Saturday, July 23, 2005
The power of thought vs the laws of nature
My friend Melanie, whose excellent blog is here
http://converttheatheist.blogspot.com/
brought up an interesting point today; whether it's possible for the laws of nature to exist, for science to exist, for cause and effect to exist, if with our thoughts we can make things happen. On the one hand, it's a moot point, as all of those things clearly do exist, and there's no "if" about the power of thought, but on the other hand it's worthwhile to ponder how those things fit together.
Unlike some people, I don't see anything mystical about any of the aspects of karma, including the ability of our minds to reach out and touch the future (precognition), know the unknowable (telepathy), heal (sometimes called faith healing, but you don't need faith in a deity for it to work), and add threads to the tapestry of karma and thus determine its pattern; I see a force of nature, no more otherworldly than gravity or radiation. True, we can't perceive the energy of thought, or any of the other facets of karma, in action, and science cannot yet detect them, but we can't perceive, for example, radio waves or microwaves either, and throughout nearly all of human history scientific instruments to measure them didn't exist, but they were there nevertheless. I fully expect them to figure out how to detect the energies of karma in action eventually, hopefully in my lifetime; my guess is that, since the strings of energy that M-theory tells us make up everything in the omniverse are probably either karma, or made of karma, or karma is made of them, that once they start being able to track the behavior of strings they're gonna see some pretty wild stuff that'll turn out to be everything from spirits to souls to streams of thought energy shaping the fabric of spacetime.
So, karma's a force of nature, or it might make more sense to envision it as karma being what everything is made of, and the engine of karma being how all those energies interact with each other to form reality; the central point is that nothing to do with karma per se can interfere with the laws of nature, because it's PART of nature, and all the laws of physics refer to how the more visible parts of karma behave, so there's no problem with having both "camps" existing in general.
Ok, so what about the power of thought to alter reality specifically? I have to say right off the bat that I have no personal experience with most of the ways people can do this, although I'm reasonably confident that they work because it's fairly easy to do, and the exact method shouldn't really matter; the only one I can personally vouch for is affirmations (see my post of 1-12-04 if you want to see the specifics of how to do them), but I'll include the others in my explanation as best as I can (my apologies to those who use those other methods if I handle them poorly).
Thoughts are made of the energy of karma (or you could say with equal validity that karma is made of the energy of thought, which is why animism is a valid concept; see my post of 3-16-04 for details), and it seems reasonable enough that one "piece" of karma could join with others in various ways, in the same way that, for example, waves of both matter and energy do, doesn't it? Frankly, I don't see how thoughts could NOT become part of reality; the thing is, most of our thoughts are trivial, even random, often incomplete, backed by little or no emotion, not repeated, and, most importantly, not FOCUSED, so, although synchronicities happen all the time, as do other minor responses from karma, most of what we think doesn't do anything significant because we're not TRYING to do anything significant, in the same way that all the walking to the kitchen to get snacks that we do doesn't somehow magically send us to the top of Mount Everest even when we've covered the same distance as that trip would be, because little bits and pieces of effort in all directions do NOT equal a major journey.
Focus is the key; focused thought can accomplish miracles. It's a straightforward process; if you can send out thought "concentrated" into a given "shape," and do it over and over, preferably with emotion to back it up (as emotion is energy too), you can draw karma to you in that shape... even if the shape is of something that seems pretty much impossible. It's like what you'd do if you wanted a bird that's rare in your area to come hang out in your backyard; you'd put out the kind of food it likes, and maybe the sort of perch or nesting box it prefers, and, assuming you haven't spoiled your own plans by having a stalking cat or barking dog out there, you can probably lure the desired species of bird in eventually... the "species" of karma that represents your goal can be lured in the same conceptual way, but instead of the right sort of birdseed you need the right sort of thoughts.
Affirmations are the way I've been able to create those thoughts, but, because they require the use of "I statements," as in "I, Omni, will receive X," I don't see how you could use them to try to defy the laws of physics... well, I suppose I could in theory say "I, Omni, will be able to flap my arms and fly," but there's no way for karma to influence events to produce that result, and my understanding is that this is how affirmations work, NOT by doing anything magical.
What about magic, then, or "magick" as modern practitioners often call it to distinguish it from stage magic; assuming that it works, can it violate the laws of physics, as it tends to do in fairytales? My first answer is "no," because that'd be easy to see, study, and prove if it were being done... unless what it can do is more subtle things, like make the minute adjustments in brain chemistry that would make one person feel love for another, which is perhaps the most commonly used "spell." Thoughts are energy, but not infinite energy, after all, so you couldn't expect what your head generates to equal the force of a nuclear explosion or anything else huge, but could thoughts act directly on the physical world and alter even a little bit of it, thus, for example, making someone sick, or healthy, or in love... or dead, as voodoo practitioners claim to be able to do? Maybe. If you could do that, would it be in violation of the laws of physics, given that it's just a force acting on an object? It doesn't seem like it would be, but maybe it is; I'd need a physicist to make a ruling on that one.
If your thoughts COULD have a direct effect on matter, does that mean that you could theoretically use magick to cause even a small amount of matter (or energy) to, not just change, but change and/or act in a way that inarguably DOES violate the laws of physics? Do those laws apply to karma, fully and all the time, or is karma a way around the laws? I honestly can't say; it's an interesting thought, no pun intended.
Last, but far from least, there's prayer; this is the form of focused thought used by the most people, and of course the one that gets the most miracles attributed to it... and wouldn't some of those miracles possibly count as violations of the laws of physics? The folks doing the praying would say that their deity violated those laws, not their prayers, and this could be so, as the existence of a deity can NOT be disproved... but could their prayers be directly killing cancer cells and such? If magick can do it, it seems reasonable that prayer might, too; I just have no basis to judge which of those methods is stronger or can do a wider variety of things, or if in fact there's any difference between varieties of focused thought.
Because I have nothing to pray to, the only way I can think of to test if focused thought can in fact violate the laws of physics is to learn magick... and the ways that could lead to unintentional harm are so many that I'm not ready to risk it.
Not YET.
http://converttheatheist.blogspot.com/
brought up an interesting point today; whether it's possible for the laws of nature to exist, for science to exist, for cause and effect to exist, if with our thoughts we can make things happen. On the one hand, it's a moot point, as all of those things clearly do exist, and there's no "if" about the power of thought, but on the other hand it's worthwhile to ponder how those things fit together.
Unlike some people, I don't see anything mystical about any of the aspects of karma, including the ability of our minds to reach out and touch the future (precognition), know the unknowable (telepathy), heal (sometimes called faith healing, but you don't need faith in a deity for it to work), and add threads to the tapestry of karma and thus determine its pattern; I see a force of nature, no more otherworldly than gravity or radiation. True, we can't perceive the energy of thought, or any of the other facets of karma, in action, and science cannot yet detect them, but we can't perceive, for example, radio waves or microwaves either, and throughout nearly all of human history scientific instruments to measure them didn't exist, but they were there nevertheless. I fully expect them to figure out how to detect the energies of karma in action eventually, hopefully in my lifetime; my guess is that, since the strings of energy that M-theory tells us make up everything in the omniverse are probably either karma, or made of karma, or karma is made of them, that once they start being able to track the behavior of strings they're gonna see some pretty wild stuff that'll turn out to be everything from spirits to souls to streams of thought energy shaping the fabric of spacetime.
So, karma's a force of nature, or it might make more sense to envision it as karma being what everything is made of, and the engine of karma being how all those energies interact with each other to form reality; the central point is that nothing to do with karma per se can interfere with the laws of nature, because it's PART of nature, and all the laws of physics refer to how the more visible parts of karma behave, so there's no problem with having both "camps" existing in general.
Ok, so what about the power of thought to alter reality specifically? I have to say right off the bat that I have no personal experience with most of the ways people can do this, although I'm reasonably confident that they work because it's fairly easy to do, and the exact method shouldn't really matter; the only one I can personally vouch for is affirmations (see my post of 1-12-04 if you want to see the specifics of how to do them), but I'll include the others in my explanation as best as I can (my apologies to those who use those other methods if I handle them poorly).
Thoughts are made of the energy of karma (or you could say with equal validity that karma is made of the energy of thought, which is why animism is a valid concept; see my post of 3-16-04 for details), and it seems reasonable enough that one "piece" of karma could join with others in various ways, in the same way that, for example, waves of both matter and energy do, doesn't it? Frankly, I don't see how thoughts could NOT become part of reality; the thing is, most of our thoughts are trivial, even random, often incomplete, backed by little or no emotion, not repeated, and, most importantly, not FOCUSED, so, although synchronicities happen all the time, as do other minor responses from karma, most of what we think doesn't do anything significant because we're not TRYING to do anything significant, in the same way that all the walking to the kitchen to get snacks that we do doesn't somehow magically send us to the top of Mount Everest even when we've covered the same distance as that trip would be, because little bits and pieces of effort in all directions do NOT equal a major journey.
Focus is the key; focused thought can accomplish miracles. It's a straightforward process; if you can send out thought "concentrated" into a given "shape," and do it over and over, preferably with emotion to back it up (as emotion is energy too), you can draw karma to you in that shape... even if the shape is of something that seems pretty much impossible. It's like what you'd do if you wanted a bird that's rare in your area to come hang out in your backyard; you'd put out the kind of food it likes, and maybe the sort of perch or nesting box it prefers, and, assuming you haven't spoiled your own plans by having a stalking cat or barking dog out there, you can probably lure the desired species of bird in eventually... the "species" of karma that represents your goal can be lured in the same conceptual way, but instead of the right sort of birdseed you need the right sort of thoughts.
Affirmations are the way I've been able to create those thoughts, but, because they require the use of "I statements," as in "I, Omni, will receive X," I don't see how you could use them to try to defy the laws of physics... well, I suppose I could in theory say "I, Omni, will be able to flap my arms and fly," but there's no way for karma to influence events to produce that result, and my understanding is that this is how affirmations work, NOT by doing anything magical.
What about magic, then, or "magick" as modern practitioners often call it to distinguish it from stage magic; assuming that it works, can it violate the laws of physics, as it tends to do in fairytales? My first answer is "no," because that'd be easy to see, study, and prove if it were being done... unless what it can do is more subtle things, like make the minute adjustments in brain chemistry that would make one person feel love for another, which is perhaps the most commonly used "spell." Thoughts are energy, but not infinite energy, after all, so you couldn't expect what your head generates to equal the force of a nuclear explosion or anything else huge, but could thoughts act directly on the physical world and alter even a little bit of it, thus, for example, making someone sick, or healthy, or in love... or dead, as voodoo practitioners claim to be able to do? Maybe. If you could do that, would it be in violation of the laws of physics, given that it's just a force acting on an object? It doesn't seem like it would be, but maybe it is; I'd need a physicist to make a ruling on that one.
If your thoughts COULD have a direct effect on matter, does that mean that you could theoretically use magick to cause even a small amount of matter (or energy) to, not just change, but change and/or act in a way that inarguably DOES violate the laws of physics? Do those laws apply to karma, fully and all the time, or is karma a way around the laws? I honestly can't say; it's an interesting thought, no pun intended.
Last, but far from least, there's prayer; this is the form of focused thought used by the most people, and of course the one that gets the most miracles attributed to it... and wouldn't some of those miracles possibly count as violations of the laws of physics? The folks doing the praying would say that their deity violated those laws, not their prayers, and this could be so, as the existence of a deity can NOT be disproved... but could their prayers be directly killing cancer cells and such? If magick can do it, it seems reasonable that prayer might, too; I just have no basis to judge which of those methods is stronger or can do a wider variety of things, or if in fact there's any difference between varieties of focused thought.
Because I have nothing to pray to, the only way I can think of to test if focused thought can in fact violate the laws of physics is to learn magick... and the ways that could lead to unintentional harm are so many that I'm not ready to risk it.
Not YET.
Friday, July 22, 2005
Real-life commentary about the big words/intelligence issue
Online life isn't actually "real life," of course, so what I mean by that is quotes from regular people in a "social setting" (the lounge area of a forum), as opposed to summations by researchers and experts. In my post of 5-13-05, I talked about how a Stanford study had shown that people using big words in writing were seen as LESS intelligent than those who didn't (even if they're using them correctly, which IS a sign of intelligence), and that political analysts described the same sort of phenomena in speeches; the central concept is that people tend to view those with their same sort of word usage as being intelligent (even though most people are average, and so NOT intelligent, which refers to mental ability ABOVE the average level), and those with superior word usage as "INferior" in all sorts of areas, not just intelligence-wise... which shows us what value our culture puts on intelligence, and that the best thing a smart person can do with their brains is use them to figure out how to disguise their existence. {sigh}
Today, I stumbled upon a forum where I'd guess everyone posting is under 25, and nearly all of them are male; there was a thread that included posts on the above topic, and I immediately started envisioning a post of my own. After much internal debate, I've decided to not give a URL or other identifying info for this forum, so that they don't find their way here and get offended by my commentary on what they said; my primary intention is to learn from them, NOT to insult them, but I'm betting they wouldn't see it that way, especially since I wont be subtle with my rebuttals. I'm going to give exact quotes from their posts, altered only to put a polite mask over their profanity (as this is an all-ages blog), and then discuss the ramifications of what they've said. I'll preface that by pointing out that none of the posters shows any sign of being of higher than average intelligence, which makes them good mouthpieces for our culture, and, although their youth might make their opinions somewhat more extreme than older folks', I've seen no evidence of older people viewing intelligence any differently than younger adults, and the latter have the advantage of being more willing, on the whole, to bluntly say what they think. So:
"I hate people who use obnoxiously long words, and then deny that its to make them look smart. I mean, I use long words when they're in the best context, but I don't purposely seek to elongate my language."
So many people clearly agree with this guy, but they're WRONG; while obviously there ARE people who use big words, usually incorrectly, to try to sound smart, most people who use big words use them because they, and the people they regularly interact with, are intelligent and educated, and that's how they're used to talking, so they're NOT doing it to make themselves look smart... but they need to be aware that people will perceive them as doing just that.
"Smart people don't use long words, ever notice that?"
No, I haven't, because it just ain't so; could there be a clearer example of the "a person is smart if they sound like ME" phenomenon?
"The smarter people should be smart enough to know to use words that can easily be understood by those around them"
So, a smart person should instantly and psychically know the vocabulary level of everyone within earshot at all times, and tailor their every remark to the lowest common denominator? What he actually means, I'm sure, is that if a smart person is REALLY smart, as in sharp enough to understand how social conversations are supposed to work, they'll be aware that they need to talk at about a 7th grade level (which is what articles and speeches supposedly shoot for, so that most Americans can understand them-pitiful, isn't it?), which will keep listeners from feeling stupid and thus prevent negative social judgments... couldn't you just CRY?
"intelligent people use words that everyone can understand"
Not on THIS planet they don't; AVERAGE people use words everyone can understand, and intelligent people use words appropriate to their intelligence and the sorts of topics they discuss... but again, keep in mind that this guy speaks for many.
"why the f**k would you try to confuse people if you're trying to explain something to them?"
Why does he think that an intelligent person is TRYING to confuse people? It's HARD to talk at a 7th grade level when you're not used to it, and unless you're insanely conceited it'd probably never even occur to you that people aren't understanding your vocabulary in the 1st place, regardless of the level you speak at... would he prefer if all intelligent people assumed he was a moron and spoke to him in words of 1 syllable? No, because then he'd accuse them of being arrogant, patronizing, etc; he'd react that way even if they spoke to him at his exact vocabulary level, if he KNEW they were dumbing down their comments for him... in other words, if you can't convincingly fake being average, you're out of luck. The very idea that he thinks intelligent people must be TRYING to confuse others, as opposed to doing so unintentionally because their normal vocabulary is beyond the reach of whoever they're talking to, is kinda scary; the average are pretty quick to ascribe negative motives to the smart based on a few big words.
"that pisses me off to a very high degree... people trying to sound smart and then they say s**t like "just cause you didn't understand it doesn't mean it was a big word" holy f**k those f**king idiots... I mention to them that they should quit trying to look smart and they have the nerve to tell me I'm stupid!!! GARG!!!"
Where do I start, lol? People are clearly VERY poor judges of whether or not others are "trying to sound smart," but that doesn't stop them from believing in their judgment, and the judgment of others equally as misguided... and that's the important point to remember. It DOES often happen that a not very bright person falsely accuses a smart one of using a big word when they weren't (a shocking example from my own life was a woman who was a college graduate no less who didn't know what "immaculate" meant, and mind you she was Catholic!!); the lesson here is that there's no point in saying so, because the less intelligent person will likely see that as being called stupid, as this guy did, even though there's little chance of the smart person having meant or even thought that, as all they were focused on was self-defense... what a minefield this is!!
"there was this one time where I argued with this kid. He rattled off 6 dollar words like freakin' Shakespeare. But you could tell he was just insecure, because he wanted to get the respect of the audience by scaring them with big@ss words"
HOW could he tell that, this guy who thinks that anyone would believe that people would be SCARED by the use of big words? (Resentful and belligerent, sure, but scared? Not a chance.) Intelligent people use big words because it's natural for them to, and in a debate situation we go into our most intellectual mode to try to win (or at least those with sufficient brainpower do, there's the catch), and thus more big words will be used; insecurity has nothing to do with it, and in fact an insecure person would be too nervous to be able to produce big words they don't normally use. It's crucial to note what the perception of the average person is under these circumstances, though, because in the heat of a debate one's vocabulary becomes even more of a liability (grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr), and that has to be taken into consideration.
No matter how many times I see evidence of the true view people have of intelligence, it dismays me no end... and this is undoubtedly why karma keeps sending me this sort of thing, because I HAVE to stop getting worked up over it and just accept it as a part of human nature that it's in my best interests to be aware of and use when necessary. What the forum posts have made clear is that under any circumstances where an intelligent person speaks in an appropriate manner given their vocabulary within the hearing of an average person, all sorts of negative judgments are being made as to why they're speaking that way (anything to avoid the self-judgment of "This person is smarter than me"), and they're not even being given credit for their brains; people will use the most twisted analyses imaginable to turn even the most confident, friendliest intelligent person into some sort of pitiful and/or unpleasant creature, deserving of contempt rather than admiration, or even indifference.
If you're of average intelligence... 1st of all, congratulations, you're very lucky, because you naturally possess one of the most important characteristics a human being can have, the ability to fit in with, and be seen as intelligent and otherwise worthy by, society. From your lofty position, as you look around at the geeks and intellectuals of the world, I ask you; please, PLEASE, show some frigging mercy when dealing with smart people, and make a conscious effort to judge them fairly rather than finding a way to make every big word that exits their mouths into proof of bad qualities in them. When people around you express unfair judgments, show a little backbone and speak up, be the voice of logic and kindness; good karma will result.
If you're of above average intelligence... you know you're screwed, right? Unless you're a REALLY good actor with iron self-control, you're never going to be able to pass as one of "them," and they'll see that... and they are the majority, my friend, and they make most of the decisions that affect your quality of life. Try, TRY, to fit in, but be ready for the consequences of failure, and don't let it surprise you or make you doubt yourself. You can hang out with other bright people most of the time, but you're still going to meet average ones at parties, in most workplaces, and when you try to meet people to hook up with, so help yourself, AND help smart people in general stop getting such a bad rap, by embracing averageness. I hope that good karma will result from trying to achieve harmony with all sorts of people... but even if not, it's better than the negative energy you'll draw to yourself if you're made miserable by being an outsider.
I re-read the forum quotes, and winced as I did before at the harsh reality they represent; I've still got alot of work to do...
Today, I stumbled upon a forum where I'd guess everyone posting is under 25, and nearly all of them are male; there was a thread that included posts on the above topic, and I immediately started envisioning a post of my own. After much internal debate, I've decided to not give a URL or other identifying info for this forum, so that they don't find their way here and get offended by my commentary on what they said; my primary intention is to learn from them, NOT to insult them, but I'm betting they wouldn't see it that way, especially since I wont be subtle with my rebuttals. I'm going to give exact quotes from their posts, altered only to put a polite mask over their profanity (as this is an all-ages blog), and then discuss the ramifications of what they've said. I'll preface that by pointing out that none of the posters shows any sign of being of higher than average intelligence, which makes them good mouthpieces for our culture, and, although their youth might make their opinions somewhat more extreme than older folks', I've seen no evidence of older people viewing intelligence any differently than younger adults, and the latter have the advantage of being more willing, on the whole, to bluntly say what they think. So:
"I hate people who use obnoxiously long words, and then deny that its to make them look smart. I mean, I use long words when they're in the best context, but I don't purposely seek to elongate my language."
So many people clearly agree with this guy, but they're WRONG; while obviously there ARE people who use big words, usually incorrectly, to try to sound smart, most people who use big words use them because they, and the people they regularly interact with, are intelligent and educated, and that's how they're used to talking, so they're NOT doing it to make themselves look smart... but they need to be aware that people will perceive them as doing just that.
"Smart people don't use long words, ever notice that?"
No, I haven't, because it just ain't so; could there be a clearer example of the "a person is smart if they sound like ME" phenomenon?
"The smarter people should be smart enough to know to use words that can easily be understood by those around them"
So, a smart person should instantly and psychically know the vocabulary level of everyone within earshot at all times, and tailor their every remark to the lowest common denominator? What he actually means, I'm sure, is that if a smart person is REALLY smart, as in sharp enough to understand how social conversations are supposed to work, they'll be aware that they need to talk at about a 7th grade level (which is what articles and speeches supposedly shoot for, so that most Americans can understand them-pitiful, isn't it?), which will keep listeners from feeling stupid and thus prevent negative social judgments... couldn't you just CRY?
"intelligent people use words that everyone can understand"
Not on THIS planet they don't; AVERAGE people use words everyone can understand, and intelligent people use words appropriate to their intelligence and the sorts of topics they discuss... but again, keep in mind that this guy speaks for many.
"why the f**k would you try to confuse people if you're trying to explain something to them?"
Why does he think that an intelligent person is TRYING to confuse people? It's HARD to talk at a 7th grade level when you're not used to it, and unless you're insanely conceited it'd probably never even occur to you that people aren't understanding your vocabulary in the 1st place, regardless of the level you speak at... would he prefer if all intelligent people assumed he was a moron and spoke to him in words of 1 syllable? No, because then he'd accuse them of being arrogant, patronizing, etc; he'd react that way even if they spoke to him at his exact vocabulary level, if he KNEW they were dumbing down their comments for him... in other words, if you can't convincingly fake being average, you're out of luck. The very idea that he thinks intelligent people must be TRYING to confuse others, as opposed to doing so unintentionally because their normal vocabulary is beyond the reach of whoever they're talking to, is kinda scary; the average are pretty quick to ascribe negative motives to the smart based on a few big words.
"that pisses me off to a very high degree... people trying to sound smart and then they say s**t like "just cause you didn't understand it doesn't mean it was a big word" holy f**k those f**king idiots... I mention to them that they should quit trying to look smart and they have the nerve to tell me I'm stupid!!! GARG!!!"
Where do I start, lol? People are clearly VERY poor judges of whether or not others are "trying to sound smart," but that doesn't stop them from believing in their judgment, and the judgment of others equally as misguided... and that's the important point to remember. It DOES often happen that a not very bright person falsely accuses a smart one of using a big word when they weren't (a shocking example from my own life was a woman who was a college graduate no less who didn't know what "immaculate" meant, and mind you she was Catholic!!); the lesson here is that there's no point in saying so, because the less intelligent person will likely see that as being called stupid, as this guy did, even though there's little chance of the smart person having meant or even thought that, as all they were focused on was self-defense... what a minefield this is!!
"there was this one time where I argued with this kid. He rattled off 6 dollar words like freakin' Shakespeare. But you could tell he was just insecure, because he wanted to get the respect of the audience by scaring them with big@ss words"
HOW could he tell that, this guy who thinks that anyone would believe that people would be SCARED by the use of big words? (Resentful and belligerent, sure, but scared? Not a chance.) Intelligent people use big words because it's natural for them to, and in a debate situation we go into our most intellectual mode to try to win (or at least those with sufficient brainpower do, there's the catch), and thus more big words will be used; insecurity has nothing to do with it, and in fact an insecure person would be too nervous to be able to produce big words they don't normally use. It's crucial to note what the perception of the average person is under these circumstances, though, because in the heat of a debate one's vocabulary becomes even more of a liability (grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr), and that has to be taken into consideration.
No matter how many times I see evidence of the true view people have of intelligence, it dismays me no end... and this is undoubtedly why karma keeps sending me this sort of thing, because I HAVE to stop getting worked up over it and just accept it as a part of human nature that it's in my best interests to be aware of and use when necessary. What the forum posts have made clear is that under any circumstances where an intelligent person speaks in an appropriate manner given their vocabulary within the hearing of an average person, all sorts of negative judgments are being made as to why they're speaking that way (anything to avoid the self-judgment of "This person is smarter than me"), and they're not even being given credit for their brains; people will use the most twisted analyses imaginable to turn even the most confident, friendliest intelligent person into some sort of pitiful and/or unpleasant creature, deserving of contempt rather than admiration, or even indifference.
If you're of average intelligence... 1st of all, congratulations, you're very lucky, because you naturally possess one of the most important characteristics a human being can have, the ability to fit in with, and be seen as intelligent and otherwise worthy by, society. From your lofty position, as you look around at the geeks and intellectuals of the world, I ask you; please, PLEASE, show some frigging mercy when dealing with smart people, and make a conscious effort to judge them fairly rather than finding a way to make every big word that exits their mouths into proof of bad qualities in them. When people around you express unfair judgments, show a little backbone and speak up, be the voice of logic and kindness; good karma will result.
If you're of above average intelligence... you know you're screwed, right? Unless you're a REALLY good actor with iron self-control, you're never going to be able to pass as one of "them," and they'll see that... and they are the majority, my friend, and they make most of the decisions that affect your quality of life. Try, TRY, to fit in, but be ready for the consequences of failure, and don't let it surprise you or make you doubt yourself. You can hang out with other bright people most of the time, but you're still going to meet average ones at parties, in most workplaces, and when you try to meet people to hook up with, so help yourself, AND help smart people in general stop getting such a bad rap, by embracing averageness. I hope that good karma will result from trying to achieve harmony with all sorts of people... but even if not, it's better than the negative energy you'll draw to yourself if you're made miserable by being an outsider.
I re-read the forum quotes, and winced as I did before at the harsh reality they represent; I've still got alot of work to do...
Thursday, July 21, 2005
Criss Angel Mindfreak
Did you see it? Did you? If so, you'll undoubtedly share the following sentiment: AAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHH!! If not, don't worry, it'll be on a bunch more times (and is also probably floating around online in a dozen places), so you still have plenty of chances... and you've GOT to see this series.
Criss Angel, whose website is here
http://www.crissangel.com/
is widely believed to be the finest illusionist in the world... and probably the finest who ever lived. His illusions are dramatic, highly original, and sometimes horrifying; in the 1st episode shown today, for example, he had people on the street stabbing a voodoo doll, and would instantly bleed from whatever part of his body corresponded to where the needle was on the doll (and I mean blood coming from his skin, not from blood packs being remotely set off under his clothes-he even bled from his nose), and then he was fully on fire for 45 seconds, calmly walking around engulfed in flames, and then he... but that'd be telling-watch the show if you want to see the trick he pulled while on fire and fully encircled with people.
Criss's unmatched skill as an illusionist, and his immense creativity with designing tricks, aren't all he brings to his performances; he's a singer and musician (I have 1 of his CD's-it's fab) who does all his own music, he's studied dance, gymnastics, and martial arts his entire life, which, combined with his bodybuilding, brings a unique and intense physicality to his illusions that's far beyond what anyone else has done, and his visual sense, as seen in his ever-changing image and spectacular theatrics, is original and cutting-edge. Some of this hasn't been shown in the series yet, as it's been focusing on his street performing, but I've seen what he can do on stage, both on TV and in person (in a tiny club setting in the round, where he did one of his tricks right under my table!!), and all I can say is hold onto your hats, because whatever he's come up with for these episodes is bound to be mindboggling.
And there's 1 more thing that makes Criss a dazzling performer; straight men will want to skip this paragraph. Go on down to the next paragraph, we'll wait for you. OK, here's the best part; the man is gorgeous. GORGEOUS. *G*O*R*G*E*O*U*S*. Even though he's cut his super-long hair down to moderately long, even though he's back to shaving his hairy chest (whimper), Criss is a GOD; he's Greek, so I suppose that makes him a Greek god, although I don't remember any of the male gods supposedly looking like this. The bone-structure, the eyes, the lips, the bod... oh that BOD... hang on while I put on the A/C, lol. At the risk of getting overly graphic, I feel compelled to add that, unless he's got socks somewhere other than on his feet, he's got... er... ahem... YOWZA!! Trust me, even if for some reason you have a pathological hatred of magic, watch him anyways, just to look at him; you'll see what I mean.
Thanks for your patience, fellas; I encourage you to watch Mindfreak despite the babe factor, because my husband has always been as blown away by Criss Angel as I am, and in his case the bulging, um, muscles obviously aren't an issue... in fact, he still proclaims the time we saw Criss perform as the finest performance of any kind that he's ever seen, and finds the element of danger in much of what he does to be particularly appealing.
I hope I've convinced you to watch; they're currently showing 2 half-hour episodes per week (why they don't just make an hour-long show is beyond me) starting at 10PM on Wednesdays on the Arts & Entertainment channel (A&E). As you can imagine, each episode is being shown many times; you can see a schedule here
http://spark.vo.llnwd.net/o1/crissangel/dvd_tv/tv.html
and a more extensive one here
http://www.aetv.com/aesearch/search.do?searchType=tv&initial=true&keywords=mindfreak
click on "More TV Listings " to see a bunch more showtimes.
Watch it watch it WATCH IT!! :-)
Criss Angel, whose website is here
http://www.crissangel.com/
is widely believed to be the finest illusionist in the world... and probably the finest who ever lived. His illusions are dramatic, highly original, and sometimes horrifying; in the 1st episode shown today, for example, he had people on the street stabbing a voodoo doll, and would instantly bleed from whatever part of his body corresponded to where the needle was on the doll (and I mean blood coming from his skin, not from blood packs being remotely set off under his clothes-he even bled from his nose), and then he was fully on fire for 45 seconds, calmly walking around engulfed in flames, and then he... but that'd be telling-watch the show if you want to see the trick he pulled while on fire and fully encircled with people.
Criss's unmatched skill as an illusionist, and his immense creativity with designing tricks, aren't all he brings to his performances; he's a singer and musician (I have 1 of his CD's-it's fab) who does all his own music, he's studied dance, gymnastics, and martial arts his entire life, which, combined with his bodybuilding, brings a unique and intense physicality to his illusions that's far beyond what anyone else has done, and his visual sense, as seen in his ever-changing image and spectacular theatrics, is original and cutting-edge. Some of this hasn't been shown in the series yet, as it's been focusing on his street performing, but I've seen what he can do on stage, both on TV and in person (in a tiny club setting in the round, where he did one of his tricks right under my table!!), and all I can say is hold onto your hats, because whatever he's come up with for these episodes is bound to be mindboggling.
And there's 1 more thing that makes Criss a dazzling performer; straight men will want to skip this paragraph. Go on down to the next paragraph, we'll wait for you. OK, here's the best part; the man is gorgeous. GORGEOUS. *G*O*R*G*E*O*U*S*. Even though he's cut his super-long hair down to moderately long, even though he's back to shaving his hairy chest (whimper), Criss is a GOD; he's Greek, so I suppose that makes him a Greek god, although I don't remember any of the male gods supposedly looking like this. The bone-structure, the eyes, the lips, the bod... oh that BOD... hang on while I put on the A/C, lol. At the risk of getting overly graphic, I feel compelled to add that, unless he's got socks somewhere other than on his feet, he's got... er... ahem... YOWZA!! Trust me, even if for some reason you have a pathological hatred of magic, watch him anyways, just to look at him; you'll see what I mean.
Thanks for your patience, fellas; I encourage you to watch Mindfreak despite the babe factor, because my husband has always been as blown away by Criss Angel as I am, and in his case the bulging, um, muscles obviously aren't an issue... in fact, he still proclaims the time we saw Criss perform as the finest performance of any kind that he's ever seen, and finds the element of danger in much of what he does to be particularly appealing.
I hope I've convinced you to watch; they're currently showing 2 half-hour episodes per week (why they don't just make an hour-long show is beyond me) starting at 10PM on Wednesdays on the Arts & Entertainment channel (A&E). As you can imagine, each episode is being shown many times; you can see a schedule here
http://spark.vo.llnwd.net/o1/crissangel/dvd_tv/tv.html
and a more extensive one here
http://www.aetv.com/aesearch/search.do?searchType=tv&initial=true&keywords=mindfreak
click on "More TV Listings " to see a bunch more showtimes.
Watch it watch it WATCH IT!! :-)
Wednesday, July 20, 2005
The karma of lessons learned
One of the surest ways to know that you've taken the right path is when karma rewards you for the choice you've made; this goes double when you're making a conscious choice to do things differently than you traditionally have in an attempt to improve your "karmic portfolio," thus demonstrating that you've learned an important life lesson. Why does karma concern itself with the learning of lessons? As best as I can figure it, when karma sends you something, and you handle it incorrectly, that disrupts the flow of energy, and that particular "shape" of energy keeps coming back, trying to pass through your life and onwards, such that you get the chance to make the same mistake over and over (as most people do) OR to break the cycle and get it right. If you figure out the right way to handle a situation, my experience is that, in response to the exultant burst of energy that accompanies the revelation, karma sends just that sort of situation to test you; if you actually manage to use the understanding you've gained, you'll be rewarded, but if you fail the cycle continues.
A few days ago, I encountered this awesome quote:
"He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you."
- Friedrich Nietzsche
The moment I read it, I saw that it applied to the difficulty I sometimes have with just letting disputes drop with online cockroaches, because it offends me right down to my bone marrow that people who wouldn't say boo to a goose in "meatspace" persist in coming into cyberspace and causing hooraws with total strangers, often devastating those without the ability to stand up to them, and wasting endless time and energy of people like me who want them to discover that they can't chase everyone off, can't hammer everyone into submission, can't always triumph just by being evil; it makes the karmic point that when you interact with people, their energy swirls around you, permeates you, can call forth similar energy from you, and thus possibly change you into the sort of person who produces that sort of energy. This means that a good person could induce you to become a better person, or, sadly, that you can become somewhat of a monster if you deal with those whose behavior is monstrous.
Although the abyss seemed to me a splendid symbol for how karma in many of its facets will "notice" you and become more overtly active in your life if you focus on it, I figured that Nietzsche probably meant it to refer to some obscure Germanic philosophical concept, but I looked him up at Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Nietzsche
and found the following
"One of Nietzsche's central concepts is the will to power (Der Wille zur Macht), a process of expansion and venting of creative energy that he believed was the basic driving force of nature. He believed it to be the fundamental causal power in the world: the driving force of all natural phenomena and the dynamic to which all other causal powers can be reduced. That is, Nietzsche in part hoped will to power could be a "theory of everything," providing the ultimate foundations for explanations of everything from whole societies, to individual organisms, down to mere lumps of matter. In contrast to the "theories of everything" attempted in physics, Nietzsche's was teleological in nature."
where
"Theory of Everything in philosophy is an attempt to provide an overall explanation of everything in terms of certain fundamental or all-encompassing principles, ideas, themes or structures. This goes beyond the Theory of Everything in physics, since the philosopher is also trying to explain consciousness, morality, God, and so on."
and
"Teleology is the supposition that there is design, purpose, directive principle, or finality in the works and processes of nature, and the philosophical study of that purpose"
Sure sounds like my idea of the engine of karma, doesn't it?
Back to the main point: I read the quote, and saw that dealing too much with poisonous people would poison ME, and make me more like them, and thus that I needed to make a conscious effort to impose limits on how far I let things progress with such people, particularly online. That very night, I received a kit I'd won on eBay, and discovered to my dismay that it was missing EIGHT pieces, although it hadn't even been admitted on the auction page to be USED. I sent a sweet email to the seller asking him to send the pieces; he responded that he didn't have them, but he'd give me a refund. Sounds good, but all he did was refund the auction amount, not the ridiculous amount of shipping he'd charged, which far exceeded the amount I won the auction for; that's against Federal law (under which sending an item with missing pieces and not refunding all $ received is mail fraud), not to mention the almost as powerful PayPal policies, and was just a rotten stunt to pull when he'd made such a serious error. Still trying to be nice, I politely informed him that refunding a tiny % of the total he'd been paid in this situation wasn't acceptable, and that he needed to do a little more to compensate me for the reduced usability of the kit. He got belligerent, pointing to his "policy" of never returning any part of shipping as if that altered the law or PayPal's rules, accused me of trying to make him pay me "for receiving the kit," and asked me if I thought what was fair was for him to send me some random item for free as a bonus on top of that. I kept my cool, and sent him an email explaining what I was entitled to, that it was fair because HE should take the financial loss due to his error, not me, and asking him to come up with a fair % of the total to refund me to make up for the missing pieces (the kit is still usable, so to be karmically clean I wasn't even asking for a full refund).
Shortly after I sent it off, the quote came into my mind, and I re-read it; I saw that this was one of those times where I could easily get sucked into a protracted and ever-nastier battle online (it's happened before), and actually saw a mental image of the quote in an email... so I decided that, whatever his reply was, that would be the end of it, and screw the $ (NOT a normal way for me to think with regards to $, by the way). Not long afterwards, I started getting the urge to check the PayPal account, even though he hadn't sent any more emails and there was no reason to think he'd taken any action yet... and there it was, a FULL refund from the man who'd refused to refund more than a single-digit % of what we'd paid him.
I made the right choice, took a new path, and was instantly rewarded.
There's more, as there often is when karmic growth is involved: There's a movie that I'd missed the ending of, and then watched and missed the end of AGAIN, which really bothered me, especially since there hadn't been any more showings of it listed for the near future; I'd thought about it earlier today as one of the few "pending" things that was hovering over me (with this eBay nonsense being another, of course)... and when my husband switched the TV back to regular functioning tonight after we watched the latest arrival from Blockbuster Online, guess what was on the channel that it happened to be tuned to? You guessed it; this time, I DID see the ending. Karma was very efficient here; it combined synchronicity with giving me an added reward.
This sort of thing has happened to me over and over; next time YOU learn an important life lesson, watch out for the test, use what you've learned to pass it, and see how fast the reward comes.
A few days ago, I encountered this awesome quote:
"He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you."
- Friedrich Nietzsche
The moment I read it, I saw that it applied to the difficulty I sometimes have with just letting disputes drop with online cockroaches, because it offends me right down to my bone marrow that people who wouldn't say boo to a goose in "meatspace" persist in coming into cyberspace and causing hooraws with total strangers, often devastating those without the ability to stand up to them, and wasting endless time and energy of people like me who want them to discover that they can't chase everyone off, can't hammer everyone into submission, can't always triumph just by being evil; it makes the karmic point that when you interact with people, their energy swirls around you, permeates you, can call forth similar energy from you, and thus possibly change you into the sort of person who produces that sort of energy. This means that a good person could induce you to become a better person, or, sadly, that you can become somewhat of a monster if you deal with those whose behavior is monstrous.
Although the abyss seemed to me a splendid symbol for how karma in many of its facets will "notice" you and become more overtly active in your life if you focus on it, I figured that Nietzsche probably meant it to refer to some obscure Germanic philosophical concept, but I looked him up at Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Nietzsche
and found the following
"One of Nietzsche's central concepts is the will to power (Der Wille zur Macht), a process of expansion and venting of creative energy that he believed was the basic driving force of nature. He believed it to be the fundamental causal power in the world: the driving force of all natural phenomena and the dynamic to which all other causal powers can be reduced. That is, Nietzsche in part hoped will to power could be a "theory of everything," providing the ultimate foundations for explanations of everything from whole societies, to individual organisms, down to mere lumps of matter. In contrast to the "theories of everything" attempted in physics, Nietzsche's was teleological in nature."
where
"Theory of Everything in philosophy is an attempt to provide an overall explanation of everything in terms of certain fundamental or all-encompassing principles, ideas, themes or structures. This goes beyond the Theory of Everything in physics, since the philosopher is also trying to explain consciousness, morality, God, and so on."
and
"Teleology is the supposition that there is design, purpose, directive principle, or finality in the works and processes of nature, and the philosophical study of that purpose"
Sure sounds like my idea of the engine of karma, doesn't it?
Back to the main point: I read the quote, and saw that dealing too much with poisonous people would poison ME, and make me more like them, and thus that I needed to make a conscious effort to impose limits on how far I let things progress with such people, particularly online. That very night, I received a kit I'd won on eBay, and discovered to my dismay that it was missing EIGHT pieces, although it hadn't even been admitted on the auction page to be USED. I sent a sweet email to the seller asking him to send the pieces; he responded that he didn't have them, but he'd give me a refund. Sounds good, but all he did was refund the auction amount, not the ridiculous amount of shipping he'd charged, which far exceeded the amount I won the auction for; that's against Federal law (under which sending an item with missing pieces and not refunding all $ received is mail fraud), not to mention the almost as powerful PayPal policies, and was just a rotten stunt to pull when he'd made such a serious error. Still trying to be nice, I politely informed him that refunding a tiny % of the total he'd been paid in this situation wasn't acceptable, and that he needed to do a little more to compensate me for the reduced usability of the kit. He got belligerent, pointing to his "policy" of never returning any part of shipping as if that altered the law or PayPal's rules, accused me of trying to make him pay me "for receiving the kit," and asked me if I thought what was fair was for him to send me some random item for free as a bonus on top of that. I kept my cool, and sent him an email explaining what I was entitled to, that it was fair because HE should take the financial loss due to his error, not me, and asking him to come up with a fair % of the total to refund me to make up for the missing pieces (the kit is still usable, so to be karmically clean I wasn't even asking for a full refund).
Shortly after I sent it off, the quote came into my mind, and I re-read it; I saw that this was one of those times where I could easily get sucked into a protracted and ever-nastier battle online (it's happened before), and actually saw a mental image of the quote in an email... so I decided that, whatever his reply was, that would be the end of it, and screw the $ (NOT a normal way for me to think with regards to $, by the way). Not long afterwards, I started getting the urge to check the PayPal account, even though he hadn't sent any more emails and there was no reason to think he'd taken any action yet... and there it was, a FULL refund from the man who'd refused to refund more than a single-digit % of what we'd paid him.
I made the right choice, took a new path, and was instantly rewarded.
There's more, as there often is when karmic growth is involved: There's a movie that I'd missed the ending of, and then watched and missed the end of AGAIN, which really bothered me, especially since there hadn't been any more showings of it listed for the near future; I'd thought about it earlier today as one of the few "pending" things that was hovering over me (with this eBay nonsense being another, of course)... and when my husband switched the TV back to regular functioning tonight after we watched the latest arrival from Blockbuster Online, guess what was on the channel that it happened to be tuned to? You guessed it; this time, I DID see the ending. Karma was very efficient here; it combined synchronicity with giving me an added reward.
This sort of thing has happened to me over and over; next time YOU learn an important life lesson, watch out for the test, use what you've learned to pass it, and see how fast the reward comes.
Tuesday, July 19, 2005
Karmic lesson from comic strip
I'm just getting around to reading the Sunday funnies from July 10, and I was impressed by the B.C. strip, which you can see here
http://www.comics.com/creators/bc/archive/bc-20050710.html
It shows 2 flowers wilting in the hot sun, just out of reach of a body of water (they call it a sea, but you'll soon realize why that's a mistake); they're distracted from their misery as a mammoth appears, and they begin to bad-mouth it... until it starts to suck up water, which miraculously gushes from its ears and waters the flowers, which turn on a dime and begin to praise it lavishly.
Ignoring for the moment that sea water is salty and not likely to be consumed by a mammoth, or to revive plants it got squirted onto, and that water drawn into a mammoth's trunk wouldn't come out of its ears, this strip is a good example of how easy it is to divert karma that's trying to work for your benefit; the flowers are dying, and are unable to do anything to help themselves, so a creature capable of slopping water around shows up to save them, and, rather than being grateful, or at the very least politely asking the mammoth for help if they don't understand that it's going to save them, they immediately start shooting their mouths off. The mammoth, which like the other living things in BC presumably can speak and understand speech, might have heard them and stalked off to a spot further along the shore to get its drink, thus squirting water elsewhere, or even stomped or eaten the flowers out of anger... and if that had happened, the flowers would either have been dead or left to continue shriveling in the heat, bemoaning their fate and never realizing that they themselves had driven away their only source of help.
The lesson here is that, if you've kept your personal karma clean, and those around you have as well (because the karma of those close to you mingles with yours and can alter what sort of energy comes to you), karma will generally try to send you some help when you need it, in response to your (often indirect) requests for it... but you still retain freedom of choice, and your choices still strongly affect your fate, and if you drive away the source of potential help, turn your back on it, spurn it, abuse it, whatever, don't expect karma to fight to help you-you're just plain out of luck.
People sent to help us, either in response to our present needs or because we're going to need them eventually, don't show up waving banners proclaiming their karmic purpose, so whenever someone tries to meet you, get to know you, enter or re-enter your life, or spend more time with you, and your inclination from your position of busy-ness and stress is to brush them off, ask yourself if maybe it'd be a good idea to be friendly instead, and see what happens... just in case.
http://www.comics.com/creators/bc/archive/bc-20050710.html
It shows 2 flowers wilting in the hot sun, just out of reach of a body of water (they call it a sea, but you'll soon realize why that's a mistake); they're distracted from their misery as a mammoth appears, and they begin to bad-mouth it... until it starts to suck up water, which miraculously gushes from its ears and waters the flowers, which turn on a dime and begin to praise it lavishly.
Ignoring for the moment that sea water is salty and not likely to be consumed by a mammoth, or to revive plants it got squirted onto, and that water drawn into a mammoth's trunk wouldn't come out of its ears, this strip is a good example of how easy it is to divert karma that's trying to work for your benefit; the flowers are dying, and are unable to do anything to help themselves, so a creature capable of slopping water around shows up to save them, and, rather than being grateful, or at the very least politely asking the mammoth for help if they don't understand that it's going to save them, they immediately start shooting their mouths off. The mammoth, which like the other living things in BC presumably can speak and understand speech, might have heard them and stalked off to a spot further along the shore to get its drink, thus squirting water elsewhere, or even stomped or eaten the flowers out of anger... and if that had happened, the flowers would either have been dead or left to continue shriveling in the heat, bemoaning their fate and never realizing that they themselves had driven away their only source of help.
The lesson here is that, if you've kept your personal karma clean, and those around you have as well (because the karma of those close to you mingles with yours and can alter what sort of energy comes to you), karma will generally try to send you some help when you need it, in response to your (often indirect) requests for it... but you still retain freedom of choice, and your choices still strongly affect your fate, and if you drive away the source of potential help, turn your back on it, spurn it, abuse it, whatever, don't expect karma to fight to help you-you're just plain out of luck.
People sent to help us, either in response to our present needs or because we're going to need them eventually, don't show up waving banners proclaiming their karmic purpose, so whenever someone tries to meet you, get to know you, enter or re-enter your life, or spend more time with you, and your inclination from your position of busy-ness and stress is to brush them off, ask yourself if maybe it'd be a good idea to be friendly instead, and see what happens... just in case.
Monday, July 18, 2005
Farewell to a few blog services
If you're exceptionally observant, you've noticed that there are some things missing from my margins today:
1) "Name That Blog": I was so excited when I got a working RSS feed again, and with it the understanding that sites that had rejected the old feed would now accept my site, and this site was 1 of the reasons why. It had such a cool premise; pull a quote from the RSS feed of a random member site, and give a choice of blog titles from which to pick the one the quote came from, with links to all the choices being given along with the answer. It seemed like a fun thing to give my readers to do, and a neat way to get some extra traffic, so I signed up, and, as the site requires, put the code on here while I awaited approval... which never came, even though I tried to get added in TWICE. I don't normally give up so easily, as most sites like this are run as sidelines by people with jobs and lives, but there wasn't even an automated reply, and there's no way to contact the owner, so I figured I needed to explore the site some more; I played a bunch of rounds of the game to get the lists of site links to come up, and discovered that the vast majority of the sites don't exist anymore, of the ones that do most are dead, and of the live ones only ONE actually had the game on it. The by-then unnecessary final straw was bringing up what was supposed to be the list of top scorers in the game for the past week, only to find it BLANK; clearly, the owner has long since stopped being involved with the site in any way, and just left it to rot, and the former participants that're still around removed the game because of the issues I've described. I was REALLY bummed, both that the game was gone and that it never occurred to me to do all this checking around before (as the site seems to be fine on the surface), and so I set myself up to be disappointed.
2) BlogSnob: I can remember when nearly every site I visited had their distinctive box on it, and it used to be a good source of new visitors; the premise was that every time your site loaded, you got a credit, and, through some formula, that translated to your blog being shown on other people's sites. It went through periodic problems, but the owner always righted it and made it worthwhile riding out the dead periods; when Pheedo bought the service, though, it took a nosedive from which it never recovered, both due to technical problems and to people abandoning the service in droves because of the addition of commercial ads being shown, and shown far too often for most people's tastes. Still, I held on, and went through a real roller coaster with them of functionality, with a marginally acceptable # of hits, and total worthlessness; in the past couple of months, though, I was being credited with significantly fewer showings of their ads than the # of hits my site was getting, and the ratio of hits in to showings was getting worse and worse, so I was starting to get fed up... remember, they were making $ from showing their ads on my site for free, so they DID owe me something in return. The final straw for this one was when they started only crediting me with a single-digit # of showings per day, I was no longer getting ANY hits from them, and emails to both their tech people and the original owner, who's still associated with the service, got no replies; I thought about it, and realized that I hadn't seen an actual BLOG show up in their ad box in AGES, which meant that either they'd decided to stop featuring non-paying sites and were hoping we'd never notice and would still provide them with free ad space, or that their code was so screwed up that no one's blog was being shown anymore... either way, totally NOT acceptable. I thought some more, and realized that I'd only rarely been seeing BlogSnob boxes on people's sites for quite a while, which told me that I was holding onto something that the blogosphere had already relegated to the trash heap... and so I've deleted their code. (A bonus to removing their script and the previous 1 is that my blog should load faster, which will really help visitors on dialup.)
3) BlogRank: This cool site was just what it sounds like, a place to see a listing of blogs based on how readers ranked them (which was done via clicking the link in my sidebar to "vote"); 1 day some weeks ago, it just went away, with an error message coming up saying "This Account Has Been Suspended, Please contact the billing/support department as soon as possible." I kept my link up all this time because I like the site, and the owner, Joe, but at this point I need to stop having a link that doesn't do anything, so I've reluctantly taken it down; it'll go right back up the instant I learn that the site's back up, though, as I still hope it will be one day. Joe said once that he's a regular reader here, and, if that's still true, I'd like to say; Joe, you're sorely missed, and if, WHEN, you bring BlogRank back, be sure to send out an email to all the members to let us know if you can... or, if you've lost access to our addies, and have to start up from scratch, let our mutual friend Keeme know, and I'll find out from his site when he links you up.
I'd like to pause here to thank all the readers who've taken the time to vote for me on BlogRank; if you're still enjoying your time here, I'd really appreciate it if you'd click the link in the sidebar that says "Please vote for my site!!" and vote for me at Top100Bloggers every so often (it'll take a vote from you every week, not that I'm hinting or anything, lol). :-)
And one final blog-ranking related bit of news: Remember my post from 5-17-05, in which I said "the golden age of blogging has come and gone"? I saw more evidence of that today, when I did a search to see what other blog-ranking sites might be available, and discovered that the endless list of them that I found a year or so ago was GONE; there were some foreign-language lists, some porn "blog" lists, a couple for Christian sites, of all things, and 1 that looked promising but turned out to be mainly for forums, not blogs, and was in any case almost totally dead... and that was IT. What happened to all those other blog-ranking sites? I assume they're casualties of the decline of the blogosphere; it's not as cost-effective to run blog-service sites as it used to be.
It's sad to see sites and services decline and vanish, but as long as there's somewhere that we can put posts up, that's all that really matters, all we need to give of ourselves to our readers. And speaking of which, I've added to the "Omni FAQ," which tells you, if not everything you always wanted to know about me, at least the major stuff; to see it, click where it says "All about me (sort of)" in the sidebar.... if you've wondered what sort of a nut writes this blog, take a look. ;-)
1) "Name That Blog": I was so excited when I got a working RSS feed again, and with it the understanding that sites that had rejected the old feed would now accept my site, and this site was 1 of the reasons why. It had such a cool premise; pull a quote from the RSS feed of a random member site, and give a choice of blog titles from which to pick the one the quote came from, with links to all the choices being given along with the answer. It seemed like a fun thing to give my readers to do, and a neat way to get some extra traffic, so I signed up, and, as the site requires, put the code on here while I awaited approval... which never came, even though I tried to get added in TWICE. I don't normally give up so easily, as most sites like this are run as sidelines by people with jobs and lives, but there wasn't even an automated reply, and there's no way to contact the owner, so I figured I needed to explore the site some more; I played a bunch of rounds of the game to get the lists of site links to come up, and discovered that the vast majority of the sites don't exist anymore, of the ones that do most are dead, and of the live ones only ONE actually had the game on it. The by-then unnecessary final straw was bringing up what was supposed to be the list of top scorers in the game for the past week, only to find it BLANK; clearly, the owner has long since stopped being involved with the site in any way, and just left it to rot, and the former participants that're still around removed the game because of the issues I've described. I was REALLY bummed, both that the game was gone and that it never occurred to me to do all this checking around before (as the site seems to be fine on the surface), and so I set myself up to be disappointed.
2) BlogSnob: I can remember when nearly every site I visited had their distinctive box on it, and it used to be a good source of new visitors; the premise was that every time your site loaded, you got a credit, and, through some formula, that translated to your blog being shown on other people's sites. It went through periodic problems, but the owner always righted it and made it worthwhile riding out the dead periods; when Pheedo bought the service, though, it took a nosedive from which it never recovered, both due to technical problems and to people abandoning the service in droves because of the addition of commercial ads being shown, and shown far too often for most people's tastes. Still, I held on, and went through a real roller coaster with them of functionality, with a marginally acceptable # of hits, and total worthlessness; in the past couple of months, though, I was being credited with significantly fewer showings of their ads than the # of hits my site was getting, and the ratio of hits in to showings was getting worse and worse, so I was starting to get fed up... remember, they were making $ from showing their ads on my site for free, so they DID owe me something in return. The final straw for this one was when they started only crediting me with a single-digit # of showings per day, I was no longer getting ANY hits from them, and emails to both their tech people and the original owner, who's still associated with the service, got no replies; I thought about it, and realized that I hadn't seen an actual BLOG show up in their ad box in AGES, which meant that either they'd decided to stop featuring non-paying sites and were hoping we'd never notice and would still provide them with free ad space, or that their code was so screwed up that no one's blog was being shown anymore... either way, totally NOT acceptable. I thought some more, and realized that I'd only rarely been seeing BlogSnob boxes on people's sites for quite a while, which told me that I was holding onto something that the blogosphere had already relegated to the trash heap... and so I've deleted their code. (A bonus to removing their script and the previous 1 is that my blog should load faster, which will really help visitors on dialup.)
3) BlogRank: This cool site was just what it sounds like, a place to see a listing of blogs based on how readers ranked them (which was done via clicking the link in my sidebar to "vote"); 1 day some weeks ago, it just went away, with an error message coming up saying "This Account Has Been Suspended, Please contact the billing/support department as soon as possible." I kept my link up all this time because I like the site, and the owner, Joe, but at this point I need to stop having a link that doesn't do anything, so I've reluctantly taken it down; it'll go right back up the instant I learn that the site's back up, though, as I still hope it will be one day. Joe said once that he's a regular reader here, and, if that's still true, I'd like to say; Joe, you're sorely missed, and if, WHEN, you bring BlogRank back, be sure to send out an email to all the members to let us know if you can... or, if you've lost access to our addies, and have to start up from scratch, let our mutual friend Keeme know, and I'll find out from his site when he links you up.
I'd like to pause here to thank all the readers who've taken the time to vote for me on BlogRank; if you're still enjoying your time here, I'd really appreciate it if you'd click the link in the sidebar that says "Please vote for my site!!" and vote for me at Top100Bloggers every so often (it'll take a vote from you every week, not that I'm hinting or anything, lol). :-)
And one final blog-ranking related bit of news: Remember my post from 5-17-05, in which I said "the golden age of blogging has come and gone"? I saw more evidence of that today, when I did a search to see what other blog-ranking sites might be available, and discovered that the endless list of them that I found a year or so ago was GONE; there were some foreign-language lists, some porn "blog" lists, a couple for Christian sites, of all things, and 1 that looked promising but turned out to be mainly for forums, not blogs, and was in any case almost totally dead... and that was IT. What happened to all those other blog-ranking sites? I assume they're casualties of the decline of the blogosphere; it's not as cost-effective to run blog-service sites as it used to be.
It's sad to see sites and services decline and vanish, but as long as there's somewhere that we can put posts up, that's all that really matters, all we need to give of ourselves to our readers. And speaking of which, I've added to the "Omni FAQ," which tells you, if not everything you always wanted to know about me, at least the major stuff; to see it, click where it says "All about me (sort of)" in the sidebar.... if you've wondered what sort of a nut writes this blog, take a look. ;-)
Sunday, July 17, 2005
Numbers are trickier than they look
They're not, actually, but people seem unable to understand them when, for example, they come in the form of statistics. One of the most stunning examples I've ever encountered, not to mention the most tasteless and ill-advised, was from a woman who came to give a sex ed talk to my private school class one year, and ONLY 1 year; she gave us whatever the % was at that time of American girls that got pregnant by the end of high school, and then, applying that % to the girls in our class, smugly announced that that # of girls would get pregnant by graduation. At this point, the dean, who'd been hovering at the back of the classroom, marched up the aisle and furiously informed her that there had NEVER been a student pregnancy in the history of the school, that he was quite certain that there'd be no pre-graduation pregnancies from our class, and that in general that statistic applied to the country as a whole, NOT to every group of students. Flustered and dismayed, and no doubt seeing a phone call to her boss and the cancellation of her company's contract to provide sex ed for my school in the near future, she gamely tried to finish up, but all we learned from her is what a frigging idiot looked like.
Is there anything confusing about the idea that, while if you have a homogeneous population, or near enough, you can apply %'s that describe the population as a whole to subgroups or even to individuals, when you have a HETEROgeneous population, you can NOT apply those %'s to subgroups or individuals? That'd be like hearing that 50% of American pets are cats and claiming based on that that in every household half of the pets were cats.
A common example of the lack of understanding of this idea is with divorce rates; because 52% of American marriages end in divorce, folks feel certain that they can say to any married person that THEIR marriage has a 52% chance of failure... and they get offended when their mean-spirited comment is challenged, of course. How could they think that a couple in their 80's has the same chance of their marriage ending in divorce as a pair of teenagers, that an ultra-religious couple has the same chance of their marriage ending in divorce as a Hollywood couple, that ALL of them have a 52% chance of divorce? Even if a couple's not at 1 of those extremes, the population's still very diverse; heck, every year you're married, all things being equal, increases your chance of staying married (it's like how your life expectancy goes up for every year you live), so you can't really apply the 52% to anyone.
Another common problem with statistics is that people see the results of a study and use the #'s to mean something they don't; for example, if they did a study that showed that people preferred plums to apples, some folks would take that to mean that people like purple fruit better than red fruit, and therefore go around claiming that people prefer grapes to strawberries. It's CRUCIAL that when you refer to a statistic you use the EXACT wording that applies to each # and %, because if you add or subtract detail, or extrapolate even the tiniest bit, you're no longer accurately portraying the results; since it's so easy to stray from the true path, it's important to realize that oftentimes the media misconstrues statistics because they feel confident that they can play fast and lose with their terminology.
Another problem is that statistics can NOT be added together and produce a result that replaces scientific studies, but people act as if they can; the media frenzies around the claims that the increased use of cell phones and aspartame were the causes of increases in brain tumors/cancer were based on increases in those ailments that occurred coincidentally in the same time frame... and no matter how many studies have disproved the alleged links between cell phones and aspartame and brain tumors/cancer, people are STILL claiming otherwise, and believing that statistics "prove" what they say. Now, granted, statistics CAN certainly point out things that might in fact be connected and merit study, but until those studies have been done we can NOT be sure that a connection exists... and AFTER the studies are done, people who backed the wrong horse need to drop it and move on (but many of course never will).
The final problem with statistics is that all too many people, women especially, will deny the validity of a statistic if it contradicts their personal experience; a study can show that 99% of people do, say, think, feel, like, dislike, whatever, a given thing, but if a woman knows someone in the remaining 1%, in her mind the entire study, and 99% of the population, is invalidated. Sorry, ladies, and any men who do this, but just because you happen to know someone in the minority result does NOT change the #'s, and it's NOT ok to think or argue otherwise.
The other thing people have trouble with is the seemingly simple concept of averages; for example, all parents, even those whose kids are average in scholastic ability, want their kids to only bring home A's and B's, despite the fact that these grades indicate ABOVE average performance, and thus by definition you CAN'T have all students validly bringing home those grades. An amusing example of this idea is one my husband loves, from a PBS radio show called "Prairie Home Companion," which purports to be broadcast from a fictional town called Lake Wobegon, where "all the kids are above average"... with the hopefully-obvious punchline being that it's not POSSIBLE for all, or most, or even many, children to be above average (unless you've got a wildly atypical distribution of ability within the population rather than the usual bell curve, blah blah, the fine details don't change the point).
Why the confusion about what "average" means? We seem as a nation to have gotten the idea that the average we learned to calculate in school isn't what's meant in real life by the term "average"; we act as if it actually means an arbitrarily-chosen #, or at the very least an unchanging one, that it WOULD be possible for most or all people to be above eventually, when in fact it's a # derived FROM the population it's applied to, and thus, even if the members of the population improve whatever the average is being calculated about, they can't most or all get above average because the average INCREASES as the population "improves."
The lack of understanding of that final point was driven home in a recent show I saw that talked about dogs that were helping kids with reading problems to make amazing progress; the program, and the dogs and people involved, are inarguably wonderful, but the woman who was talking about it was apparently a little dim-witted, because she explained that the reason they'd started the program was that they'd seen some statistics showing that 40% of the children were below average in their reading level.... as opposed to WHAT, don't you wonder? Depending on how wide of a range you call average, AND a reasonably even spread of scores (or whatever the input is), you could expect up to nearly 50% to be below average, and of course nearly 50% above, with just a few at dead average, and it's certainly reasonable to call the middle 20% "average," which would give you 40% above and 40% below... so what was the problem with 40% of the kids being below average? I'm not saying that the kids shouldn't have been helped to read better, because we WANT kids to read as well as possible, but by improving the performance of the lowest-ranked kids, you've raised the average, so those same kids are STILL below average; that doesn't cancel out what they've learned, but it does point out the foolishness of looking at averages as fixed points that everyone can somehow rise above.
Most #-related nonsense is easy to detect and avoid; for the rest, if it's something important, take advantage of being online and look it up... and if it's not, treat it like you would an unsubstantiated claim that didn't contain #'s. Numbers are neither sacred nor demonic; it's all in how you use 'em.
Is there anything confusing about the idea that, while if you have a homogeneous population, or near enough, you can apply %'s that describe the population as a whole to subgroups or even to individuals, when you have a HETEROgeneous population, you can NOT apply those %'s to subgroups or individuals? That'd be like hearing that 50% of American pets are cats and claiming based on that that in every household half of the pets were cats.
A common example of the lack of understanding of this idea is with divorce rates; because 52% of American marriages end in divorce, folks feel certain that they can say to any married person that THEIR marriage has a 52% chance of failure... and they get offended when their mean-spirited comment is challenged, of course. How could they think that a couple in their 80's has the same chance of their marriage ending in divorce as a pair of teenagers, that an ultra-religious couple has the same chance of their marriage ending in divorce as a Hollywood couple, that ALL of them have a 52% chance of divorce? Even if a couple's not at 1 of those extremes, the population's still very diverse; heck, every year you're married, all things being equal, increases your chance of staying married (it's like how your life expectancy goes up for every year you live), so you can't really apply the 52% to anyone.
Another common problem with statistics is that people see the results of a study and use the #'s to mean something they don't; for example, if they did a study that showed that people preferred plums to apples, some folks would take that to mean that people like purple fruit better than red fruit, and therefore go around claiming that people prefer grapes to strawberries. It's CRUCIAL that when you refer to a statistic you use the EXACT wording that applies to each # and %, because if you add or subtract detail, or extrapolate even the tiniest bit, you're no longer accurately portraying the results; since it's so easy to stray from the true path, it's important to realize that oftentimes the media misconstrues statistics because they feel confident that they can play fast and lose with their terminology.
Another problem is that statistics can NOT be added together and produce a result that replaces scientific studies, but people act as if they can; the media frenzies around the claims that the increased use of cell phones and aspartame were the causes of increases in brain tumors/cancer were based on increases in those ailments that occurred coincidentally in the same time frame... and no matter how many studies have disproved the alleged links between cell phones and aspartame and brain tumors/cancer, people are STILL claiming otherwise, and believing that statistics "prove" what they say. Now, granted, statistics CAN certainly point out things that might in fact be connected and merit study, but until those studies have been done we can NOT be sure that a connection exists... and AFTER the studies are done, people who backed the wrong horse need to drop it and move on (but many of course never will).
The final problem with statistics is that all too many people, women especially, will deny the validity of a statistic if it contradicts their personal experience; a study can show that 99% of people do, say, think, feel, like, dislike, whatever, a given thing, but if a woman knows someone in the remaining 1%, in her mind the entire study, and 99% of the population, is invalidated. Sorry, ladies, and any men who do this, but just because you happen to know someone in the minority result does NOT change the #'s, and it's NOT ok to think or argue otherwise.
The other thing people have trouble with is the seemingly simple concept of averages; for example, all parents, even those whose kids are average in scholastic ability, want their kids to only bring home A's and B's, despite the fact that these grades indicate ABOVE average performance, and thus by definition you CAN'T have all students validly bringing home those grades. An amusing example of this idea is one my husband loves, from a PBS radio show called "Prairie Home Companion," which purports to be broadcast from a fictional town called Lake Wobegon, where "all the kids are above average"... with the hopefully-obvious punchline being that it's not POSSIBLE for all, or most, or even many, children to be above average (unless you've got a wildly atypical distribution of ability within the population rather than the usual bell curve, blah blah, the fine details don't change the point).
Why the confusion about what "average" means? We seem as a nation to have gotten the idea that the average we learned to calculate in school isn't what's meant in real life by the term "average"; we act as if it actually means an arbitrarily-chosen #, or at the very least an unchanging one, that it WOULD be possible for most or all people to be above eventually, when in fact it's a # derived FROM the population it's applied to, and thus, even if the members of the population improve whatever the average is being calculated about, they can't most or all get above average because the average INCREASES as the population "improves."
The lack of understanding of that final point was driven home in a recent show I saw that talked about dogs that were helping kids with reading problems to make amazing progress; the program, and the dogs and people involved, are inarguably wonderful, but the woman who was talking about it was apparently a little dim-witted, because she explained that the reason they'd started the program was that they'd seen some statistics showing that 40% of the children were below average in their reading level.... as opposed to WHAT, don't you wonder? Depending on how wide of a range you call average, AND a reasonably even spread of scores (or whatever the input is), you could expect up to nearly 50% to be below average, and of course nearly 50% above, with just a few at dead average, and it's certainly reasonable to call the middle 20% "average," which would give you 40% above and 40% below... so what was the problem with 40% of the kids being below average? I'm not saying that the kids shouldn't have been helped to read better, because we WANT kids to read as well as possible, but by improving the performance of the lowest-ranked kids, you've raised the average, so those same kids are STILL below average; that doesn't cancel out what they've learned, but it does point out the foolishness of looking at averages as fixed points that everyone can somehow rise above.
Most #-related nonsense is easy to detect and avoid; for the rest, if it's something important, take advantage of being online and look it up... and if it's not, treat it like you would an unsubstantiated claim that didn't contain #'s. Numbers are neither sacred nor demonic; it's all in how you use 'em.
