parker as Carrie but not directly to the viewer. These narratives are framed as her writing for her column in a newspaper so even with narration it's incorporated into the plot, not directed at you in a way that breaks the fourth wall.
Pilots are usually one episode in a series, they are a proof of concept, a prototype if you will, and like most prototypes they are only intended to show the concept works, they're not intended to be the final product. Indeed the final product often ends up looking nothing like the prototype and the final production often ends up looking almost nothing like the pilot. Sex And The City is an example of what I would call a pilot series, where the first series, or season if you prefer, is in itself the pilot.
It's always interesting to see the origins of the things we like, but in a way that acknowledges the evolution rather than trying to create prologues and prequels to shoe horn in later to explain away that which was eventually accepted as cannon. As pilots have evolved as a concept over the years however, there is less tolerance for a lack of polish when it comes to the first production. If you want a series to be picked up now, the first episode must be representative of the series as a whole, that puts a lot of pressure on those making it to create a final product without the resources they would have if it were already picked up. It also makes it difficult to continue producing it at the same level as the pilot even after it is picked up, without compromising the integrity and continuity by the greater abundance of resources that become available. In other words you need to be consistent from the jump. There's no understanding or tolerance from the viewer or the studio, or anyone else of the fact it's only a pilot.
The same idea has been gathering traction outside of the entertainment industry. We live in a time where venture capital has never been more accessible both through traditional avenues and through innovative means such as crowd funding. Nevertheless that same expectation of gloss and polish persists, no-one wants to see a prototype, they want a final product from the start. The trouble with this mentality, just as with the entertainment industry is that often the bulk of the budget is spent on the first production, and the existing resources and techniques and research that was compiled for it is reused for the mass production phase. Meaning if there's a 95% / 5% split in first versus mass, then if you can actually produce the first product then arguably you don't need the mass production funds. This is why despite the prevalence of venture capital and its accessibility, approval still remains low. There is still a barrier to entry.
The only solution to this problem which people end up pursuing most often is to use marketing, and specifically sales teams, to try and pitch the idea in a convincing way without having a prototype or pilot at all. As you can imagine, this is incredibly difficult and that is why this isn't as widespread despite the cost being much lower, it relies entirely on psychology, and persuasion. So the question becomes, how capable are you at selling your idea?
Feeling Intimidated
A while ago I was sent an article that I found quite interesting entitled "7 Signs Your Personality Is Intimidating Others" the thing I found most interesting about this is the question of whether or not that is a good or bad thing. According to the article, I have 6 of the 7 signs. I read people, I am often blunt, I am often in the minority, I'm generally not jealous, I like new opportunities, and I find it hard to tolerate stupid people. The only sign I didn't conform to is when it comes to excuses, I do actually make excuses and I do accept them from others when I deem them valid so I'm 6 for 7.
I've written before of how things like this are ultimately a matter of perception. In this case I would argue there are legitimate reasons why people would demonstrate these behaviours and personality traits without being intimidating at all, even those who demonstrate all 7 mentioned.
The problem with these types of articles is that they are open to interpretation but there will be people who accept them as fact. In other words you're meant to take it with a pinch of salt and accept it only as something to contemplate, not something to be conclusive. That's not the way many people will take the content however, there will be those who want to know the answer to the question and will use that guide to form a conclusion rather than accepting further study and exploration is needed before you can draw a conclusion.
I accept at times I can be intimidating but not for any of the reasons listed in the article. For me personally one of the most intimidating parts of my personality isn't a trait defined by personality at all - my intelligence. Perhaps this is better phrased in saying that my personality demonstrates the fact there is a higher intelligence behind it than you are probably used to engaging with.
I understand some people will read this and view me as arrogant or condescending for stating this. There's no way to really convey the sentiment at play here without coming off as such but I assure you it's not intended. When I grew up I was top of my class in most subjects or near the top. In my school years I had the highest grades I could get or near the highest. In my University years I got so bored with education that I got lost in the social side of life because I did not feel any challenge. I have been tested by Mensa the High IQ society and my result is in the top 1 percentile.
Do I know everything? No, I don't.
Do I make mistakes? Yes, I do.
Do I make errors that are obvious? Yes, I do.
Do people expect someone with a High IQ to answer the way I have, in general, no they don't. There is an expectation that you know everything, about everything. That was an aspiration as a child, but I quickly realised that wasn't possible, so I settled for knowing as much as I could about the things that interest me. That leads me to possessing answers to incredibly complex questions in fields that I enjoy exploring, and it leads me to a failure to answer even simple questions about fields of which I have no interest whatsoever or have not explored.
I try to adapt myself to my surroundings, and to the people I engage with. It's not possible to please everyone however and you shouldn't try to - if you do you are in for a lifetime of disappointment. The intimidating aspect of my personality shines through, or rather, looms like a dark cloud, over the interactions I have with others when they are perceived by those to whom I haven't catered my language and my presence. To give an example when discussing programming I get very technical about the subject matter with people I perceive to have a sufficient understanding of it to be able to engage on that level. When perceived by people who know nothing about programming, this becomes quite intimidating as they realise there is a deeper level of thought going on in my head than the language I use with them day to day would intimate.
Most people suffer from the same problem to varying extents. There is always something that people have a passion for, or that they know quite a bit about. They just never get the opportunity to let that show and let it shine through. This can be described as hidden talent, but it goes beyond our skills and abilities and penetrates the mind itself to the very foundation of thought and the process that underpins it. In other words, don't rely solely on someone's actions to give you an impression of what is going on inside their head, there is depth you can't imagine within everyone's mind, you just need to find an environment where you can dive in to be able to explore that depth and appreciate it fully.
I've written before of how things like this are ultimately a matter of perception. In this case I would argue there are legitimate reasons why people would demonstrate these behaviours and personality traits without being intimidating at all, even those who demonstrate all 7 mentioned.
The problem with these types of articles is that they are open to interpretation but there will be people who accept them as fact. In other words you're meant to take it with a pinch of salt and accept it only as something to contemplate, not something to be conclusive. That's not the way many people will take the content however, there will be those who want to know the answer to the question and will use that guide to form a conclusion rather than accepting further study and exploration is needed before you can draw a conclusion.
I accept at times I can be intimidating but not for any of the reasons listed in the article. For me personally one of the most intimidating parts of my personality isn't a trait defined by personality at all - my intelligence. Perhaps this is better phrased in saying that my personality demonstrates the fact there is a higher intelligence behind it than you are probably used to engaging with.
I understand some people will read this and view me as arrogant or condescending for stating this. There's no way to really convey the sentiment at play here without coming off as such but I assure you it's not intended. When I grew up I was top of my class in most subjects or near the top. In my school years I had the highest grades I could get or near the highest. In my University years I got so bored with education that I got lost in the social side of life because I did not feel any challenge. I have been tested by Mensa the High IQ society and my result is in the top 1 percentile.
Do I know everything? No, I don't.
Do I make mistakes? Yes, I do.
Do I make errors that are obvious? Yes, I do.
Do people expect someone with a High IQ to answer the way I have, in general, no they don't. There is an expectation that you know everything, about everything. That was an aspiration as a child, but I quickly realised that wasn't possible, so I settled for knowing as much as I could about the things that interest me. That leads me to possessing answers to incredibly complex questions in fields that I enjoy exploring, and it leads me to a failure to answer even simple questions about fields of which I have no interest whatsoever or have not explored.
I try to adapt myself to my surroundings, and to the people I engage with. It's not possible to please everyone however and you shouldn't try to - if you do you are in for a lifetime of disappointment. The intimidating aspect of my personality shines through, or rather, looms like a dark cloud, over the interactions I have with others when they are perceived by those to whom I haven't catered my language and my presence. To give an example when discussing programming I get very technical about the subject matter with people I perceive to have a sufficient understanding of it to be able to engage on that level. When perceived by people who know nothing about programming, this becomes quite intimidating as they realise there is a deeper level of thought going on in my head than the language I use with them day to day would intimate.
Most people suffer from the same problem to varying extents. There is always something that people have a passion for, or that they know quite a bit about. They just never get the opportunity to let that show and let it shine through. This can be described as hidden talent, but it goes beyond our skills and abilities and penetrates the mind itself to the very foundation of thought and the process that underpins it. In other words, don't rely solely on someone's actions to give you an impression of what is going on inside their head, there is depth you can't imagine within everyone's mind, you just need to find an environment where you can dive in to be able to explore that depth and appreciate it fully.
Not Anymore
I love nostalgia as much as the next person, I indulge in it quite often. Whenever you talk about old TV shows however, there is always one or two that crop up which people inevitably remark "you can't say that anymore" with regard to dialogue from the shows or jokes that were made which would solicit a backlash today. I take issue with the people who say this because they seem to be operating under the illusion that what is offensive today wasn't offensive before - it always was, the only difference is the people who it made light of now have a strong enough voice to be able to levy criticism upon you for it. They were offended by it before, they just didn't have the platform or the presence to be able to challenge you and ultimately that is what you're upset about, suppression, not freedom of expression.
There are a lot of TV shows which were commissioned decades ago that would never get commissioned today. Whilst you may criticize that fact, I am willing to bet if I was to go back several decades prior to those shows I could find other shows which would never have been commissioned even at the time you claim TV was supposedly free, most of which you would not challenge.
To put dates on these figures, I see many people younger than me today who are experiencing some TV shows from the 90s through streaming services and take issue with the humour and the subjects of that humour. There are those that will defend those 90s shows and say it was a different time and will even go so far as to criticize the fact that TV in their view has become too politically correct. Yet in the majority of cases those people who defend the 90s shows will fall silent or will object entirely to the suggestion that you return to the type of content that was commissioned decades previous in the 50s and 60s. They are content with the level of cultural victimization present in 90s shows but not with the level that existed in the 50s and 60s because that is too extreme for them.
What is actually being played out in these discussions is the concept of moral relativism. In other words you morality is relative to what you perceived as normal when you were raised and what you experienced. Subjectively you view what happened in the 90s as acceptable because you deemed it acceptable at the time and don't want to admit you found humour in something unacceptable, this leads you to continue defending it today even though you know it wouldn't be commissioned today. Likewise what came in the 50s and 60s was acceptable to those who watched it at the time, but to you in the 90s it was considered unacceptable which is why you're unwilling to go back to that extreme.
There comes a question you have to answer in order to settle the argument that is being played out and that is whether or not you believe morality is a scale. Is it possible to be a little bit immoral, or is immorality something that is black and white that either is, or is not? If you posit the former then you must accept that different people will perceive different things as immoral and their position on the scale will be determined by their tolerance. If you posit the latter then you must accept that there needs to be a criteria defined as to what is and is not immoral and that will inevitably be applied to the things you liked, and there will sooner or later be something you liked which will be classified as immoral under that definition.
I think a better resolution to this conflict would be to simply accept that the things that you deemed acceptable in the past belong in the past, and if you intend to bring them into the present you should fully expect it to be judged by present day standards. You don't expect archaic hardware to be able to perform at modern levels and be able to withstand everything you throw at it, so why do you expect the level of criticism today to be as accommodative? This doesn't just apply to content it can apply to production value too. There's a lot of content from decades passed which under a modern eye, in HD, looks absolutely abysmal. There's an understanding with these examples at least that things moved on, so why is there no understanding with morality that society has moved on, and that the thought processes of the past are no longer fit for purpose?
There are a lot of TV shows which were commissioned decades ago that would never get commissioned today. Whilst you may criticize that fact, I am willing to bet if I was to go back several decades prior to those shows I could find other shows which would never have been commissioned even at the time you claim TV was supposedly free, most of which you would not challenge.
To put dates on these figures, I see many people younger than me today who are experiencing some TV shows from the 90s through streaming services and take issue with the humour and the subjects of that humour. There are those that will defend those 90s shows and say it was a different time and will even go so far as to criticize the fact that TV in their view has become too politically correct. Yet in the majority of cases those people who defend the 90s shows will fall silent or will object entirely to the suggestion that you return to the type of content that was commissioned decades previous in the 50s and 60s. They are content with the level of cultural victimization present in 90s shows but not with the level that existed in the 50s and 60s because that is too extreme for them.
What is actually being played out in these discussions is the concept of moral relativism. In other words you morality is relative to what you perceived as normal when you were raised and what you experienced. Subjectively you view what happened in the 90s as acceptable because you deemed it acceptable at the time and don't want to admit you found humour in something unacceptable, this leads you to continue defending it today even though you know it wouldn't be commissioned today. Likewise what came in the 50s and 60s was acceptable to those who watched it at the time, but to you in the 90s it was considered unacceptable which is why you're unwilling to go back to that extreme.
There comes a question you have to answer in order to settle the argument that is being played out and that is whether or not you believe morality is a scale. Is it possible to be a little bit immoral, or is immorality something that is black and white that either is, or is not? If you posit the former then you must accept that different people will perceive different things as immoral and their position on the scale will be determined by their tolerance. If you posit the latter then you must accept that there needs to be a criteria defined as to what is and is not immoral and that will inevitably be applied to the things you liked, and there will sooner or later be something you liked which will be classified as immoral under that definition.
I think a better resolution to this conflict would be to simply accept that the things that you deemed acceptable in the past belong in the past, and if you intend to bring them into the present you should fully expect it to be judged by present day standards. You don't expect archaic hardware to be able to perform at modern levels and be able to withstand everything you throw at it, so why do you expect the level of criticism today to be as accommodative? This doesn't just apply to content it can apply to production value too. There's a lot of content from decades passed which under a modern eye, in HD, looks absolutely abysmal. There's an understanding with these examples at least that things moved on, so why is there no understanding with morality that society has moved on, and that the thought processes of the past are no longer fit for purpose?
Look But Don't Touch
I realise I have mentioned death quite a bit on this blog, I don't believe that is indicative of my mental state, just the course of the conversation that has unfolded with the topics I have covered. There is a fascination we have as human beings with death. Most people don't like to think about dying, the process, but there remains to be a fascination if not an obsession with what happens after.
There are various theories, and nobody can really know what happens because nobody has ever come back to tell us what happens. Death isn't something we can reverse, and whilst many people have been clinically dead and then resuscitated, I don't consider their experiences as being a representation of what would happen if it were final, as the fact they were able to be revived, to me, means they did not experience the finality of death.
Biology and Physiology aside, those two elements can be explained in quite a bit of detail. The fascination surrounds the spiritual side of death. We contemplate the idea of ghosts, and presences, often as a way of comforting ourselves and enabling a belief that the ones we have lost aren't truly gone. The idea however that you would be able to watch the world continue to go by after you have passed away simultaneously excites and horrifies me. It excites me insofar as it would allow me to continue to witness the world in a way that would mean I wouldn't miss the moments that I would actually like to live to see out of curiosity. It also horrifies me because it would be a point of frustration and consternation.
If you want to get an idea of what it would feel like to die and continue to watch the world, you can step back from social media, stop interacting with it, and view it in a "read-only" mode, where you can read, but can't reply, like, retweet, favourite, etc. To place it behind a metaphorical glass wall where you can see but you can't touch. You begin to see that other people live their lives just fine without you. There would be a few who would miss you, of that you can be sure. Yet seeing life continue is both comforting and depressing. We realise in that moment that we are all part of life but life is only part of us for a short time. Life never dies, but we do.
You can take experiences in life, things that we can do, and you can find a way to live vicariously. To watch others do it, through YouTube or even in real life by stepping back and watching the world. When you do this, the motivation and the desire to be able to try for ourselves grows. We can convince ourselves that we could never have the opportunity to do those things and would never be so lucky, but there is always a glimmer of hope even if it is extremely dim in the back of our minds that one day it could. To live without even that hope would be the hardest thing to endure. Really the idea of being able to watch the world after we pass, I believe would probably be a torment. You already know from life how frustrating it can be to see people who have the opportunity to do things you can not, and how they choose not to, or take that opportunity for granted and waste it. Like living on a budget where you count every penny and seeing those so wealthy that they can place bets with wagers in the thousands fully prepared and able to lose it all with no negative ramifications for them whatsoever.
There are various theories, and nobody can really know what happens because nobody has ever come back to tell us what happens. Death isn't something we can reverse, and whilst many people have been clinically dead and then resuscitated, I don't consider their experiences as being a representation of what would happen if it were final, as the fact they were able to be revived, to me, means they did not experience the finality of death.
Biology and Physiology aside, those two elements can be explained in quite a bit of detail. The fascination surrounds the spiritual side of death. We contemplate the idea of ghosts, and presences, often as a way of comforting ourselves and enabling a belief that the ones we have lost aren't truly gone. The idea however that you would be able to watch the world continue to go by after you have passed away simultaneously excites and horrifies me. It excites me insofar as it would allow me to continue to witness the world in a way that would mean I wouldn't miss the moments that I would actually like to live to see out of curiosity. It also horrifies me because it would be a point of frustration and consternation.
If you want to get an idea of what it would feel like to die and continue to watch the world, you can step back from social media, stop interacting with it, and view it in a "read-only" mode, where you can read, but can't reply, like, retweet, favourite, etc. To place it behind a metaphorical glass wall where you can see but you can't touch. You begin to see that other people live their lives just fine without you. There would be a few who would miss you, of that you can be sure. Yet seeing life continue is both comforting and depressing. We realise in that moment that we are all part of life but life is only part of us for a short time. Life never dies, but we do.
You can take experiences in life, things that we can do, and you can find a way to live vicariously. To watch others do it, through YouTube or even in real life by stepping back and watching the world. When you do this, the motivation and the desire to be able to try for ourselves grows. We can convince ourselves that we could never have the opportunity to do those things and would never be so lucky, but there is always a glimmer of hope even if it is extremely dim in the back of our minds that one day it could. To live without even that hope would be the hardest thing to endure. Really the idea of being able to watch the world after we pass, I believe would probably be a torment. You already know from life how frustrating it can be to see people who have the opportunity to do things you can not, and how they choose not to, or take that opportunity for granted and waste it. Like living on a budget where you count every penny and seeing those so wealthy that they can place bets with wagers in the thousands fully prepared and able to lose it all with no negative ramifications for them whatsoever.
Forgetting Death
It's hard to forget the loss of a loved one or those that were close to us, it's something we never really get over. When it comes to people who we barely knew, or who were only part of our life in passing, it becomes difficult to remember their life and their death. When it comes to those we never knew at all, celebrities and public figures for example, they represent people who don't enter into our conscious day to day.
Memory is a strange thing, it is somewhat mysterious in how it functions. I mentioned before how I can still picture my primary school classroom, with all the desks in line and the chairs that in my mind now lie empty. Chairs that I know people sat in, but I have no recollection of them. Not a face, not a voice, not a name, not a single detail. I've forgotten entire people and I'm not even that old, it was some 20 years ago now that I left primary school for the last time.
One of the most interesting things about this lack of recollection is that although we label it as forgetting, that's not really an accurate description. For most of these people, a picture of them, a name, or any other trigger would be enough to bring back memories of who they were and what experiences we shared. Therein lies the issue with calling it "forgetting" - the information is still there it's just not accessible. Perhaps a better term could be borrowed from computing and say that the memory has become corrupted, no longer accessible because information needed to get to it is missing.
When it comes to recalling the life, and death of other people, it is often necessary to be reminded of the fact in order to recall it. The year 2016 was pretty grim for many reasons. There were a slew of high profile deaths that happened in that year. Not all of those are easy to recall. Every now and then I watch a movie, a TV show, or listen to music and that trigger is pulled and I remember those people I see or hear are dead. That is a peculiar sensation, when you feel the mixture of sadness at the memory, happiness at the innocence of the content, and bewilderment of the fact you forgot someone is dead.
That moment of realisation however demonstrates how people we have never even met, can be part of our lives, how little we can actually know about other people, and how we focus on our own lives so much to the point where we forget other people have theirs. We acknowledge easily in social situations that other people have their own lives they are living but we rarely stop and actually process that in depth, for the hours, days, weeks, or even years in between our meetings with them they have been living their lives, gaining experiences, having thoughts, feelings, emotions, and everything else that makes up life. There is a depth that we forget because a few moments, a few words, a few characters on a screen let us shorten our attention spans to something small and often insignificant in the grand scheme of things. Even death itself can become meaningless when you consider the years of life that were lived before it happened, however long or short that may have been, they lived.
Memory is a strange thing, it is somewhat mysterious in how it functions. I mentioned before how I can still picture my primary school classroom, with all the desks in line and the chairs that in my mind now lie empty. Chairs that I know people sat in, but I have no recollection of them. Not a face, not a voice, not a name, not a single detail. I've forgotten entire people and I'm not even that old, it was some 20 years ago now that I left primary school for the last time.
One of the most interesting things about this lack of recollection is that although we label it as forgetting, that's not really an accurate description. For most of these people, a picture of them, a name, or any other trigger would be enough to bring back memories of who they were and what experiences we shared. Therein lies the issue with calling it "forgetting" - the information is still there it's just not accessible. Perhaps a better term could be borrowed from computing and say that the memory has become corrupted, no longer accessible because information needed to get to it is missing.
When it comes to recalling the life, and death of other people, it is often necessary to be reminded of the fact in order to recall it. The year 2016 was pretty grim for many reasons. There were a slew of high profile deaths that happened in that year. Not all of those are easy to recall. Every now and then I watch a movie, a TV show, or listen to music and that trigger is pulled and I remember those people I see or hear are dead. That is a peculiar sensation, when you feel the mixture of sadness at the memory, happiness at the innocence of the content, and bewilderment of the fact you forgot someone is dead.
That moment of realisation however demonstrates how people we have never even met, can be part of our lives, how little we can actually know about other people, and how we focus on our own lives so much to the point where we forget other people have theirs. We acknowledge easily in social situations that other people have their own lives they are living but we rarely stop and actually process that in depth, for the hours, days, weeks, or even years in between our meetings with them they have been living their lives, gaining experiences, having thoughts, feelings, emotions, and everything else that makes up life. There is a depth that we forget because a few moments, a few words, a few characters on a screen let us shorten our attention spans to something small and often insignificant in the grand scheme of things. Even death itself can become meaningless when you consider the years of life that were lived before it happened, however long or short that may have been, they lived.
Timeless Content
Depending on how much thought you have given it, you may have noticed a trend in the posts I make on this blog. Almost all of the content I post is timeless. By that I mean I could take the post and move the date it would be published around at will and it would still make sense. I've mentioned before that I create posts and schedule them in advance, that is part of the reason why I don't write about current events. The other reason however is because writing about current events requires a presence at those events or near their source to be able to write with detail and authority on those events.
Rolling news channels have a focus primarily on events that are happening right now in the world. If you ever sit and watch one for more than a few minutes however you begin to see the reports be repeated. The same information is presented in repetition and you realise how little information they actually possess about what is going on. This I refer to simply as a lack of insight. It's one of the reasons why I stopped relying on media outlets for information in the moment and choose to wait for stories to develop before reading about them. It's also one of the reasons I watch Bloomberg for most of my news coverage. If you don't have a background in finance or you can't follow economics then it will be a steep hill for you to climb if you are considering switching to it. If you can climb that hill however it is worth it.
This post isn't sponsored, I wish it was, I've not been paid to write it, again I wish I was. Bloomberg is an organization I would love to work for because it indulges part of me that I have shared on here - my love of digging deeper and analysing things to death. Bloomberg as a news network revolves heavily around analysis, both from those with experience in their industries, and analysis provided by data. If you spend even a few minutes watching it you will see charts presented on screen showing the trends and showing data. There is a decided focus on what is already known, what conclusions can be drawn, and what projections can be made based on those conclusions. This to me is a much more informative style of reporting, and for me personally I feel it carries greater insight.
I don't write many posts about developing stories, or things that are changing right now in the world. There are a few exceptions as there always will be. In those instances I tend to move whatever post was scheduled and write a new one to take its place. I only do this however when I have something to say about how I think or feel in regards to the story. I don't like speculative journalism because it posits theories about what might have happened or what might happen next based on nothing but opinion, yet most people who read it take it as fact, which in my view I regard as misinformation, providing information that is unintentionally false, and in some cases from some dubious news sources outright disinformation - information that is knowingly false but published anyway.
I know the term fake news has become synonymous with both of these, however the latter is the only one that can be considered fake, the former is simply inaccurate or poor quality. The reason why it is rushed out in this way is simply down to exposure. You gain the greatest exposure by riding trends. You take that which is popular in the moment and you cater to it. Whilst some people are able to catch a ride on this wave of populism and then safely dismount when it has taken them further, if you ride it to the end you will likely crash into the shore, and potentially be drowned in the process if a tsunami of public opinion follows it that you contravened in the first instance. Dealing with this fluctuation in public opinion is one reason why I don't enter into those waters very often. I prefer to focus on issues that are timeless because there is a greater willingness to consider the content and the message rather than heated emotions that burn in flames which others have already fanned until they have reached a blistering heat.
I could never pursue a career in politics, even if the majority of people were to see my opinion and agree with it, the attention and the voice of those who dissent is unfortunately the focus the media presents most. If you believe this bubble that is created then you would believe every president and every prime minister is hated and that every country in the world is one argument away from civil war. The reality is far from this depiction. The majority as they say is silent. The minority is vocal. The systems of government we have centre around what the majority thinks however, not the minority. Which is why you end up in situations where every news report tells you how hated a government is, and then come election time, they somehow manage to get elected again. The reason is because the reporting you read and seen wasn't representative and the reason in turn for that deviation is simply because the reality is boring, the speculation is sensational. News has become a form of entertainment, rather than a form of information and unlike the default conclusion many draw of blaming social media, I actually think the real reason this is the case is because of the birth of TV channels dedicated to news - something that happened many years before social media came along.
There's nothing wrong with the concept of a news channel, as long as there is a clarity, and a level of quality control. These are decidedly lacking however for most news channels, instead of journalism they perpetuate "churnalism" the process of reporting that which has already been reported with slight variation. One outlet picks up a story and covers it one way, another sees this and picks it up with a differing point of view, and another and another and so on, each time the view is changed slightly to the point where a mixture of claims emerge and eventually new reports emerge that took the amalgamation of those reports and produced a report of their own that whilst claiming to be factual actually gathered up all the points of speculation instead and produced a report that arguably is entirely fictional - whether they are aware of it or not.
I prefer to cover topics I find interesting, expressing my point of view, and sharing my experience. This way I am the source, and the accuracy or inaccuracy is entirely down to my perception or misconception depending on whether my view actually matches up to reality - or, to put it more succinctly, this blog is not a source of news, that's why I don't write about things in the news right now.
Rolling news channels have a focus primarily on events that are happening right now in the world. If you ever sit and watch one for more than a few minutes however you begin to see the reports be repeated. The same information is presented in repetition and you realise how little information they actually possess about what is going on. This I refer to simply as a lack of insight. It's one of the reasons why I stopped relying on media outlets for information in the moment and choose to wait for stories to develop before reading about them. It's also one of the reasons I watch Bloomberg for most of my news coverage. If you don't have a background in finance or you can't follow economics then it will be a steep hill for you to climb if you are considering switching to it. If you can climb that hill however it is worth it.
This post isn't sponsored, I wish it was, I've not been paid to write it, again I wish I was. Bloomberg is an organization I would love to work for because it indulges part of me that I have shared on here - my love of digging deeper and analysing things to death. Bloomberg as a news network revolves heavily around analysis, both from those with experience in their industries, and analysis provided by data. If you spend even a few minutes watching it you will see charts presented on screen showing the trends and showing data. There is a decided focus on what is already known, what conclusions can be drawn, and what projections can be made based on those conclusions. This to me is a much more informative style of reporting, and for me personally I feel it carries greater insight.
I don't write many posts about developing stories, or things that are changing right now in the world. There are a few exceptions as there always will be. In those instances I tend to move whatever post was scheduled and write a new one to take its place. I only do this however when I have something to say about how I think or feel in regards to the story. I don't like speculative journalism because it posits theories about what might have happened or what might happen next based on nothing but opinion, yet most people who read it take it as fact, which in my view I regard as misinformation, providing information that is unintentionally false, and in some cases from some dubious news sources outright disinformation - information that is knowingly false but published anyway.
I know the term fake news has become synonymous with both of these, however the latter is the only one that can be considered fake, the former is simply inaccurate or poor quality. The reason why it is rushed out in this way is simply down to exposure. You gain the greatest exposure by riding trends. You take that which is popular in the moment and you cater to it. Whilst some people are able to catch a ride on this wave of populism and then safely dismount when it has taken them further, if you ride it to the end you will likely crash into the shore, and potentially be drowned in the process if a tsunami of public opinion follows it that you contravened in the first instance. Dealing with this fluctuation in public opinion is one reason why I don't enter into those waters very often. I prefer to focus on issues that are timeless because there is a greater willingness to consider the content and the message rather than heated emotions that burn in flames which others have already fanned until they have reached a blistering heat.
I could never pursue a career in politics, even if the majority of people were to see my opinion and agree with it, the attention and the voice of those who dissent is unfortunately the focus the media presents most. If you believe this bubble that is created then you would believe every president and every prime minister is hated and that every country in the world is one argument away from civil war. The reality is far from this depiction. The majority as they say is silent. The minority is vocal. The systems of government we have centre around what the majority thinks however, not the minority. Which is why you end up in situations where every news report tells you how hated a government is, and then come election time, they somehow manage to get elected again. The reason is because the reporting you read and seen wasn't representative and the reason in turn for that deviation is simply because the reality is boring, the speculation is sensational. News has become a form of entertainment, rather than a form of information and unlike the default conclusion many draw of blaming social media, I actually think the real reason this is the case is because of the birth of TV channels dedicated to news - something that happened many years before social media came along.
There's nothing wrong with the concept of a news channel, as long as there is a clarity, and a level of quality control. These are decidedly lacking however for most news channels, instead of journalism they perpetuate "churnalism" the process of reporting that which has already been reported with slight variation. One outlet picks up a story and covers it one way, another sees this and picks it up with a differing point of view, and another and another and so on, each time the view is changed slightly to the point where a mixture of claims emerge and eventually new reports emerge that took the amalgamation of those reports and produced a report of their own that whilst claiming to be factual actually gathered up all the points of speculation instead and produced a report that arguably is entirely fictional - whether they are aware of it or not.
I prefer to cover topics I find interesting, expressing my point of view, and sharing my experience. This way I am the source, and the accuracy or inaccuracy is entirely down to my perception or misconception depending on whether my view actually matches up to reality - or, to put it more succinctly, this blog is not a source of news, that's why I don't write about things in the news right now.
Hidden Addiction
What do you think it is possible to be addicted to? When you ask most people that question, their immediate responses are drugs and alcohol as these are perhaps the two things we associate most with the concept of addiction. Ask people to go beyond these initial responses and think outside the box and the answers you will get are a little more varied but still they tend to follow a similar vein. Food in particular is often given as a further response with a particular focus on sugar or on junk food in general.
Using the medical definition, in this case provided by the National Health Service [NHS] here in the UK: "Addiction is defined as not having control over doing, taking or using something to the point where it could be harmful to you" [src]
That definition is rather wide-ranging and can apply to any number of things. It's also important to note at this point, the definition above makes no stipulation whatsoever as to whether or not the thing you are addicted to is perceived as being something negative, only that it could be harmful to you. That is important to note as it opens up a wide range of things you can be addicted to that you would not normally associate as being something negative. Take for instance exercise, something which is generally considered to be beneficial and encouraged, even this can be harmful to you when done in excess. Runner's Addiction for example is a condition whereby a person who runs does so in excess. There's an excellent article on Runner's World by Nicole Radziszewski that discusses this condition and how to identify it.
The idea that anything beneficial is immune from being addictive, or that anything which is addictive but perceived as positive are things which are "safe" and pose no harm to us is a very problematic mindset. The crux of this whole issue is that ultimately everything must be done in moderation, no matter how good or bad you may perceive something to be, doing it in excess will likely be the worst thing you could do. More than this, the idea that something has to be considered addictive in the first place before you take the risk of becoming addicted as a serious concern is also problematic. There are many things that people have become addicted to which others often laugh at, or ridicule the idea that you could be addicted to them - these mindsets ultimately miss the entire point of addiction, that it is the personality, and the physiological response of the individual that determines whether something is addictive, not the substance or act in and of itself - in other words, you can be addicted to literally anything because the source is your body, not what you are exposing it to.
That conclusion can be something very difficult to accept at first, especially when most common addictions share the same trigger, for example opioid drugs are widely considered to be addictive, but the assertion that everyone who takes those drugs will become addicted to them is clearly one that is made in error and is not the intention of the warnings that come with those drugs. The intention of the warnings comes from the recognition that those drugs generally evoke a pleasurable experience and that most people when exposed to a reliable source of pleasure will eventually become addicted to it. Further to this is the reality that addiction is not an issue of willpower alone, as stated above, there is a physiological response within the body and that response will vary from individual to individual and its intensity will generally be the deciding factor in whether or not people are able to overcome their addiction once it develops.
This all posits that addiction is something you would not want to entertain and would like to overcome but the reality is that most people have one or more things they are addicted to but they make no effort whatsoever to overcome. Caffeine is a prime example, most people who regularly consume it will recognise they are addicted to it, whether they dwell on that fact or not is beside the point here. What is relevant however is that most people who have recognised their addiction will at some point have attempted to go without it to see if they could do it, and withdrawal is a bitch, as I have discussed in past posts and on my other blog. Most people when they go through withdrawal will make a judgement call as to whether they want to push through or not. The widespread continued consumption of caffeine in and of itself demonstrates that the latter is the choice most people end up making, accepting their addiction and simply choosing to live with it. Therein lies another problem with the whole concept of addiction, as we return to the definition provided by the NHS, there is no stipulation added that you must be unable to live a relatively normal life before it can be considered an addiction - in fact if you read the source I linked to above one of the main ways in which the NHS highlights the impact on your life an addiction can have is the strain of managing that addiction, that word 'managing' is very important to point out.
Managing Addiction brings us to one final concept which it is important to address, addicts can be considered either low or high functioning. A high functioning addict is someone who is addicted to something but able to lead a life that is almost completely void of the traditional negative connotations of addiction, whilst a low functioning addict is someone whose addiction prevents them from doing almost anything normal. There is a stigma surrounding addiction that warps the impression of the condition to be one where the validity of that addiction is attached to the level of functioning the individual attains, i.e. if an individual is low functioning then their addiction is "valid" and if they are high functioning then their addiction is "invalid" and dismissed entirely with incredulity at the suggestion.
All of this begs the question, if it is possible to be a high functioning addict and live an almost entirely normal life, how can you actually know if you are addicted to something without trying to go without it to see if withdrawal occurs?
Using the medical definition, in this case provided by the National Health Service [NHS] here in the UK: "Addiction is defined as not having control over doing, taking or using something to the point where it could be harmful to you" [src]
That definition is rather wide-ranging and can apply to any number of things. It's also important to note at this point, the definition above makes no stipulation whatsoever as to whether or not the thing you are addicted to is perceived as being something negative, only that it could be harmful to you. That is important to note as it opens up a wide range of things you can be addicted to that you would not normally associate as being something negative. Take for instance exercise, something which is generally considered to be beneficial and encouraged, even this can be harmful to you when done in excess. Runner's Addiction for example is a condition whereby a person who runs does so in excess. There's an excellent article on Runner's World by Nicole Radziszewski that discusses this condition and how to identify it.
The idea that anything beneficial is immune from being addictive, or that anything which is addictive but perceived as positive are things which are "safe" and pose no harm to us is a very problematic mindset. The crux of this whole issue is that ultimately everything must be done in moderation, no matter how good or bad you may perceive something to be, doing it in excess will likely be the worst thing you could do. More than this, the idea that something has to be considered addictive in the first place before you take the risk of becoming addicted as a serious concern is also problematic. There are many things that people have become addicted to which others often laugh at, or ridicule the idea that you could be addicted to them - these mindsets ultimately miss the entire point of addiction, that it is the personality, and the physiological response of the individual that determines whether something is addictive, not the substance or act in and of itself - in other words, you can be addicted to literally anything because the source is your body, not what you are exposing it to.
That conclusion can be something very difficult to accept at first, especially when most common addictions share the same trigger, for example opioid drugs are widely considered to be addictive, but the assertion that everyone who takes those drugs will become addicted to them is clearly one that is made in error and is not the intention of the warnings that come with those drugs. The intention of the warnings comes from the recognition that those drugs generally evoke a pleasurable experience and that most people when exposed to a reliable source of pleasure will eventually become addicted to it. Further to this is the reality that addiction is not an issue of willpower alone, as stated above, there is a physiological response within the body and that response will vary from individual to individual and its intensity will generally be the deciding factor in whether or not people are able to overcome their addiction once it develops.
This all posits that addiction is something you would not want to entertain and would like to overcome but the reality is that most people have one or more things they are addicted to but they make no effort whatsoever to overcome. Caffeine is a prime example, most people who regularly consume it will recognise they are addicted to it, whether they dwell on that fact or not is beside the point here. What is relevant however is that most people who have recognised their addiction will at some point have attempted to go without it to see if they could do it, and withdrawal is a bitch, as I have discussed in past posts and on my other blog. Most people when they go through withdrawal will make a judgement call as to whether they want to push through or not. The widespread continued consumption of caffeine in and of itself demonstrates that the latter is the choice most people end up making, accepting their addiction and simply choosing to live with it. Therein lies another problem with the whole concept of addiction, as we return to the definition provided by the NHS, there is no stipulation added that you must be unable to live a relatively normal life before it can be considered an addiction - in fact if you read the source I linked to above one of the main ways in which the NHS highlights the impact on your life an addiction can have is the strain of managing that addiction, that word 'managing' is very important to point out.
Managing Addiction brings us to one final concept which it is important to address, addicts can be considered either low or high functioning. A high functioning addict is someone who is addicted to something but able to lead a life that is almost completely void of the traditional negative connotations of addiction, whilst a low functioning addict is someone whose addiction prevents them from doing almost anything normal. There is a stigma surrounding addiction that warps the impression of the condition to be one where the validity of that addiction is attached to the level of functioning the individual attains, i.e. if an individual is low functioning then their addiction is "valid" and if they are high functioning then their addiction is "invalid" and dismissed entirely with incredulity at the suggestion.
All of this begs the question, if it is possible to be a high functioning addict and live an almost entirely normal life, how can you actually know if you are addicted to something without trying to go without it to see if withdrawal occurs?
Children
Sticking with the theme of relationships, and the expectations of society, I have always wondered what drives people to have children. There are simple answers you can give, like the instinct to procreate and increase the size of our species, but those answers are ones that can be logically reasoned away as behaviours that are too primal for a species that supposedly evolved beyond that state of being. I say supposedly because you can make the argument that there are plenty of people that haven't evolved at all.
There are other answers that are more complex like the desire to raise someone with love and affection and do everything you can to protect them and help them thrive. You can have that with a pet though, those aren't things unique to humans, and if the internet proves anything it's that people love looking at pictures, GIFs, and videos of animals more than they do of people, baby animals in particular. Even without the internet I have known people who think their parents love their pets more than they love their own children.
There are unorthodox answers to the question though, and they suggest motivations that are arguably immoral. The foremost being boredom, or in other words, people have children because their lives are boring and they want something to do - for the next 18 years, or 25 now by some accounts. The immorality in this situation is obvious, there should be a genuine desire to have a child and raise it, not simply the decision to do it because you can't think what else to do. I know of a few marriages which I have long contemplated the fact they had kids was actually an attempt at keeping their relationship together. This in itself opens up a whole slew of criticism for being motivated by entirely the wrong reasons not to mention the fact that this doesn't usually work, if there are problems in the relationship, a child won't resolve them, if anything it is much more likely to make them worse which will create a toxic environment for the child.
There is a growing number of people who are deciding not to have children at all. This is a movement that has grown across the world. There is a video that is very informative by Dr Hans Rosling, a Swedish statistician who sadly died in 2017. The video deals with the world's population and the reality that it is no longer growing at the pace we perceive it to be growing at. Over population isn't a concern anymore, the birth rate is lower than the death rate, the only reason the population continues to rise is because of longevity, but there is a boom in population that happened long ago which has not reached its finality yet, and when it does, there will be a "death boom" just as there was a baby boom, and the population of the world will rapidly decline as a result. This is set in stone now, and even if birth rates were to ramp up globally, that decline will still happen. In many countries this decline has already begun, for example Japan has an ageing population and a birth rate much lower than its death rate, the population is declining by around 300,000 people per year. This has led to Schools etc closing as there aren't enough children to sustain them.
People are choosing not to have children, choosing to put their careers, and their lives first. This does raise a question, would you actually want to have children, if nobody expected you to have them, would still make the choice? If you already have them would you have more? I find it fascinating that those who already have them are the most likely to actually say no to having more.
There are other answers that are more complex like the desire to raise someone with love and affection and do everything you can to protect them and help them thrive. You can have that with a pet though, those aren't things unique to humans, and if the internet proves anything it's that people love looking at pictures, GIFs, and videos of animals more than they do of people, baby animals in particular. Even without the internet I have known people who think their parents love their pets more than they love their own children.
There are unorthodox answers to the question though, and they suggest motivations that are arguably immoral. The foremost being boredom, or in other words, people have children because their lives are boring and they want something to do - for the next 18 years, or 25 now by some accounts. The immorality in this situation is obvious, there should be a genuine desire to have a child and raise it, not simply the decision to do it because you can't think what else to do. I know of a few marriages which I have long contemplated the fact they had kids was actually an attempt at keeping their relationship together. This in itself opens up a whole slew of criticism for being motivated by entirely the wrong reasons not to mention the fact that this doesn't usually work, if there are problems in the relationship, a child won't resolve them, if anything it is much more likely to make them worse which will create a toxic environment for the child.
There is a growing number of people who are deciding not to have children at all. This is a movement that has grown across the world. There is a video that is very informative by Dr Hans Rosling, a Swedish statistician who sadly died in 2017. The video deals with the world's population and the reality that it is no longer growing at the pace we perceive it to be growing at. Over population isn't a concern anymore, the birth rate is lower than the death rate, the only reason the population continues to rise is because of longevity, but there is a boom in population that happened long ago which has not reached its finality yet, and when it does, there will be a "death boom" just as there was a baby boom, and the population of the world will rapidly decline as a result. This is set in stone now, and even if birth rates were to ramp up globally, that decline will still happen. In many countries this decline has already begun, for example Japan has an ageing population and a birth rate much lower than its death rate, the population is declining by around 300,000 people per year. This has led to Schools etc closing as there aren't enough children to sustain them.
People are choosing not to have children, choosing to put their careers, and their lives first. This does raise a question, would you actually want to have children, if nobody expected you to have them, would still make the choice? If you already have them would you have more? I find it fascinating that those who already have them are the most likely to actually say no to having more.
An open question
Following on from a previous post there is a question that arises when talking about relationships, that is the definition of the relationship itself and what it pertains to. Given everything I said about the revelations I made, there is a question of whether or not the answer for me would be to pursue an open relationship as a solution. I don't think this would be wise for me personally. Whilst having trust issues would be less of a factor in a relationship where it is not possible to "cheat" on the other person, if that is the reason for pursuing that type of relationship I think it would be doomed to failure as it is basically an admission that you don't trust the other person. This, and the fact that trust in a relationship is about more than who you sleep with, you can still trust, mistrust, and betray the trust of a person who you are in an open relationship with.
For me personally there is a romanticism in the traditional perception of a one on one relationship where two people pledge their lives to each other. For me that's not about patriarchy or societal constructs, it's a choice. As a gay man there are a lot less expectations of me with regards to institutions and the expectations of society. You're not as pressured into the idea of settling down, marrying, and having kids. You can do that and there are many that do, through surrogacy or through adoption etc. but it remains something that is statistically less prevalent in the LGBT community. Although having said that, most countries are experiencing population declines and stalling birth rates so there is the question of whether this is becoming less of an expectation for straight people too - again I can't speak to that as I'm not straight and I don't know enough straight people going through that stage in their life to be able to remark.
The idea of a relationship for me hinges more on the concept of cooperation and collaboration. Life is hard, and there are many things it will throw at you that can be difficult to deal with. The romanticism of a relationship stems from the idea that you would not face those trials and tribulations alone. You would have someone who was there for you and had your back and was there to support you through it. As I said in my previous post though, I already have that from other people in my life so I am not entirely sure why this is such a fixation for me. I've even written here about the difference between being alone and being lonely, and neither of these are a reason for me to pursue this fixation, that's not something I would hope to overcome by being in a relationship.
Normally I like to find some kind of resolution when writing these posts or to end on a question giving you or me something to think about. In this case there is no resolution. This is something that is ongoing for me, and has been for well over a decade now. If I haven't been able to find a resolution in over ten years then it was unlikely that I was ever going to find one in a few hundred words. In life some things never get resolved. In the movie Casper one of the staples of the plot is the idea that when someone dies, if they have unfinished business then they come back as ghosts, otherwise people move on. I never really understood why that meant Casper remained a ghost as he originally stayed behind for his Dad but he was long gone by the time of the movie. Nevertheless, the idea of unfinished business in itself I think is a romanticism, it implies that there are people who live their lives and make it to the end with resolution - I don't think that happens much, if it has ever happened at all.
There will always be questions that go unanswered, there will always be things we wanted to know, and there will always be things that we could never know, no matter how hard we could have tried. This is the mentality I have right now. As much as I wonder about these things and they give me a lot to think about, I don't think they are questions I will ever get an answer to, at least not one that will satisfy me, or lead to a thousand more questions.
For me personally there is a romanticism in the traditional perception of a one on one relationship where two people pledge their lives to each other. For me that's not about patriarchy or societal constructs, it's a choice. As a gay man there are a lot less expectations of me with regards to institutions and the expectations of society. You're not as pressured into the idea of settling down, marrying, and having kids. You can do that and there are many that do, through surrogacy or through adoption etc. but it remains something that is statistically less prevalent in the LGBT community. Although having said that, most countries are experiencing population declines and stalling birth rates so there is the question of whether this is becoming less of an expectation for straight people too - again I can't speak to that as I'm not straight and I don't know enough straight people going through that stage in their life to be able to remark.
The idea of a relationship for me hinges more on the concept of cooperation and collaboration. Life is hard, and there are many things it will throw at you that can be difficult to deal with. The romanticism of a relationship stems from the idea that you would not face those trials and tribulations alone. You would have someone who was there for you and had your back and was there to support you through it. As I said in my previous post though, I already have that from other people in my life so I am not entirely sure why this is such a fixation for me. I've even written here about the difference between being alone and being lonely, and neither of these are a reason for me to pursue this fixation, that's not something I would hope to overcome by being in a relationship.
Normally I like to find some kind of resolution when writing these posts or to end on a question giving you or me something to think about. In this case there is no resolution. This is something that is ongoing for me, and has been for well over a decade now. If I haven't been able to find a resolution in over ten years then it was unlikely that I was ever going to find one in a few hundred words. In life some things never get resolved. In the movie Casper one of the staples of the plot is the idea that when someone dies, if they have unfinished business then they come back as ghosts, otherwise people move on. I never really understood why that meant Casper remained a ghost as he originally stayed behind for his Dad but he was long gone by the time of the movie. Nevertheless, the idea of unfinished business in itself I think is a romanticism, it implies that there are people who live their lives and make it to the end with resolution - I don't think that happens much, if it has ever happened at all.
There will always be questions that go unanswered, there will always be things we wanted to know, and there will always be things that we could never know, no matter how hard we could have tried. This is the mentality I have right now. As much as I wonder about these things and they give me a lot to think about, I don't think they are questions I will ever get an answer to, at least not one that will satisfy me, or lead to a thousand more questions.
What do I want to change?
I've been thinking a lot about what I want in life. In my previous post I wrote about life changes and how we are often reluctant to admit we have the power to change things that don't necessarily make us happy and why that might be the case. I decided to ask myself the same question I put out there into the world, what would I want to change, and whether or not I can actually change that. The answer wasn't easy to find.
The default answer first of all is that there is the desire to move that has been in the back of my mind in near constancy since I got back home - I lived in London for 3 years whilst studying at University and the thought of going back has remained in my mind ever since. I stopped for the first time and asked myself why that desire existed. The same answer propped up that I have told myself since I got here - there are more career opportunities for me in London. That is true but the fixation on that fact does somewhat imply there is a belief there are no opportunities for me here. Whilst there are less, it would be untrue to say that there are none. There are opportunities just not many that I have actually considered pursuing.
I then had to ask myself if I could actually move right now, or if I could choose to stay here as opposed to feeling trapped here. That threw open another debate for me. I am a gay man. Where I live isn't very socially progressive. I live in a city but it has a decidedly small town mentality, and there is a heavy religious influence. There are 27 churches in a 1 mile radius of my house, I know, I counted. This doesn't create an atmosphere where I think that I could actually find someone to share my life with, and live safely and happily in the process. This made me realise that the real reason why I want to move is because of that, not because of career alone. I've said in other posts what I do I could in theory do anywhere with a good internet connection. I could be sitting in a monastery atop the Tibetan mountains if I had a decent internet connection it wouldn't matter - it might actually be more conducive to some of my work being so isolated.
I am thirty years old, and at the risk of sounding melancholy or melodramatic, I'm getting old...er. I know there will be many people a lot older than me who will protest at this perception but what you think doesn't matter much in terms of my perception, you can't change the way someone sees things unless they are willing and right now I'm not willing. My health problems have been a reminder of my mortality, and the fact that I can now no longer do many of the things I could 10 years ago has made me accept the fact that our lives change with age and you can't expect to behave the same way and do the same things throughout its entirety.
With regards to finding someone to live my life with, the real desire there is the immediacy of the social interaction. The cohabitation and the commitment you make to one another. In terms of the companionship, I have become much more appreciative of my friends and the people in my life. I have people I can talk to, I have people I can share things with, and above all else I have people that I can have a completely unfiltered conversation with free of any judgement and I believe that is what most people look for when they want a relationship. This made me question why I wanted something I already have, and I think the reason is because I try and convince myself at times that I don't already have that.
Sex is great, and for many people that is the driving factor in wanting a relationship. Whilst that appeals, there is an alternative. As a gay man, I am aware of the plethora of dating apps and hook up apps that make it incredibly easy to find someone to have sex with. I don't know how easy this is for straight people, I am not straight, and I don't know any straight people who do that so I can't speak to it. Having sex so readily available again negates the need to actually pursue a relationship as a means to that end. You then come to the conclusion that the real reason you desire a relationship is to have everything you already have but from one source and as that old saying goes of eggs and baskets there is a question of the wisdom in that regard.
I have trust issues relating to past traumas that I endured and I have held in my mind the idea that I could overcome those if I found the right person, but in truth having never actually experienced that level of commitment I don't actually know if I could.
There is a pattern of unknown factors emerging here so let's leave the hypothetical scenarios for now and look at the immediate scenario. I have career opportunities here if I choose to pursue them. My health is a mitigating circumstance but even that can be compensated for. I have everything I would get from a relationship provided by other people already. There are things I would like, more money for one, but nothing that has an aspiration, ambition, or motivation that is strong enough to drive the pursuit of it. I'm comfortable right now, even if there are things I would like to change and that I fixate on, the reason nothing has changed is because I am comfortable.
So what do I want to change, why do I want to change it, and do I have the power to change it? The answers are nothing, for the sake of change, and yes, in that order. There is nothing I want to change enough to actually make that change. Everything I do want to change I want to do so for the sake of changing it, there's no actual net gain in doing so. I do indeed have the power to change it all, an admission that isn't easy to make. I'm still not sure what implication or impact on my life this revelation will have.
The default answer first of all is that there is the desire to move that has been in the back of my mind in near constancy since I got back home - I lived in London for 3 years whilst studying at University and the thought of going back has remained in my mind ever since. I stopped for the first time and asked myself why that desire existed. The same answer propped up that I have told myself since I got here - there are more career opportunities for me in London. That is true but the fixation on that fact does somewhat imply there is a belief there are no opportunities for me here. Whilst there are less, it would be untrue to say that there are none. There are opportunities just not many that I have actually considered pursuing.
I then had to ask myself if I could actually move right now, or if I could choose to stay here as opposed to feeling trapped here. That threw open another debate for me. I am a gay man. Where I live isn't very socially progressive. I live in a city but it has a decidedly small town mentality, and there is a heavy religious influence. There are 27 churches in a 1 mile radius of my house, I know, I counted. This doesn't create an atmosphere where I think that I could actually find someone to share my life with, and live safely and happily in the process. This made me realise that the real reason why I want to move is because of that, not because of career alone. I've said in other posts what I do I could in theory do anywhere with a good internet connection. I could be sitting in a monastery atop the Tibetan mountains if I had a decent internet connection it wouldn't matter - it might actually be more conducive to some of my work being so isolated.
I am thirty years old, and at the risk of sounding melancholy or melodramatic, I'm getting old...er. I know there will be many people a lot older than me who will protest at this perception but what you think doesn't matter much in terms of my perception, you can't change the way someone sees things unless they are willing and right now I'm not willing. My health problems have been a reminder of my mortality, and the fact that I can now no longer do many of the things I could 10 years ago has made me accept the fact that our lives change with age and you can't expect to behave the same way and do the same things throughout its entirety.
With regards to finding someone to live my life with, the real desire there is the immediacy of the social interaction. The cohabitation and the commitment you make to one another. In terms of the companionship, I have become much more appreciative of my friends and the people in my life. I have people I can talk to, I have people I can share things with, and above all else I have people that I can have a completely unfiltered conversation with free of any judgement and I believe that is what most people look for when they want a relationship. This made me question why I wanted something I already have, and I think the reason is because I try and convince myself at times that I don't already have that.
Sex is great, and for many people that is the driving factor in wanting a relationship. Whilst that appeals, there is an alternative. As a gay man, I am aware of the plethora of dating apps and hook up apps that make it incredibly easy to find someone to have sex with. I don't know how easy this is for straight people, I am not straight, and I don't know any straight people who do that so I can't speak to it. Having sex so readily available again negates the need to actually pursue a relationship as a means to that end. You then come to the conclusion that the real reason you desire a relationship is to have everything you already have but from one source and as that old saying goes of eggs and baskets there is a question of the wisdom in that regard.
I have trust issues relating to past traumas that I endured and I have held in my mind the idea that I could overcome those if I found the right person, but in truth having never actually experienced that level of commitment I don't actually know if I could.
There is a pattern of unknown factors emerging here so let's leave the hypothetical scenarios for now and look at the immediate scenario. I have career opportunities here if I choose to pursue them. My health is a mitigating circumstance but even that can be compensated for. I have everything I would get from a relationship provided by other people already. There are things I would like, more money for one, but nothing that has an aspiration, ambition, or motivation that is strong enough to drive the pursuit of it. I'm comfortable right now, even if there are things I would like to change and that I fixate on, the reason nothing has changed is because I am comfortable.
So what do I want to change, why do I want to change it, and do I have the power to change it? The answers are nothing, for the sake of change, and yes, in that order. There is nothing I want to change enough to actually make that change. Everything I do want to change I want to do so for the sake of changing it, there's no actual net gain in doing so. I do indeed have the power to change it all, an admission that isn't easy to make. I'm still not sure what implication or impact on my life this revelation will have.
Thirty-One
I'm 31 years old today, I am not exaggerating when I say for a while I wasn't sure I would make it this far. If you've read my other blog chronicling my health journey you'll have some insight into what I went through and the thoughts that went through my head during that time. Nevertheless, here I am. I am happy to be saying goodbye to 30, it wasn't a good year for me, my 20s ended badly when this whole health journey began, but on the bright side it has meant that my 30s starting on a low point has actually made me feel quite optimistic about the rest of the decade.
Age is a strange thing to me, I'm conscious of it, and I do think about it, but my feelings toward it aren't the same as others as far as I can tell. I see many people who dread growing older, who don't want to admit their age, and who try to hold on to their youth insofar as lying about their age to try and remain young. I never really got the point of any of that. My only anxiety when it comes to the idea of growing older is knowing that a number of health problems will get worse as I get older which I don't want to think about, and the reality that the older I get, the closer I become to losing some of the people I love who are older than me. As for ageing itself, that never really bothered me if I am completely honest.
I was born an albino, so my hair is naturally white, it turns blond if certain chemicals discolour it or if I am in the sun too much, so I never really had to worry about the idea of going grey with age. I've seen more than a few guys around my age who are greying and their visible signs of ageing are providing the only visible reminder I can really see that I am getting older. I look to other people a lot in order to try and gauge where I would be by now if I wasn't albino.
As for mentality, I was old before my time, there are many reasons for this which we won't get into right now as it's some pretty heavy reading. Being old before your time however, you would think you would stay that way and other people would simply catch up to you, but in my experience that isn't what happens, in fact I think the reverse is more common - that you tend to adopt a younger and younger mentality as you age whilst others grow in theirs. I've not only observed this in myself, but in a number of other people who have told me stories about what they went through in their lives, the same desire to make up for lost time seems to assert itself. You find comfort and solace in exploring things that are completely new to you with the mentality of a teenager once more. People often talk about having a second childhood, for me personally I would say I've had more than two by now, I've gone through several phases now where I have become obsessed with things that aren't aimed at adults at all. Music, Games, TV shows, Movies, etc, things that are explicitly marketed towards teenagers often have much more appeal for me than anything that's actually marketed toward people of my age - most of that stuff is actually boring to me.
This does go somewhat further into denial or avoidance of "life goals" or "milestones" that you're expected to have achieved by now - this at least I can't contribute to my specific experience as I believe this is something that is common to my generation as a whole, in many ways we are a "correction" to borrow a term from the world of finance. In financial markets when stocks grow in value over time that growth eventually stretches to the point where the perceived value and the actual value has diverged too far, at that point what is referred to as a correction occurs, where the price crashes suddenly until it moves closer to reality before it starts to grow again. I believe my generation is a correction, whereby other generations that came before us pursued growth at all cost and built up expectations to such extremes that they diverged too far from reality, the result is that a correction has occurred where reality has been asserted and expectations have been brought back down to something much more realistic - my generation has almost entirely abandoned the expectations and ideals of those that came before us writing them off as fantasy.
What all of this has got to do with me personally is the realisation that the value that I attribute to my own achievements needs to be determined by me alone, by my expectations, and by my goals, not by anyone else's. To that end, I have been looking back at my life so far and all that I have done and I've been feeling much better about it than I have for a long time. I am a published author, I had the education I wanted, I have been in various jobs and learned a lot from those experiences, I've lived without money, I've lived with money, I've spent everything, I've saved everything, I've learned how to find a balance between extremities. I'm still alive, despite how close I have been to death so many times that I know its face better than my own.
I've said many times, I don't know what I want to do with my life, and that is still true. Right now as ever, all I want is to be happy, and I recognise to find happiness in the moment doesn't take much. I don't know what life has in store for me, and to be honest I don't think I want to know before it happens. I feel like I am alive for a reason, I have no idea what that reason is, but I am at least interested to know the answer, that is, if I ever will, I may never know why I was meant to live, or what affect I had on other people simply by being alive, butterflies and all that.
Age is a strange thing to me, I'm conscious of it, and I do think about it, but my feelings toward it aren't the same as others as far as I can tell. I see many people who dread growing older, who don't want to admit their age, and who try to hold on to their youth insofar as lying about their age to try and remain young. I never really got the point of any of that. My only anxiety when it comes to the idea of growing older is knowing that a number of health problems will get worse as I get older which I don't want to think about, and the reality that the older I get, the closer I become to losing some of the people I love who are older than me. As for ageing itself, that never really bothered me if I am completely honest.
I was born an albino, so my hair is naturally white, it turns blond if certain chemicals discolour it or if I am in the sun too much, so I never really had to worry about the idea of going grey with age. I've seen more than a few guys around my age who are greying and their visible signs of ageing are providing the only visible reminder I can really see that I am getting older. I look to other people a lot in order to try and gauge where I would be by now if I wasn't albino.
As for mentality, I was old before my time, there are many reasons for this which we won't get into right now as it's some pretty heavy reading. Being old before your time however, you would think you would stay that way and other people would simply catch up to you, but in my experience that isn't what happens, in fact I think the reverse is more common - that you tend to adopt a younger and younger mentality as you age whilst others grow in theirs. I've not only observed this in myself, but in a number of other people who have told me stories about what they went through in their lives, the same desire to make up for lost time seems to assert itself. You find comfort and solace in exploring things that are completely new to you with the mentality of a teenager once more. People often talk about having a second childhood, for me personally I would say I've had more than two by now, I've gone through several phases now where I have become obsessed with things that aren't aimed at adults at all. Music, Games, TV shows, Movies, etc, things that are explicitly marketed towards teenagers often have much more appeal for me than anything that's actually marketed toward people of my age - most of that stuff is actually boring to me.
This does go somewhat further into denial or avoidance of "life goals" or "milestones" that you're expected to have achieved by now - this at least I can't contribute to my specific experience as I believe this is something that is common to my generation as a whole, in many ways we are a "correction" to borrow a term from the world of finance. In financial markets when stocks grow in value over time that growth eventually stretches to the point where the perceived value and the actual value has diverged too far, at that point what is referred to as a correction occurs, where the price crashes suddenly until it moves closer to reality before it starts to grow again. I believe my generation is a correction, whereby other generations that came before us pursued growth at all cost and built up expectations to such extremes that they diverged too far from reality, the result is that a correction has occurred where reality has been asserted and expectations have been brought back down to something much more realistic - my generation has almost entirely abandoned the expectations and ideals of those that came before us writing them off as fantasy.
What all of this has got to do with me personally is the realisation that the value that I attribute to my own achievements needs to be determined by me alone, by my expectations, and by my goals, not by anyone else's. To that end, I have been looking back at my life so far and all that I have done and I've been feeling much better about it than I have for a long time. I am a published author, I had the education I wanted, I have been in various jobs and learned a lot from those experiences, I've lived without money, I've lived with money, I've spent everything, I've saved everything, I've learned how to find a balance between extremities. I'm still alive, despite how close I have been to death so many times that I know its face better than my own.
I've said many times, I don't know what I want to do with my life, and that is still true. Right now as ever, all I want is to be happy, and I recognise to find happiness in the moment doesn't take much. I don't know what life has in store for me, and to be honest I don't think I want to know before it happens. I feel like I am alive for a reason, I have no idea what that reason is, but I am at least interested to know the answer, that is, if I ever will, I may never know why I was meant to live, or what affect I had on other people simply by being alive, butterflies and all that.
What do you want to change?
We can convince ourselves of anything if we allow ourselves to do so. We accept as true that which doesn't pose a threat to who and what we are. As long as what we want to believe doesn't threaten that perception, we will find a way to convince ourselves that it is true, even if all evidence points to the contrary. Nowhere is this more evident than when we ask ourselves the question "Can I do that?" and convince ourselves that the answer is no.
Admitting defeat without even trying is an act that is rooted in the comfort of the familiar. We may aspire to great wealth and success, but to pursue those aspirations we have to make changes which will jeopardize everything about the life we already know. Whether we are content or not with the life we already know, there is a safety and a security in the familiarity of it. Even when what we already know is destructive, dangerous, and poses a threat to our very existence, we embrace it because it is what we know, what we have always known, and what we know how to deal with.
There is an aversion to learning how to live our lives again. We often don't take these steps until we are forced into them, and even then we resist it as much as we can. There's a lot that we can change that we aren't willing to accept that we can change. One of the reasons for this is because accepting these things as being something within our control is to take responsibility for the pain and suffering and the struggle that we have endured because of them. We don't want to take that responsibility because we want to be able to place the onus on someone or something else.
There are legitimate reasons why we can't always change certain aspects of our lives. Obligations can limit what we can do without causing a lot of upset, emotionally, physically, mentally, financially, and many other ways. This does not however change the fact that the choice remains. The apparent ease or difficulty of making a choice does not take away the fact that it is a choice. It can be the hardest choice in the world to make and the options you have can lead to the toughest trials and tribulations any human can ever face, but that still doesn't change the fact that it is a choice.
Admitting to ourselves what we have the power to change can be scary, but this process can be made simpler by coming to the realisation that the past cannot be changed, and that admitting we have the power to change the future and the power to change our lives does not have to change the past we endured. Whether or not you ever perceived it as a choice before is irrelevant to the present. You live in the present you do not live in the past, the choice exists only in the moment, you can not change the past.
The best place to start is to first ask yourself what would you want to change if you could, and then start to identify ways in which you could accommodate that change first of all, then look at the ways you can make a conscious effort to pursue that change. It may take time, and you should expect to be patient when making some of those changes but you should not let the length of time you would have to wait be a determining factor in whether or not you even try. The only true failure is the failure to try.
Admitting defeat without even trying is an act that is rooted in the comfort of the familiar. We may aspire to great wealth and success, but to pursue those aspirations we have to make changes which will jeopardize everything about the life we already know. Whether we are content or not with the life we already know, there is a safety and a security in the familiarity of it. Even when what we already know is destructive, dangerous, and poses a threat to our very existence, we embrace it because it is what we know, what we have always known, and what we know how to deal with.
There is an aversion to learning how to live our lives again. We often don't take these steps until we are forced into them, and even then we resist it as much as we can. There's a lot that we can change that we aren't willing to accept that we can change. One of the reasons for this is because accepting these things as being something within our control is to take responsibility for the pain and suffering and the struggle that we have endured because of them. We don't want to take that responsibility because we want to be able to place the onus on someone or something else.
There are legitimate reasons why we can't always change certain aspects of our lives. Obligations can limit what we can do without causing a lot of upset, emotionally, physically, mentally, financially, and many other ways. This does not however change the fact that the choice remains. The apparent ease or difficulty of making a choice does not take away the fact that it is a choice. It can be the hardest choice in the world to make and the options you have can lead to the toughest trials and tribulations any human can ever face, but that still doesn't change the fact that it is a choice.
Admitting to ourselves what we have the power to change can be scary, but this process can be made simpler by coming to the realisation that the past cannot be changed, and that admitting we have the power to change the future and the power to change our lives does not have to change the past we endured. Whether or not you ever perceived it as a choice before is irrelevant to the present. You live in the present you do not live in the past, the choice exists only in the moment, you can not change the past.
The best place to start is to first ask yourself what would you want to change if you could, and then start to identify ways in which you could accommodate that change first of all, then look at the ways you can make a conscious effort to pursue that change. It may take time, and you should expect to be patient when making some of those changes but you should not let the length of time you would have to wait be a determining factor in whether or not you even try. The only true failure is the failure to try.
Default Interpretations
There's an interesting observation I have made when it comes to the way people perceive the world. Whilst I've written before about the limit of diversity and how everyone has the same experiences which lead to the same conclusions, most of those are based on objective observations, where there's only one conclusion that you can draw in those scenarios. What I find fascinating however is when you venture into the realm of interpretation, that is to say when you have something that there is no definitive answer for. In these situations I find it interesting when independently people come to the same conclusion or have the same interpretation at that end despite there being no real reason why that should be the case.
As an example, there is an observable effect known as the Bouba/kiki effect, where nonsensical words can be created, and images presented to observers, and through experimentation asking the observer to associate the words with one of the images, there are trends that appear. In the classical Bouba/kiki example the two words "Bouba" and "Kiki" are presented along with two graphics of non geometric shapes, one is round and amorphous, and the other is sharp and pointy. When asked to associate the words with the images, the majority of observers will associate the word "Bouba" with the rounded image, and the word "Kiki" with the pointed image. There is an inherent interpretation that leads us to interpret these words in this way.
Whilst this demonstrates an experiment that explores this concept, you can look beyond the examination and look to society itself. There are certain themes that emerge over time which are present amongst different cultures, from the association of thoughts and feelings with colours e.g. yellow is associated with happiness and sunshine, whilst black is associated with sadness and despair, or grey is associated with blandness and conformity. These interpretations developed independently across cultures that for the longest time had no contact that we know of whatsoever. Go beyond this into the symbolism of water representing depth, potential, and the unknown, and fire representing danger, anger, and conflict. Whilst not everyone will agree on these interpretations I do find it interesting that the consensus emerges even when those asked to form such interpretations are asked in isolation.
You can make the argument that there is crossover in cultural influences in the world we now live in, and that our upbringing will play a part, but that argument becomes less persuasive when it is put against the context of the Bouba/kiki effect where the words chosen are nonsensical and the images picked are meaningless. There is a question that arises as to why there seems to be a default interpretation for many things, and if there is some underlying empirical reason for that default interpretation. If you are not easily unnerved, this concept has been entertained and taken to the extreme in the past, there have been experiments done on humans called language deprivation experiments in which infants were deprived of any linguistic interaction in an attempt to determine whether a "natural" or "default" language would emerge although not carried out with rigour the general consensus seems to be that lack of spoken language leaves humans to develop physical language as a means of communication through gesticulations.
The fact that we all have similar experiences and that we all come to similar conclusions has made it easier for me to find confidence in myself at times. Whenever I first took an interest in the use of Cold Reading - extracting information from people without needing any prior knowledge of that person and with little or no information provided verbally - I quickly came to the realisation that uniqueness is a paradox. For everyone to be unique there has to be conformity in diversity which isn't possible as this is an oxymoron. The conclusion that I made was that "you're unique, just like everybody else" is meant quite literally, everyone is the same person, there are just enough variances and defining factors to make it possible to distinguish one from another - most of the time.
Still the idea of default interpretations intrigues me, and leads me to question why there is such diversity in personal opinions even if it is far more limited than you would expect. If there are default interpretations then how are deviations accounted for, how are such differing conclusions formed, is it really a case of wanting to compete? Like choosing a football team to support, is it as much about an emotional connection overriding the logical choice? Are our interpretations ultimately an expression of choice, one we make out of a conscious decision to deviate from the default, like picking a wallpaper for your desktop background, do we change it because we want to be different, or paradoxically do we seek out what other people have chosen so that we can conform, even if it is with a minority or in complete obscurity.
As an example, there is an observable effect known as the Bouba/kiki effect, where nonsensical words can be created, and images presented to observers, and through experimentation asking the observer to associate the words with one of the images, there are trends that appear. In the classical Bouba/kiki example the two words "Bouba" and "Kiki" are presented along with two graphics of non geometric shapes, one is round and amorphous, and the other is sharp and pointy. When asked to associate the words with the images, the majority of observers will associate the word "Bouba" with the rounded image, and the word "Kiki" with the pointed image. There is an inherent interpretation that leads us to interpret these words in this way.
Whilst this demonstrates an experiment that explores this concept, you can look beyond the examination and look to society itself. There are certain themes that emerge over time which are present amongst different cultures, from the association of thoughts and feelings with colours e.g. yellow is associated with happiness and sunshine, whilst black is associated with sadness and despair, or grey is associated with blandness and conformity. These interpretations developed independently across cultures that for the longest time had no contact that we know of whatsoever. Go beyond this into the symbolism of water representing depth, potential, and the unknown, and fire representing danger, anger, and conflict. Whilst not everyone will agree on these interpretations I do find it interesting that the consensus emerges even when those asked to form such interpretations are asked in isolation.
You can make the argument that there is crossover in cultural influences in the world we now live in, and that our upbringing will play a part, but that argument becomes less persuasive when it is put against the context of the Bouba/kiki effect where the words chosen are nonsensical and the images picked are meaningless. There is a question that arises as to why there seems to be a default interpretation for many things, and if there is some underlying empirical reason for that default interpretation. If you are not easily unnerved, this concept has been entertained and taken to the extreme in the past, there have been experiments done on humans called language deprivation experiments in which infants were deprived of any linguistic interaction in an attempt to determine whether a "natural" or "default" language would emerge although not carried out with rigour the general consensus seems to be that lack of spoken language leaves humans to develop physical language as a means of communication through gesticulations.
The fact that we all have similar experiences and that we all come to similar conclusions has made it easier for me to find confidence in myself at times. Whenever I first took an interest in the use of Cold Reading - extracting information from people without needing any prior knowledge of that person and with little or no information provided verbally - I quickly came to the realisation that uniqueness is a paradox. For everyone to be unique there has to be conformity in diversity which isn't possible as this is an oxymoron. The conclusion that I made was that "you're unique, just like everybody else" is meant quite literally, everyone is the same person, there are just enough variances and defining factors to make it possible to distinguish one from another - most of the time.
Still the idea of default interpretations intrigues me, and leads me to question why there is such diversity in personal opinions even if it is far more limited than you would expect. If there are default interpretations then how are deviations accounted for, how are such differing conclusions formed, is it really a case of wanting to compete? Like choosing a football team to support, is it as much about an emotional connection overriding the logical choice? Are our interpretations ultimately an expression of choice, one we make out of a conscious decision to deviate from the default, like picking a wallpaper for your desktop background, do we change it because we want to be different, or paradoxically do we seek out what other people have chosen so that we can conform, even if it is with a minority or in complete obscurity.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)