Monday, July 14, 2008

  • Aging

    I'm getting old.

    I officially turned nineteen a few hours ago.  Soon, I will have payments and a career.  Soon, I will begin to lose the youthful beauty of my body and face.  Soon, I will start to feel tired, sickly, and mentally dull.  I really don't want to get older.

    Nineteen, for me, has always been the mark of age.  Eighteen is the best year: the youngest adult year.  One has all the freedoms and (optional) responsibilities of an adult, while still being in school, and undoubtedly young.  Aging is, undoubtedly, a part of life, but nineteen is the turning point.  From as early as I can remember up until my eighteenth birthday, I wanted to be older.  I wanted to be afforded the rights of an adult.  I wanted to be recognized as a sovereign individual, not "just a kid."  Of course, not all of this happened immediately at eighteen (particularly from my parents), but it was always the upwards goal.  After this, goals no longer go in age increments, but in life-phase increments instead.  The next goal is graduation, then grad school, then starting a career, then advancing in that career, then marriage and children(?), then retirement, then death.  There are no set ages for these, and as such, I find myself with the anxiety of youth, rushing everything.  I want to graduate now.  I want to know what my career path will be, now.  I have a vague time line of my next three years, but after that?  Things are just uncertain.  There is no moment towards which I will be pushing.  There is no advantage to being older than I am right now.  I will simply experience the physical hardships of aging, more and more each year.  Each year will be a physical progressive descent into infirmary.  Obviously, my intellectual, social, and emotional achievements do not need to do the same (and I expect that they wouldn't), but from now on, I have stagnated at least one of my measures of a perfect life.  Many will dismiss this as the whining ramblings of an overanxious teen.  Of course, you'd be right.  There is the easy answer: eat right, and exercise.  You won't feel as tired and you'll be healthier longer.  That's much easier said than done.  I've mostly got the "eat right" thing done, but exercise?  Simply the idea makes me cringe.

    I am no longer the youngest adult I know, and this thought is chilling.  What's even more concerning than the fact that I feel older, is the way I phrased this in my mind.  Youngest.  As I get older, one thing that I do fortunately gain is wisdom and perspective.  Most notably, my views on competition have changed dramatically.  When I was younger, I used to long for competition.  I wanted to prove that I was better than everyone else, at everything.  There was ONE best artistic approach, ONE best body, ONE best intellect.  I appreciated the efforts and abilities of others, but my narcissistic tendencies would not allow me to see them on the same playing field.  I even thought that this sort of competitive mind view was good, healthy, and actually necessary for achievement.  Clearly, this is a limited (and in some details, entirely false) approach, but it's one I am still combating.  It's hard to focus on individual achievements instead of being "better" than someone else, particularly when I know that I have the ability to perform better than those around me.  It's hard to define the line between healthy and unhealthy competition.  Generally, I now understand that competition is bad.  Outperforming someone on a task does not make me better.  It doesn't even mean that I really deserved to win.  Most of the time, particularly in my own life, "winning" is based on inborn genetic attributes.  I get the highest grade on a math test, even though I never cracked open book, homework, or notes, because I have a natural affinity towards and ability to do math.  My peer may have gotten a B on the test, despite hours of practice and studying.  This does not make me superior to her.  In fact, she is ethically superior to me, because I often have little sense of work ethic*.  I may be intellectually superior, but so what?  I didn't earn that.  This often creates a paradox for me.  I'd rather befriend a slacking C-student with a brilliant wit than a diligent A/B student with little natural mental ability, even though the second person surely ought to have earned more respect.  I've explored this some recently, but to expand on it would take far more space and time than I am willing or able to give at the moment (and, I'm sure, would create more text than my readers care to even skim, given how long this post is sure to be already).

    Back to the topic at hand, competition between other people is not an accurate measure either of how good you are or how good your genes are (though it is a measure of the interaction between the two).  It is generally not a healthy way to build a life or philosophy, and it will not earn you any friends.  It will not make you happier, and it will not foster your personal growth.  It is hard for me to let go of competition sometimes, but I do make an honest, genuine effort, and it's easier every day.  I encourage all of my readers to do the same, if competition is something with which you struggle.

    What are your thoughts on aging?  What important aspect of a life perspective have you struggled with in youth, and been working to correct?  How successful have you been?

    *I really do work on things when necessary.  I only say this because it is rarely necessary for me to do so.

    On my recent 4-part political series, I must extend my most sincere apologies to my most patient readers.  I'm in an extremely time-consuming class right now, and I shouldn't have even taken the time to write this entry, but it was bearing on my mind.  Sorry, do forgive me.

Tuesday, July 01, 2008

  • On totalitarian/militaristic political systems

    For the purpose of this entry, I will be refering to all militaristic totalitarian political systems in a chunk.  Basically, the main one I have in mind is fascism, but in case my readers haven't noticed, I believe in a vast political spectrum and "chunking" in this manner is the only way to accurately describe all political-economic systems.  Furthermore, to me, politics and economics are so entertwined that I use them virtually interchangably.  I understand the nuances, and I just don't want to get bogged down in those tiny details (and particulars about precise phrasing) in this blog.  Also, this is the second in a four(?) part series on politics that I'm planning, so hold on.  I'm going somewhere, I promise.


    Militaristic political systems are based on a few essential founding premises:

    1. National govenment should exist
    2. Encouragement of blind patriotism
    3. Religion as a tool of and partner with the state
    4. Basic in-group psychology

    Obviously, all of these things are related, and all are fundamentally designed to increase the power of the state.  Hence, we have "totalitarian/militaristic" in the title.  There are theoretical totalitarian political systems that are peaceful, but generally they would never last too long, because they have to convince the public that there's a need for all this money that's being stolen in taxes.  A notable exception could be some variety of a collectivist political system, discussed below.  This sort of system would still grant dictatorial powers the latitude to take as much money as they desire "for the public good," but it is somewhat less realistic than the militaristic variety of despotism, because it gives people entirely too much credit.

    Collectivistic political systems as defined below require that the general public either voluntarily gives up or accepts the theft of the products of their labor.  They require compassion (at least in the easy sense), trust, and some manner of cohesiveness without a binding factor like in-group psychology.  Militaristic political systems, however, feed people's instinctive need for releasing aggression, tribal warfare, emotional comfort, intellectual complacancy, and most of the needs fulfilled by watching sports.  It is much easier to gain control of an unwitting populace by convincing them that they need to "defend" themselves, or by convincing them of theology and nationalism, than it ever would be to convince them that they need to give up their income to feed an unknown starving family five thousand miles away.  Personal need will always be a greater motivator, in the large-scale political sense, and this is why we have not historically seen peaceful large-scale collectivist societies; in order to maintain existence, they must morph from collectivism to militarism.

    So, let me explain a little bit about "in-group/out-group" psychology.
    Basically, in the field of psychology, there are all sorts of different perspectives - lenses, if you will - by which to examine a particular phenomenon.  For instance, dreams can be looked at from a neuroscience perspective (the physical causes and reactions in the brain that trigger dreams), from a Freudian perspective, from a developmental perspective, from a social perspective.... I think you get the idea.  The present topic is largely relevant to two fields or perspectives of psychology: evolutionary and social.  Evolutionary psychologists seek to find historical sources for our instinctive genetic psychological tendencies.  In particular, they examine how a trait would have been advantageous and facilitated survival, reproduction, and childrearing, thus enabling the gene(s) coding for the trait to be passed on and become more prominent in the species as a whole.  Social psychologists seek to explain our needs and behavior in the context (or absence) of other human beings.  They study things like the influences of other people on individual decisions, thoughts, and feelings, particularly in a certain context.  For instance, Stanley Milgram's famous experiment demonstrated that, when asked to administer electric shock to people in the next room, nearly everyone went all the way to the highest level of shock, which was marked as lethal.  Why did they do this?  Perhaps they "trusted" the experimenters.  Perhaps "someone else will just do it anyway."  Perhaps they felt cowed by apparent authority.  (Interestingly, more people went higher on the scale when an "authority" figure in a white coat told them to, as compared to people who were directed by a scientist in plainclothes.)  Perhaps they had extreme bloodlust.  (I'm kidding there- the experimenters noted that almost all the subjects were under deep distress).  At any rate, it's obvious that people, in general, can be convinced to do horrible things when the conditions are right.

    In-group/out-group psychology theorizes (again from the evolutionary perspective) that in early human development, tribes of people which were protective of close relatives (tribe members) and critical of or violent towards distantly related groups (other tribes), would be more likely to survive as a whole.  The altruistic soldier willing to give his life for the clan may be bad for his own genetic survival, but he is good for the survival of similar genes in his whole tribe's population.  This has been adapted to social psychology, in the sense that people (especially those who are uneducated/untraveled) are likely to shun people who are seen as "different" in appearance, culture, language, or religion, and accept and welcome people who are seen as similar.  Furthermore, most people are capable of dehumanizing such different, "out-group" individuals, to the extent that they can morally justify murder.  Just look at many modern evangelicals, who strive to dehumanize atheists and homosexuals, among others.  They are definitely not the only culprits, as there are racists, linguistic superiorists, and other ethnocentrists evident in our society even today.  Clearly, many of these groups have heavy overlapping; that's because the people who are most susceptible to one (culturally or genetically) are also equally susceptible to another, and many people require more than one in order to be completely convinced.
    [For more information on the foundations of the formation of this theory in social psychology (independent of evolutionary theorizing), see this for a basic introduction to "social identity theory".]

    "In-group/Out-group" psychology explains patriotism/xenophobia (which usually go hand-in-hand), religious intolerence, and racism, which are some of the prime components of a totalitarian/militaristic system.  If the public can be convinced that their godly country is the best, and that others outside of that country are godless, savage heathens, then that public can start to dehumanize the "out-group," which makes it "ethical" (and sometimes "necessary") to harm or kill them.  People start to see warfare as a game to be "won," like a sport.  They become justified in their aggression by the (inappropriately applied) "need" to protect their own family, or even divine mandate.  Religion is a useful tool in controlling the minds of individuals, convincing them that even their thoughts are monitered and will be punished.  And, of course, the winners in all of this are the dictators who, in holding their political, economical, and social tyranny over their public, gain virtually limitless power, worship, and money.

Tuesday, June 24, 2008

  • On collectivist political systems*

    There are two possibilities for a communal society - one by volition and one by force.  I think we can agree that, at least on a large scale, a voluntarily collectivist society cannot function.  Obviously, such units can exist in terms of families, but whether everyone born in a certain area would automatically choose to forfeit the product of his labor so people he has never met might eat?  That's a rather outlandish idea that has no practical significance, unless you hypothesize that the freerider problem would be insubstantial (if you've seen the amount of people on welfare and other forms of government assistance already, not to mention the people convicted of theft or other crimes, I'm fairly confident you won't pick this option).  Even assuming that enough people contributed enough of the products of their labor voluntarily, you still have the problem of a governing body, which I will address shortly...

    Then, we have the more popular form of theoretical collectivist society - the one run and enforced by some form of government.  So, if I refuse to surrender the products of my labor, they are seized or I am jailed/punished or I am exiled.  This in itself is unethical, as it implies the use of force against an innocent civilian.  However, a utilitarian might argue that a little enforcement of a Utopian collectivist society might provide the greatest happiness for the greatest number.  So what are the effects of a collectivist mentality on "happiness" and how effective is this style of government?  If you've ever studied any psychology or economics (or if you're particularly observant), you probably know that when people are given the option to work as much or as little as they want, with no tangible reason to work more/harder, they will tend to slack. Even more widely accepted is the principle that when people are given as much as they "need" with few or no checks, they will use more than if they could save money from those things.  At college, I see people leave lights on, leave water running, use public printers for pages they read once and throw away, and generally waste.  People eat more at a buffet than they would at a standard sit-down restaurant.  My boyfriend's apartment has utilities included at one flat rate, and he takes more showers and uses more lights than he would if he had to pay for each usage directly out of pocket.  There are certainly potential quotas for just how much of each resource an individual can use, but this increases the size of the government even more.  "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need," right?  But then, who determines the ability and need of each individual?  Who mandates a certain level of productivity - one which is different from worker to worker?  This must be done by a dictator, who will inevitably "need" a little more... I simply think that the dictator problem is inevitable, by the very nature of the requirements of government under a collectivist political system.  I hate to fit a stereotype to quote Ayn Rand (go ahead and get the collective groan, no pun intended, out of the way), but "The man who speaks to you of sacrifice speaks of slaves and masters, and intends to be the master."

    It must be noted that there is a distinction between what someone is willing, able, and expected to share.  In a free market system, we deal with the first.  In a collectivist system, we deal with one or both of the latter.  For example, right now I live in a house with seven other girls, most of whom I do not know very well.  We share one refrigerator/freezer, and there is very limited room.  I have posed the idea that, instead of having 4-5 gallons of milk in the fridge at the same time, we should go in together on milk, buying one gallon every couple of days.  This would save space in the fridge and not cause any hardship, as inevitably someone is going to the store on almost any given day.  Obviously, we would have to split the cost of the milk, and in fact, my fair share of the milk would cost more than the cost of the milk that I would actually consume.  However, I would still be willing to do the communal action, if the others agree.  Consenting to build communal roads is not the same as communism itself.  It is still a matter of individual contributors with individual salaries contributing a (hopefully voluntary) portion of their income.  A true collectivist political system requires complete surrender of income, discourages true productivity, encourages waste, and promotes totalitarianism.

    Well-reasoned criticisms (of the arguments!) are welcome.


    *Note that here I'm discussing communism and socialism as essentially the same in consequence.  I do know there's a difference, but for these purposes, I don't find it meaningful or important.

Thursday, June 12, 2008

  • What is your favorite summer memory?

    I can't pick one.  I loved GHP, TIP, SPECTACLES, Girl Scout Camp (Misty Moutain!), warm summer nights with George back in high school, hanging out in my dorm-house with Michelle or Gina, graduation, walking outside in shorts and a tank top, sunscreen, sandy water, short haircuts, light and carefree music, staying out with friends until 2AM - not drinking or anything stupid, just hanging out, frozen fruit and ice cream bars, swimming pools, cooking and hanging out with Steven, random sleepovers and midnight kroger runs with Courtney, long showers after a sweaty day, crisp grass under the shade of giant trees, sneaking into the school after it was seasonally out-of-order, and getting takeout to eat while sitting under the stars in the open trunk of my car.

    I just answered this Featured Question, you can answer it too!

Wednesday, June 11, 2008

  • Summer statistics and a new haircut

    I'm enrolled in one class in June, which is "Research Statistics" for my neuroscience major.  The professor (Dr. Blatchley) is familiar to me from my Sensation & Perception class this past spring, which was great.  The class is highly condensed, moving about three times the regular pace.  However, it's still awful.   We're essentially half-way through the class, and we only today got to information that I hadn't already been really familiar with, so I've been bored out of my mind.
    Furthermore, Dr. B is NOT a math person.  She simply doesn't understand the mathematical concepts behind the statistical formulas we're learning, and without a concept, I'll never understand the formula.  For some people, it's enough to plug-and-chug, but I'm not okay with that approach to any academic subject.  I'm here because I want to learn, but Dr. B cannot even explain things to me in a tone that makes sense to a mathematically-minded person.
    If that wasn't enough, half the class consists of half-wits.  Both my roommate Michelle and I got well over 100% on the first test, but apparently more than half the class (of only 10 students!) failed the first exam... which was over absolutely the most basic concepts I have studied in the past 5 years.  Students ask how to do the order of operations.  They've all completed at least one year of college - and graduated high school.  WHAT THE HELL?  They're wasting my class time with their idiotic antics, and they're still failing the class anyway.  I am completely disgusted to be forced to waste my time on this in order to take higher level psychology classes.  Fucking psychology majors.  Psychology majors are the most stupid of any students in any concentration.  I hate that, since we don't have a real neuroscience program, I'm stuck in classes with these idiots, and they're some of the largest classes on campus, since so many of the students are so stupid that they can't take anything but psychology.

    Anyway, on a somewhat more positive note, I got a surprise haircut sunday night.  My boyfriend wanted it a little shorter, so he was going to cut it off to donate.  Unfortunately, he cut extremely asymmetrically and extremely short on the first snip.  I got one of the other girls in the house to fix it, though, and now it's a cute chin-length bob, instead of the waist-length hair I had before.  Michelle agreed to dye it red for me tomorrow.  Pictures forthcoming!

Friday, May 16, 2008

  • Do you believe that teenage mothers can still be successful at life? Why or why not?

    Of course they can!

    Generally, the problem with teenage mothers is that the same characteristics that caused them to get pregnant in the first place will continue to cause insurmountable road blocks (for instance, they probably won't choose long-term planning over short term rewards).

    Also, having a child (and keeping it) can be very physically, emotionally, and academically stressful at that age.  The social stigma attached, and the requirements for taking care of the child, will drain the mother, and she may not even want to succeed.

    Regardless, she can still make the proactive decision to do something she loves with her life.  She can hold a steady career once her child is old enough for preschool, she can find love and get married, she can go back to school once her child(ren) are a little older, and she can make a happy, healthy life for herself. Almost anyone has the capacity to do these things, regardless of what tragedy they have experienced.  I just wish more people recognized the awesome power of their own determination and skill.
       

    I just answered this Featured Question, you can answer it too!

Thursday, May 01, 2008

  • Finals, etc.

    Finals start tomorrow.  I can be done as early as noon on Monday.  I'm really not looking forward to them, but I don't think they'll be hard.

    I'm mostly packed up, and it's very surreal to see all of my things in piles on the floor again.  I'm not looking forward to being without a home for the next few years until I can afford one of my own.

    I also need some money.  It sucks to be in college and have no job.  I've really been needing a new ink cartridge for my printer, tennis shoes, a phone, and some boxes (for my stuff).

    It's hard to cope with this stress, particularly when I feel alone.  I don't understand the prohibition against guests in the dorms around exam time.  As long as I'm not being loud and distracting other people, don't I have the right to spend my own time as I see fit in my room?

    I hope you're all doing well.  I'm kind of burnt out right now, but tomorrow will be another day, I suppose.

Tuesday, April 29, 2008

  • What would be a legitimate reason to break up with your significant other?

    A reason to break up with my boyfriend, or a reason to break up with people in general?

    For the former, I'd say that's a really hard question.  Obviously, he hasn't done anything worth breaking up over, because we've been together for quite a while.  I can't imagine the relationship ending, but feasible ways for it to end would probably be one of us moving away for an extended period of time.  Things like cheating or lying or stealing aren't issues between us.

    In general, I'd say there are plenty of legitimate reasons to break up with someone, as long as you are honest with him and with yourself.  For instance, meeting someone else that you like better?  Don't like the way he deals with conflict?  Can't stand his nail-biting?  Most issues should be discussed with an attempt at resolution first, then if they can't be resolved, let the relationship end and be on your way.  I try to always have amicable break-ups, and of three exes, I'm friends with one, and have never had any resentment with the other two.  I wish more people lived honestly, without losing their head over stupid things.
       

    I just answered this Featured Question, you can answer it too!

Monday, April 14, 2008

  • If the money was good enough, would you endorse a product you knew was dangerous?


    That depends on how dangerous the product was, and how much I liked it.

    For instance: cars, doughnuts, wine, and hair dye can all be considered "dangerous".  I would definitely endorse any of them (assuming they were quality products that I enjoyed).  Many products are "dangerous" only to people who are so stupid that they don't do their homework before buying.  For example, people who electrocute themselves with curling irons.  How stupid do you have to be to do something like that?  Honestly, the world is better off without you.  I wouldn't, however, be inclined to endorse a line of curling irons that spontaneously burst into fire.  I wouldn't want to ruin my credibility, risk my hair by using it in the commercial/ad, and lie to consumers about serious product defects.  This is just a matter of endorsing quality products- choosing underarmour instead of walmart brand scratchy substitute.

    Just about the only thing I wouldn't endorse on principle would be improperly-used mind-altering drugs (excepting sugar and alcohol).  Cigarettes, marijuana, or cocaine?  No way.  Zoloft or Viagra?  Maybe.
       

    I just answered this Featured Question, you can answer it too!

Thursday, April 10, 2008

la_faerie_joyeuse

  • Visit la_faerie_joyeuse's Xanga Site
    • Name: Rose
    • Metro: Atlanta
    • Birthday: 7/14/1989
    • Gender: Female
    • Member Since: 9/12/2004

About Me

  • "They dislike me, not because I do things badly, but because I do them well." -Ayn Rand Rose. First-year at ASC. 18. Intelligent. Poetic. Mathematician. Analytical. Logical. Compulsive. Abnormal. Perfectionist. Music. Piano. Vocal. Français. Food. Reading. Philosophy. Psychology. Vocabulary. I don't care what you think. Expressive. Loud. Just. Happy. Everything. Actress. Friend. Loyal. Political. Strong. Survivor. Libertarian. History. Objectivist. Love. Me. "Dagny, how did you do it? How did you manage to remain unmangled?" "By holding to just one rule." "Which?" "To place nothing - nothing- above the verdict of my own mind." "You've taken some terrible beatings... maybe worse than I did... worse than any of us... What held you through it?" "The knowledge that my life is the highest of values, too high to give up without a fight."

Weblog Archives

Don't worry - your calendar is here… to see it in action just click "Save" above and refresh the page.