Synchronic Bullshit

Question #1

2007-11-16T04:35:00.000-08:00

Why does one often feel a dislike (or a lesser form of hate) after a break up? (Suggested by a friend. This is how I'm going to maintain my writing now, so question away!)

Relationships are a lot like playing the stock market, and I emphasize the word “play” because it’s ultimately a game:

At first you enter the ring and you’re bombarded with symbols and companies, you’re a little unsure at what to invest in but eventually you find something. So now you’re thinking about buying a number of shares; maybe you buy a lot because you think it’s going to work out or maybe you buy a few and see where it goes. Time passes. You’ve had your ups and downs and perhaps a couple dividends, if you know what I mean! Eventually this investment embodies not only your money but your time, it becomes a part of you—it has a value.

But just like in a relationship you don’t control everything and the stock market can be unpredictable at times, in fact, so unpredictable that one day you wake up and find that your investment has crashed. Naturally you’re angry so you start punching your pillow, drop a couple f-bombs, put a couple holes in the wall! No longer are you as wealthy as you once were—that part of you is gone! It’s this transformation of the self, this need to make up for what has gone astray, that ultimately sets in anger (hate) and vengeance.

It becomes no different in a relationship when one’s ‘investment’ is betrayed or no longer valued. A part of you is removed and that being that you once mutually-made with that person is squandered. No longer are you a “we”, no longer are you “one soul in two bodies” (Montaigne)—what you now become is an individual lost-at-sea who has to redefine his being. It’s the depressing realization that what you once considered meaningful and true is merely meaningless and artificial. Does it come as a surprise that love juxtaposes hate and vengeance? Not at all.

What anger/hate serves in such a situation is a replacement of that initial-meaning: you take that canvas and you paint over it with contrasting colors and opposing strokes—you redefine what it means to you. We don’t like to be empty, we like to feel complete and in control. It is for this reason that no paradox stands between love and hate since structurally they serve as profound implications for meaning towards the Other. A love-hate relationship works because both parties come to understand not only what they truly love about the other person but what they truly hate and this multiplies the definition and structure of the relationship. In contrast, a relationship purely based off love will have no experience coping with the possibility of anger and hate, making the relationship fragile.

Conversely with hate may come the urge for vengeance—a way of getting even. A want to make that person feel the same suffering and pain and experience what it is to be you. Interestingly enough it’s this desire to make the other feel such rage that stems from the bond the two shared initially. You want to think that you’re one and of the same, as twisted as that may seem, but not at all surprising. Vengefulness is nothing new to the human (If you look at the story of The Iliad, what is considered “justice” is simply revenge upon the enemy and further one looks at the Old Testament: “eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth” or “Vengeance is mine, sayeth the Lord.”,) just like love isn’t; in fact, they probably spawned as one.

Overall what this all boils down to be it anger, hate, dislike, and/or vengeance is really just a means of negation; which is to say, when love dissolves one is faced with the realization that there is no longer the other person to make love, and though you may still feel it, it’s a hopeless and dead-end feeling and one replaces it with hate or anger. Now whether or not this is the best solution is open to debate, but hate, anger, and vengeance are understandable and possibly expected reactions, and more often than not they’re temporary directions to accepting the fate of one’s life.

Oh the irony!

2007-06-07T13:01:00.000-07:00

So China, possibly in an act of compensation, has set claim to the largest built penis. Erect at 30ft this Sky Pillar, as they call it, will stand in Longwan (how about Longwang?) Shaman Amusement Park, and why you ask...

Legend says a Shaman hero named Ewenki vanquished a cruel female ruler and gave her a penis totem, telling her to respect males and not kill them at will.

Who would have guessed?

Actual article.

Mix on medium until you Cream Martha Stewart

2007-06-06T16:04:00.000-07:00

Not much to say here other than I make good cookies but fail with the mix-master.

"Do like a pony now!"

2007-05-12T22:35:00.000-07:00

Sorry that I’ve been away, I needed a little rest, but now I’m back and do I have a dance move for you! (I've been practicing these moves for the past two weeks - time to hit the clubs.)

Watch for the lasso-move!

Games ≠ Reality -- well maybe...

2007-04-13T16:34:00.000-07:00

Decision theory via gaming simulation has always fascinated me; the way people make decisions in a made up reality. In no way do I think simulations prima facie define the way decisions are made in a general sense but it does shed light on the contrasts of how an individual will decide in a game (non-reality) versus reality. A recent simulation was done at the University of California at Davis which pointed out a reoccurring, as they would call it, Robin Hood impulse among players – article.

Before I tear this article apart, an anecdotal insight in to the relevance of decision theory in games will serve constructive.

I played a well known massive multiplayer online role playing game (MMORPG) called World of Warcraft, which hitherto has 8.5 million players worldwide. The success of the game is undoubtedly due to its dynamic world and the sense of freedom guaranteed to the player. Tied in to this is luck factors, imaginary currencies, auctions, objects, trading, competition among other players/monsters, levels (prestige), the ability to talk, races, classes, professions, and fishing to fighting. Choices seem endless with people creating characters in their image, in essence living another life. Clans and guilds organize, ethics to play by contour out of chaos, players trust and work together, and certain behaviors flourish. The freedom to choose transforms players in to arbiters willing to define and judge, ultimately creating a stratification and socialization in and of itself (definition of reality) based purely on decisions and the a priori programming of the game; much like our own reality: the will of man to choose, manipulate, think, and create to a perceived world of objects, things, and others. Academically this game has been researched to a rather large extent - for being a mere game - with attention being focused on how the behaviors of people change in the game, the way people approach economics, and multiple other corollaries.

Similarly the MMORPG EVE online, an extremely realistic and social game played by thousands, has shown similar results, especially the behavior of politics. I recall my friend Jason, a dedicated player, telling me about the evolution of corporations in the game and the correlation of corporate structure to corporate success. Basically at the launch of the game various players started corporations of various structures i.e. some were egalitarian, some authoritarian, collectivist, democratic, etc. and as the years rolled by in the game, the more democratic corporations generally staggered behind the corporations that were authoritarian and direct. This is rather easy to explain: players don’t necessarily have feelings or responsibilities to worry about in a made up reality so a thuggish corporation doesn’t pose a threat to a person’s security in game, whereas in reality people generally oppose restrictions and control because it takes away from their freedom to live. This is generally the error in gauging and comparing the consensus of a game versus reality; in a game you never face genuine responsibility and death is generally nonexistent, such is not the case in reality.

In terms of the Robin Hood impulse and the game being played, in my opinion, doesn’t quite make sense in terms of reality but does make perfect sense in terms of a game. This is to say, that the study suggests that a Robin Hood impulse exist in the game but to suggest that the game shows the same impulse in reality is far stretched and clearly untrue.

“…egalitarian impulses in human nature consistently robbed from players assigned the most money while giving money to those with the least, scientists said Wednesday.”

This is incredibly misleading. In no way is human nature involved nor a hidden impulse. What is created is a game that allows players to actually be altruistic because the program allows for it. In no way is this money valuable, there’s no meaning attached to it, it’s rather easy to steal something that is valueless but there is a value in all this – character! Every player knows that there is no consequence for stealing (unrealistic in regards to all cultures), that the money doesn’t really have a function than standing for a meaningless number, and that to cooperate (think prisoners dilemma) is the best serving and easiest approach. What incentive does a person have to collect fake money?

Probably most influential to all of this is the importance we place on altruism in our society and the guilt people have for the belief in their own rational self-interest. If anything this game acted as a sublimation to rid people’s guilt of being selfish (that’s just the way we are) so much like a drug a person would be inclined to be altruistic in a game to psychologically make them feel better – altruism is simply peace of mind.

It should also be noted that the players were simply given money. In no way did they work for the money or earn the money and anyone who has worked a day in their life places a completely different value on money earned versus money handed to them without reason.

Fowler does however make note of some of this:

"I think in general we would find a preference for equality, but there may be significant variations between societies. And so it's certainly a possibility that our desire for equality is in part shaped by our upbringing,"

But continues to purport this moronic Robin Hood impulse:

"That's the classic story we all know, where someone's taking from the rich and giving to the poor, which is exactly what we're seeing in this experiment,"

Quite simply the simulation is unrealistic and harmful because people will think we’re naturally brought in to this world with the Christian ethic of altruism. Indeed humans constantly cooperate, but altruism is about being selfless whereas cooperation is about appeasing both parties self interests – big difference!

John Scones or Joan Scones

2007-04-10T22:54:00.000-07:00

Most Canadians pronounce the word ‘scone’ /skəʊn/ (to rhyme with cone) however the alternate pronunciation /skɒn/ (to rhyme with gone) is widely used in England and often debated. In a pursuit to find the more accurate pronunciation I came across this gem.

3.1.1. Does scone more usually rhyme with John or with Joan? or even with June? British dictionaries have usually preferred /skɒn/, while recognizing the existence of /skəʊn/. The polling figures were 65% for /skəʊn/, 35% for /skɒn/, the latter gradually rising in popularity (oldest, 30%; youngest, 38%). Regionally, there was no important difference except that Scots overwhelmingly (99%) prefer the vowel of John.

I’m inclined to believe linguistically that the “cone/Joan” pronunciation is more correct in terms of phonology since it doesn’t succumb to a dialect which is probably the case with the “gone/John” variation. People don’t say stone like gone, or clone, prone, etc, so unless you’re of British descent or Scottish, the other pronunciation should be favored.

The Crop and Scarecrowites

2007-04-09T20:18:00.000-07:00

(I can't remember when I wrote this, maybe a couple months back, but hopefully it curbs my lack of writing lately.)

Sir Robert Peel once said to Michael Faraday, “What is the use of science?” Michael Faraday responded, “What is the use of a baby?” I’ve always found this quotation curious. What was Faraday trying to suggest? To me, he was saying that though a baby appears hollow initially, with time and attention it will grow to be something magnificent – undoubtedly this is what science is.

Science not only demands attention but requires the passage of time to flourish. What we unearth when harvesting science is something called “evidence” - the agent that provides the seeds for the next yield and the next after that. Every harvest in turn becomes slightly different as time passes, but what stays the same is our attention to the crop. If neglected the crop dies and we ultimately live a life of starvation.

One can imagine a herd of men giving worship to the scarecrow in the field and never picking up the scythe to reap what sprouts around them, rather they bang ploughshares in to swords and shout, “Everyone must submit himself to the governing Scarecrow, for there is no authority except that which the Scarecrow has established.” (Romans 13:1)

Those that stay with the crop; however, become men of dynamic-thought, never sacrificing themselves to a single book or the cosmos and engage themselves in the world to achieve oneness with that of their own mind; forming individual beliefs and spare having to force them on others or impose them on blank slates. Eventually once these men of dynamic-thought pass away enlightened, they like old trees, cover much and their trunks lift to the sky. And as the generations roll by our pursuit of knowledge never caves to cave-men-absolutes, and never will it, for we only seek a belief in truth and not truth itself.

As for the Scarecrowites, they become men of static-thought, sacrificing themselves to a superior and a book comparable to Harry Potter. They will live their lives compartmentalizing their minds and become charlatans. Often they will go in to the fields and do like men of active-thought whilst holding their creeds, completely blind to the error they hold in themselves and the error they place on life. When asked to explain their actions of intolerance they selectively pick and choose from their worship baggie neglecting to see the whole picture. Often they will profess to be of a new-worship in an attempt to escape their past hypocrisy yet continually fail to realize that whim worshiping supports all whim worship.

Thus we get the dynamic-thinkers and the static-thinkers.

Science: The Dynamic-Thought

Science embodies more than just explanation and theory; it is hundreds of years of philosophy, mathematics, and art. It is the base of all good thought and the epitome of free thought. Its method lay in reevaluation and an engagement in thought. Conflict with fellow men is solved by compromise, explanation, and tolerance; though, not tolerance of intolerance.

Religion: The Static-Thought

Religion by itself and used as tool, not an end-all-know-all, shows mans creative force to represent the aesthetics of this world. In Psalms and the Song of Solomon great poetry is revealed, Job and Ezekiel give philosophy luminosity, suras in the Qur’an provide historical references that provide interesting correlations with other divine scriptures, the Torah purports understandable laws to be considered, Sanskrit scriptures (my personal favorite) philosophically introduce questions of being, and the list goes on. But there’s a forbidden fruit, a rotten apple in the bunch – absoluteness. It plagues religions with an underserved power, gives power to the weak and apathetic, and makes man blind. Fueled by certitude the common follower is made to feel just comfortable and the fanatic leaves reality completely, but they all eat from the same hand.

Unclothing the Unconscious Woman

2007-04-02T20:09:00.000-07:00

Now that I have your attention -- let’s take a stroll down evolution road, then turn right on women, then left on motives.

All too often I’m plagued with an envy and hatred of he-men who walk around with their glistening pecs (as Nathan would say), thundering thighs, and small brains. In order to obtain such physical features, the he-man spends his day in a sweaty room, with sweaty people using machines that consequently become sweaty, and all in the very clever pursuit of one thing: copulation. Now why some men go through such lengths to copulate is rather easy to explain considering our other head does a lot of the thinking, but there is more to it then that and this is where women come in to equation.

Women will always be the arbiters of sex on the premise that since they create the child, they’ll do the choosing. For women this ensures a strategy of producing a healthy child likely to survive since women will often choose men who appear to boast good genes to match with their own paternal genes. Unfortunately for men, they’re placed in the awkward position of having to fulfill/guess women’s wants by appeasing their built in horny detectors and saying, “Look! I’m the one, RRRR! I’ll swab ye’ poop deck any day!”

Ultimately if a he-man comes across a woman she'll instinctually think, since he’s strong he is very capable of surviving or shows evidence of being capable to survive. The latter point becomes apparent with young girls (generally the horny ones) who go after the bad boys (they show a ‘sense’ of survivability.) Of course we also see young girls and also adult women (gold diggers) going after older men because not only do they show evidence for survival but also the material they have gathered via survival – just like how a monkey with better gathering skills will be chosen over a weaker monkey for copulation. Further from a general point of view, most relationships among humans involve younger women eventually choosing older men and this is seen anthropologically and statistically.

One of my favorite examples of women blatantly choosing based on instinct is the tall-short relationships. These are relationship where you will find the guy to be extremely tall and the female to be relatively short. What this may suggest is an equalization (disassortive sexual selection) of genes; maybe the female associates his long legs with gathering and running quick. Essentially when a women chooses to have sex it’s not only in her own self interests she’s trying to pleasure herself to the best aesthetic appeals but she also has the ingrained concept that she is actually forming a child, even if contraceptives are used -- and as Richard Dawkins would say:

“…the best thing a mother can do for her genes is to make a son who will turn out in his turn to be an attractive he-man.”

Arguably most of what has been said is probably only relevant to females between 14-22 since females soon after realize smarter men are not only better genetically but also better in the sac. Intelligence, however, has always been – among humans specifically – the superior trait regardless. In many ways this explain why jocks and he-men often aren’t that intelligent but very physically strong; they need to replace their void of ignorance with muscle mass and brute force to maintain a sense of self-esteem. Reciprocally it’s not the same vice versa but that’s because intelligence in itself creates self esteem and other means are not required.

Why my Stomach hates me!

2007-04-01T02:09:00.000-07:00

I’m just thinking about what I ate today and it’s starting to become apparent why I can’t stop farting – these are the revelations that make life worth living.

Mastication started around noon, slightly after being roused by my ringtone, Flight of the Valkyries. I was still sleepy but I held my fall down the stairs like a man and managed to crawl to the kitchen like a woman. Taking some scones, butter, and honey I formed boluses that only Jesus and the dinosaurs could forge, but I was still hungry. Searching my barren kitchen for a hardy meal I had to resort to a student’s best friend: Mr. Noodle. It was then that Mr. Noodle had told me his wife left him for Mr. Pop Tart and that she had been cheating on him with Mr. Pizza Pop because he was loaded with an exaggerated about of pizza sauce, cheese, and meat that only could be replicated in the form of shitty commercials that lie about the true stature of the pizza pop and had broke my dream of getting a pizza pop that actually sprayed shit everywhere, instead I get a pizza pop that sprays my shit everywhere!

Later, whilst watching Pocahontas, I was offered a chubby… summer roll. Dipping the chubby… summer roll in a brown sauce made for a melody of jocular manipulation of the taste buds, a seditious act of toying with my Caucasian tongue as Asian sensations undulated like a Hegelian reality. Added to the moment was a carbonated orange beverage with 12% real juice and 2% pulp – with such revealing statistics it had to be good! Finally I ate the staple food of any World of Warcraft player – NACHOS! Smelling of homemade scones, Mr. Noodle/sodium, Asian cuisine, a statistical orange drink, and a dirty Mexican/WoW player (interchangeable) my stomach started to thunder!

Naturally with such destruction and disregard for the body we went for a giant coffee from Second Cup because it’s a well known fact that coffee relaxes the stomach, isn’t that right Dr. Phil?

“Well there’s an old redneck saying that if your pickup is covered in cow shit and your third wife is having sex with your brother, then you may as well go fuck your brother’s brother because then your fucking your own brother since coffee relaxes the stomach.”

Now a person with a brain might stop eating at this point but apparently I lack foresight because I then decided to go eat a double cheeseburger from McGag&Barfs, with fries, and a pop. So now I have the McStomach, coffee is making deals with diarrhea, I have nachos and chubbies floating around in a pool of statistical orange drink, strands of noodles becoming nooses, and scones that have an alternate pronunciations of “scones” and “scawns”.

Breathing in methane (that would explain the brain damage and the writing), tired as hell, I give you: bullshit.

Collect your PhD in Philosophy at the door...

2007-03-31T01:03:00.000-07:00

There may in fact be a hippopotamus in this room; the arrow will never reach the target; you’ll never walk in the same river twice; the unexamined life is not worth living; if there are no absolute the particulars have no meaning; you cannot conceive the many without the one; behold; human beings live in an underground; like ourselves they only see their shadows of one another as the fire throws on the opposite wall of the cave; necessity is the mother of invention; nature does nothing uselessly; the whole is that which has beginning, middle, and end; universes change; life is an opinion; love and do what you like; good can exist without evil whereas evil cannot exist without good; perfection and moral virtue does not only take away the passions but regulates them; god is that which nothing greater can be thought; one should not increase what is beyond necessary; the number of entities required to explain anything; life is brutish, nasty, and short; do not weep; do not wax indigent; understand there is no hope mingled with the fear and no fear unmingled with hope; cogito ergo sum; the ghost in the machine; this is the best of all possible worlds; to be is to be perceived; the greatest good for the greatest number; if all mankind minus one were at one opinion, mankind would be no more justified then silencing that one person than if he had the power to silence mankind; all wealth is the product of labor; nothing is more surprising then the easiness which the many our governed by the few; tabula rasa; the supposition that the present resembles the past is not founded on arguments but is derived entirely from habit; ever individual neither intends to promote the public interest or knows how much he’s promoting it, he intends only his own gain and he is in this, lead by an invisible hand to promote an end that was no part of his intention; thesis, antithesis, synthesis; all are knowledge begins with the senses, precedes then to the understanding, and ends with reason; there is nothing higher then reason; each according to his abilities to each according to his needs; the mass of men; the lives of quiet desperation; if you gaze for long into an abyss the abyss also gazes in to you; those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it; philosophy is possible as a rigorous science only through pure phenomenology; the point of philosophy is to start with something so simple as to not seem worth scathing and end with something so paradoxical that no one will believe it; how do you know there’s not a hippopotamus in this room; if were considering the question: what should we do; be part of this; how must we think; the banality of evil; hell is other people; we are condemned to be free; life has become the ideology of its own absence; normality is death; the immediate concept of truth is that it first admits that there is no absolute pure truth; the new is not a fashion; it is a value if the highest things are unknowable and the highest virtue of man cannot be theoretical wisdom; no paradigm ever solves all the problems it defines; in its function the power to punish is not essentially different from that of curing or educating; to pretend I actually do the thing therefore I’ve only pretended to pretend; is there a hippopotamus in this room?

Fractal Wallpapers!

2007-03-26T19:48:00.000-07:00

Go here.

What's brown and sticky?

2007-03-24T00:11:00.000-07:00

A stick!... OR some not so cooked brownies... speaking of brownies. What's the deal with this pan?

Are the edge pieces in such high demand we need a bloomin' special pan?

Heavy metal and the Gifted...

2007-03-23T02:24:00.000-07:00

Article: Heavy metal 'a comfort for the bright child'

Why this is bupkis:

Statistically this may have some truth to it. That yes, a third of the group of children may indeed like heavy metal and may indeed be bright. Of course I could survey a thousand, white adults on which political party they align with and make the claim: “White adults like Liberals!” based on the evidence provided. By no means would anyone with a half a brain take my statement seriously; it’s simply too cut and dry, it’s devoid of reason beyond the meaningless numbers assigned. Yet, this is exactly what Stuart Cadwallader, in a pitiful attempt, is doing. He’s correlating two things (the wrong things) that inductively have nothing in common, and drawing a conclusion that if deconstructed by what he says in the article, not only contradicts his own argument but sheds like on his shoddy ability to deduce.

Keeping this short, let’s address his premises: bright children lead alienated lives, therefore turning to heavy metal as a mode of escape. Now I’m going to make an unfounded statement that is equally true: limited children feel alienated from their society since they lack ability, therefore turning to heavy metal as a mode of escape. Cadwallader even mentions that, “There is literature that links heavy metal to poor academic performance and delinquency…” This leads to believe that there are differing opinions regarding the subject in academia; however, the differences are not due to one of them being right and one being wrong, they’re simply both wrong! And for one reason: they grossly attach intelligence with music when it’s really emotions that connect with music.

Given the opportunity if Cadwallader had surveyed “a group with lower than average self-esteem that does not feel quite as well adjusted” of children with a varying intelligence he probably would have maintained similar results. He does however continue to purport a lack luster reason for why it may be excluded to the bright: “Participants said they appreciated the complex and sometimes political themes of heavy metal music more than perhaps the average pop song.” In turn he’s saying that since heavy metal has meaning and since smart children like meaning, the two go together like AC and DC, but on the contrary. If we want to apply such logic one would think smart children would be compelled by the complexities of Beethoven’s Ninth, which contradicts Cadwallader again: “There is a perception of gifted and talented students as being into classical music and spending a lot of time reading. I think that is an inaccurate stereotype.”

If this article was to be titled anything it should have been “Heavy metal a comfort for the low self-esteem child” and his research should have focused on the emotional states rather than the ambiguous territory of intelligence. As for the musical aspects it’s hard to say where music and intelligence stand in general terms (I may devote a blog entry to this exact question since I know friends who will say there is and there is not a correlation.) What should be recognized about music; however, is that it stems from an emotional base - even from an evolutionary stand point one can imagine a tribe creating music to take away from conflict and stress. Now, it’s well known music causes certain emotions to spring like sadness or happiness. Universally (more so in the West) people will often react to the minor scale in sadness and the major scale in glee or when a person hears a violin quaver or wail they think despair (this is mainly due to the violin sharing a similar pitch to the human voice.) What’s important is that if conclusions are going to be drawn by groups in comparison to music, it should be the traits of the group that match with what we know music to be.

I suppose what irked the hell out me with this article is the type of mentality and research that is being suggested to the gullible reader – it’s very similar to the billion dollar market for the Baby Einstein, which is frankly a giant crock of bullshit. All too often people try to find correlations between intelligence and character. From my own experiences I’ve seen intelligence come in many forms with many intelligent people having different traits; some good some bad. The way people come to be intelligent is still unknown - I would put my money on a combination of genetics and early-individual-recognition - however, there’s generally a lot more to how quick such and such can solve a logic puzzle. Intelligence is a combination of things spanning from being respectful to being reasonable.

Zeus the man-whore!

2007-03-20T15:30:00.000-07:00

I recently came across this Greek god family tree thing and I didn't realize that Zeus was such a pimp, though come to think of it, he did on one occasion become a goat to win a girl over, a swan too, and well frankly, pissed on a girl to impregnate her... those crazy Greeks! They should have stuck to dancing around yelling, "Opa!" and breaking perfectly good dinner plates.

From Coughing to Yawning

2007-03-19T17:38:00.000-07:00

A couple friends have posed whether the contagious-cough is similar to the contagious-yawn. Fundamentally these two are in different realms of behavior so I would be hesitant in finding a direct correlation, though, it should be noted that both contagious subjects apply to the oral region (I’ll try to explain why this may be later.) Why these two are unalike; however, is coughing is a survival mechanism in ridding parasites and also a signal saying to other animals, “I’m coughing possibly due to disease so you should cough too since you may have the same disease.” (Essentially a: better safe than sorry signal.) Yawning on the contrary is completely random in the sense that it just happens without an apparent explanation and purpose in influencing the herd, but since we do it, we have to at least assume it has some built in interests to the animal, and further assume that its contagiousness has a purpose for the herd. (I use the word herd to denote that humans are animals too.)

Some theories exist to why we yawn but they are still contested and incomplete, however they still serve an important role in understanding the potential causes. The most well known hypothesis to yawning (and the one I was taught in biology) is that it relieves excess carbon dioxide replacing it with an influx of oxygen to the bloodstream. For the most part this hypothesis has been rejected due to clinical tests showing no such results.

The next hypothesis is from Wiki:

“Another hypothesis is that yawns are caused by the same chemicals (neurotransmitters) in the brain that affect emotions, mood, appetite and other phenomena. These chemicals include serotonin, dopamine, glutamic acid and nitric oxide. As more of these compounds are activated in the brain, the frequency of yawning increases. Conversely, a greater presence in the brain of opiate neurotransmitters such as endorphins reduces the frequency of yawning. Patients taking the serotonin reuptake inhibitor Paxil (Paroxetine HCl) have been observed yawning abnormally often.”

This hypothesis may explain chemically what causes a yawn but neither gives an explanation for the initial premise of a species developing yawning nor addresses why it causes others to yawn. Also the mention of serotonin would explain why people yawn when drowsy as serotonin regulates sleep patterns and deep sleep.

From a chemical stand point I would agree that yawning is simply a behavior of stretching the jaw and face (much like when a person wakes up in the morning and stretches their whole body for a ‘Yoga’ relaxation effect) as a signal and pressure to sleep. As for its contagious counterpart this requires an evolutionary perspective.

All animals herd to increase their survival, sociability, and effectiveness as a group. Such was the case with humans and to an extent we still maintain herd like behaviors; some more than others. Since a herd is only effective when awake, it would be important that a herd – devoid of a language – have a behavior that would tell their fellow comrades when they are tired. By that token, not only would the yawn send out a group consensus (signal) but the effects of the yawn would play the part in making the whole herd relaxed to sleep (chemical.) In many ways this could be described from an extended phenotype point of view developed by Richard Dawkins, but that would take too much writing. Yawning of course could simply be an imitational instinct that causes an organism to do something by pure imitation – this would probably result from the fact that thinking is a drain on resources and potential reproduction.

One friend had suggested that yawning may be vestigial, however keep in mind, almost all animals on this earth with a jaw and mouth yawn and leaving yawning to be just a mutation and outdated mechanism is probably wrong.

Interestingly enough, the antidepressant Clomipramine has been noted to cause unintended orgasms when assisted by a yawn… so avoid the Clomipramine when at a funeral.

Yksikseskös yskiskelet? Probably not!

2007-03-18T04:19:00.000-07:00

That’s a Finnish tongue twister for, “Do you cough alone?” But wait! I’m not finnished – zing!

Last night I was at the movies with some friends; one of whom was sick with a pretty nasty cough. During the movie I took note of his frequent coughing and the ripple effect it had on the rest of the theatre. It seemed like for every cough he or anyone else made another person would cough also. I’ve thought about this on multiple occasions to why coughing is contagious in that it produces more coughing in and of itself. Well I think I have a hypothesis.

Coughing is generally involuntary and automatic. Rarely do we give thought to coughing and for the most part voluntary/thoughtful coughs become behavioral. This can be seen when a person voluntary coughs before making a speech; this cough is in no way serving the cougher physically but effectively sends out a specific sound in turn gaining the attention of audience. Due to its instinctive quality, coughing is fitting for Darwinian interpretations, kicking off with natural selection as my ground.

Most of us boast certain built in defenses against certain diseases. We inherit these defenses (genes) from our kin, which for the most part pass on favorable genes with the unfit ones being weeded out via natural selection. With that being said, applying a genetic basis for coughing and looking at its favorability in terms of survival becomes rather clear. Coughing serves the function of expelling phlegm, dust, dirt, etc., from the trachea by exerting a gust of air from the lungs. This rapid air then effectively, like that of a mop, cleans the lungs and lower-respiratory passages avoiding the likelihood of bacteria or other propagating infections. This behavior would have probably evolved out of contact with diseases and generations and generations of gene flow and death. It’s not all that farfetched to think that at one point in time we were incapable of coughing, which brings me to my next point.

Since coughing was such a simple and convenient mechanism to avoid potential disease, it took on genetic variations. One can imagine in a tribe some of the members having the cough gene and some not having it. A genetic variation due to this could be a gene that responds to another cough and influences coughing. Why this would happen is because humans would eventually become instinctive about the meaning of a cough; thus when a person coughs (sends out a message of disease) it would be in another person’s best interest to cough too: an explanation to why people consistently cough due to a cough moments before.

Taking this a step further and noting the above, it’s understandable why a person would have the behavior to cough before a speech, it would be an effective cheat for the audience’s attention by a mere reflex; essentially a cheat-signal, a false call. Taking advantage of instincts is quite common in getting what one wants. A man, for example, extremely desperate for sex may work out, buy flashy clothes, appear healthy, join a fraternity, etc., in an attempt to meet a woman’s programmed requirements for a man who is healthy, wealthy, and baring of good genes, which then would give her the confidence to bestow her egg. The same could be said vice versa, but nonetheless shows why taking advantage of preprogrammedness is so effective – more than ever in capitalism.

All in all, I have yet to see any evidence of what I’ve said, but I honestly have yet to check for evidence. If anything this shows why Darwinian/evolutionary theory can present reasonable explanations to certain behaviors and ought to be used more for explanation.

You know it's Saint Patrick's Day when you...

2007-03-17T15:39:00.000-07:00

Take this:
And add it to this:
The wonders of Fluorescein!

Black English Vernacular -- AW HELL NAW!

2007-03-16T06:13:00.000-07:00

Just when I thought my faith in humanity had hit rock bottom, this gem of an article came up and kicked me right in the crotch, “NO YOU DIDN’T!”

“We want (teachers) to have a better understanding of what BEV is so they can incorporate it into their teaching. That way, they're not alienating the students who are speaking the vernacular and degrading them,” Webb-Johnson said.

What’s worse? Degrading students for speaking Ebonics, or knowing that Ebonics is degrading and pretending it isn’t in the name of diversity. One would think making special politically correct words and clearly defining a group for their differences would be alienation in itself, but… Sheeeeiit, foo, I'z be doin' dat shit an' shorty be axin me fo' sum' scrilla!

On a serious note -- The roots of Ebonics stem as a primitive language built by a group of uneducated. This doesn’t necessarily make the language bad but in no way is it worthy of learning.

Nonsense makes the philosopher rich?

2007-03-15T20:09:00.000-07:00

Philosophers of the world put your burger flippers, bricks, and janitorial mops down! Unite and speak in tongues! Let the gibberish spew like fresh diarrhea, make Derrida appear readable, and let unfounded beliefs guide you to 1.5 million doubloons! Whaaaaaa!? Yup: 'Spiritual thinking' earns Canadian $1.5 million

The Templeton Prize has been around since the seventies playing the part of a spiritual/anti-secular prize for the unfounded and arbitrary beliefs of well known Bible thumpers. Better put: a Nobel Prize wannabe but for idiots. This year the Canadian philosopher, Charles Taylor - yeah, I haven’t heard of him either - won 1.5 million for, “…long arguing that wholly depending on secularized viewpoints blots out crucial insights that might help the world address many of its most pressing problems.”

Later when asked about the “clash of civilizations.” His response:

"[The West] and Islam are the two candidates that are often selected for this idea of a clash of civilizations," he said, adding as a warning: "The tragedy is that if we buy into that narrative, we could make it true as each [side] begins to treat the other as a monolith which is hostile to [the other, and] which has the worst possible motivations ? Therefore, we have to mobilize."

One would think Charles, a philosopher, would have some basic deduction skills and insight in to the natural flaws of religion. That possibly this clash is imminent because two organized institutions, founded on non-refutable absolutes, reinforced with brainwashing, and both garnering a deluded sense of being right – may! – Just may, have some hatred towards each other. We often think the fight is between science and religion (and the winner is obvious in this fight, but ad nauseum clouds the truth) but the real fight is between religion vs. religion. And since their arguments can’t go beyond, “Well my God says, ‘You’re wrong bitch!’” their intolerance will eventually lead them to resort to physical force like the herd animals they are. Let’s just hope it doesn’t take an entire war to open the eyes of the religious, but maybe I’m being too optimistic!

And Blog said, "Let there be write!"

2007-03-15T15:18:00.000-07:00

It’s about time I created a blog; apparently it’s the hip thing right now and as many know, I am the hippest cat on the block -- meow!

My intentions are straightforward: make a blog so insignificant and meaningless that the other bazillion blogs out there appear meaningful and not the cesspools of cultural degradation and nincompoopery they really are – consider it a gift from me to you; an act of pure altruism!

Keeping my intro tout court, my name is Garret and my conviction is coming to life with a meaning derived solely by my mind being in constant engagement and reaffirmation with and of the world – simply put – being an individual.

Enjoy!