Saturday, November 06, 2004
The power of empathy
We don't talk much about empathy, but we SHOULD, because it's one of the most powerful forces in our lives; without this ability to feel what others are feeling, we'd live in an utterly terrifying world. Why? Because without empathy, a person is a sociopath; nearly all violent criminals are sociopaths, as are those who're capable of cold-bloodedly ugly behavior to people who are supposed to be friends and lovers... how would YOU like every single person in the world to be like that?
Without empathy, we couldn't treat people compassionately even if we wanted to, because we wouldn't know how people were feeling, or would feel under given circumstances; just try to do something as simple as breaking bad news to someone or setting up a romantic evening if you can't get a feeling for the other person's reactions. Empathy is necessary, not just to our relationships, but to our very humanity; as any pet owner can tell you, mammals have the capacity for empathy, so without it, we'd be worse than just sub-human... we'd be reptiles.
Empathy does us another big favor; it makes it possible for us to enjoy movies, TV, and works of fiction, because it allows us to see events unfolding for actors on a screen, or read about them happening to characters in a book, and, even though we know in the upper part of our brains that these things aren't real, just the sight of people who LOOK like they're having emotionally-charged experiences, just the written DESCRIPTION of such experiences, allows us to feel those emotions in our own bodies. When we become excited, aroused, angered, frightened, saddened or delighted with what a fictional person (or alien, even) is going through, that's empathy... and just try to imagine enjoying these forms of entertainment withOUT having those feelings.
Have you ever used the presence of empathy as a criterion for judging whether or not a person should be given a place in your life? Probably not, but you SHOULD; it's the only way to avoid sociopaths. Casually bring up to a new person how you cried when a character "died" in a movie that you know everyone cried about (yes, even men will at least choke up), and if they nod and at least agree how sad it was, you're ok; if they respond with some sort of remark about how they NEVER cry at movies, though, and it sounds like a statement of fact rather than transparent macho posturing... RUN!!
Without empathy, we couldn't treat people compassionately even if we wanted to, because we wouldn't know how people were feeling, or would feel under given circumstances; just try to do something as simple as breaking bad news to someone or setting up a romantic evening if you can't get a feeling for the other person's reactions. Empathy is necessary, not just to our relationships, but to our very humanity; as any pet owner can tell you, mammals have the capacity for empathy, so without it, we'd be worse than just sub-human... we'd be reptiles.
Empathy does us another big favor; it makes it possible for us to enjoy movies, TV, and works of fiction, because it allows us to see events unfolding for actors on a screen, or read about them happening to characters in a book, and, even though we know in the upper part of our brains that these things aren't real, just the sight of people who LOOK like they're having emotionally-charged experiences, just the written DESCRIPTION of such experiences, allows us to feel those emotions in our own bodies. When we become excited, aroused, angered, frightened, saddened or delighted with what a fictional person (or alien, even) is going through, that's empathy... and just try to imagine enjoying these forms of entertainment withOUT having those feelings.
Have you ever used the presence of empathy as a criterion for judging whether or not a person should be given a place in your life? Probably not, but you SHOULD; it's the only way to avoid sociopaths. Casually bring up to a new person how you cried when a character "died" in a movie that you know everyone cried about (yes, even men will at least choke up), and if they nod and at least agree how sad it was, you're ok; if they respond with some sort of remark about how they NEVER cry at movies, though, and it sounds like a statement of fact rather than transparent macho posturing... RUN!!
Friday, November 05, 2004
The season is getting underway
No, I don't mean the holiday season, although it IS indirectly to blame; 'tis the season to get flooded with pleas for charitable donations... apparently, people are more like to ante up around the holiday season, if the contents of my mailbox are any indication.
Every critter, every square inch of wilderness, seems to have at least one organization dedicated to its preservation; this is probably a good thing, as SOMEONE has to care enough about that sort of stuff to dedicate their lives to it, but these folks generate a volume of mail that puts the politicians to shame, and it can be hard to wade through it all and figure out who to give $ to (yes, it'd be easy to toss it all out, but I love animals too much to not help out with a few donations every year)... and every time I send out a check, the # of requests takes another jump upwards.
Nearly all of them send address labels; I use them as fast as I can, but I could paper my walls with the leftovers. They give me packets of cards that are not quite nice enough to send out, but too nice to toss out. I have a STACK of calendars with wildlife photos for each month, and enough personalized notepads to pave over my front yard. These freebies are supposed to guilt-trip me into giving, but they leave me unmoved; as you might imagine, I'm not the type to feel like I owe them something for sending me unsolicited stationary supplies. They've gotten smarter in recent years, though, and have started offering neat gifts if you send them enough $, and this has been my downfall; wave a cute stuffed animal at me, or a pretty tote bag, and that'll be the organization whose info packet I'll read through, and who'll eventually get a check from me.
My favorites are the ones that give you a whole list of gifts to choose from; what a BRILLIANT strategy that is, to get the potential donor all excited about picking out a cool animal-themed gift... because once that best gift is picked out, a donation inevitably follows. What's weird is that it's apparently ONLY the animal/wilderness charities that have figured out the efficacy of this strategy; I don't get many requests from charities that directly benefit humans (don't they buy those lists of soft touches anymore?), but I get enough to see that they're sticking with that grim old method of showing you pics of starving or crippled kids and relying on guilt, rather than gifts, to get $... now, wouldn't YOU rather pick out a gift than see photos of little burn victims? They need to go for the more positive marketing method if they want to keep raking it in.
I know that times are tight for many people right now, but, before any spare $ you might have gets sucked up by Christmas gifts, consider sending a few dollars to help an endangered species, or save a wetland, or cure a disease; even if you DON'T get a gift in return, you'll feel good about it, I promise.
Every critter, every square inch of wilderness, seems to have at least one organization dedicated to its preservation; this is probably a good thing, as SOMEONE has to care enough about that sort of stuff to dedicate their lives to it, but these folks generate a volume of mail that puts the politicians to shame, and it can be hard to wade through it all and figure out who to give $ to (yes, it'd be easy to toss it all out, but I love animals too much to not help out with a few donations every year)... and every time I send out a check, the # of requests takes another jump upwards.
Nearly all of them send address labels; I use them as fast as I can, but I could paper my walls with the leftovers. They give me packets of cards that are not quite nice enough to send out, but too nice to toss out. I have a STACK of calendars with wildlife photos for each month, and enough personalized notepads to pave over my front yard. These freebies are supposed to guilt-trip me into giving, but they leave me unmoved; as you might imagine, I'm not the type to feel like I owe them something for sending me unsolicited stationary supplies. They've gotten smarter in recent years, though, and have started offering neat gifts if you send them enough $, and this has been my downfall; wave a cute stuffed animal at me, or a pretty tote bag, and that'll be the organization whose info packet I'll read through, and who'll eventually get a check from me.
My favorites are the ones that give you a whole list of gifts to choose from; what a BRILLIANT strategy that is, to get the potential donor all excited about picking out a cool animal-themed gift... because once that best gift is picked out, a donation inevitably follows. What's weird is that it's apparently ONLY the animal/wilderness charities that have figured out the efficacy of this strategy; I don't get many requests from charities that directly benefit humans (don't they buy those lists of soft touches anymore?), but I get enough to see that they're sticking with that grim old method of showing you pics of starving or crippled kids and relying on guilt, rather than gifts, to get $... now, wouldn't YOU rather pick out a gift than see photos of little burn victims? They need to go for the more positive marketing method if they want to keep raking it in.
I know that times are tight for many people right now, but, before any spare $ you might have gets sucked up by Christmas gifts, consider sending a few dollars to help an endangered species, or save a wetland, or cure a disease; even if you DON'T get a gift in return, you'll feel good about it, I promise.
Thursday, November 04, 2004
Post-election questions
You probably heard/read the same questions as I did over and over today:
1) Q: Everything I saw on the news said that Bush would lose... how did they get it so wrong?
A: The liberal media (how's that for a redundant term?) understands about the Big Lie theory; if you say something often enough, and authoritatively enough, people will believe it. They made those claims to convince people of Kerry's superiority, and thus gain him more votes... but they failed to create enough votes to give him the win.
2) Q: Every poll I saw said that Bush would lose... how did THEY get it so wrong?
A: Polls are easy to rig. Even when those administering the poll truly try to be impartial and fair, they're not going to be able to invest the time, effort and MONEY necessary to do a scientific poll, which is the ONLY kind that can produce meaningful results; they want you to believe that their "random" polls (which are rarely if ever random) give results that are just as good, but if they're not making sure that their results contain EVERY category of person, in the same % that they exist in the nation as a whole, their #'s won't be valid. In addition, the WAY polls get answered skews the results; if they're calling people and asking them to participate, only those people who are at home and have nothing better to do will reply, which eliminates MOST potential voters, especially the older and more well-to-do voters who tend to be conservative... thus leaving a falsely liberal group of respondents. Polls given face to face are usually administered in urban areas, where you see high concentrations of minorities and the poor, who are traditionally liberal; again, you get a falsely liberal group of respondents. And as for online polls; how many older and/or well-to-do folks are answering online polls? Again, you have a heavy liberal bias in those who respond. All this adds up to there not being a single poll that reflected the views of the majority of voters or the actual results of the election.
3) Q: Why do we still have the electoral college?
A: If you or anyone you know subscribes to Discover magazine, you/they can go to their website and register to gain access to the brilliant article they had on this topic in the November '96 issue, called "Math Against Tyranny"
http://discovermagazine.com/1996/nov/mathagainsttyran914/
which shows why the electoral college is essential. If not, you can read my essay on the topic here:
http://omniverse.blogspot.com/2004_10_03_omniverse_archive.html#109680737081532097
The one-line summary is; without the electoral college, a candidate could win who was intensely popular in one area of the country but not liked in the rest of the country, which would mean that the president would NOT represent the country as a whole... and that must NOT happen.
Hopefully, that'll be it for political posts here for a while; I could use a good dose of synchronicity to refocus my mind on matters metaphysical....
1) Q: Everything I saw on the news said that Bush would lose... how did they get it so wrong?
A: The liberal media (how's that for a redundant term?) understands about the Big Lie theory; if you say something often enough, and authoritatively enough, people will believe it. They made those claims to convince people of Kerry's superiority, and thus gain him more votes... but they failed to create enough votes to give him the win.
2) Q: Every poll I saw said that Bush would lose... how did THEY get it so wrong?
A: Polls are easy to rig. Even when those administering the poll truly try to be impartial and fair, they're not going to be able to invest the time, effort and MONEY necessary to do a scientific poll, which is the ONLY kind that can produce meaningful results; they want you to believe that their "random" polls (which are rarely if ever random) give results that are just as good, but if they're not making sure that their results contain EVERY category of person, in the same % that they exist in the nation as a whole, their #'s won't be valid. In addition, the WAY polls get answered skews the results; if they're calling people and asking them to participate, only those people who are at home and have nothing better to do will reply, which eliminates MOST potential voters, especially the older and more well-to-do voters who tend to be conservative... thus leaving a falsely liberal group of respondents. Polls given face to face are usually administered in urban areas, where you see high concentrations of minorities and the poor, who are traditionally liberal; again, you get a falsely liberal group of respondents. And as for online polls; how many older and/or well-to-do folks are answering online polls? Again, you have a heavy liberal bias in those who respond. All this adds up to there not being a single poll that reflected the views of the majority of voters or the actual results of the election.
3) Q: Why do we still have the electoral college?
A: If you or anyone you know subscribes to Discover magazine, you/they can go to their website and register to gain access to the brilliant article they had on this topic in the November '96 issue, called "Math Against Tyranny"
http://discovermagazine.com/1996/nov/mathagainsttyran914/
which shows why the electoral college is essential. If not, you can read my essay on the topic here:
http://omniverse.blogspot.com/2004_10_03_omniverse_archive.html#109680737081532097
The one-line summary is; without the electoral college, a candidate could win who was intensely popular in one area of the country but not liked in the rest of the country, which would mean that the president would NOT represent the country as a whole... and that must NOT happen.
Hopefully, that'll be it for political posts here for a while; I could use a good dose of synchronicity to refocus my mind on matters metaphysical....
Wednesday, November 03, 2004
The White House, and the Dark Tower
Warning; this post will contain spoilers for Stephen King's novel "The Dark Tower"; if you plan to read it and don't want to have the surprise spoiled, skip this post.
As of when I'm writing this, Bush appears to have won the election beyond any shadow of a doubt, despite the fact that CNN and the rest of the liberal media are trying to hem and haw and refuse to announce the results of the last few states, especially the crucial state, Ohio; in addition, the Republicans have increased their majorities in the Senate AND the House. On behalf of myself and the other conservative Americans who cast the votes that made this happen; WOOOOOHOOOOO!!
I finished "The Dark Tower" today... and I'm in AWE. King did something unusual; he made an ending in which the hero comes to the door of the tower we've waited over 20 long years and 7 long novels for him to reach, but, although we don't know what happens when he goes in, King then "ends" the story and, addressing the readers directly, tries to make a case for us to read no further... knowing, I'm sure, that not one single reader will fail to read on and find out what happens inside the tower. Finally, FINALLY, the hero reaches the room at the top of the tower, and my eyes were nearly bugging out of my head as he turned the doorknob, to reveal at last, AT LAST, what his thousand-year quest would bring him to, and it's... it's... the desert where the 1st novel began, and the hero has a moment to remember that he's done this entire quest many times before, and is going to have to do it yet again, before he's drawn into the desert and his memory fades. The last novel ends with the same line that the 1st novel in the series began with: "The man in black fled across the desert, and the gunslinger followed."
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!! :-)
Even if there was no flicker of hope for the hero, this would be unutterably brilliant, but King DID give us that hope; the hero was sent back to the beginning of his quest with something very important that he had been without the previous times, leading us to think that this next iteration would indeed be his last, and at the end of it he'd get... well, SOME sort of reward. As much as I'd come to love the hero, and wanted him to have a happy ending for his efforts, I "know" that, if asked, he'd agree that he didn't deserve a reward yet, because he got so many people killed along the way to the tower, and so rightly had to do it all again... it's the same sort of concept as reincarnation, where you're supposed to improve with each lifetime until you're finally "perfected."
Speaking of concepts, a central one of the series is what, in the alternate universe our hero lives in, is called "ka," which in OUR universe would be called, you guessed it-karma. I LOVE Stephen King!! :-)
As of when I'm writing this, Bush appears to have won the election beyond any shadow of a doubt, despite the fact that CNN and the rest of the liberal media are trying to hem and haw and refuse to announce the results of the last few states, especially the crucial state, Ohio; in addition, the Republicans have increased their majorities in the Senate AND the House. On behalf of myself and the other conservative Americans who cast the votes that made this happen; WOOOOOHOOOOO!!
I finished "The Dark Tower" today... and I'm in AWE. King did something unusual; he made an ending in which the hero comes to the door of the tower we've waited over 20 long years and 7 long novels for him to reach, but, although we don't know what happens when he goes in, King then "ends" the story and, addressing the readers directly, tries to make a case for us to read no further... knowing, I'm sure, that not one single reader will fail to read on and find out what happens inside the tower. Finally, FINALLY, the hero reaches the room at the top of the tower, and my eyes were nearly bugging out of my head as he turned the doorknob, to reveal at last, AT LAST, what his thousand-year quest would bring him to, and it's... it's... the desert where the 1st novel began, and the hero has a moment to remember that he's done this entire quest many times before, and is going to have to do it yet again, before he's drawn into the desert and his memory fades. The last novel ends with the same line that the 1st novel in the series began with: "The man in black fled across the desert, and the gunslinger followed."
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!! :-)
Even if there was no flicker of hope for the hero, this would be unutterably brilliant, but King DID give us that hope; the hero was sent back to the beginning of his quest with something very important that he had been without the previous times, leading us to think that this next iteration would indeed be his last, and at the end of it he'd get... well, SOME sort of reward. As much as I'd come to love the hero, and wanted him to have a happy ending for his efforts, I "know" that, if asked, he'd agree that he didn't deserve a reward yet, because he got so many people killed along the way to the tower, and so rightly had to do it all again... it's the same sort of concept as reincarnation, where you're supposed to improve with each lifetime until you're finally "perfected."
Speaking of concepts, a central one of the series is what, in the alternate universe our hero lives in, is called "ka," which in OUR universe would be called, you guessed it-karma. I LOVE Stephen King!! :-)
Tuesday, November 02, 2004
Why do we love accents?
If you don't react with a spike of interest when you hear someone speaking with an accent, you're in the minority; let's face it, most people with accents get sexual attention far beyond what someone with their level of attractiveness would be expected to get (accents which are believed to be somehow indicative of inferiority, such as the "redneck accent," are exceptions). Think about it, though; why is the mispronunciation of everything considered MORE attractive, rather than LESS? Why do we think that accents are sexy and cute?
Let's look first at the animal kingdom: Scientists have verified that some species of apes have accents too, and that means just what it sounds like, believe it or not; they "pronounce" their vocalizations differently depending on what area they live in... and yes, the apes show significantly elevated interest in those of their kind that have accents. The reason for this, they believe, is that if you meet a fellow-creature that sounds to you as if they have an accent, that means that they're not from your area, and THAT means that they're almost certainly not related to you, and in fact are from a very different gene pool... and this is highly desirable from a mating standpoint.
They think that humans are attracted to those with accents for the same reason; we have the instinct to mate with those that are less likely to reinforce undesirable genes, eg those who are very different than ourselves, genetically speaking. Since we're not just acting on instinct, though, I think that we also have to consider things like an accent making someone seem exotic and exciting, especially in the modern world where most of us are aware of the fascinating cultures that exist in the countries we've learned about and dreamed of visiting. In America, we're so eager for novelty that the mere fact that an accent is "different" makes it attractive to us, and the portrayal of people with accents as sexually desirable in movies and TV plays a part too; we have the subconscious idea that someone from a different place won't be bound by the same rules we are, and that they'll do "things" (cough*sex*cough) in ways that will be new to us and thus titillating.
Whatever the reasons, there's not much that can draw my attention to a man faster than an accent... except for a hairy chest, of course. ;-)
Let's look first at the animal kingdom: Scientists have verified that some species of apes have accents too, and that means just what it sounds like, believe it or not; they "pronounce" their vocalizations differently depending on what area they live in... and yes, the apes show significantly elevated interest in those of their kind that have accents. The reason for this, they believe, is that if you meet a fellow-creature that sounds to you as if they have an accent, that means that they're not from your area, and THAT means that they're almost certainly not related to you, and in fact are from a very different gene pool... and this is highly desirable from a mating standpoint.
They think that humans are attracted to those with accents for the same reason; we have the instinct to mate with those that are less likely to reinforce undesirable genes, eg those who are very different than ourselves, genetically speaking. Since we're not just acting on instinct, though, I think that we also have to consider things like an accent making someone seem exotic and exciting, especially in the modern world where most of us are aware of the fascinating cultures that exist in the countries we've learned about and dreamed of visiting. In America, we're so eager for novelty that the mere fact that an accent is "different" makes it attractive to us, and the portrayal of people with accents as sexually desirable in movies and TV plays a part too; we have the subconscious idea that someone from a different place won't be bound by the same rules we are, and that they'll do "things" (cough*sex*cough) in ways that will be new to us and thus titillating.
Whatever the reasons, there's not much that can draw my attention to a man faster than an accent... except for a hairy chest, of course. ;-)
Monday, November 01, 2004
Halloween... grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
I've never been thrilled with being expected to hand out free candy to kids I've never seen before, but after this year I'm taking an even more dim view of this whole "holiday." The majority of kids holding out pillowcases on my doorstep tonight were at an age where they should have been embarrassed to still be trick or treating; their parents should be embarrassed too, for letting kids that age go out and beg for candy from the neighbors. Far too many of the kids who were old enough to know better couldn't be bothered to say "thank you" for their candy, even, in a few astounding cases, when the parents were loudly chanting "What do you say? What do you say?" as the kids charged off to the next house; none of those parents found it necessary to summon their kids back, or to apologize to me for their offsprings' rudeness, which explains why the kids felt free to ignore them... form over substance, and poor parenting, are everywhere these days. Even when the kids DID say thank you, there was hardly a one that looked me in the eye; call me crazy, but I think that if someone GIVES you something, even if it's only a piece of candy, it's proper for you to LOOK at them, and maybe even dredge up a smile.
Wanting to make some sort of a connection with the kids, to be a human being to them rather than a candy-serving robot, and thus maybe get some sort of a good feeling back for my effort, I tried to give them compliments on their costumes, or wish them good luck in collecting candy, or whatever... and I might as well not have bothered, as virtually none of them even gave any sign that they heard me, much less responded. Maybe if I'd held back the candy until they made the effort to make a polite reply, I might have done better, but that concept had too much of a feeling of holding out a treat to get a dog to do a trick-I figured that couldn't be good karma.
The kids aren't to blame for these displays of bad manners, of course; by their very nature, they'll do whatever they can get away with, and it's the job of the ADULTS to reign them in. Parents, you need to remember that it's an imposition on your neighbors to have to give up their evening to pass out candy to your kids, and thus that you should be making sure that your children aren't the source of rants like mine. It's time to go back to telling older kids that trick or treating is for the little ones only; furthermore, all of the smashed pumpkins, eggs, and toilet paper that you see on November 1st are courtesy of older kids who were out unsupervised the night before, and you want to be sure that your offspring aren't out there adding to it. When you take your little kids around, ignore their protestations and stand right there with them, NOT 20 feet away on the curb; if they're being rude, you need to know it, and be able to act immediately... and it also helps if the kids see you modeling the correct behavior, looking the candy-givers in the eye, thanking them, and replying to whatever they might say. If necessary, reiterate the importance of saying "thank you" before each doorbell is rung, so you spare everyone the awkward scene of you prompting the kids to say it once they've gotten the candy; you're supposed to CARE how other adults judge the behavior of your children, and it looks bad if they don't appear to understand the concept of gratitude.
Halloween used to be fun; the kids were eager to show off their costumes, the parents would compliment the decorations, and it had a friendly feel to it even if the parties involved didn't know each other. Now, it's gotten rushed and impersonal and RUDE; yet another casualty of the modern world.
Wanting to make some sort of a connection with the kids, to be a human being to them rather than a candy-serving robot, and thus maybe get some sort of a good feeling back for my effort, I tried to give them compliments on their costumes, or wish them good luck in collecting candy, or whatever... and I might as well not have bothered, as virtually none of them even gave any sign that they heard me, much less responded. Maybe if I'd held back the candy until they made the effort to make a polite reply, I might have done better, but that concept had too much of a feeling of holding out a treat to get a dog to do a trick-I figured that couldn't be good karma.
The kids aren't to blame for these displays of bad manners, of course; by their very nature, they'll do whatever they can get away with, and it's the job of the ADULTS to reign them in. Parents, you need to remember that it's an imposition on your neighbors to have to give up their evening to pass out candy to your kids, and thus that you should be making sure that your children aren't the source of rants like mine. It's time to go back to telling older kids that trick or treating is for the little ones only; furthermore, all of the smashed pumpkins, eggs, and toilet paper that you see on November 1st are courtesy of older kids who were out unsupervised the night before, and you want to be sure that your offspring aren't out there adding to it. When you take your little kids around, ignore their protestations and stand right there with them, NOT 20 feet away on the curb; if they're being rude, you need to know it, and be able to act immediately... and it also helps if the kids see you modeling the correct behavior, looking the candy-givers in the eye, thanking them, and replying to whatever they might say. If necessary, reiterate the importance of saying "thank you" before each doorbell is rung, so you spare everyone the awkward scene of you prompting the kids to say it once they've gotten the candy; you're supposed to CARE how other adults judge the behavior of your children, and it looks bad if they don't appear to understand the concept of gratitude.
Halloween used to be fun; the kids were eager to show off their costumes, the parents would compliment the decorations, and it had a friendly feel to it even if the parties involved didn't know each other. Now, it's gotten rushed and impersonal and RUDE; yet another casualty of the modern world.
Sunday, October 31, 2004
Anticipation, anticipa-a-tion
Anticipation is a wonderful thing; that special excitement you feel when you're about to get something good really adds to the experience. The problem comes when your anticipation exceeds what the experience can reasonably be expected to provide:
For example, if you had a date someone who was pleasant, nice-looking and bright, you'd normally be happy; if it was a blind date, though, and you'd been anticipating someone gorgeous, brilliant and charming (even though people like that, if they exist, don't NEED blind dates), the perfectly lovely reality would be a let-down to you, and your disappointment could easily spoil your evening. If, on the other hand, you'd been expecting someone gross, and had the exact same date, you'd be thrilled... which just goes to show you that pessimism can sometimes work to your benefit (although I still don't recommend it).
And have you ever eaten something that you really enjoyed, then not had it for a long time, and finally had the opportunity to eat it again, and your mouth is watering, and you take a bite... and it isn't nearly as great as it was in your anticipatory fantasies? Our memories are easily influenced by our thoughts, and can get so distorted that what was once wonderful seems mediocre by comparison, especially after all that anticipation.
In the romantic arena, anticipation often sets couples up for a fall; they enter into marriage, or playing house, with wildly unrealistic expectations, anticipating the sorts of intimacy and sexual marathons that don't exist outside of romance novels and porn, and when they discover that there's alot more arguing over chores and running errands than passion and romance, they blame the relationship, even though without the nonsense in their heads they'd have been fine.
Even when you DO have reason to expect that something will be terrific, though, you can still feel disappointed, because some things just don't live up to their press; we've all seen movies that are perfect examples of that. It's even worse when we've had a LONG period of anticipation; ask anyone who had a vacation or a big party end in disaster. Just imagine, then, what it's like to be about to experience something you're waited over 20 YEARS for, with a level of anticipation that's about to blow the top of your skull off, and you can see the enormous potential for letdown.
I've reached the last section of the last book of Stephen King's "Dark Tower" series; I've been reading these books for over half of my life, literally, and ever since the final one was published and ordered from Amazon.com, I've been winding up more and more, anticipating the moment I've been waiting for... when the hero of the series, Roland, will finally reach the tower, the centerpoint of all existence in all the universes, and... and.... well, I don't know yet, of course, and I'm hoping passionately that King has come up with something dazzling enough to make it worth the wait. I keep telling myself that the end nearly HAS to be anti-climactic after all this waiting, but he's such a brilliant writer that I can't help but get caught up in the buildup; I hope that, whatever the end of the book, of the series, is, I can enjoy it even if it fails to meet my expectations...
For example, if you had a date someone who was pleasant, nice-looking and bright, you'd normally be happy; if it was a blind date, though, and you'd been anticipating someone gorgeous, brilliant and charming (even though people like that, if they exist, don't NEED blind dates), the perfectly lovely reality would be a let-down to you, and your disappointment could easily spoil your evening. If, on the other hand, you'd been expecting someone gross, and had the exact same date, you'd be thrilled... which just goes to show you that pessimism can sometimes work to your benefit (although I still don't recommend it).
And have you ever eaten something that you really enjoyed, then not had it for a long time, and finally had the opportunity to eat it again, and your mouth is watering, and you take a bite... and it isn't nearly as great as it was in your anticipatory fantasies? Our memories are easily influenced by our thoughts, and can get so distorted that what was once wonderful seems mediocre by comparison, especially after all that anticipation.
In the romantic arena, anticipation often sets couples up for a fall; they enter into marriage, or playing house, with wildly unrealistic expectations, anticipating the sorts of intimacy and sexual marathons that don't exist outside of romance novels and porn, and when they discover that there's alot more arguing over chores and running errands than passion and romance, they blame the relationship, even though without the nonsense in their heads they'd have been fine.
Even when you DO have reason to expect that something will be terrific, though, you can still feel disappointed, because some things just don't live up to their press; we've all seen movies that are perfect examples of that. It's even worse when we've had a LONG period of anticipation; ask anyone who had a vacation or a big party end in disaster. Just imagine, then, what it's like to be about to experience something you're waited over 20 YEARS for, with a level of anticipation that's about to blow the top of your skull off, and you can see the enormous potential for letdown.
I've reached the last section of the last book of Stephen King's "Dark Tower" series; I've been reading these books for over half of my life, literally, and ever since the final one was published and ordered from Amazon.com, I've been winding up more and more, anticipating the moment I've been waiting for... when the hero of the series, Roland, will finally reach the tower, the centerpoint of all existence in all the universes, and... and.... well, I don't know yet, of course, and I'm hoping passionately that King has come up with something dazzling enough to make it worth the wait. I keep telling myself that the end nearly HAS to be anti-climactic after all this waiting, but he's such a brilliant writer that I can't help but get caught up in the buildup; I hope that, whatever the end of the book, of the series, is, I can enjoy it even if it fails to meet my expectations...
