People are good at outrage, gloom and doom. They are particularly good at this with regard to their governments, and particularly in the USA. It has been a pretty consistent result of polls over the past few years that Congress has an approval rating at or below 20%., Americans hate Congress. They actually quite like Obama, so Republicans may wish to reconsider their position that the reason they aren't in power is that they weren't right wing enough.
It is trivially easy to see outrage in our media. If you have facebook or e-mail someone will almost certainly be telling you about something awful this week. Watch "news" and there will be a diatribe about the outrageous behavior of someone. "If you aren't outraged you aren't paying attention" as the bumper sticker goes.
As far as I can tell the dominant view in the USA is that things are pretty bad and the government is worse. However, I ask, "Is this correct?"
There was an election just our months ago in which about 60% of eligible voters voted. The outcome of this election was essentially that the same government was re-elected. The USA electorate re-elected a government that they consistently say they hate. What's going on here? I would guess that the usual answer would be that voters voted against the other guy while holding their noses about their guy.
Two years ago through much of the Arab world citizens rose up in mass protests against authoritarian regimes, mostly removed them, and are undergoing the rather painful process of inventing a new sort of government. This is as far away from re-electing their government as it is possible to be. why did they do this? They did it because they found the conditions of their lives unacceptable, and the government that was in charge of this condition was unacceptable. When enough people deemed the government unacceptable they mobilized, at great individual risk to themselves, to change the government.
Nothing remotely like the Arab Spring has happened in the USA for decades. The closest things would be the protests against the Iraq War, the Tea Party demonstrations, and the Occupy Movement. The first had no effect and was a minority position, the second got a significant group of people elected (who are now no more popular than the rest of Congress) and the third never really got far enough to decide what they were protesting about. Of these three the Tea Party is the only one to have changed US government in any way
If Americans hate their Congress so much, why don't they change it? It wouldn't take anything remotely like the amount of risk or effort that went into the Arab Spring, it would simply require organizing alternative candidates for office and voting for them (you know, like the Tea Party, except with more people.) The common assumption is that the general population (i.e. "not me") is too ignorant/duped/stupid to do anything about it. This doesn't make sense since 80% are not adequately duped to stop them from disapproving of Congress. Can it be that Americans are incapable of self-organization? I don't think so.
I think the answer is apathy. People just don't have the necessary motivation to take the steps required to change the government. Why are Americans apathetic with regard to their government? I submit that the reason is that things aren't actually that bad, and the US government is run well enough to essentially satisfy its citizens. This is about as close to political heresy as you can come in the USA, that the government does a pretty decent job.
How can I say this? Well, it is pretty easy to think of scenarios in which the US population would not be apathetic. Try to institute a government only source of news and entertainment, and the government would be out on its ear. Try to round up all the Chinese and put them in a concentration camp, and the same. If the police started coming round and locking people up for being members of the wrong party there would be actual outrage. These aren't pie-in-the-sky scenarios, these are things happening in the world right now, or have happened in the USA within the last 80 years.
If there are examples of people doing what is necessary to change governments, and it would be easier to do so in the USA, and there are scenarios in which we are sure that Americans would act because conditions would be acceptable, and none of these things are happening then what must be the answer? Americans have apathy towards changing their government because the conditions aren't bad enough to motivate Americans to change things. If things aren't bad enough to require a change, then they can't be that bad. If things aren't that bad, then the people responsible for running things aren't doing that bad of a job.
I could list a whole bunch of things I dislike about the US government, and have. It's really easy to see how things could be run better. The difference between "could be better" and "unacceptable" is pretty large, and while they may not know it consciously, Americans put the government nearer "unacceptable" than "could be better" in what they say, but put it closer to "could be better" than "unacceptable" in their actions.
The rhetoric, outrage, horror, and hatred that Americans portray with regard to their government is so far out of line with their actual actions towards that government that I can only conclude that it's basically fake, insincere.
Wednesday, February 27, 2013
A Wonderful Life
Wonder: A feeling of surprise mingled with admiration, caused by something beautiful, unexpected, unfamiliar, or inexplicable.
I have seen the Eiffel Tower, the sun setting over the Alps, a mink by the side of a Norwegian Fjord.
I have played soccer, hockey, rugby, tennis, boules, softball, croquet, racquetball, horseshoes, darts, snooker, and pool.
I have walked in rainforests and deserts.
I have spoken in German, French, and Spanish to native speakers in their own countries.
I have truly fallen in love.
I have written a song, played it in front of an audience, and some danced. Afterwards there was applause.
I have seen death and saved a life.
I have read, and read, and read book, after book, after book.
I have meditated and experienced what some call satori, and others call being born again.
I have seen killer whales hunt and kill a seal.
I have bathed naked in a hot spring with an eagle circling in the pure blue sky overhead.
I have got down on my hands and knees and properly played with a small child, becoming part of pure imagination.
I have experienced the darkest despair and the purest joy.
I have had a wonderful life, and I'm only halfway through.
I have seen the Eiffel Tower, the sun setting over the Alps, a mink by the side of a Norwegian Fjord.
I have played soccer, hockey, rugby, tennis, boules, softball, croquet, racquetball, horseshoes, darts, snooker, and pool.
I have walked in rainforests and deserts.
I have spoken in German, French, and Spanish to native speakers in their own countries.
I have truly fallen in love.
I have written a song, played it in front of an audience, and some danced. Afterwards there was applause.
I have seen death and saved a life.
I have read, and read, and read book, after book, after book.
I have meditated and experienced what some call satori, and others call being born again.
I have seen killer whales hunt and kill a seal.
I have bathed naked in a hot spring with an eagle circling in the pure blue sky overhead.
I have got down on my hands and knees and properly played with a small child, becoming part of pure imagination.
I have experienced the darkest despair and the purest joy.
I have had a wonderful life, and I'm only halfway through.
Thursday, February 21, 2013
Me More Dumber
human intelligence, mental quality that consists of the abilities to learn from experience, adapt to new situations, understand and handle abstract concepts, and use knowledge to manipulate one’s environment.
There is actually a thing, called G by psychologists, that has consistently been shown by statistical analysis to underlie the qualities outlined in the definition above. There are certainly differences at a level above that which are more specific, mathematicians are better at abstract thought than verbal communication, but the chances are that an intelligent mathematician will be better than the average person at verbal skills.
I have been tested for intelligence by a number of tests and I have scored somewhere in the top 1% of the population. However, all of those tests were conducted at a minimum of fifteen years ago. I have previously always felt like I was a very clever person, although my "g" is higher than my functional intelligence, largely due to a lack of effort in many areas. I am much better than average at most problems, but much worse than most experts in that area. I think a lot of people think they are very clever, and most of them aren't. I tend to be concerned that my own abilities or opinions are incorrect (until I examine them) and so the objective tests are nice in that they confirm my opinion of myself.
However, recently I have felt substantially less intelligent. There have been a number of situations in which I have had disagreements/arguments/debates with people and found myself not only wrong, but embarrassingly wrong. I used to make bets with my wife and would usually win. Now I usually lose. My confidence in my own intelligence has decreased, it feels like I am getting dumber.
Now, research has shown that over time g decreases, as one would expect. The body deteriorates over time and there is no reason to think the brain operates under different rules. However, research has shown that functional intelligence, the ability to solve problems and change the environment, remains the same. In our day-to-day lives our ability to solve usual problems remains about the same. the general explanation for this is that the longer you live the greater the number of skills you learn to solve problems. A teenager faced with a real-world problem will have to guess to a certain extent, an older person may well have a method of solving such problems already. Given an entirely novel problem young people do better. This is why young people make lots of mistakes in their personal lives but can operate new technology.
I have generally been interested in debate, argument, to an extent challenging myself against intellectual problems (until I feel I have a basic understanding of the situation.) It may be that over time I seek at more and more difficult problems, and the internet makes seeking out arguments about these problems easier. People tend to argue about what they know, and perhaps this is why I have been wrong more recently. It may be simply random chance, which looks very different to how people think of it (if there aren't clumps of similar events, it probably isn't random.) it may be that the reduction in conversation I have with people has reduced my skills. It may be simply that I am getting dumber (drinking alcohol regularly is bad for your brain) it may be that I am wrong about becoming dumber.
I think intelligence is often unrelated. Some of the happiest people I have met have been people with very low intelligence. Most people muddle through life just fine. Intelligence does matter in that it helps you to make better decisions, but as with all abilities decline feels like a loss. One of the great problems for people with traumatic brain injuries (anecdotally the most miserable group of people I have met) is that they know that they used to be able to do things, even if they don't know or understand what that thing was.
Perhaps I need to be surrounded by more idiocy in my life to bolster my ego. Perhaps I need to take more IQ tests to confirm or deny my feelings. Perhaps I should stop examining my own feelings and beliefs and just yell at everyone else for being wrong, like 95% of the internet.
There is actually a thing, called G by psychologists, that has consistently been shown by statistical analysis to underlie the qualities outlined in the definition above. There are certainly differences at a level above that which are more specific, mathematicians are better at abstract thought than verbal communication, but the chances are that an intelligent mathematician will be better than the average person at verbal skills.
I have been tested for intelligence by a number of tests and I have scored somewhere in the top 1% of the population. However, all of those tests were conducted at a minimum of fifteen years ago. I have previously always felt like I was a very clever person, although my "g" is higher than my functional intelligence, largely due to a lack of effort in many areas. I am much better than average at most problems, but much worse than most experts in that area. I think a lot of people think they are very clever, and most of them aren't. I tend to be concerned that my own abilities or opinions are incorrect (until I examine them) and so the objective tests are nice in that they confirm my opinion of myself.
However, recently I have felt substantially less intelligent. There have been a number of situations in which I have had disagreements/arguments/debates with people and found myself not only wrong, but embarrassingly wrong. I used to make bets with my wife and would usually win. Now I usually lose. My confidence in my own intelligence has decreased, it feels like I am getting dumber.
Now, research has shown that over time g decreases, as one would expect. The body deteriorates over time and there is no reason to think the brain operates under different rules. However, research has shown that functional intelligence, the ability to solve problems and change the environment, remains the same. In our day-to-day lives our ability to solve usual problems remains about the same. the general explanation for this is that the longer you live the greater the number of skills you learn to solve problems. A teenager faced with a real-world problem will have to guess to a certain extent, an older person may well have a method of solving such problems already. Given an entirely novel problem young people do better. This is why young people make lots of mistakes in their personal lives but can operate new technology.
I have generally been interested in debate, argument, to an extent challenging myself against intellectual problems (until I feel I have a basic understanding of the situation.) It may be that over time I seek at more and more difficult problems, and the internet makes seeking out arguments about these problems easier. People tend to argue about what they know, and perhaps this is why I have been wrong more recently. It may be simply random chance, which looks very different to how people think of it (if there aren't clumps of similar events, it probably isn't random.) it may be that the reduction in conversation I have with people has reduced my skills. It may be simply that I am getting dumber (drinking alcohol regularly is bad for your brain) it may be that I am wrong about becoming dumber.
I think intelligence is often unrelated. Some of the happiest people I have met have been people with very low intelligence. Most people muddle through life just fine. Intelligence does matter in that it helps you to make better decisions, but as with all abilities decline feels like a loss. One of the great problems for people with traumatic brain injuries (anecdotally the most miserable group of people I have met) is that they know that they used to be able to do things, even if they don't know or understand what that thing was.
Perhaps I need to be surrounded by more idiocy in my life to bolster my ego. Perhaps I need to take more IQ tests to confirm or deny my feelings. Perhaps I should stop examining my own feelings and beliefs and just yell at everyone else for being wrong, like 95% of the internet.
Wednesday, February 20, 2013
Latest Update
There has been a change in our situation. My darling wife now works for a different company. It's basically the same job as she used to do about three years ago, so not a promotion or anything furthering her career (other than the possibility of promotion) and there's a bit more money (or a very large amount of money if you are not fabulously wealthy like us) but not enough to make a dramatic change. The commute takes an extra hour and a half (morning and evening combined).
This doesn't sound like much of a difference, and from these basic facts it may seem to be a negative move, but that is very, very far from the truth. Christina had worked in a nightmare of an office, as I have outlined before. In contrast Christina has found this office to be a wonderful, affirming place. The difference is startling, and is best illustrated by the simple fact that she used to come home and tell me a list of negative stories. Now she comes home and tells me that she really likes people, that people tell her she is good at her job, etc..
While I was certain that a new job would be a better environment I was worried about the commute. Two hours a day in Houston rush hour traffic is a deeply unpleasant experience, somehow combining boredom and stress in large amounts. I thought there was a decent chance that the improved office might well be offset by the horrible commute, and the extra time away from home (about 90 minutes a day.) However, there is a bus, and not an ordinary bus. There is a park-and-ride stop about ten minutes from our house from which Christina can ride a very spiffy bus (upholstered coach-like seats that recline, reading lights) that is entirely populated by professionals going to work, and it stops in front of her workplace. In this environment there is no stress, she can read, play video games on her magic tablet, or zone out listening to music. We believe that the bus ride might make help Christina's happiness more than not riding the bus because it is meditative, soothing.
My darling wife has now started taking yoga three times a week at lunch, with co-workers! A combination of real exercise, improved posture/bio-mechanics (I expect the required frequency of her chiropractic appointments to be reduced), taking part in an activity with others, and more meditation is wonderful. Furthermore, she looks forward to it and enjoys it.
In short, my wife is happy!
How about me? My life is largely unchanged except getting up even earlier (before 6am) and being alone at home an hour or two longer during the week. On the other hand my wife is happy, and that makes me happier. The only real adjustments I have had to make are a certain randomness about cooking (Christina's return time varies but not as much as how hungry she ends up being) and how to fill those extra hours.
I have wrestled with a few things about my situation since I stopped working, whether my worth is in what I accomplish or how much work I do, what seems to be an unfair distribution of work from my side, and so on. My conclusions have been that basically, as long as my wife doesn't mind, I am happy, and I'm not hurting anyone then my situation is just fine. When my darling wife convinced me (correctly) to leave my last job she told me that she was hiring me as her "personal brain care specialist." This seems silly, and may have only been a ploy, but I took it seriously and am actually qualified to do it. I believe I have talked elsewhere on this blog about the acme of social work is to eliminate your own position. The perfect result of a brain care specialist is a happy person with the insight and skills to protect and maintain that happiness. Christina might well be better at that than I am now. Pretty much I have eliminated my position other than regular husband stuff.
More time alone, less work to be done, a happier wife, things are better for me. I am happy in the same way as I was a few weeks ago, just a bit more. The struggle I have is pretty much between guilt and self-indulgence. I "should" spend my time writing, learning Spanish, playing music, improving myself, and I do some of this, but not very much. I want to spend my time on vacation, sitting outside by the pool with a beer, beautifully stoned in the sunshine, with music and a book. That's pretty much what I have decided I want to do, it doesn't really get old or boring. The moral basis of this blog is that happiness is the highest good. I am filling my extra time by doing what I want to do.
The Plan is still in effect. We are chipping away at the things necessary to sell this house (hot water tank tomorrow) while the housing market steadily improves. We'll rent a house closer to the city, in an older neighborhood that suits us better and we'll give Houston, TX a second try, but this time with the ability to leave on short notice.
This doesn't sound like much of a difference, and from these basic facts it may seem to be a negative move, but that is very, very far from the truth. Christina had worked in a nightmare of an office, as I have outlined before. In contrast Christina has found this office to be a wonderful, affirming place. The difference is startling, and is best illustrated by the simple fact that she used to come home and tell me a list of negative stories. Now she comes home and tells me that she really likes people, that people tell her she is good at her job, etc..
While I was certain that a new job would be a better environment I was worried about the commute. Two hours a day in Houston rush hour traffic is a deeply unpleasant experience, somehow combining boredom and stress in large amounts. I thought there was a decent chance that the improved office might well be offset by the horrible commute, and the extra time away from home (about 90 minutes a day.) However, there is a bus, and not an ordinary bus. There is a park-and-ride stop about ten minutes from our house from which Christina can ride a very spiffy bus (upholstered coach-like seats that recline, reading lights) that is entirely populated by professionals going to work, and it stops in front of her workplace. In this environment there is no stress, she can read, play video games on her magic tablet, or zone out listening to music. We believe that the bus ride might make help Christina's happiness more than not riding the bus because it is meditative, soothing.
My darling wife has now started taking yoga three times a week at lunch, with co-workers! A combination of real exercise, improved posture/bio-mechanics (I expect the required frequency of her chiropractic appointments to be reduced), taking part in an activity with others, and more meditation is wonderful. Furthermore, she looks forward to it and enjoys it.
In short, my wife is happy!
How about me? My life is largely unchanged except getting up even earlier (before 6am) and being alone at home an hour or two longer during the week. On the other hand my wife is happy, and that makes me happier. The only real adjustments I have had to make are a certain randomness about cooking (Christina's return time varies but not as much as how hungry she ends up being) and how to fill those extra hours.
I have wrestled with a few things about my situation since I stopped working, whether my worth is in what I accomplish or how much work I do, what seems to be an unfair distribution of work from my side, and so on. My conclusions have been that basically, as long as my wife doesn't mind, I am happy, and I'm not hurting anyone then my situation is just fine. When my darling wife convinced me (correctly) to leave my last job she told me that she was hiring me as her "personal brain care specialist." This seems silly, and may have only been a ploy, but I took it seriously and am actually qualified to do it. I believe I have talked elsewhere on this blog about the acme of social work is to eliminate your own position. The perfect result of a brain care specialist is a happy person with the insight and skills to protect and maintain that happiness. Christina might well be better at that than I am now. Pretty much I have eliminated my position other than regular husband stuff.
More time alone, less work to be done, a happier wife, things are better for me. I am happy in the same way as I was a few weeks ago, just a bit more. The struggle I have is pretty much between guilt and self-indulgence. I "should" spend my time writing, learning Spanish, playing music, improving myself, and I do some of this, but not very much. I want to spend my time on vacation, sitting outside by the pool with a beer, beautifully stoned in the sunshine, with music and a book. That's pretty much what I have decided I want to do, it doesn't really get old or boring. The moral basis of this blog is that happiness is the highest good. I am filling my extra time by doing what I want to do.
The Plan is still in effect. We are chipping away at the things necessary to sell this house (hot water tank tomorrow) while the housing market steadily improves. We'll rent a house closer to the city, in an older neighborhood that suits us better and we'll give Houston, TX a second try, but this time with the ability to leave on short notice.
Wednesday, February 13, 2013
Romance
Romance is about strong emotional feelings involved with love, particularly at the beginning of a relationship. During this time we become crazy, actually insane. Our emotions become unhinged from reality, before you met the object of your infatuation you might have been fine, but now not having them would make life a horrific nightmare. Our judgment becomes irrational, we are willing to cast aside sensible decisions about our finances, or future, even friends in favor of this sudden emotional storm. For this post the most important thing about romance is the intense feelings of euphoria brought about not through the systems of lust (testosterone) or companionship (vasopressin and oxytocin) but through the same system that works in drug addiction (dopamine).
So romance has many of the same qualities as an addictive drug. As with all addictive drugs people in large numbers seek out ways to "get their fix." Vast amounts of media, perhaps the majority of media, are then organized around the drug of romance. Read a book, and if there isn't the start of a relationship in their somewhere I will be surprised. Watch a film, and likewise. We have a cultural addiction to romance, but like most addicts we don't tell ourselves the truth about our addiction.
We have a pretty good idea of what people think romance is about. Young people see each other and it is meant to be. He's funny and charming, she's demure and kind. There's a lot of hand-holding, beach walking, eating dinners in dark restaurants, etc.. It's all rather naive and cute, lots of opportunity to go, "ahhhh" and feel warm and cuddly for the couple. However, I think actual romance is significantly different from this version.
There is a seemingly very weird dichotomy between the sexes with regard to romance. Contrary to stereotype men are more romantic than women. They have a greater belief that love should be passionate, say they are in love earlier than women, are more devastated by break-ups, talk about their relationships in romantic ways. On the other hand women look and purchase media representations of romance at a far higher level than men. Basically, men spend more time being romantic in thought and action while women spend more time getting their romance fix from "artificial sources." It's a bit like the weirdness in sex, in which women have a substantially higher physiological response to sex, but men spend more of their time being interested in it, or have a greater sex drive. Men have a greater physical response to romance, but women seek it out more. Perhaps it is as simple as men want to be romantic towards women, and women want to be romanced.
I think the way to actually find out about what people really think about romance is to see what they purchase to get that romance fix. For men this is difficult, men tend to go with lust (pornography) in their media. The Madonna/Whore complex for women is well understood, after all it makes complete sense that the two, somewhat contradictory, drives of men (spreading the seed around and raising their offspring) makes it highly difficult for women to be both things at once. What men look for in their romance is a nice, compassionate girl who will raise fine children, and do all those vile things in bed that men want, with enthusiasm. There's a reason men go for pornography while still being more romantic, half of what they look for in romance is around everywhere (a nice girl) while the other half is in much shorter supply.
Women are seemingly simpler to understand, after all there is a vast industry of romance novels (the best selling books) and romantic films (Sandra Bullock has a career). The weird thing is that what people think of romance bears only a superficial relationship to the driving force in these books and films. I'm going to base my description on romance novels, because these are written for women (how many men read romance novels?) and romantic comedies are written for women but for men to be able to sit through. If Cariaga's definition of literature, "What defines a work as literature is its examination of the universal human condition" is correct then romance novels consistently examine the universal human condition of romance from a female perspective. How many men have searched for the truth of what women think of romance, never fully understanding it?
Romance novels are genre fiction to a level beyond even those of mysteries, fantasy, and science fiction. Fantasy comes closest as it is almost always wish fulfillment for younger men and boys (the very ordinary boy becomes special and powerful because of their hidden depths). Romance is such genre fiction that you can pretty much sketch out the story to the level of where the incidents happen.
A romance novel - ordinary girl and extraordinary man, usually a womanizer, who can't possibly get together (demure woman and hardened bandit, poor women and aristocrat) are pushed together by circumstances. The man will be big, handsome, powerful, self-assured, and with a mean streak somewhere. There is outward dislike and disagreement but the man somehow can't keep away from her, there is "something about her." The man pursues, but not obviously in a romantic way, the women will be confused about his motives. at some moment the man will demonstrate that he is capable of extreme violence. About a third of the way through the book they will have some sexual happening (a kiss through kinky sex depending on the risque level of the book) in which he "takes her" overcoming a sort of aked resistance. The romance is blooming but then something drives them apart. Both parties are in torment but think there is something wrong with the possible relationship, often based on a misunderstanding. Then the woman will get into serious trouble and the man will rescue her at great physical risk and they will realize that they both love each other and it ends with the beginning of a perfect relationship.
If you look at the qualities of the man in this plot he is physically very attractive, morally suspect, and capable of violence. He is a jerk, and chicks really do dig jerks. Over the course of the book his morals are tested repeatedly (he is rejected but cannot keep away, even without guarantees he saves her, he nurtures her and keeps her safe) but, against his apparent jerky nature, he passes the tests. This is not the same as a nice man with a sense of humor who brings flowers, this is a powerful, dangerous man tamed by the hidden wonderfulness of an ordinary women to become a nurturing protector. Men might well have a Madonna/Whore complex, but women have a Psychopath/Nurturer complex.
Why is this so? As usual with examinations of people I go straight to evolution. Evolution is about passing down your genes, and for that to happen in the most successful manner for a woman the genetic make-up of the father of her children should have the ability to use both strategies for producing offspring (sleeping around a lot and raising their own babies). However, the man must also be excellent at protecting and nurturing her children. The maximal amount of sleeping around includes the ability to rape women, but raping her is far from optimal nurturing. This explains the ubiquitous scene of the frustrated man on the verge of "taking her" but with a great act of will does not. There are reports that one in three women has a rape fantasy on a regular basis. THIS DOES NOT MEAN THAT WOMEN ACTUALLY WANT TO BE RAPED, IT'S A FANTASY.
The ideal women is a demure women (who won't sleep around) who is crazy for sex (only with him.) The ideal man is a borderline psychopath who controls that part of himself for her. The idea of romance is a pretty sheen over some rather sordid truths about humans. The pretty sheen over sordid truths are the reason why women spend so much of their time waiting for romance and getting something less interesting but "nicer' and men spend so much of their time waiting for great sex without going and getting it (at the right time, in the right way, through the power of telepathy.).
So romance has many of the same qualities as an addictive drug. As with all addictive drugs people in large numbers seek out ways to "get their fix." Vast amounts of media, perhaps the majority of media, are then organized around the drug of romance. Read a book, and if there isn't the start of a relationship in their somewhere I will be surprised. Watch a film, and likewise. We have a cultural addiction to romance, but like most addicts we don't tell ourselves the truth about our addiction.
We have a pretty good idea of what people think romance is about. Young people see each other and it is meant to be. He's funny and charming, she's demure and kind. There's a lot of hand-holding, beach walking, eating dinners in dark restaurants, etc.. It's all rather naive and cute, lots of opportunity to go, "ahhhh" and feel warm and cuddly for the couple. However, I think actual romance is significantly different from this version.
There is a seemingly very weird dichotomy between the sexes with regard to romance. Contrary to stereotype men are more romantic than women. They have a greater belief that love should be passionate, say they are in love earlier than women, are more devastated by break-ups, talk about their relationships in romantic ways. On the other hand women look and purchase media representations of romance at a far higher level than men. Basically, men spend more time being romantic in thought and action while women spend more time getting their romance fix from "artificial sources." It's a bit like the weirdness in sex, in which women have a substantially higher physiological response to sex, but men spend more of their time being interested in it, or have a greater sex drive. Men have a greater physical response to romance, but women seek it out more. Perhaps it is as simple as men want to be romantic towards women, and women want to be romanced.
I think the way to actually find out about what people really think about romance is to see what they purchase to get that romance fix. For men this is difficult, men tend to go with lust (pornography) in their media. The Madonna/Whore complex for women is well understood, after all it makes complete sense that the two, somewhat contradictory, drives of men (spreading the seed around and raising their offspring) makes it highly difficult for women to be both things at once. What men look for in their romance is a nice, compassionate girl who will raise fine children, and do all those vile things in bed that men want, with enthusiasm. There's a reason men go for pornography while still being more romantic, half of what they look for in romance is around everywhere (a nice girl) while the other half is in much shorter supply.
Women are seemingly simpler to understand, after all there is a vast industry of romance novels (the best selling books) and romantic films (Sandra Bullock has a career). The weird thing is that what people think of romance bears only a superficial relationship to the driving force in these books and films. I'm going to base my description on romance novels, because these are written for women (how many men read romance novels?) and romantic comedies are written for women but for men to be able to sit through. If Cariaga's definition of literature, "What defines a work as literature is its examination of the universal human condition" is correct then romance novels consistently examine the universal human condition of romance from a female perspective. How many men have searched for the truth of what women think of romance, never fully understanding it?
Romance novels are genre fiction to a level beyond even those of mysteries, fantasy, and science fiction. Fantasy comes closest as it is almost always wish fulfillment for younger men and boys (the very ordinary boy becomes special and powerful because of their hidden depths). Romance is such genre fiction that you can pretty much sketch out the story to the level of where the incidents happen.
A romance novel - ordinary girl and extraordinary man, usually a womanizer, who can't possibly get together (demure woman and hardened bandit, poor women and aristocrat) are pushed together by circumstances. The man will be big, handsome, powerful, self-assured, and with a mean streak somewhere. There is outward dislike and disagreement but the man somehow can't keep away from her, there is "something about her." The man pursues, but not obviously in a romantic way, the women will be confused about his motives. at some moment the man will demonstrate that he is capable of extreme violence. About a third of the way through the book they will have some sexual happening (a kiss through kinky sex depending on the risque level of the book) in which he "takes her" overcoming a sort of aked resistance. The romance is blooming but then something drives them apart. Both parties are in torment but think there is something wrong with the possible relationship, often based on a misunderstanding. Then the woman will get into serious trouble and the man will rescue her at great physical risk and they will realize that they both love each other and it ends with the beginning of a perfect relationship.
If you look at the qualities of the man in this plot he is physically very attractive, morally suspect, and capable of violence. He is a jerk, and chicks really do dig jerks. Over the course of the book his morals are tested repeatedly (he is rejected but cannot keep away, even without guarantees he saves her, he nurtures her and keeps her safe) but, against his apparent jerky nature, he passes the tests. This is not the same as a nice man with a sense of humor who brings flowers, this is a powerful, dangerous man tamed by the hidden wonderfulness of an ordinary women to become a nurturing protector. Men might well have a Madonna/Whore complex, but women have a Psychopath/Nurturer complex.
Why is this so? As usual with examinations of people I go straight to evolution. Evolution is about passing down your genes, and for that to happen in the most successful manner for a woman the genetic make-up of the father of her children should have the ability to use both strategies for producing offspring (sleeping around a lot and raising their own babies). However, the man must also be excellent at protecting and nurturing her children. The maximal amount of sleeping around includes the ability to rape women, but raping her is far from optimal nurturing. This explains the ubiquitous scene of the frustrated man on the verge of "taking her" but with a great act of will does not. There are reports that one in three women has a rape fantasy on a regular basis. THIS DOES NOT MEAN THAT WOMEN ACTUALLY WANT TO BE RAPED, IT'S A FANTASY.
The ideal women is a demure women (who won't sleep around) who is crazy for sex (only with him.) The ideal man is a borderline psychopath who controls that part of himself for her. The idea of romance is a pretty sheen over some rather sordid truths about humans. The pretty sheen over sordid truths are the reason why women spend so much of their time waiting for romance and getting something less interesting but "nicer' and men spend so much of their time waiting for great sex without going and getting it (at the right time, in the right way, through the power of telepathy.).
Wednesday, February 6, 2013
Fear of People
You can read elsewhere on this blog my experience of people in the particular area of Texas in which I live, and how as a result I don't really have any friends down here. It's basically a combination of opportunity, no work, children, or church, and the dominant culture down here which finds my opinion not only false, but actively offensive.
Over the last eighteen months my bipolar disorder has become fully controlled, and so I am consistently able to take care of myself and my situation. My well-being now fluctuates based solely on my circumstances and no longer as a result of random chemical changes. This is a good thing. However, it does make everything very much the same for me day after day.
As a result of this sameness I want to do some different things, get out of the house, meet people. This is a difficult process. Actively trying to find and make friends is a terrible way to find and make friends. If you think about the people with whom you are friends, most of them you met through other people in a sort of chain effect. Showing up somewhere without knowing anybody is an uncomfortable experience for most people.
Still, I am generally an outgoing person who has gotten along with people from different states, countries, backgrounds, etc.. This shouldn't be the hardest thing in the world. But I am afraid.
The combination of my somewhat isolated existence and the very poor experiences I have had with people here has put me in the situation where I know intellectually that I should put myself out there socially in some manner, but I get a tightness in my chest at the idea, and don't ever do it. There is no risk staying at home, watching tv, talking to my wife, and generally I like my time here at home. Going out feels like I will face rejection, disgust, and anger, it has happened before.
When you go times without making friends there comes a point where you start thinking that it must be you. I have certainly felt like that here, and yet when I return to Portland I have to go through an intense schedule just to fit in all the people who want to see me. I am good enough, and people really do like me. Still, I have become cautious about what I say, and when I say things I worry that I have offended someone, possibly with permanent effects.
Two posts ago I wrote on this blog a counterpoint to the post of someone I consider a good friend, someone I have known for more than a decade. We have gone through all sorts of things together, been furious at each other, disagreed, debated, and so on. I wrote the post not only because I thought the subject interesting but because Dade and I have had many conversations on his porch about all sorts of subjects. As soon as I wrote it I started worrying about whether I had been offensive. I heard that Dade had commented on the post but found myself unable to look at the comment out of worry. I have since read it and had no need to worry.
I talked to my darling wife about this very situation yesterday and she felt exactly the same. She has been in an absolutely horrific work environment. When we tell people about it they simply don't believe it. The environment has been full of lies, scheming, attempts to destroy people, just stuff you only see in films. Other than that situation she has been pretty much at home with me. She has been traumatized by that situation that her default position is worry about upsetting people and fear of them trying to "get her." She has been working at a new place, and as a result she is beginning to relearn that most people are simply decent.
Still, we are afraid of people. Afraid of what they might do, how they might react. We now think in terms of risk when thinking of social situations. Perhaps our pleasure in each others company accentuates this feeling of risk, for we get along remarkably well. There is a perfectly nice person who I should call up and do something with, and should have called five weeks ago. I still haven't.
Over the last eighteen months my bipolar disorder has become fully controlled, and so I am consistently able to take care of myself and my situation. My well-being now fluctuates based solely on my circumstances and no longer as a result of random chemical changes. This is a good thing. However, it does make everything very much the same for me day after day.
As a result of this sameness I want to do some different things, get out of the house, meet people. This is a difficult process. Actively trying to find and make friends is a terrible way to find and make friends. If you think about the people with whom you are friends, most of them you met through other people in a sort of chain effect. Showing up somewhere without knowing anybody is an uncomfortable experience for most people.
Still, I am generally an outgoing person who has gotten along with people from different states, countries, backgrounds, etc.. This shouldn't be the hardest thing in the world. But I am afraid.
The combination of my somewhat isolated existence and the very poor experiences I have had with people here has put me in the situation where I know intellectually that I should put myself out there socially in some manner, but I get a tightness in my chest at the idea, and don't ever do it. There is no risk staying at home, watching tv, talking to my wife, and generally I like my time here at home. Going out feels like I will face rejection, disgust, and anger, it has happened before.
When you go times without making friends there comes a point where you start thinking that it must be you. I have certainly felt like that here, and yet when I return to Portland I have to go through an intense schedule just to fit in all the people who want to see me. I am good enough, and people really do like me. Still, I have become cautious about what I say, and when I say things I worry that I have offended someone, possibly with permanent effects.
Two posts ago I wrote on this blog a counterpoint to the post of someone I consider a good friend, someone I have known for more than a decade. We have gone through all sorts of things together, been furious at each other, disagreed, debated, and so on. I wrote the post not only because I thought the subject interesting but because Dade and I have had many conversations on his porch about all sorts of subjects. As soon as I wrote it I started worrying about whether I had been offensive. I heard that Dade had commented on the post but found myself unable to look at the comment out of worry. I have since read it and had no need to worry.
I talked to my darling wife about this very situation yesterday and she felt exactly the same. She has been in an absolutely horrific work environment. When we tell people about it they simply don't believe it. The environment has been full of lies, scheming, attempts to destroy people, just stuff you only see in films. Other than that situation she has been pretty much at home with me. She has been traumatized by that situation that her default position is worry about upsetting people and fear of them trying to "get her." She has been working at a new place, and as a result she is beginning to relearn that most people are simply decent.
Still, we are afraid of people. Afraid of what they might do, how they might react. We now think in terms of risk when thinking of social situations. Perhaps our pleasure in each others company accentuates this feeling of risk, for we get along remarkably well. There is a perfectly nice person who I should call up and do something with, and should have called five weeks ago. I still haven't.
More About Truth
I thought the last post was a bit messy, a bit personal, not that great. Essentially it started at the end of a discussion about truth rather than the beginning. So, I will start at the beginning.
All we know as certain truth is that there is something, anything much beyond that requires assumptions, which are defined as "things accepted to be true without proof." We know that there is something because here I am doing/being something. If you accept that your present experience is real, in that you know for certain that you are having this experience, but believe that everything else is in doubt, you are a solipsist. If you think rationally it is very hard to not be a solipsist, but we don't like it much and it is an essentially useless position. even while being the most True of positions.
What assumptions should we make? I suggest we go with the assumption that everybody makes at a certain level, that there is actually something that corresponds to an extent with our experience, our perception. Everybody eats because they assume that they and the food are real. Now, this assumption does not say that everything that we experience is truth, after all, we can have contradictory experiences about the same object (illusions). So, the assumption is that there is a something independent from our experience, but about which we can derive knowledge. The nature of this independent reality is Truth, things are a certain way regardless of what you think. Unless you are stuck in solipsism , or think you are infallible, you believe that this is Truth.
For me the next portion of truth comes in at the level of perception. For a start it is very hard to get beyond believing that we are perceiving what we are perceiving (see the first paragraph) even if that perception is "untrue" in that it does not faithfully represent the underlying reality. Since our perceptions are limited to certain ranges, such as seeing only a small portion of the electromagnetic spectrum, all our perceptions are untrue, at least to the extent that they are incomplete. Still, our perceptions correspond to reality. If you see a wall and try to walk through it the chances are enormously high that you will bash into a wall. In the vast majority of situations our perceptions are True in that they correspond to reality.
The next level is actually tied up in at least the previous paragraph, and it is quite reasonable to think it is tied up in the whole subject of truth, and that is meaning. Human beings operate largely through meaning, deeper than consciousness, at the very base of our experience. When we look around we see trees, walls, people, green, but we don't see a range of the electromagnetic spectrum. What is a tree? A tree is an object, but the concept of "object" has meaning, a tree is a category of thing which we associate with a number of qualities, and these qualities are not only perception, but emotion, memory, etc.. The concept of "tree" has meaning, and so does every other concept, and we only think in concepts. It is impossible to operate as a human without meaning. We rely on meaning to such an extent that we attempt to impose meaning on perceptions that don't easily fit a concept (we see faces in all sorts of things that aren't faces.) For humans meaning is True as it is the only way our minds correspond to reality.
Beyond general meaning is intellectual meaning. Intellectual meaning I define as a meaning that does not directly correspond to a material reality. Examples would be "Justice" "Physics" "Purpose." You can't point at a justice but justice has a profound meaning. This is the area of what people think of as higher level of meaning. Art and philosophy. It is one thing to know the truth that you are hungry and want to eat that apple, it is another to portray the emotional suffering built upon the ethical dilemma of eating a forbidden fruit, using a novel series of metaphors to establish a different meaning about the meaning of the situation. Intellectual meaning is Truth in that it explores reality and attempts to explain it in terms we can understand. Justice is a truth in that we understand the meaning of justice, and justice corresponds to reality to an extent. It is true that justice was done when a criminal was punished even though "justice", "criminal", and "punish" are all meanings we have made up in our heads.
Finally comes emotional truth. We yearn for things that aren't "real", such as purpose. We become insane when we fall in love, believing that the other is perfect, meant for us. We feel lucky. We feel that the universe has a point. We feel a connection with other people. We feel we are meant to do something. There are the "eternal truths of the human condition" that "speak directly to our hearts." A poem can be literally nonsense, and yet have a true meaning which we understand.
Do not go gentle into that good night,
Old age should burn and rave at close of day;
Rage, rage against the dying of the light. - Dylan Thomas
It isn't a "good night" it is dying. Old age can't burn or rave. The light doesn't die. Yet, we understand the truth of the terror we have towards dying and non-existence. Great art provokes emotional meaning in us, literally producing emotions shared throughout humanity on the basis of us simply being human. You have a cold heart if you cannot feel the truth of what it is to be rejected as Hal rejects Falstaff in Henry IV part 2.
These are what I consider to be the layers of truth., starting with what we are certain about through to a universality of human experience. As we move through these stages we move from what is more fundamentally true in that it corresponds the closest to reality. However, humanity spends most of its time in the area of emotional meaning. We worry about our place in the universe. We ask "what it is all for?" We search for a purpose. We try to understand those around us. We search for a sense of understanding, or rightness, or truth. As a result of these obsessions, and the elusive nature of any answers, people tend to think of the answers as "higher" or :greater" truths. The further away from truth we get, the more people look for Truth.
All we know as certain truth is that there is something, anything much beyond that requires assumptions, which are defined as "things accepted to be true without proof." We know that there is something because here I am doing/being something. If you accept that your present experience is real, in that you know for certain that you are having this experience, but believe that everything else is in doubt, you are a solipsist. If you think rationally it is very hard to not be a solipsist, but we don't like it much and it is an essentially useless position. even while being the most True of positions.
What assumptions should we make? I suggest we go with the assumption that everybody makes at a certain level, that there is actually something that corresponds to an extent with our experience, our perception. Everybody eats because they assume that they and the food are real. Now, this assumption does not say that everything that we experience is truth, after all, we can have contradictory experiences about the same object (illusions). So, the assumption is that there is a something independent from our experience, but about which we can derive knowledge. The nature of this independent reality is Truth, things are a certain way regardless of what you think. Unless you are stuck in solipsism , or think you are infallible, you believe that this is Truth.
For me the next portion of truth comes in at the level of perception. For a start it is very hard to get beyond believing that we are perceiving what we are perceiving (see the first paragraph) even if that perception is "untrue" in that it does not faithfully represent the underlying reality. Since our perceptions are limited to certain ranges, such as seeing only a small portion of the electromagnetic spectrum, all our perceptions are untrue, at least to the extent that they are incomplete. Still, our perceptions correspond to reality. If you see a wall and try to walk through it the chances are enormously high that you will bash into a wall. In the vast majority of situations our perceptions are True in that they correspond to reality.
The next level is actually tied up in at least the previous paragraph, and it is quite reasonable to think it is tied up in the whole subject of truth, and that is meaning. Human beings operate largely through meaning, deeper than consciousness, at the very base of our experience. When we look around we see trees, walls, people, green, but we don't see a range of the electromagnetic spectrum. What is a tree? A tree is an object, but the concept of "object" has meaning, a tree is a category of thing which we associate with a number of qualities, and these qualities are not only perception, but emotion, memory, etc.. The concept of "tree" has meaning, and so does every other concept, and we only think in concepts. It is impossible to operate as a human without meaning. We rely on meaning to such an extent that we attempt to impose meaning on perceptions that don't easily fit a concept (we see faces in all sorts of things that aren't faces.) For humans meaning is True as it is the only way our minds correspond to reality.
Beyond general meaning is intellectual meaning. Intellectual meaning I define as a meaning that does not directly correspond to a material reality. Examples would be "Justice" "Physics" "Purpose." You can't point at a justice but justice has a profound meaning. This is the area of what people think of as higher level of meaning. Art and philosophy. It is one thing to know the truth that you are hungry and want to eat that apple, it is another to portray the emotional suffering built upon the ethical dilemma of eating a forbidden fruit, using a novel series of metaphors to establish a different meaning about the meaning of the situation. Intellectual meaning is Truth in that it explores reality and attempts to explain it in terms we can understand. Justice is a truth in that we understand the meaning of justice, and justice corresponds to reality to an extent. It is true that justice was done when a criminal was punished even though "justice", "criminal", and "punish" are all meanings we have made up in our heads.
Finally comes emotional truth. We yearn for things that aren't "real", such as purpose. We become insane when we fall in love, believing that the other is perfect, meant for us. We feel lucky. We feel that the universe has a point. We feel a connection with other people. We feel we are meant to do something. There are the "eternal truths of the human condition" that "speak directly to our hearts." A poem can be literally nonsense, and yet have a true meaning which we understand.
Do not go gentle into that good night,
Old age should burn and rave at close of day;
Rage, rage against the dying of the light. - Dylan Thomas
It isn't a "good night" it is dying. Old age can't burn or rave. The light doesn't die. Yet, we understand the truth of the terror we have towards dying and non-existence. Great art provokes emotional meaning in us, literally producing emotions shared throughout humanity on the basis of us simply being human. You have a cold heart if you cannot feel the truth of what it is to be rejected as Hal rejects Falstaff in Henry IV part 2.
These are what I consider to be the layers of truth., starting with what we are certain about through to a universality of human experience. As we move through these stages we move from what is more fundamentally true in that it corresponds the closest to reality. However, humanity spends most of its time in the area of emotional meaning. We worry about our place in the universe. We ask "what it is all for?" We search for a purpose. We try to understand those around us. We search for a sense of understanding, or rightness, or truth. As a result of these obsessions, and the elusive nature of any answers, people tend to think of the answers as "higher" or :greater" truths. The further away from truth we get, the more people look for Truth.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)