Saturday, February 04, 2006
Some comments on control freaks
"Control freak" is one of those terms for which the meaning is starting to get distorted; its actual meaning is
"One who has an obsessive need to exert control over people and situations"
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=control%20freak
but too many people use it to refer to when someone tries to control their OWN life... especially when the name-caller themselves is trying to control that person and failing. Let me be perfectly clear; someone trying to have control of their OWN life is being an ADULT, not a control freak... and if anyone tries to insist otherwise, it's probably because they're a manipulator who's trying to gain control of you, so run, run, RUN.
Another misuse of the term "control freak" is with the intention for it to be a more extreme version of "anal" (aka "anal retentive," NOT the other meaning, this isn't a porn blog); the sort of person who uses it this way will always be the less powerful member of the relationship they have with the alleged freak, and have issues with the amount of control they perceive the other person has over them... my husband is a perfect example of this (if that surprises you, you must be a new reader, lol):
Me: Are you ready to go?
Him: Yes, let's go.
Me: It's gotten chilly in the past hour; I'll get my jacket.
Him: You don't need a jacket.
Me: Yes, I do.
Him: No, you don't, it's not that cold.
Me: I'll be cold without a jacket, so I'm getting it.
Him: You're not going to need it.
Me: Yes, I am, and I'm taking it with me.
Him: Why do you always have to be such a control freak?
Me: It's not being a control freak to make the decisions for my own life.
Him: But... yeah... but... er...
Me: A control freak is someone trying to enforce their preferences on someone ELSE'S life; that'd make YOU the control freak in this scenario, not me.
Him: Yeah, but... but you don't need... if you're insisting on doing something unnecessary...
Me: It has nothing to do with being a control freak. Furthermore, it's extremely arrogant for you to assume that you have the ability and authority to decide what other people need, especially in circumstances where someone else's physical perceptions, about which you know nothing, are involved.
Him: Yeah, but...
Me: Can we go now?
Him: Yeah, fine... I still say you won't need the jacket...
Although my husband isn't above trying to be manipulative (it never works, but he TRIES), he's not attempting to manipulate me in these sorts of exchanges, or to control me either (he's bright enough to know THAT'S pointless); he honestly, although of course incorrectly, believes that reasonable things like taking along a jacket on a chilly night, turning off lights in rooms you're not in, and closing up food packages so they don't get stale or full of bugs are anal, and that he's helping me by trying to steer me to "non-anal" choices. His inability to persuade me to change my actions to match his theories frustrates him, and leads to him using incorrect wording in his efforts to push me into doing things "the non-anal way"; given his awareness that I have greater control in our relationship, using the term "control freak" might also be a Freudian slip.
If this description reminds you of someone in YOUR life, be aware that they feel powerless and resentful, and can be expected to pull passive aggressive stunts such as always being late and forgetting things (2 of my husband's specialties) to even the scales.
It's important to be on the lookout for control freak-ism in those around us, especially in the early days of relationships (romantic or platonic) when people are normally on their best behavior; everybody likes to get their way, but control freaks get a charge out of making you do whatever they ask, including things that don't involve their own welfare but are purely to showcase their power... and that makes them BAD relationship choices.
I had a close call with a man like that, many years ago before I met my husband; I'd been single for a while, and was getting pretty desperate... and so was extra-excited when a man who at first seemed high-quality showed an interest in dating me. Towards the end of the phone conversation in which we'd decided we were going to start going out, he used a trick you see all the time in cop films; he waited until I felt like we had a done deal, and my defenses were down, and then hit me with something else... in the cop movies it'd be a pivotal question that the victim was trying to conceal the answer to, but in this case it was a demand. It was brilliantly done from a psychological viewpoint; what protractedly single woman, with what apparently was a solid man interested in her, would risk losing him by refusing to do what he asked?
ME, that's who.
Him: Oh, I almost forgot; I think you should grow your hair out 3 inches.
Me: You're JOKING, right?
Him: No, I just think your hair's a little too short, and you should grow it out 3 more inches.
Me: I'm happy with my hair the way it is.
Him: Well, it's ok, it just needs to be 3 inches longer.
Me: No it doesn't.
Him: Why are you being stubborn?
Me: It's not being "stubborn" to refuse to let a total stranger dictate how long my hair should be.
Him: Yes it is.
Me: No, it's NOT, and I'm NOT going to grow my hair out, not 3 inches or any other amount.
Him: Well, I'm not willing to go out with anyone who won't agree to do a reasonable thing like grow their hair 3 inches.
Me: That's fine, because I'M not willing to go out with anyone who's so controlling that they need to dictate how many inches of hair another person has.
Him: I'm NOT being controlling, I just think you need to grow your hair out 3 inches.
Me: You're not just thinking it, you're trying to force me to DO it, and that IS being controlling, not to mention ridiculous; what difference could 3 inches of hair make one way or the other?
Him: Never mind. {click}
There's no exaggeration in the above; he really did make a repeated issue of THREE inches of hair, and did in fact hang up on me once he realized that he wasn't going to be able to get control of me as he'd intended... and it remains, to this day, the most outrageous example of attempted control of someone by a stranger that I've ever heard of. Perhaps he thought that something so trivial would have a high likelihood of being accepted, thus giving him the opening wedge he wanted to obtain further control? Or did he just demand some random alteration of my appearance to see if he could "mold" me? It doesn't matter, I suppose; he was bad news either way, and I'm lucky that he didn't hold off on his controlling maneuvers until AFTER we'd been on a few dates... as tough-minded as I was even back then, the stakes would've been high enough at that point that I'm not 100% certain I could've held firm.
The next time someone tries to push you to do something that's not for your benefit, doesn't impact THEM, and so shouldn't be anything they'd validly want or need to influence you on, make sure all your alarms and red flags are deployed; you're dealing with a control freak, which means they're probably a manipulator, and might even be a sociopath... and if you give in to them, expect plenty more where that came from.
"One who has an obsessive need to exert control over people and situations"
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=control%20freak
but too many people use it to refer to when someone tries to control their OWN life... especially when the name-caller themselves is trying to control that person and failing. Let me be perfectly clear; someone trying to have control of their OWN life is being an ADULT, not a control freak... and if anyone tries to insist otherwise, it's probably because they're a manipulator who's trying to gain control of you, so run, run, RUN.
Another misuse of the term "control freak" is with the intention for it to be a more extreme version of "anal" (aka "anal retentive," NOT the other meaning, this isn't a porn blog); the sort of person who uses it this way will always be the less powerful member of the relationship they have with the alleged freak, and have issues with the amount of control they perceive the other person has over them... my husband is a perfect example of this (if that surprises you, you must be a new reader, lol):
Me: Are you ready to go?
Him: Yes, let's go.
Me: It's gotten chilly in the past hour; I'll get my jacket.
Him: You don't need a jacket.
Me: Yes, I do.
Him: No, you don't, it's not that cold.
Me: I'll be cold without a jacket, so I'm getting it.
Him: You're not going to need it.
Me: Yes, I am, and I'm taking it with me.
Him: Why do you always have to be such a control freak?
Me: It's not being a control freak to make the decisions for my own life.
Him: But... yeah... but... er...
Me: A control freak is someone trying to enforce their preferences on someone ELSE'S life; that'd make YOU the control freak in this scenario, not me.
Him: Yeah, but... but you don't need... if you're insisting on doing something unnecessary...
Me: It has nothing to do with being a control freak. Furthermore, it's extremely arrogant for you to assume that you have the ability and authority to decide what other people need, especially in circumstances where someone else's physical perceptions, about which you know nothing, are involved.
Him: Yeah, but...
Me: Can we go now?
Him: Yeah, fine... I still say you won't need the jacket...
Although my husband isn't above trying to be manipulative (it never works, but he TRIES), he's not attempting to manipulate me in these sorts of exchanges, or to control me either (he's bright enough to know THAT'S pointless); he honestly, although of course incorrectly, believes that reasonable things like taking along a jacket on a chilly night, turning off lights in rooms you're not in, and closing up food packages so they don't get stale or full of bugs are anal, and that he's helping me by trying to steer me to "non-anal" choices. His inability to persuade me to change my actions to match his theories frustrates him, and leads to him using incorrect wording in his efforts to push me into doing things "the non-anal way"; given his awareness that I have greater control in our relationship, using the term "control freak" might also be a Freudian slip.
If this description reminds you of someone in YOUR life, be aware that they feel powerless and resentful, and can be expected to pull passive aggressive stunts such as always being late and forgetting things (2 of my husband's specialties) to even the scales.
It's important to be on the lookout for control freak-ism in those around us, especially in the early days of relationships (romantic or platonic) when people are normally on their best behavior; everybody likes to get their way, but control freaks get a charge out of making you do whatever they ask, including things that don't involve their own welfare but are purely to showcase their power... and that makes them BAD relationship choices.
I had a close call with a man like that, many years ago before I met my husband; I'd been single for a while, and was getting pretty desperate... and so was extra-excited when a man who at first seemed high-quality showed an interest in dating me. Towards the end of the phone conversation in which we'd decided we were going to start going out, he used a trick you see all the time in cop films; he waited until I felt like we had a done deal, and my defenses were down, and then hit me with something else... in the cop movies it'd be a pivotal question that the victim was trying to conceal the answer to, but in this case it was a demand. It was brilliantly done from a psychological viewpoint; what protractedly single woman, with what apparently was a solid man interested in her, would risk losing him by refusing to do what he asked?
ME, that's who.
Him: Oh, I almost forgot; I think you should grow your hair out 3 inches.
Me: You're JOKING, right?
Him: No, I just think your hair's a little too short, and you should grow it out 3 more inches.
Me: I'm happy with my hair the way it is.
Him: Well, it's ok, it just needs to be 3 inches longer.
Me: No it doesn't.
Him: Why are you being stubborn?
Me: It's not being "stubborn" to refuse to let a total stranger dictate how long my hair should be.
Him: Yes it is.
Me: No, it's NOT, and I'm NOT going to grow my hair out, not 3 inches or any other amount.
Him: Well, I'm not willing to go out with anyone who won't agree to do a reasonable thing like grow their hair 3 inches.
Me: That's fine, because I'M not willing to go out with anyone who's so controlling that they need to dictate how many inches of hair another person has.
Him: I'm NOT being controlling, I just think you need to grow your hair out 3 inches.
Me: You're not just thinking it, you're trying to force me to DO it, and that IS being controlling, not to mention ridiculous; what difference could 3 inches of hair make one way or the other?
Him: Never mind. {click}
There's no exaggeration in the above; he really did make a repeated issue of THREE inches of hair, and did in fact hang up on me once he realized that he wasn't going to be able to get control of me as he'd intended... and it remains, to this day, the most outrageous example of attempted control of someone by a stranger that I've ever heard of. Perhaps he thought that something so trivial would have a high likelihood of being accepted, thus giving him the opening wedge he wanted to obtain further control? Or did he just demand some random alteration of my appearance to see if he could "mold" me? It doesn't matter, I suppose; he was bad news either way, and I'm lucky that he didn't hold off on his controlling maneuvers until AFTER we'd been on a few dates... as tough-minded as I was even back then, the stakes would've been high enough at that point that I'm not 100% certain I could've held firm.
The next time someone tries to push you to do something that's not for your benefit, doesn't impact THEM, and so shouldn't be anything they'd validly want or need to influence you on, make sure all your alarms and red flags are deployed; you're dealing with a control freak, which means they're probably a manipulator, and might even be a sociopath... and if you give in to them, expect plenty more where that came from.
Thursday, February 02, 2006
A MAJOR epiphany
I've agonized many times, not just on this blog but throughout my life, about why even basically decent people end up being buddy-buddy with habitual evildoers and turning their noses up at the virtuous, judging the former as "better" than the latter in direct contrast to their respective records of behavior, and siding with the former over the latter even when the former has attacked the latter without provocation. If you ask anyone if they'd rather have a good person or a bad one as their friend, lover, co-worker, whatever, they'll ALWAYS unhesitatingly reply "the good one," but in reality virtually no one actually follows that alleged preference when choosing who gets to be in their life; you'd be hard-pressed to find even a single person who makes a point of gathering good folks around them and pushing away the bad. WHY?
I'm well aware of the discomfort most folks feel around the virtuous (because they feel inadequate by comparison), that they're certain they're being looked down upon by the virtuous (even if they've never seen evidence of any such thing), and that they suspect that the virtuous must be deceiving them about their degree of virtue (and thus aren't actually superior). I'm also aware of how rotten types, in contrast, cause no such angst, and are seen as exciting, fun, glamorous and sexy. However, these attitudes were never quite enough to explain how if you actually CALL someone on the illogic of the preferences they're showing their explanation seems to indicate that they're living in a parallel universe where the virtuous person has consistently behaved badly and the non-virtuous person is a near-saint... how, in other words, they seem to have no memory of any of the countless incidents that should lead to an accurate judgment of the relative merits of those in question, and to be focusing instead on distorted perceptions of anomalous behavior of the 2 parties. Even worse, if you REMIND people about the REAL behavioral records of the virtuous and non-virtuous individuals, they never seem to think it counts for anything compared to the incidents that THEY recall, even if they outnumber them a thousand to 1; WHY?
Since it's contrary to a person's best interests (not to mention common sense, fairness and SANITY) to choose the baddies over the good guys (and gals) of the world, it made me nuts that I knew that folks were overwhelmingly doing it, and demonstrating a totally consistent pattern of denial and misinterpretation of the facts in the process, but couldn't see the mechanism behind it although there clearly HAD to be one.
Today, at long last, I SAW.
I was writing an email to a friend with whom I'd started a conversation about this topic, and because he didn't seem to know all the ways that virtue is hated and non-virtue is pursued I was trying to come up with a comprehensive list of examples... and suddenly, I saw how some of my examples formed the basis for an actual explanation of how people look at the virtuous and the non-virtuous and decide to favor the latter.
The pivotal issue was the earth-shattering realization that, although *I* keep track of the behavior of people in my life, objectively judge EVERY action, and add all the "scores" together to form a judgment on each person's level of virtue, NO ONE ELSE DOES THAT. What normal folks do, astoundingly enough (at least to ME), is IGNORE most of the things people do that SHOULD be counted towards their level of virtue, forget most of the ones they DID notice, and fail to make a moral judgment on any of it; instead, they keep track of those few actions the people they know take that are in CONTRAST to their normal behavior, multiply their importance by about a million and use THAT result to judge how good a person is.
I couldn't understand at first why this method would exist, much less be the one everyone uses, but when I thought about it I realized that it would actually work extremely well for judging those of AVERAGE virtue (in other words the vast majority of us), whose day-to-day actions probably DON'T mean much virtue-wise, and thus for whom focusing on the unusual things they do, in other words those rare things that are notably good or bad, would in fact give a really good picture of what sort of folks they are, withOUT the major time and effort required to keep track the way *I* do.
The dark side of what's really an impressively efficient system is that when it's used on people of particularly high or low virtue it gives a result that's the exact OPPOSITE of the correct analysis... and THAT'S why people's judgment even of the virtuous and non-virtuous that they know well enough to have a clear picture of is always the opposite of what it should be. I've laid out the steps that lead to this grim result so you can see how the process works:
1) People take however an individual typically acts as a given, on which no judgment is made and for which no credit is awarded, which means that they
a) shrug off the ugly things their badly-behaving friends and acquaintances routinely do, rather than using them as reasons to cut the wrongdoers out of their lives if they can, or at the very least stay aloof from them and not trust or support them
b) ignore the many good things that the virtuous folks they know routinely do, rather than seeing them as reasons to pursue or intensify relationships with them, much less to trust and support them
2) People make an exaggerated issue of when someone acts in an atypical way, which means that
a) when a NON-virtuous person does something good, everyone notices and makes a big deal about it, giving them all sorts of praise and treating them like a hero
b) when a virtuous person does something even slightly wrong (which WILL happen, since no human being is perfect), or even does something that's less than ideal but not bad, people act like they've committed a murder
3) People remember atypical behavior FAR more clearly than they do typical behavior, which means that
a) when they think of a NON-virtuous person, they remember good things they did, and have amnesia about their endless wrongdoings
b) when they think of a virtuous person they remember negative things they did, and have amnesia about the endless good things they've done
4) The enhanced memory of atypical behavior, combined with the greater weight given to it, means that
a) the NON-virtuous are seen as swell people and liked, which leads to judgments being habitually made in their favor
b) the virtuous are seen as unappealing people and DISliked, which leads to judgments being habitually made against them, especially when they're pitted against the non-virtuous
I can't tell you how deep the satisfaction I feel at figuring this out is. I'm sharing it with you, 1st because I'm proud of it, and 2nd because I hope, as always, that I'll make some folks THINK instead of blindly following the standard behavior patterns, so that a few bad people get what they deserve, and a few good people end up victorious.
I'm aware that some of my assertions might seem insane if you haven't been consciously observing this dynamic, but test it yourself and you'll see it; next time you observe a situation in which a virtuous person is in a conflict with a non-virtuous one, ask around, and you'll hear a litany of praise for the non-virtuous person, and some mean-spirited complaints about the virtuous one... which will explain why everyone's siding with the former, even if they're supposed to be friends with both of them. I've seen it countless times, and it always made me crazy because I didn't know why people acted in such a consistently illogical way... but now I know. YES!!!!!!! :-)
I'm well aware of the discomfort most folks feel around the virtuous (because they feel inadequate by comparison), that they're certain they're being looked down upon by the virtuous (even if they've never seen evidence of any such thing), and that they suspect that the virtuous must be deceiving them about their degree of virtue (and thus aren't actually superior). I'm also aware of how rotten types, in contrast, cause no such angst, and are seen as exciting, fun, glamorous and sexy. However, these attitudes were never quite enough to explain how if you actually CALL someone on the illogic of the preferences they're showing their explanation seems to indicate that they're living in a parallel universe where the virtuous person has consistently behaved badly and the non-virtuous person is a near-saint... how, in other words, they seem to have no memory of any of the countless incidents that should lead to an accurate judgment of the relative merits of those in question, and to be focusing instead on distorted perceptions of anomalous behavior of the 2 parties. Even worse, if you REMIND people about the REAL behavioral records of the virtuous and non-virtuous individuals, they never seem to think it counts for anything compared to the incidents that THEY recall, even if they outnumber them a thousand to 1; WHY?
Since it's contrary to a person's best interests (not to mention common sense, fairness and SANITY) to choose the baddies over the good guys (and gals) of the world, it made me nuts that I knew that folks were overwhelmingly doing it, and demonstrating a totally consistent pattern of denial and misinterpretation of the facts in the process, but couldn't see the mechanism behind it although there clearly HAD to be one.
Today, at long last, I SAW.
I was writing an email to a friend with whom I'd started a conversation about this topic, and because he didn't seem to know all the ways that virtue is hated and non-virtue is pursued I was trying to come up with a comprehensive list of examples... and suddenly, I saw how some of my examples formed the basis for an actual explanation of how people look at the virtuous and the non-virtuous and decide to favor the latter.
The pivotal issue was the earth-shattering realization that, although *I* keep track of the behavior of people in my life, objectively judge EVERY action, and add all the "scores" together to form a judgment on each person's level of virtue, NO ONE ELSE DOES THAT. What normal folks do, astoundingly enough (at least to ME), is IGNORE most of the things people do that SHOULD be counted towards their level of virtue, forget most of the ones they DID notice, and fail to make a moral judgment on any of it; instead, they keep track of those few actions the people they know take that are in CONTRAST to their normal behavior, multiply their importance by about a million and use THAT result to judge how good a person is.
I couldn't understand at first why this method would exist, much less be the one everyone uses, but when I thought about it I realized that it would actually work extremely well for judging those of AVERAGE virtue (in other words the vast majority of us), whose day-to-day actions probably DON'T mean much virtue-wise, and thus for whom focusing on the unusual things they do, in other words those rare things that are notably good or bad, would in fact give a really good picture of what sort of folks they are, withOUT the major time and effort required to keep track the way *I* do.
The dark side of what's really an impressively efficient system is that when it's used on people of particularly high or low virtue it gives a result that's the exact OPPOSITE of the correct analysis... and THAT'S why people's judgment even of the virtuous and non-virtuous that they know well enough to have a clear picture of is always the opposite of what it should be. I've laid out the steps that lead to this grim result so you can see how the process works:
1) People take however an individual typically acts as a given, on which no judgment is made and for which no credit is awarded, which means that they
a) shrug off the ugly things their badly-behaving friends and acquaintances routinely do, rather than using them as reasons to cut the wrongdoers out of their lives if they can, or at the very least stay aloof from them and not trust or support them
b) ignore the many good things that the virtuous folks they know routinely do, rather than seeing them as reasons to pursue or intensify relationships with them, much less to trust and support them
2) People make an exaggerated issue of when someone acts in an atypical way, which means that
a) when a NON-virtuous person does something good, everyone notices and makes a big deal about it, giving them all sorts of praise and treating them like a hero
b) when a virtuous person does something even slightly wrong (which WILL happen, since no human being is perfect), or even does something that's less than ideal but not bad, people act like they've committed a murder
3) People remember atypical behavior FAR more clearly than they do typical behavior, which means that
a) when they think of a NON-virtuous person, they remember good things they did, and have amnesia about their endless wrongdoings
b) when they think of a virtuous person they remember negative things they did, and have amnesia about the endless good things they've done
4) The enhanced memory of atypical behavior, combined with the greater weight given to it, means that
a) the NON-virtuous are seen as swell people and liked, which leads to judgments being habitually made in their favor
b) the virtuous are seen as unappealing people and DISliked, which leads to judgments being habitually made against them, especially when they're pitted against the non-virtuous
I can't tell you how deep the satisfaction I feel at figuring this out is. I'm sharing it with you, 1st because I'm proud of it, and 2nd because I hope, as always, that I'll make some folks THINK instead of blindly following the standard behavior patterns, so that a few bad people get what they deserve, and a few good people end up victorious.
I'm aware that some of my assertions might seem insane if you haven't been consciously observing this dynamic, but test it yourself and you'll see it; next time you observe a situation in which a virtuous person is in a conflict with a non-virtuous one, ask around, and you'll hear a litany of praise for the non-virtuous person, and some mean-spirited complaints about the virtuous one... which will explain why everyone's siding with the former, even if they're supposed to be friends with both of them. I've seen it countless times, and it always made me crazy because I didn't know why people acted in such a consistently illogical way... but now I know. YES!!!!!!! :-)
Tuesday, January 31, 2006
Odds and ends
Amazon.com got me AGAIN, I don't believe it!! You might have read my post about them on 10-13-05, in which I described how they'd changed their shipping policy but not the wording thereof, so we didn't know that they were no longer shipping items as they became available, but were instead shipping them all together when they were ALL available, and thus when a pre-ordered item from a small publisher suddenly no longer had a set release date the entire order went into limbo... and they didn't even send us an email to let us know. I was really going to hesitate before ordering from them again, but then when I was on there on 1-20 looking something up they showed an ad with a good deal for the new Stephen King book, "Cell"
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0743292332/ref=pd_ecc_rvi_1/002-8570383-1034463?%5Fencoding=UTF8
which was at that time 4 days away from being released, and... I did some searches, found another book I wanted which had just been released on December 30th with which to qualify for Super Saver Shipping, and placed the order. Fast forward 10 days; it occurred to me that the books should have gotten here already, so I logged in to see when they'd been shipped, and... ARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGH!! They not only hadn't been shipped yet, they were showing an estimated shipping date a WEEK from now. I couldn't believe that there'd be a delay like that for a major author like King, but I brought up the page for "Cell" to take a look; it showed the expected release date of 1-24, and made no mention of being out of stock or delayed in any way. What the heck? The only thing left to do was bring up the other book, so I did, and... and... it went from claiming to have BEEN released in December to having an INTENDED release on February 16th!!!!!!!!! Once again, no email, no apology, no explanation... and the discrepancy between when they say it'll be available and when they say they'll be shipping the order doesn't inspire confidence in me, as you might imagine.
Buyers beware; be VERY hesitant to buy any small-press books from Amazon... their info on availability is unreliable, their customer service is nonexistent, and, while this probably isn't usually an issue, if you're in the market for less mainstream stuff, try to find it elsewhere.
On a happier note; I found another Flash clock... one so good I literally salivated when I saw it:
http://imgjungle.jungle.co.kr/magazine/up_img/category/xouclock_multi(3).swf
The site it comes from, Hanlee.com, is Korean, thus demonstrating that someone outside of Japan CAN make a slick Flash clock; it's just one, but it's 1st-rate. Look at the attention to detail; the #'s BOUNCE slightly once they've flipped, the light reflecting off of them changes as they drop, AND you've got a choice of current time, time elapsed since 9:00 and "time remaining until quitting time"... and if it's past quitting time, the #'s come up RED. Lovely. :-)
And finally, some more eHarmony.com humor; one of their ads came on, and the old guy who does them proclaimed that somewhere out there your soul mate was waiting for you... and my husband, emerging from the kitchen, said, "Yeah, she's about 10 feet away." AWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW Ok, that's more sweet than funny, but this one's still making me snicker; I was looking for a windchime on eBay, and had winnowed it down to 2 choices, which I called my husband over to look at... and of course he picked the one I liked less. I asked him "How come you don't like the one *I* like?", and he said "Because we didn't meet on eHarmony.com." LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0743292332/ref=pd_ecc_rvi_1/002-8570383-1034463?%5Fencoding=UTF8
which was at that time 4 days away from being released, and... I did some searches, found another book I wanted which had just been released on December 30th with which to qualify for Super Saver Shipping, and placed the order. Fast forward 10 days; it occurred to me that the books should have gotten here already, so I logged in to see when they'd been shipped, and... ARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGH!! They not only hadn't been shipped yet, they were showing an estimated shipping date a WEEK from now. I couldn't believe that there'd be a delay like that for a major author like King, but I brought up the page for "Cell" to take a look; it showed the expected release date of 1-24, and made no mention of being out of stock or delayed in any way. What the heck? The only thing left to do was bring up the other book, so I did, and... and... it went from claiming to have BEEN released in December to having an INTENDED release on February 16th!!!!!!!!! Once again, no email, no apology, no explanation... and the discrepancy between when they say it'll be available and when they say they'll be shipping the order doesn't inspire confidence in me, as you might imagine.
Buyers beware; be VERY hesitant to buy any small-press books from Amazon... their info on availability is unreliable, their customer service is nonexistent, and, while this probably isn't usually an issue, if you're in the market for less mainstream stuff, try to find it elsewhere.
On a happier note; I found another Flash clock... one so good I literally salivated when I saw it:
http://imgjungle.jungle.co.kr/magazine/up_img/category/xouclock_multi(3).swf
The site it comes from, Hanlee.com, is Korean, thus demonstrating that someone outside of Japan CAN make a slick Flash clock; it's just one, but it's 1st-rate. Look at the attention to detail; the #'s BOUNCE slightly once they've flipped, the light reflecting off of them changes as they drop, AND you've got a choice of current time, time elapsed since 9:00 and "time remaining until quitting time"... and if it's past quitting time, the #'s come up RED. Lovely. :-)
And finally, some more eHarmony.com humor; one of their ads came on, and the old guy who does them proclaimed that somewhere out there your soul mate was waiting for you... and my husband, emerging from the kitchen, said, "Yeah, she's about 10 feet away." AWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW Ok, that's more sweet than funny, but this one's still making me snicker; I was looking for a windchime on eBay, and had winnowed it down to 2 choices, which I called my husband over to look at... and of course he picked the one I liked less. I asked him "How come you don't like the one *I* like?", and he said "Because we didn't meet on eHarmony.com." LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Sunday, January 29, 2006
When is a health problem NOT a health problem?
Haven't you always assumed that having intestinal worms was 100% bad, in addition to being GROSS? It turns out that there are BENEFITS to having them, according to the February 2006 issue of Discover:
"Breathe Easy, You've Got Intestinal Worms
It's hard to believe that there's an upside to parasitic worms, but statistics indicate that people who are infested have lower rates of asthma and allergies. A group of Scottish biologists has figured out why.
Rick Maizels at the University of Edinburgh and his colleagues find that the worms manipulate their hosts into producing cells called regulatory T cells, which calm the immune system. 'The parasite, for its own benefit, exploits these regulatory cells so that the immune system isn't able to expel it,' he says, 'but a side effect is that it also dampens the allergic response.' With the immune system mellowed, the host's reaction to other foreign objects such as dust mites or dander is much milder."
That may not sound like a big deal, but remember, in the absence of medical care allergies and asthma can be DEADLY, so in early human society harboring these worms could give a significant survival edge, especially since they often don't cause much harm; could this be why our immune systems never developed a way to rid our bodies of them?
There was something on the opposite page as the above quote, in the sidebar, that caught my eye; "Artistic types have more sex-which may explain the persistence of schizophrenia in the human population, according to two British psychologists." I've always pointed out the inescapable (because of the endless examples) connection between abnormal mental/emotional functioning and creativity/genius, so I had to look this up... here's what I found:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/arts/news/story/0,11711,1653761,00.html
"Daniel Nettle, a psychologist at Newcastle University, and Helen Clegg, at the Open University in Milton Keynes, carried out the survey in the hope it would answer a question that has been puzzling scientists for some time. Schizophrenia is so debilitating that those with the condition are often socially isolated, have trouble maintaining relationships and so reproduce at a much lower rate than the general population. But cases of schizophrenia remain high, at around 1% of the population. 'On the face of it, Darwinism would suggest that the genes predisposing to schizophrenia would eventually disappear from the gene pool,' said Dr Nettle."
"On analysing 425 responses, the psychologists found that artists and schizophrenics scored equally high on 'unusual cognition,' a trait which gives rise to a greater tendency to feel in between reality and a dream state, or to feel overwhelmed by one's own thoughts.
But the artists and schizophrenics scored very differently on another measure called introvertive anhedonia, which is characterised by social withdrawal and emotional emptiness. Unlike schizophrenics, artists, in line with the general population, scored very low.
According to Dr Nettle, the results suggest that the creativity of some artists is fuelled by the unique world view mental illness can provide, but without the completely debilitating aspects of the condition. Instead, the artists are able to direct their creativity into artistic projects.
The second part of the survey found that compared with the general population, artists claimed to have had twice as many [sexual] partners since the age of 18, and the number of partners increased with the seriousness with which they pursued their art.
Dr Nettle believes that this provides the answer to the question posed. Some of the genes that predispose to schizophrenia might be carried by artists and in many cases play a factor in their creativity, but because the artists do not develop full-blown schizophrenia and are able to direct their creativity, they are able to pass the genes on to their children."
This set all the bells in my head ringing, because it makes perfect sense, explains why brilliant minds are usually messed up, ties in with how Einstein, who possessed perhaps the most innovative mind in human history, carried the recessive gene for schizophrenia (we know this because his 2nd son, Eduard, was schizophrenic)... AND, most importantly, dovetails with the amazing fact that there are a variety of ailments that, while awful if you have them, provide you with benefits if you only carry the recessive gene for them:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/educators/course/session7/explain_b_pop1.html
"Sickle Cell disease... carriers are resistant to malaria"
"Glucose-6-Phosphate Dehydrogenase Deficiency... causes life-threatening hemolytic anemia... inheriting the enzyme deficiency gene somehow protects against malaria."
"Phenylketnonuria is an inborn error of metabolism... with devastating effects on the nervous system unless the individual follows a restrictive diet... Physicians have observed that women who are PKU carriers have a much lower-than-average incidence of miscarriage"
"Carrying Tay-Sachs disease may protect against tuberculosis"
"Cystic Fibrosis... the anatomical defect that underlies CF protects against diarrheal illnesses, such as cholera."
And one more quote... note the similarity to what the previous article said:
"If natural selection eliminates individuals with detrimental phenotypes from a population, then why do harmful mutant alleles persist in a gene pool?"
Being more creative combined with social functionality, and thus getting laid more, isn't exactly the same sort of thing as getting resistance to a disease, of course, but conceptually they ARE the same; having a little of the "bad genes" makes you more likely to be able to pass on ALL your genes (well, technically, half at a time), and that's why those "bad genes" don't fade from our gene pool.
There are probably endless other things that we currently see only as health problems that confer some sort of benefit under the right circumstances... so we'd better be a little bit more careful about what ailments we try to totally eradicate, don't you think?
"Breathe Easy, You've Got Intestinal Worms
It's hard to believe that there's an upside to parasitic worms, but statistics indicate that people who are infested have lower rates of asthma and allergies. A group of Scottish biologists has figured out why.
Rick Maizels at the University of Edinburgh and his colleagues find that the worms manipulate their hosts into producing cells called regulatory T cells, which calm the immune system. 'The parasite, for its own benefit, exploits these regulatory cells so that the immune system isn't able to expel it,' he says, 'but a side effect is that it also dampens the allergic response.' With the immune system mellowed, the host's reaction to other foreign objects such as dust mites or dander is much milder."
That may not sound like a big deal, but remember, in the absence of medical care allergies and asthma can be DEADLY, so in early human society harboring these worms could give a significant survival edge, especially since they often don't cause much harm; could this be why our immune systems never developed a way to rid our bodies of them?
There was something on the opposite page as the above quote, in the sidebar, that caught my eye; "Artistic types have more sex-which may explain the persistence of schizophrenia in the human population, according to two British psychologists." I've always pointed out the inescapable (because of the endless examples) connection between abnormal mental/emotional functioning and creativity/genius, so I had to look this up... here's what I found:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/arts/news/story/0,11711,1653761,00.html
"Daniel Nettle, a psychologist at Newcastle University, and Helen Clegg, at the Open University in Milton Keynes, carried out the survey in the hope it would answer a question that has been puzzling scientists for some time. Schizophrenia is so debilitating that those with the condition are often socially isolated, have trouble maintaining relationships and so reproduce at a much lower rate than the general population. But cases of schizophrenia remain high, at around 1% of the population. 'On the face of it, Darwinism would suggest that the genes predisposing to schizophrenia would eventually disappear from the gene pool,' said Dr Nettle."
"On analysing 425 responses, the psychologists found that artists and schizophrenics scored equally high on 'unusual cognition,' a trait which gives rise to a greater tendency to feel in between reality and a dream state, or to feel overwhelmed by one's own thoughts.
But the artists and schizophrenics scored very differently on another measure called introvertive anhedonia, which is characterised by social withdrawal and emotional emptiness. Unlike schizophrenics, artists, in line with the general population, scored very low.
According to Dr Nettle, the results suggest that the creativity of some artists is fuelled by the unique world view mental illness can provide, but without the completely debilitating aspects of the condition. Instead, the artists are able to direct their creativity into artistic projects.
The second part of the survey found that compared with the general population, artists claimed to have had twice as many [sexual] partners since the age of 18, and the number of partners increased with the seriousness with which they pursued their art.
Dr Nettle believes that this provides the answer to the question posed. Some of the genes that predispose to schizophrenia might be carried by artists and in many cases play a factor in their creativity, but because the artists do not develop full-blown schizophrenia and are able to direct their creativity, they are able to pass the genes on to their children."
This set all the bells in my head ringing, because it makes perfect sense, explains why brilliant minds are usually messed up, ties in with how Einstein, who possessed perhaps the most innovative mind in human history, carried the recessive gene for schizophrenia (we know this because his 2nd son, Eduard, was schizophrenic)... AND, most importantly, dovetails with the amazing fact that there are a variety of ailments that, while awful if you have them, provide you with benefits if you only carry the recessive gene for them:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/educators/course/session7/explain_b_pop1.html
"Sickle Cell disease... carriers are resistant to malaria"
"Glucose-6-Phosphate Dehydrogenase Deficiency... causes life-threatening hemolytic anemia... inheriting the enzyme deficiency gene somehow protects against malaria."
"Phenylketnonuria is an inborn error of metabolism... with devastating effects on the nervous system unless the individual follows a restrictive diet... Physicians have observed that women who are PKU carriers have a much lower-than-average incidence of miscarriage"
"Carrying Tay-Sachs disease may protect against tuberculosis"
"Cystic Fibrosis... the anatomical defect that underlies CF protects against diarrheal illnesses, such as cholera."
And one more quote... note the similarity to what the previous article said:
"If natural selection eliminates individuals with detrimental phenotypes from a population, then why do harmful mutant alleles persist in a gene pool?"
Being more creative combined with social functionality, and thus getting laid more, isn't exactly the same sort of thing as getting resistance to a disease, of course, but conceptually they ARE the same; having a little of the "bad genes" makes you more likely to be able to pass on ALL your genes (well, technically, half at a time), and that's why those "bad genes" don't fade from our gene pool.
There are probably endless other things that we currently see only as health problems that confer some sort of benefit under the right circumstances... so we'd better be a little bit more careful about what ailments we try to totally eradicate, don't you think?
