All people are rightly concerned over the school and venue shootings in recent times. We want to do something that will reduce or eliminate these tragedies. Similarly, many violent crimes like robbery are committed with guns. Here are a few ideas that together should help reduce these horrors.
1. Require gun owners to have gun safes. When someone wants to buy a gun, a proof of ownership of a gun safe large enough to house the gun must be presented, or a new safe must be purchased at the same time. A typical handgun costs about $500, and a rifle can cost from $500 to $1500. Small, portable gun safes could be prohibited, requiring the ownership of large safes fixed to the ground. These large safes cost from $750 to $2500, so on the lower end, a large, fixed safe is only about the price of a single gun. Many states have some kind of safe gun storage law already. Beefing them up to a large gun safe should improve things even more.
Benefits:
A. Children and mentally ill household members would not have access to the guns. Nor would visitors to the house (repairmen, housekeepers, guests).
B. Since many gun crimes involve the use of stolen weapons, a large gun safe bolted to the floor would keep those guns from entering the black market through a burglary.
2. Arm and train venue staff and school staff and faculty. Nothing deters gun crime, especially mass shooters, as much as knowing that they would meet armed resistance. Not every faculty or staff member needs to be armed; just enough to present the sense of safety and vigilance. Latched holsters would prevent others from grabbing the weapon from the staff member.
Benefits:
A. Schools and entertainment organizations cannot afford to hire dozens of policemen working off duty, nor can municipalities afford to assign them to schools as an on-duty shift. But giving staff the necessary safety and use training would provide almost the same benefit.
Objection:
A. What about the risk of being shot accidentally? The recent risk of being shot and killed accidentally is about 1 in 646,000; of being murdered by a gunman is about 1 in 29,000, and for context, the risk of dying in an automobile accident is about 1 in 8,000.
3. Reascend to virtue training in the schools. The school system used to teach the virtues of kindness, compassion, respect for others, the value of human life, generosity, and many others. Certainly these are not so controversial that students can't be allowed to learn them.
Benefits:
A. If students learned to respect everyone else, there should be fewer disgruntled kids shooting their teachers and classmates.
B. As a bonus benefit, there should be less racism, sexism, classism, etc. as students celebrated their common humanity and the values that underlie that.
4. Improve mental health practices. This is the elephant in the living room. No one wants to talk about the millions of mentally ill people being ignored by everyone, especially the healthcare system. Most of the mentally ill are harmless, but a tiny few can be dangerous. Mental health laws need to be revised to allow for treating and monitoring persons with an identifiable illness--bipolar, schizophrenia), and, when necessary, medicated.
5. Connect the buyers database with lists of known criminals, suspected terrorists, and people who have come to the attention of the authorities as potential threats. The list might be set up to include a large number of people, but they wouldn't necessarily be prohibited from buying or owning a gun. They would simply be subjected to additional scrutiny before being cleared.
6. Encourage Hollywood and video game makers to stop glorifying guns and first person shooter games. These entertainments produce heartless children who have no feelings toward those they kill.
Wednesday, February 21, 2018
Sunday, September 03, 2017
Getting Life Backwards: Cultural Appropriation
It appears to be popular now in academic circles and in circles that vibrate out from them, to object to any person's use of anything not native to that person's culture. The crime is labeled "cultural appropriation." A yoga instructor had her class canceled because she was not East Indian, and therefore was guilty of cultural appropriation--which is evidently a euphemism for stealing. A white person wearing dreadlocks or making tacos are also examples of cultural appropriation.
But those who object to borrowing ideas from other cultures have it all backwards. Cultures grow into civilizations by aggregating ideas, practices, foods, and so on from other cultures. When one culture learns that another culture has a better solution to a problem, that solution is adopted.
If the adoption of better solutions from other cultures had been prohibited from the outset, we'd all still be using Roman numerals instead of Arabic numerals.
Cultures whose ideas are adopted by other cultures should celebrate with pride that their idea or practice was found to be superior to the previously reigning one.
It has been said that every great city is situated within 50 miles of the ocean or a navigable river because the international trade brings not only goods but good ideas to the city.
So, feel honored and not resentful when your culture is the source of ideas other people find useful.
But those who object to borrowing ideas from other cultures have it all backwards. Cultures grow into civilizations by aggregating ideas, practices, foods, and so on from other cultures. When one culture learns that another culture has a better solution to a problem, that solution is adopted.
If the adoption of better solutions from other cultures had been prohibited from the outset, we'd all still be using Roman numerals instead of Arabic numerals.
Cultures whose ideas are adopted by other cultures should celebrate with pride that their idea or practice was found to be superior to the previously reigning one.
It has been said that every great city is situated within 50 miles of the ocean or a navigable river because the international trade brings not only goods but good ideas to the city.
So, feel honored and not resentful when your culture is the source of ideas other people find useful.
Saturday, August 26, 2017
My Parkinson’s Disease is Not Progressing
My Parkinson’s Disease is Not Progressing
It’s one thing for me to notice that I’ve become a bit more unstable on my feet, or that I’m beginning to slur or stutter occasionally, or that my muscle control is lessening a bit. But when I’m told that this means that my disease is progressing, it gives me a headache.
I mean, look up the word progress in the dictionary. “Progress: gradual improvement, betterment, moving forward, ascension, advance, enhancement.” This describes my physical diminishment?
Wouldn’t it be better for me to say instead, “My Parkinson’s Disease is decrepitating”? Or how about, “My disease is dilapidating”? Or maybe declivitating? Imagine the use:
“Welcome to Walmart. How are you today?”
“I’m declivitating. And you?”
OR
“Welcome to Denny’s. How many guests?”
“Two non-smoking and one declivitating, please.”
I mean, let’s be realistic and use the right words. Saying that our Parkinson’s is progressing makes it sound as if it’s going to conquer us. And we won’t let it do that.
We know as Christians that the best part of life is ahead. We get new bodies in heaven, and they will obey our commands. They’ll walk easily, speak clearly, and feel full of energy. That confident hope sustains us, no matter how much our disease “progresses.”
Behold, I tell you a mystery; we will not all sleep, but we will all be changed. For this perishable must put on the imperishable, and this mortal must put on immortality.
—1 Corinthians 15:51, 53
In the world you have tribulation, but take courage; I have overcome the world.
—John 16:33b
It’s one thing for me to notice that I’ve become a bit more unstable on my feet, or that I’m beginning to slur or stutter occasionally, or that my muscle control is lessening a bit. But when I’m told that this means that my disease is progressing, it gives me a headache.
I mean, look up the word progress in the dictionary. “Progress: gradual improvement, betterment, moving forward, ascension, advance, enhancement.” This describes my physical diminishment?
Wouldn’t it be better for me to say instead, “My Parkinson’s Disease is decrepitating”? Or how about, “My disease is dilapidating”? Or maybe declivitating? Imagine the use:
“Welcome to Walmart. How are you today?”
“I’m declivitating. And you?”
OR
“Welcome to Denny’s. How many guests?”
“Two non-smoking and one declivitating, please.”
I mean, let’s be realistic and use the right words. Saying that our Parkinson’s is progressing makes it sound as if it’s going to conquer us. And we won’t let it do that.
We know as Christians that the best part of life is ahead. We get new bodies in heaven, and they will obey our commands. They’ll walk easily, speak clearly, and feel full of energy. That confident hope sustains us, no matter how much our disease “progresses.”
Behold, I tell you a mystery; we will not all sleep, but we will all be changed. For this perishable must put on the imperishable, and this mortal must put on immortality.
—1 Corinthians 15:51, 53
In the world you have tribulation, but take courage; I have overcome the world.
—John 16:33b
My Name Is Bob, and I Don’t Have Parkinson’s
My Name Is Bob, and I Don’t Have Parkinson’s
So they look at me and notice some things about me and say, “You have Parkinson’s Disease, don’t you?”
To which I say, “No. I don’t have Parkinson’s Disease.”
And they say, “Then why do you take little shuffling steps and sometimes freeze and can’t decide which foot to step out with next?”
And I reply, “Oh, my legs have Parkinson’s. That makes them often uncooperative. I don’t like it when they shuffle like that, but what can I do?”
So they say, “Well, if you don’t have Parkinson’s, then why do you sometimes slur your speech and drool and talk too fast and so softly that people can barely hear you?”
And I answer, “Don’t you see? All those effects are the result of my mouth having Parkinson’s. I keep telling it not to slur or talk too fast or too softly, but it just doesn’t pay attention. That’s common in mouths with Parkinson’s Disease.”
So they say, “Oh, I get it. I suppose the reason you no longer have a sense of smell is not because you have Parkinson’s, but because your nose has Parkinson’s; and the reason you have tiny, unreadable handwriting is not because you have Parkinson’s, but because your hand has Parkinson’s.”
And I say, “Yes, you’re catching on. Now you understand when I say that I don’t have Parkinson’s.”
And they say, “Then what’s wrong with you?”
And I say, “Nothing is wrong with me. After all, I’m still me. I’m not my body. I’m Bob.”
That is why we never give up. Our physical body is becoming older and weaker, but our spirit inside us is made new every day.
—2 Corinthians 4:16
So they look at me and notice some things about me and say, “You have Parkinson’s Disease, don’t you?”
To which I say, “No. I don’t have Parkinson’s Disease.”
And they say, “Then why do you take little shuffling steps and sometimes freeze and can’t decide which foot to step out with next?”
And I reply, “Oh, my legs have Parkinson’s. That makes them often uncooperative. I don’t like it when they shuffle like that, but what can I do?”
So they say, “Well, if you don’t have Parkinson’s, then why do you sometimes slur your speech and drool and talk too fast and so softly that people can barely hear you?”
And I answer, “Don’t you see? All those effects are the result of my mouth having Parkinson’s. I keep telling it not to slur or talk too fast or too softly, but it just doesn’t pay attention. That’s common in mouths with Parkinson’s Disease.”
So they say, “Oh, I get it. I suppose the reason you no longer have a sense of smell is not because you have Parkinson’s, but because your nose has Parkinson’s; and the reason you have tiny, unreadable handwriting is not because you have Parkinson’s, but because your hand has Parkinson’s.”
And I say, “Yes, you’re catching on. Now you understand when I say that I don’t have Parkinson’s.”
And they say, “Then what’s wrong with you?”
And I say, “Nothing is wrong with me. After all, I’m still me. I’m not my body. I’m Bob.”
That is why we never give up. Our physical body is becoming older and weaker, but our spirit inside us is made new every day.
—2 Corinthians 4:16
Saturday, August 20, 2016
Darxul Comments on Political Argument
One breezy sunny day at the park, the aging Darxul was approached by a young political activist who handed him a brochure supporting his candidate and attacking the candidate's opponent.
"I don't believe I can support your candidate," said Darxul, "because he is a liar."
"All politicians are liars," said the activist.
"Tell me something," said the old man; "how much education do you have?"
"I have a college degree," answered the activist, a bit taken aback. "Why?"
"I was afraid you would say that. During your college career, did you ever study critical thinking?"
"What are you implying?"
"Your statement that all politicians are liars is a poster child for poor thinking."
"But it's true."
"Let' think about the statement. The first error is that the claim is unknowable. We simply cannot know in any objective way that all politicians tell lies, or that a certain percent do, and so on."
"Just listen to them."
"Second, the statement is a sweeping generalization that is almost certainly false, as many such sweeping generalizations are. There are certainly a few, and possibly many or most, politicians who are not liars."
"I'd like to meet one sometime," sneered the activist.
"Third, the claim implies a tu quoque type of fallacy. Your implied argument is that because other politicians tell lies, it is justifiable for your candidate to tell lies. If telling lies is wrong, it is wrong for everyone, regardless if other people lie. You wouldn't argue that because other people rob banks, it's okay for you to rob a bank."
"You're changing the subject. We're not talking about robbing banks."
"I was using an analogy. The logic of the argument about banks is analogous to the argument about lying. At any rate, the fourth logical problem with the argument is that it does not distinguish between degrees of the offense. For the sake of argument, let's say that all politicians do tell lies."
"See? Now you agree with me."
"Even if all politicians have at one time lied, their culpability is likely much less than that of a candidate like yours, who tells one lie after another, many of which are enormous fabrications."
"But all politicians lie," said the activist.
"I don't believe I can support your candidate," said Darxul, "because he is a liar."
"All politicians are liars," said the activist.
"Tell me something," said the old man; "how much education do you have?"
"I have a college degree," answered the activist, a bit taken aback. "Why?"
"I was afraid you would say that. During your college career, did you ever study critical thinking?"
"What are you implying?"
"Your statement that all politicians are liars is a poster child for poor thinking."
"But it's true."
"Let' think about the statement. The first error is that the claim is unknowable. We simply cannot know in any objective way that all politicians tell lies, or that a certain percent do, and so on."
"Just listen to them."
"Second, the statement is a sweeping generalization that is almost certainly false, as many such sweeping generalizations are. There are certainly a few, and possibly many or most, politicians who are not liars."
"I'd like to meet one sometime," sneered the activist.
"Third, the claim implies a tu quoque type of fallacy. Your implied argument is that because other politicians tell lies, it is justifiable for your candidate to tell lies. If telling lies is wrong, it is wrong for everyone, regardless if other people lie. You wouldn't argue that because other people rob banks, it's okay for you to rob a bank."
"You're changing the subject. We're not talking about robbing banks."
"I was using an analogy. The logic of the argument about banks is analogous to the argument about lying. At any rate, the fourth logical problem with the argument is that it does not distinguish between degrees of the offense. For the sake of argument, let's say that all politicians do tell lies."
"See? Now you agree with me."
"Even if all politicians have at one time lied, their culpability is likely much less than that of a candidate like yours, who tells one lie after another, many of which are enormous fabrications."
"But all politicians lie," said the activist.
Thursday, June 30, 2016
Ten Things Parkinson's Disease Has Taught Me
10. I’m on the way to
becoming irresistible to women.
They say women are attracted to men who are tall, dark,
handsome, and soft spoken. Everyone keeps asking me to speak louder. So, I must
be soft spoken. That’s already one-fourth of irresistibility. Sorry, ladies,
I’m already happily married.
9. Even with a
blunted affect, I still can’t play poker.
A blank facial expression might be good for poker, but for
me, it makes people think I’m uninterested, when the fact is, I just don’t know
how to play poker. But bored or thrilled, I just have the same poker face.
Except when I laugh. I need to laugh more often.
8. I am not my body.
The person I’m talking about when I use the word I is not the same as my decrepitating
body. I have to live inside it, and let me say it used to be a much more
comfortable home than it is today, after so many years of weather. To change
metaphors, my body is a car and I am the driver. The car is an older model—today,
the radiator leaks, the engine isn’t running on all eight anymore, and the
tires are going flat, but the driver is still fine. The driver just can’t go as
fast as he used to. Sometimes he can barely get out of the driveway.
7. Feeling frustrated
doesn’t make anything better.
You know, it’s kind of aggravating when my mind tells my
legs to lift me up and all they can say is, “That’s above my pay grade. Let the
arms do it.” I tell my legs that they are very muscled, but they say, “What’s
it to ya?” And that chronic back pain; you feel it less was now that gets old
after a while. And then there’s my diminishing ability to use my beloved tools.
My right hand is getting increasingly uncooperative, so now I can’t seem to
make a pair of pliers do what I used to do with them. But getting upset over
all this doesn’t make a difference, so why bother to get upset? Besides, not
many people like a grump.
6. I don’t take
anything for granted.
My handwriting is already comical. Maybe I’m writing in
secret code and I just don’t know it. I dare you to try to decipher it. But how
much longer will I be able to type, even with my clumsy, disobedient fingers
that insist on leaving out some letters and doubling others—even in the same
word. But I can still type, sort of. This is a blessing. And those rebellious
buttons that fight me every buttonhole. True, they no longer cooperate the way
they did years ago, but, eventually, I can still button a shirt. This, too, is
a blessing. In fact, I see every good thing as a distinct blessing, and not as
an entitlement. Life is good—increasingly awkward, but good. Whether I eat a
99-cent taco or a prime steak, I’m content—no, make that happy. Grateful and
happy. Some people take their health for granted. Big mistake.
5. I have a lot more
compassion for the handicapped.
I’ve learned that we shouldn’t judge others by using
ourselves as the standard of measure. We can’t fully understand what others are
going through unless we ourselves have the same situation. I feel as if I’ve
been put into a body that doesn’t belong to me. I ask, “Why is my body
stumbling around?” and “Why does my tongue stumble, too?” and “Why is my
handwriting so small? Is there a paper shortage only my hand knows about?” Yes,
I feel awkward and conspicuous when I walk around. And now I know how other
people feel who aren’t young and agile and “normal.” God bless them. So, less
judgment, more empathy.
4. There’s no “Why
me?” here.
When something bad happens to some people, they ask, “Why
me?” when the real question is, “Why not me?” We’re told that in this world we
will have tribulation. And while we’re quick to ask, “Why me?” when we get sick
or hurt ourselves, how come we never ask, “Why me?” when we’re eating lobster
on a vacation cruise or even licking an ice cream cone at home?
3. We can’t predict
the future.
Seems as if every time we expect a high fast ball, we get a
low curve ball instead. The fact is, only God can see around corners; we can barely
see in a straight line. Maybe we should take the hint and trust God for our
future instead of trying to outguess him.
2. I am now more
aware of my mortality, and that’s a good thing.
Yep, we’re all gonna die. But we don’t think about it that
much until the Lord calls our attention to it in a quite personal way. Gonna
die. Check. Got it. Getting ready.
1. I still have hope.
I have hope—not that I will be cured, but hope for the
kingdom of God. And hope for strength during the remainder of my stay here.
The Bible is a good place to find
out about our hope. Isaiah tells us:
Do you not know?
Have you not heard?
Yahweh is the everlasting God,
the Creator of the whole earth.
He never grows faint or weary;
there is no limit to his understanding.
He gives strength to the weary,
and strengthens the powerless.
Youths may faint and grow weary,
and young men stumble and fall,
but those who trust in the Lord
will renew their strength;
they will soar on wings like eagles;
they will run and not grow weary;
they will walk and not faint.
—Isaiah 40:28-31 (HCSB)
Do not fear for I am with you;
do not be afraid, for I am your God.
I will strengthen you; I will help you;
I will hold onto you with My righteous right hand.
—Isaiah 41:10 (HCSB)
How Much Did Abraham Pay Ephron for the Field and Cave at Machpelah?
Monetary equivalencies are quite challenging, because we need to take into account the difference in purchasing power of gold and silver, which are frequent monetary units. I use some equivalency standards to get ballpark ideas.
Example 1: Ephron's field. Abraham paid Ephron 400 shekels of silver for the field and cave at Machpelah. What is the equivalent? Note first that we must avoid using the metal evaluation method: 1 shekel of silver was 224 grains or 0.512 ounces. As I write this, silver is selling for $18.50 per ounce. That makes a shekel worth $9.47, and the cave and field selling for $3030. Pretty preposterous, huh?
Now, let's take the labor equivalency standard. A shekel was worth 4 denarii. A day's labor paid 1 denarius. A laborer today might make $10 an hour. For a day's work, 8 hours, that's $80. Therefore, a shekel would have had $320 worth of purchasing power. The field, at 400 shekels, then sold for the equivalent of $128,000, a very possible amount.
Another method I use is the bread equivalency standard. In the eighteenth century in England, a servant, paid well, might earn 30 pounds a year. A pound this morning is going for $1.32 US. That would mean that a servant was paid only $396 a year. But wait. In, say, 1750 a loaf of bread sold for a penny. In that era, there were 240 pennies to the pound, making 7200 pennies in a 30-pound salary. An inexpensive loaf of bread today sells for $2.50, making a salary equivalent of $18,000. (And remember that servants had housing and meals as part of their compensation.)
So, what does that make a marriage settlement of 10,000 pounds a year in those days among the upper classes? 10,000 times 240 times 2.50 is 6,000,000. Six million dollars a year would put the couple on a budget, but is they shopped carefully, they could make it.
I'm sure there are other equivalences that might shed light on purchasing power for a given income in the old days. I remember in my twenties I could fill a grocery bag for $3.50. Now it takes $20 or $30.
Example 1: Ephron's field. Abraham paid Ephron 400 shekels of silver for the field and cave at Machpelah. What is the equivalent? Note first that we must avoid using the metal evaluation method: 1 shekel of silver was 224 grains or 0.512 ounces. As I write this, silver is selling for $18.50 per ounce. That makes a shekel worth $9.47, and the cave and field selling for $3030. Pretty preposterous, huh?
Now, let's take the labor equivalency standard. A shekel was worth 4 denarii. A day's labor paid 1 denarius. A laborer today might make $10 an hour. For a day's work, 8 hours, that's $80. Therefore, a shekel would have had $320 worth of purchasing power. The field, at 400 shekels, then sold for the equivalent of $128,000, a very possible amount.
Another method I use is the bread equivalency standard. In the eighteenth century in England, a servant, paid well, might earn 30 pounds a year. A pound this morning is going for $1.32 US. That would mean that a servant was paid only $396 a year. But wait. In, say, 1750 a loaf of bread sold for a penny. In that era, there were 240 pennies to the pound, making 7200 pennies in a 30-pound salary. An inexpensive loaf of bread today sells for $2.50, making a salary equivalent of $18,000. (And remember that servants had housing and meals as part of their compensation.)
So, what does that make a marriage settlement of 10,000 pounds a year in those days among the upper classes? 10,000 times 240 times 2.50 is 6,000,000. Six million dollars a year would put the couple on a budget, but is they shopped carefully, they could make it.
I'm sure there are other equivalences that might shed light on purchasing power for a given income in the old days. I remember in my twenties I could fill a grocery bag for $3.50. Now it takes $20 or $30.
Wednesday, April 27, 2016
Micrographia Tiny Handwriting Remedy (Parkinson's Disease)
If your handwriting has become tiny and virtually illegible (as is common with Parkinsonism and Parkinson's Disease), there are a few things I've discovered that might help you too. To return back to legible handwriting, do the following:
1. Get some Manuscript Tablets from the 99 cent store or other source. Alternatively, get some wide-ruled notebook paper. Use the lines, which are a quarter of an inch (one centimeter) apart, as guidelines for your lower-case letters. Each letter must reach from one line to another. Yes, a quarter of an inch tall.
2. Slow down. You'll notice that you can't scribble very fast when the letters are that large. I also noticed that with my micrographia I was trying to write in a hurry. By slowing down a lot, I could write legibly (when my meds were working). Slowly formed large letters can result. Writing slowly, for me, has proven more effective than practicing loops and swirls.
3. If you have Parkinson's Disease or Parkinsonism, try taking your medicine half an hour before meals or two hours after meals. It is said that food protein interferes with the carbidopa-levodopa.
I like writing on newsprint pads. (Newsprint is that brown, soft paper once common in elementary school. Its soft texture makes the pen glide across the page better. I also like PaperMate and Bic stick pens with the easy gliding ink. Some gel pens are good for ease of writing, too.
1. Get some Manuscript Tablets from the 99 cent store or other source. Alternatively, get some wide-ruled notebook paper. Use the lines, which are a quarter of an inch (one centimeter) apart, as guidelines for your lower-case letters. Each letter must reach from one line to another. Yes, a quarter of an inch tall.
2. Slow down. You'll notice that you can't scribble very fast when the letters are that large. I also noticed that with my micrographia I was trying to write in a hurry. By slowing down a lot, I could write legibly (when my meds were working). Slowly formed large letters can result. Writing slowly, for me, has proven more effective than practicing loops and swirls.
3. If you have Parkinson's Disease or Parkinsonism, try taking your medicine half an hour before meals or two hours after meals. It is said that food protein interferes with the carbidopa-levodopa.
I like writing on newsprint pads. (Newsprint is that brown, soft paper once common in elementary school. Its soft texture makes the pen glide across the page better. I also like PaperMate and Bic stick pens with the easy gliding ink. Some gel pens are good for ease of writing, too.
Tuesday, February 09, 2016
Zeno Says You'll Never Finish Reading This Post
You remember Zeno's Paradox, of course. That ancient Greek philosopher said that in order to cross a certain distance, you first had to cross half of it. Then you had to cross half of the remaining distance; then half of what was still left. The half would get shorter and shorter, but you'd always have half the remaining distance to cross, so that you would never arrive at the goal.
I propose a Zeno's paradox of reading. Whether you are reading a book, a magazine, or a blog post. you must begin by reading half of it. Then you would need to read half of what remains. Then half of that. See? You'll always have half of the remaining writing to read. So you'll never finish reading what you set out to read.
You're thinking that this entry was suggested by an interminable book that I indeed could never finish. Wrong. Or by one of those books about which we say, "That book would have made a great article." (Many articles' worth of content get hammered out into a book simply to increase the prestige of the author and the marketability of the content--notice that you don't individual articles for sale in article stores.)
The Prestige Pecking Order for Information Sources is:
1. Hardcover book, preferably with sewn binding.
2. Trade paperback book
3. Mass market paperback book
4. Published article in physical print media
5. Online article
Yes, there is still a bias against online articles. Too bad. But then you will never be reading the end of this sentence. Zeno said so.
I propose a Zeno's paradox of reading. Whether you are reading a book, a magazine, or a blog post. you must begin by reading half of it. Then you would need to read half of what remains. Then half of that. See? You'll always have half of the remaining writing to read. So you'll never finish reading what you set out to read.
You're thinking that this entry was suggested by an interminable book that I indeed could never finish. Wrong. Or by one of those books about which we say, "That book would have made a great article." (Many articles' worth of content get hammered out into a book simply to increase the prestige of the author and the marketability of the content--notice that you don't individual articles for sale in article stores.)
The Prestige Pecking Order for Information Sources is:
1. Hardcover book, preferably with sewn binding.
2. Trade paperback book
3. Mass market paperback book
4. Published article in physical print media
5. Online article
Yes, there is still a bias against online articles. Too bad. But then you will never be reading the end of this sentence. Zeno said so.
Thursday, January 21, 2016
My Parkinson's Disease--Current Symptoms
Here are the current symptoms of my Parkinson's Disease:
I don't have any tremors, and that is what makes my neurologist think I have a PD-like disease instead of genuine PD.
- No sense of smell (anosmia). This was the first indicator that occurred a dozen or more years ago.
- Loss of manual dexterity in my right hand. I have a difficult time buttoning the left cuff button on my dress shirts. Worse, my handwriting, which has never been good (I got a D in handwriting in the 6th grade), is now so illegible that I can't read it myself. I can still type slowly, but often leave letters out and double other letters.
- Lack of facial expressions. This phenomenon is called blunted affect. I do smile (occasionally) and laugh (pretty often), but my ordinary expression is, um, expressionless. On different occasions, two nurses have said they thought I probably had Parkinson's Disease just by looking at my face.
- Soft speech. This odd phenomenon is quite common to PD folks, I'm told. To me, my volume sounds normal, but those listening say I speak very softly.
- Balance issues. I have to be careful when I stand not to start tilting backwards. Occasionally I have to take several, small corrective backward steps to maintain balance.
- I have difficulty getting out of chairs. Odd as it may seem, I lack the balance and strength (it seems) simply to stand up out of a chair. I have to grab the coffee table in front or else make two or three efforts to get up before I am successful.
- I read aloud too fast. In my regular speech, I sometimes stumble over what I want to say. Both of these behaviors are new to me, so I attribute them to my PD.
I don't have any tremors, and that is what makes my neurologist think I have a PD-like disease instead of genuine PD.
My Parkinson's Disease
The first thing that turned out later too be a symptom of Parkinson's Disease was that I lost my sense of smell. This was maybe 12 to 15 years ago. Since losing one's sense of smell can mean a brain tumor, my doctor sent me for an MRI, which detected nothing. (Hence the old joke, "We did an MRI of your brain, but couldn't find anything.") Then, and I realize I'm foggy on this, awhile later I was sent to a specialist who put me on Requip, a medicine used for both PD and restless leg syndrome. I don't remember a diagnosis at that time. However, I had an episode at work where I almost fainted, so I stopped taking Requip.
A year or two passed. Then I noticed that I was losing dexterity in my right hand. I couldn't button the cuff buttons on my work shirts with my right hand. A visit to a neurologist showed that the electrical signals down my arm were running fine. Conclusion: My brain wasn't generating the commands to the nerves to begin with. In other words, Parkinson's Disease. Soon, I visited another doctor who became my regular neurologist at that time, and he put me on Carbidopa/Levodopa, Mirapex (pramipexole dihydrochloride), and Azilect (rasagiline).
What are these three drugs? Carbidopa/Levidopa is a form of dopamine, a brain chemical needed in the transmission of signals. Basically what's going on in the brains of Parkinson's patients is that the brain cells that manufacture dopamine are dying off so not enough is available for the brain to send the needed nerve signals to the muscles to tell them what to do.
Mirapex, now available as the generic pramipexole dihydrochloride, is a dopamine agonist, which means that it helps dopamine (supplied by the brain and by the Carbidopa/Levodopa pills, work harder.
Azilect (generic name, rasagiline) is a monoamine oxidase inhibitor type B (MAOI-B). As the "inhibitor" name suggests, this medicine slows down the oxidation of dopamine so that it is available to work longer. In other words, it slows down the destruction of dopamine by the brain's ordinary chemical processes. I believe that the "B" in this MAOI means that it works in such a way that the dietary restrictions of other MAOI drugs are not needed. (No cheddar cheese, for example, or anything with tyramine in it.) But check with your doctor.
So, I have been munching on these three guys three times a day for maybe five or more years. My current neurologist says I have a "Parkison's-like" disease that might not be genuine PD. However, my symptoms are increasingly showing that PD is the likely condition.
See the next entry for my current symptoms.
A year or two passed. Then I noticed that I was losing dexterity in my right hand. I couldn't button the cuff buttons on my work shirts with my right hand. A visit to a neurologist showed that the electrical signals down my arm were running fine. Conclusion: My brain wasn't generating the commands to the nerves to begin with. In other words, Parkinson's Disease. Soon, I visited another doctor who became my regular neurologist at that time, and he put me on Carbidopa/Levodopa, Mirapex (pramipexole dihydrochloride), and Azilect (rasagiline).
What are these three drugs? Carbidopa/Levidopa is a form of dopamine, a brain chemical needed in the transmission of signals. Basically what's going on in the brains of Parkinson's patients is that the brain cells that manufacture dopamine are dying off so not enough is available for the brain to send the needed nerve signals to the muscles to tell them what to do.
Mirapex, now available as the generic pramipexole dihydrochloride, is a dopamine agonist, which means that it helps dopamine (supplied by the brain and by the Carbidopa/Levodopa pills, work harder.
Azilect (generic name, rasagiline) is a monoamine oxidase inhibitor type B (MAOI-B). As the "inhibitor" name suggests, this medicine slows down the oxidation of dopamine so that it is available to work longer. In other words, it slows down the destruction of dopamine by the brain's ordinary chemical processes. I believe that the "B" in this MAOI means that it works in such a way that the dietary restrictions of other MAOI drugs are not needed. (No cheddar cheese, for example, or anything with tyramine in it.) But check with your doctor.
So, I have been munching on these three guys three times a day for maybe five or more years. My current neurologist says I have a "Parkison's-like" disease that might not be genuine PD. However, my symptoms are increasingly showing that PD is the likely condition.
See the next entry for my current symptoms.
Thursday, January 14, 2016
Aristotle Meets Godzilla
As a boredom reducer for my treadmilling, I started to watch the 1998 Godzilla movie. At one point early in the film, time is of the essence to find out what's going on. So urgent are the authorities that they send a helicopter with a dozen armed men to bring back the earthworm-radioactivity specialist from Chernobyl and put him on the case.
Then comes a scene where he and another principal investigator are racing to the scene of a ship destroyed by this unknown beast. However, the investigators are racing overland in Jeeps--while helicopters accompany them at groundspeed. This makes for interesting spectacle, showing half a dozen vehicles driving along dirt roads, and two black helicopters flying in tandem with them. But Aristotle would have said that plot is more important than spectacle. We are forced to ask the obvious question, "Aside from its cinematic effect, why doesn't the scene show the investigators racing to the site of the shipwreck, arriving not in Jeeps but in the helicopters, while the support personnel come later in the Jeeps?"
Get the book and find out what makes good drama according to Aristotle:
And here's a book just on point--Aristotle for screenwriters:
Then comes a scene where he and another principal investigator are racing to the scene of a ship destroyed by this unknown beast. However, the investigators are racing overland in Jeeps--while helicopters accompany them at groundspeed. This makes for interesting spectacle, showing half a dozen vehicles driving along dirt roads, and two black helicopters flying in tandem with them. But Aristotle would have said that plot is more important than spectacle. We are forced to ask the obvious question, "Aside from its cinematic effect, why doesn't the scene show the investigators racing to the site of the shipwreck, arriving not in Jeeps but in the helicopters, while the support personnel come later in the Jeeps?"
Get the book and find out what makes good drama according to Aristotle:
And here's a book just on point--Aristotle for screenwriters:
Friday, December 18, 2015
Check Engine Light, Code P0440, and the Hand of God
A year or so ago, my 2010 Toyota Camry threw a trouble code and turned on the "Check Engine" light. I searched for my OBD II code reader but couldn't find it. So I was forced to go too the Toyota dealer, who charged me $142 to tell me that my gas cap was not screwed on tightly enough. Later, after I had found my code reader, the same code appeared. I looked it up on the Internet and discovered that the gas cap tightening was an issue.
A few years later, I was doing some work for a widow. At one point she mentioned that her car was displaying a low tire icon on the dashboard. I checked and the icon was the Check Egine light. I put my OBD II reader on it and P0440 came up. By this time I had forgotten the meaning of that code, so we went on the internet and found it. Loose gas cap the most common common cause of this code being thrown. I turned to the widow and asked, "Do you pump your own gas?" She said yes, so I tightened it and told her to call me back if the code reappeared.
Having all this freshly in mind, I got a call from a longtime friend, who mentioned that his car was displaying the Check Engine icon. I brought my OBD II code reader to lunch with me. When, after lunch, we hooked up the reader, the explanation was P0440. I didn't need the diagnostic book that explains codes. Because this event was the latest in a sequence of God-defined event, I knew I would succeed. We went to the gas cap and tightened it substantially.
If something is called to your attention, remember it, and think about how it might be God calling with an adventure that will be useful to you in the future. How do you separate random events from a clearly intentional set of circumstances?
A few years later, I was doing some work for a widow. At one point she mentioned that her car was displaying a low tire icon on the dashboard. I checked and the icon was the Check Egine light. I put my OBD II reader on it and P0440 came up. By this time I had forgotten the meaning of that code, so we went on the internet and found it. Loose gas cap the most common common cause of this code being thrown. I turned to the widow and asked, "Do you pump your own gas?" She said yes, so I tightened it and told her to call me back if the code reappeared.
Having all this freshly in mind, I got a call from a longtime friend, who mentioned that his car was displaying the Check Engine icon. I brought my OBD II code reader to lunch with me. When, after lunch, we hooked up the reader, the explanation was P0440. I didn't need the diagnostic book that explains codes. Because this event was the latest in a sequence of God-defined event, I knew I would succeed. We went to the gas cap and tightened it substantially.
If something is called to your attention, remember it, and think about how it might be God calling with an adventure that will be useful to you in the future. How do you separate random events from a clearly intentional set of circumstances?
Tuesday, November 17, 2015
Source Evaluation and Critical Thinking
Source Evaluation and Critical Thinking.
There are lots of Web pages that tell you how to evaluate
sources—especially Internet sources. I even have such a page. But there’s something
that you’re not being told. Source evaluation is (1) a learned skill and (2) it’s
learned heuristically, not algorithmically. Let me define for you. An algorithm
is a step by step procedure that yields a set result. A cake recipe is a good
example. Follow the recipe correctly, get a nice cake. Unfortunately, source
evaluation is not algorithmic. And even more unfortunately, too many writers
and teachers pretend that it is.
Source evaluation cannot be learned by reading an
article that lists half a dozen factors (who is the publisher, who is the author,
how recent is the article, etc.) to take into account. Now, such articles are
very good because those are important items to think about. But there are many
nuances, variations, exceptions, and subtleties to include also.
A heuristic is a trial-and-error method of learning,
where you gradually learn over time what the best answers are. Your knowledge—your
skill—that you apply to evaluating sources must be refined so that you can
sniff out that fake source that looks so reliable. Not to mention the good source that looks amateur.
Speaking of which, many evaluation articles scoff at so-called vanity sites put up by individuals. Many are probably not reliable, but many others are labors of love by experienced, expert contributors who do indeed know what they are talking about. And official sites are not guaranteed to be reliable, either.
For example, suppose you are researching diet and you
come across a Web site called the Investigative Institute for Human Health and
Nutrition. There you find an article about the dangers of eating red meat. The article
is by a couple of people with Doctor titles. Good source? Well, suppose further
that you do a little digging and discover that the site is owned or sponsored
by VeganMilitancy and that the doctors have honorary PhDs and not medical
degrees. Bad source? Well, are there redeeming factors? Can you trust the statistics
on the site?
Here is my advice for what to do:
·
Triangulate the
source. Are there other sources that support these arguments, data, reasons,
evidence?
·
Use the rest of
the Internet to test the claims of the site. Do other sites disagree or even disprove the claims of the site under review? Note that disagreeing is not the same as disproving. I remember once hearing someone say of a controversial claim, "That's been answered." But what was the answer? Was it an "I don't agree" answer or a disproof?
Friday, October 30, 2015
Who Can Refute a Sneer?
A number of episodes of several crime-drama TV series include either criminal
Christians (pastors, vicars, murderous self-righteous fanatics, tyrannical and
abusive Scripture-quoting fathers) or Christians as murder victims—men of the
cloth often spectacularly murdered in their church. It is said that we adopt
many beliefs through anecdote and few beliefs through reason or evidence. I
wonder whether these character roles from TV serve either as unbelief inducers
or as food for confirmation bias. In other words, for those who are nominally
Christian or those who are unsettled about religion and spiritual life in general,
are they influenced against faith by these propagandistic ploys?
It’s an old technique—associate something you want to
make loathsome with something already thought to be loathsome. Are people so naïve
that they fall for this?
“Fred is a lowdown snake.”
“He is? Hey, Harry! Have you heard? Fred is a lowdown
snake.”
“Who knew? Tom, did you know that Fred is a snake?”
“Yeah, that’s what everybody says.”
By the way, the title of this posting comes from William Paley, who advanced what might be called an early theory of intelligent design in the biological world by pointing out that plants and animals sure do appear to have been designed and made for a purpose. Palely was referring to the anti-Christian sneering tone of Edward Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire (which Gibbon blamed on Christianity). So, to end, we quote the proverb, "Those who can only sneer have no facts." Just like those who have no stones to throw can only scream four-letter words at those they hate.
Saturday, October 17, 2015
Media Studies 101: Shaping Readers' Attitudes
When the news media want to slant someone's words, there are several ways. First, the person can be quoted out of context. Second, the quotation can be partial, leaving out (from the front, middle, or end) qualifying language or other words that change the meaning. But a powerful technique is to quote the person exactly and then use the quotation verb to shape the reader's understanding.
Consider your thoughts about the speaker depending on the quotation verb chosen by the journalist:
1. "Yes, I went to that seedy neighborhood," he said.
2. he acknowledged
3. he admitted
4. he conceded
5. he confessed
1. "I didn't go to that neighborhood to buy drugs. I was searching for my son," he explained.
2. he said
3. he claimed
4. he alleged
5. he maintained
Watch for slant-free verbs, such as said and replied. Be cautious when you encounter others.
Friday, October 16, 2015
The Secrets to Being a Great Conversationalist
Want to become known as someone who is great to talk to? Someone who is never at a loss for words? Want to be admired for your interpersonal skills? Here are the secrets to becoming known as an excellent conversationalist.
1. Listen. Most people a hungry, if not aching, to have someone to talk to, to listen to their problems, experiences, and opinions. If you play the role of listener, helping the other person or persons to do much of the talking, even venting, that will be much appreciated. The proverb says, "Listen to seven words for every word you speak." That's good advice not only to make the talker happy, but it provides you as listener with a context and details you can use to formulate your reply.
2. Ask questions. Asking a question of your conversational partner shows that you are interested in and curious about that person's life and ideas. Sometimes (often, for shy people) others don't know what to say next. If you ask a question, they have a topic to fill out. Be sure to ask a question that the other person will likely find interesting and have something to say about. It's better to ask, "What have you found most valuable about your education?" than to ask, "Do you think string theory will resolve the issues in quantum mechanics?" Always be ready with a question, so that if the conversation drags or stops, you can resuscitate it.
3. Remember that conversations are not all about you. I once had a friend who, no matter what I or anyone else said, would connect the statement to herself. If someone said, "There was an accident on the freeway that made me late for class," she might say, "I saw an accident once where three cars were wrecked. I got really nervous." If you said, "Let's go watch paint dry," she would likely say, "My bedroom at home is painted pink." So, resist the temptation to turn the conversation on yourself.
4. Pause. When you talk, don't engage in a fire hose of words where there are no periods in your sentences. Nonstop talkers are an irritant and they are simply impolite. A good rule of thumb to follow is to pause after every two sentences or so (unless you are in the middle of a detailed explanation) to allow someone else to inject a comment or reply. When a nonstop talker rambles on and on and changes the subject six times, the listeners forget the insightful comments they wanted to make about one of the topics now long gone, and that frustrates them, taking the enjoyment out of the experience. Besides, listening to a nonstop talker is very tiring because the listeners' brains grow weary of trying to process all those words.
5. Remember that when you are face to face, gestures, body language, and facial expressions are significant sources of communication.
6. Tone of voice is very important, and should convey interest, respect, and warmth.
7. It's best not to disagree over minor details--how to pronounce tomato is the classic example. If you must disagree, try doing it in the form of a question. For example, instead of saying, "That's wrong. It was 1989, not 1986," ask, "Wasn't it 1989 rather than 1986?" or even, "I thought is was 1989. Is that right?"
8. Avoid sarcasm. Sarcasm with those close to you who can appreciate it is okay, but in a general social setting, sarcasm is "crude, rude, and unrefined" as my junior high school teacher once said. It's insulting, disrespectful, and can be a conversation stopper.
Try these ideas out, whether you are naturally shy or naturally talkative.
1. Listen. Most people a hungry, if not aching, to have someone to talk to, to listen to their problems, experiences, and opinions. If you play the role of listener, helping the other person or persons to do much of the talking, even venting, that will be much appreciated. The proverb says, "Listen to seven words for every word you speak." That's good advice not only to make the talker happy, but it provides you as listener with a context and details you can use to formulate your reply.
2. Ask questions. Asking a question of your conversational partner shows that you are interested in and curious about that person's life and ideas. Sometimes (often, for shy people) others don't know what to say next. If you ask a question, they have a topic to fill out. Be sure to ask a question that the other person will likely find interesting and have something to say about. It's better to ask, "What have you found most valuable about your education?" than to ask, "Do you think string theory will resolve the issues in quantum mechanics?" Always be ready with a question, so that if the conversation drags or stops, you can resuscitate it.
3. Remember that conversations are not all about you. I once had a friend who, no matter what I or anyone else said, would connect the statement to herself. If someone said, "There was an accident on the freeway that made me late for class," she might say, "I saw an accident once where three cars were wrecked. I got really nervous." If you said, "Let's go watch paint dry," she would likely say, "My bedroom at home is painted pink." So, resist the temptation to turn the conversation on yourself.
4. Pause. When you talk, don't engage in a fire hose of words where there are no periods in your sentences. Nonstop talkers are an irritant and they are simply impolite. A good rule of thumb to follow is to pause after every two sentences or so (unless you are in the middle of a detailed explanation) to allow someone else to inject a comment or reply. When a nonstop talker rambles on and on and changes the subject six times, the listeners forget the insightful comments they wanted to make about one of the topics now long gone, and that frustrates them, taking the enjoyment out of the experience. Besides, listening to a nonstop talker is very tiring because the listeners' brains grow weary of trying to process all those words.
5. Remember that when you are face to face, gestures, body language, and facial expressions are significant sources of communication.
6. Tone of voice is very important, and should convey interest, respect, and warmth.
7. It's best not to disagree over minor details--how to pronounce tomato is the classic example. If you must disagree, try doing it in the form of a question. For example, instead of saying, "That's wrong. It was 1989, not 1986," ask, "Wasn't it 1989 rather than 1986?" or even, "I thought is was 1989. Is that right?"
8. Avoid sarcasm. Sarcasm with those close to you who can appreciate it is okay, but in a general social setting, sarcasm is "crude, rude, and unrefined" as my junior high school teacher once said. It's insulting, disrespectful, and can be a conversation stopper.
Try these ideas out, whether you are naturally shy or naturally talkative.
Tuesday, October 13, 2015
God's Grace Arriving Unexpectedly
Grace is often defined as unmerited favor or an undeserved gift. We receive God's grace when he answers our prayers. But God goes beyond answering our prayers and gives us his grace even when we don't ask. Have you ever experienced a blessing that made you praise God and say, "I would have prayed for that if I'd thought of it"? That happens to me all the time. And sometimes--well, let me tell you what happened recently.
I've been installing laminate flooring and needed some transition pieces to bridge the laminate-to-tile juxtapositions. So, I went to a flooring store. They were out of the official color. However, there was a nearly identical color--on sale for 50% off. That is an example of God's grace. And I don't even remember praying for his help with getting those pieces.
But then, I noticed a tool sale at the laminate store. The sign said, "Tools: 30% to 90% off." Well, if you know me, a combination of tools and a sale got my attention. I picked up an extension cord and some saw blades. Then I noticed a set of hole saws, regular price about $10 or $12, on sale for $2.95. I thought, at that price I should get a set to keep in the truck. You never know when it might come in handy. Then, when I was checking out, the hole saw set rang up at 95 cents. Yes, 95 cents.
So I get back to the house and start working on changing the locks on three of the doors. The first two go fine, everything fits and it all works. But then, the lock on the workshop door is so old (the house is over 50 years old) that the latch will not fit. What was needed was to drill out the existing, narrow hole to a one inch hole. Hmm. What I needed was a one-inch hole saw. Like the one in the set I had just bought an hour earlier for 95 cents.
This is an example of grace unasked and unforeseen--an unmerited blessing given by God before we ask, before we (supposedly) need, anticipating a need. It reminds me of Ephesians 3:20, where Paul says that God "is able to do above and beyond all that we ask or think" (HCSB).
God keeps reminding me of his care through blessings like this, reminding me to turn to him--to pay attention to him. He certainly made an impression with this loving gift.
I've been installing laminate flooring and needed some transition pieces to bridge the laminate-to-tile juxtapositions. So, I went to a flooring store. They were out of the official color. However, there was a nearly identical color--on sale for 50% off. That is an example of God's grace. And I don't even remember praying for his help with getting those pieces.
But then, I noticed a tool sale at the laminate store. The sign said, "Tools: 30% to 90% off." Well, if you know me, a combination of tools and a sale got my attention. I picked up an extension cord and some saw blades. Then I noticed a set of hole saws, regular price about $10 or $12, on sale for $2.95. I thought, at that price I should get a set to keep in the truck. You never know when it might come in handy. Then, when I was checking out, the hole saw set rang up at 95 cents. Yes, 95 cents.
So I get back to the house and start working on changing the locks on three of the doors. The first two go fine, everything fits and it all works. But then, the lock on the workshop door is so old (the house is over 50 years old) that the latch will not fit. What was needed was to drill out the existing, narrow hole to a one inch hole. Hmm. What I needed was a one-inch hole saw. Like the one in the set I had just bought an hour earlier for 95 cents.
This is an example of grace unasked and unforeseen--an unmerited blessing given by God before we ask, before we (supposedly) need, anticipating a need. It reminds me of Ephesians 3:20, where Paul says that God "is able to do above and beyond all that we ask or think" (HCSB).
God keeps reminding me of his care through blessings like this, reminding me to turn to him--to pay attention to him. He certainly made an impression with this loving gift.
Friday, October 09, 2015
The Thoughtless Downward Spiral
When I taught writing (mostly freshman composition) long ago, I always crossed out the student's "I feel" and wrote in the margin, "I think." I wanted them to pass their ideas through a few neuronal pathways before putting them to paper. I was, of course, utterly unsuccessful, not any more than I was curing vague pronoun references or the misuse of apostrophes.
But there's something about the use of "I feel" that reveals what a sorry state our culture is in.
1. You can't disagree with feelings. If I say, "I think the issue is so and so," you can point out my errors of logic, adduce contrary reasons or evidence, and so forth. You might even prove me wrong. But if I say simply, "I feel that the issue is so and so," what can you say? (If I say, "I feel happy," you can't very well respond, "No, you don't.") So feelings are the safe, lazy, thoughtless way to present your ideas, however unreasonable or poorly supported they are. Score one point for not needing to think.
2. Feelings are based on personal experience. No need for research or even taking a poll. All you need to support your opinion is your own example. External statistics, research, evidence, reasons, arguments, and the like are simply not necessary, not applicable.
3. It makes you think it's about you. What this feelings-based philosophy amounts to is narcissism, worshiping your own (bigoted?) opinions. If you thought the conquest of objectivity by subjectivity was horrible, we're now faced with pure solipsism as king of the world. (The only question is who has the power to impose his solipsistic view of the world on everyone else?)
It seems that in the public schools the perfect storm that combined the self-esteem movement with the postmodernist view that any given text was subject to an infinite number of interpretations, resulted in celebrating the use of "I feel."
In class:
Teacher: "Why did Hamlet fail to act?"
Jane: "I feel he was too busy lusting after Ophelia."
Teacher: "Good, Jane."
Tom: "I feel it's because he was gay."
Teacher: "Good Tom."
Sally: "I feel he secretly wished he had killed his father so he could marry his mother. You know, Oedipus."
Teacher: "Good, Sally."
Bill: "I feel that he was busy researching ways to kill his uncle."
Teacher: "Good, Bill. My, I feel what a great and thoughtful class you are."
But there's something about the use of "I feel" that reveals what a sorry state our culture is in.
1. You can't disagree with feelings. If I say, "I think the issue is so and so," you can point out my errors of logic, adduce contrary reasons or evidence, and so forth. You might even prove me wrong. But if I say simply, "I feel that the issue is so and so," what can you say? (If I say, "I feel happy," you can't very well respond, "No, you don't.") So feelings are the safe, lazy, thoughtless way to present your ideas, however unreasonable or poorly supported they are. Score one point for not needing to think.
2. Feelings are based on personal experience. No need for research or even taking a poll. All you need to support your opinion is your own example. External statistics, research, evidence, reasons, arguments, and the like are simply not necessary, not applicable.
3. It makes you think it's about you. What this feelings-based philosophy amounts to is narcissism, worshiping your own (bigoted?) opinions. If you thought the conquest of objectivity by subjectivity was horrible, we're now faced with pure solipsism as king of the world. (The only question is who has the power to impose his solipsistic view of the world on everyone else?)
It seems that in the public schools the perfect storm that combined the self-esteem movement with the postmodernist view that any given text was subject to an infinite number of interpretations, resulted in celebrating the use of "I feel."
In class:
Teacher: "Why did Hamlet fail to act?"
Jane: "I feel he was too busy lusting after Ophelia."
Teacher: "Good, Jane."
Tom: "I feel it's because he was gay."
Teacher: "Good Tom."
Sally: "I feel he secretly wished he had killed his father so he could marry his mother. You know, Oedipus."
Teacher: "Good, Sally."
Bill: "I feel that he was busy researching ways to kill his uncle."
Teacher: "Good, Bill. My, I feel what a great and thoughtful class you are."
Why We Fear Change
Stuck in a lousy job, neighborhood, relationship (you're not really going to marry that person you're dating, are you?) or other unpleasant situation you just can't seem to leave? Still hoping that sports team is going to start winning? That the buggy software package you have invested in will be fixed "real soon now"?
Even when we're stuck in a rut, and making a change seems an obvious move, we often don't like change. Here are some reasons why change is often rejected.
The Status Quo is Comfortable. The familiar, even when substantially negative, gives us a feeling of security. We are used to this way of life. We can predict what Aunt Wilma will say. We know the dimensions of our current life and have learned to cope with our life situation as it is. Comfortable and familiar misery, it might be, but comfortable and familiar it is.
Fear of the Unknown. All changes are uncertain in their benefits and outcome. For example, leaving an awful job for another job includes the possibility that the new job will be even more awful. Those who find change difficult or impossible are afraid of what the new situation might be. They are quite aware of "unintended consequences," "unexpected costs," and "unimagined downsides."
Fear of the Change Cascade. Making one change almost always involves changing a number of related things. Move to a new city and you've got to change friends, favorite stores, churches, schools. If you change climates, you might also have to change your entire wardrobe. To live a mature, coherent life, you must adjust your ideas to harmonize with the change you've just made or are planning to make.
Fear of Loss. We humans tend to be risk averse, and whenever we contemplate making a change, we look at whatever good we are giving up as well as the bad. This cognitive bias makes us favor the known positives (however little that may be) over the risk of not gaining a suitable positive replacement. We sometimes look at the choice of change as a guaranteed loss (giving up the current situation) trading for an uncertain gain (the unknown).
Habits are Easy. Do you ever drive down the street from your house only to wonder suddenly if you have closed the garage door? And when you drive back to check, you see that you did remember to close it? Habits, once established, allow us to run on automatic and not have to think about every movement. If it's Tuesday, it's time to read, watch, go bowling, or whatever. Habits take a load off our minds and allow us to think about something else while performing ordinary tasks. But if you change, your habits might cease to be relevant or even workable. New habits will need to be formed.
And yet, to live is to change, and to change is to live. Many changes are forced upon us and we must make new choices--choices that alter our lives significantly. Recognizing these reasons we often see change in a negative way will help us revise our outlook.
Even when we're stuck in a rut, and making a change seems an obvious move, we often don't like change. Here are some reasons why change is often rejected.
The Status Quo is Comfortable. The familiar, even when substantially negative, gives us a feeling of security. We are used to this way of life. We can predict what Aunt Wilma will say. We know the dimensions of our current life and have learned to cope with our life situation as it is. Comfortable and familiar misery, it might be, but comfortable and familiar it is.
Fear of the Unknown. All changes are uncertain in their benefits and outcome. For example, leaving an awful job for another job includes the possibility that the new job will be even more awful. Those who find change difficult or impossible are afraid of what the new situation might be. They are quite aware of "unintended consequences," "unexpected costs," and "unimagined downsides."
Fear of the Change Cascade. Making one change almost always involves changing a number of related things. Move to a new city and you've got to change friends, favorite stores, churches, schools. If you change climates, you might also have to change your entire wardrobe. To live a mature, coherent life, you must adjust your ideas to harmonize with the change you've just made or are planning to make.
Fear of Loss. We humans tend to be risk averse, and whenever we contemplate making a change, we look at whatever good we are giving up as well as the bad. This cognitive bias makes us favor the known positives (however little that may be) over the risk of not gaining a suitable positive replacement. We sometimes look at the choice of change as a guaranteed loss (giving up the current situation) trading for an uncertain gain (the unknown).
Habits are Easy. Do you ever drive down the street from your house only to wonder suddenly if you have closed the garage door? And when you drive back to check, you see that you did remember to close it? Habits, once established, allow us to run on automatic and not have to think about every movement. If it's Tuesday, it's time to read, watch, go bowling, or whatever. Habits take a load off our minds and allow us to think about something else while performing ordinary tasks. But if you change, your habits might cease to be relevant or even workable. New habits will need to be formed.
And yet, to live is to change, and to change is to live. Many changes are forced upon us and we must make new choices--choices that alter our lives significantly. Recognizing these reasons we often see change in a negative way will help us revise our outlook.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)