On the top of my Summer reading list: “Blink” by Malcolm Gladwell. A fascinating read if you’re interested, but what really stuck with me was a chapter in the book about psychologists that had mapped out the facial movements that indicated certain emotions and were able to read them with a high degree of precision. They could even tell the difference between a false smile and a genuine one.

What was particularly striking though, is that they measured physiological indicators of emotions after mimicking those expressions – essentially, smiling made them happy. This seems fascinating but also a little frightening as it lends itself to the behaviorist perspective on the mind-body problem – essentially that emotions or thoughts are simply an inaccurate way of describing the tendency to act in a certain way and that there really is no inner ’self’ as such, merely a ghost in a machine.

Is all emotion just a set of physiological symptoms then that are interchangeable with the tools we use to express them? That seems reductive, and yet fits with this evidence.

Perhaps the only response that fits with my intuitive repulsion by this idea – that still explains this evidence – would be that conditioning is a 2 way process, so just as we learn that smiling is a way of expressing happiness unconsciously, similarly we learn that if one is smiling, we must be happy. Perhaps the brain is not as in sync as we believe, but more like an office full of workers, where when one starts blowing balloons and putting up streamers, the others all assume they have had some success.

Either way, the issue is an interesting one and just fuels my passion for this field of behavioral psychology for the upcoming year!

-M

P.S. It has been a while. no?

Effective today, Georgia has declared itself to be in a state of war following jet-attacks by Russia over a disputed territory.

…has that sunken in yet? No? Don’t worry, it took me a while too, just take a minute and read that again; yes, it is meant to say war.

They have withdrawn the 2000 soldiers they have in Iraq to come defend the territory they are claiming as their own. Russia in turn, claims it is an independent nation, not a Georgian territory and that htey are using military intervention to force Georgia into peace.

For once, I have no words. Make of this what you will…

1) Be ageing. I mean alive for the start of WWII old. Also be ill, so that if you should pass on during your candidacy, your ridiculously inappropriate vice president can take over. If this isn’t enough, ally yourself to, and mirror all the policies of an incumbent with a 25% approval rating. Then, just for kicks, alienate the Bible belt… (Warning: If your a republican, NONE of these are guaranteed to be sufficient. You should try resigning and letting the fictional Denny Crane run in your place if your that desperate)

2) Declare yourself as the candidate for change, then proceed to contradict yourself repeatedly, and maintain the status quo except in things you cant really achieve. Hire felons and surround yourself with radicals, (if you’re a democrat, don’t bother, this is almost expected of you). Alienate the Arab world, then the Jewish Lobby. Be African-American. Be a former Muslim. (Warning: if you have followed the first of these instructions, people may ignore everything after)

…Who else whats Nader to win? Not that he’d know what to do if he did…

It occurred to me whilst watching one of the infinite dramas in the cinema last week that we really do work on the most shallow of conceptions of good and evil in our entertainment. Whilst this ruined the movie, it made for an interesting blog post.

No matter what the drama, as long as it is one the classic PG ones with easily drawn lines in the sand, the format stays the same it seems. Faceless and nameless evil minions and/or soldiers of a dark army are slaughtered by the dozens whilst the protagonist, in an act of highly-precedented mercy, spares the main baddie…(who then demonstrate that they obviously weren’t that much of a threat by killing themselves by their own foolishness (intentional suicide brings the rating up to pg13) /repent/be killed by some less important minion)

Whilst on this surface, this makes sense as the act of forgiveness raises the protagonist to a highly cliched but transcendent level of goodie-goodie-ness, it actually poises some interesting questions.

As is the pattern we have going here, whilst I have a lot to say about them, I can’t really seem to come to any answers on any of them.

Why is it that the life of the primary (and therefore by extension most evil, or at least most organised) wrong-doer is one that can’t be taken, whereas the minions (who in reality were probably slaves to the will of the Great Overlord of Some Dark and Made-Up Evil Lair) are literally butchered on the way to the big guy?

Does the good guy get extra points for forgiving the most evils in one person? Does he really only care about the appearance of forgiveness? Is his sword too blunt to do any real damage by then?

At any rate, always interesting to think about what children are learning from those educational 90 minutes… G.K Chesterton once said “Fairy tales do not tell children that dragons exist. Children already know that dragons exist. Fairy tales tell children that dragons can be killed.” What is missed here is that they also tell children that they should be.

P.S. A shout out to H, a friend who reminded me to get back posting on this blog by asking for the url so he could read it, I’m glad to know someone does!! Thanks dear!

After the Californian Supreme Court’s decision to allow smae sex marriage within their state, there have been a flurry of objections and discussions on their right to do so. Many people have gone as far as to cite Roe vs Wade as an example of the way such radical decisions should follow popular support as opposed to preceding it, as it was suggested that this one did.

Perhaps the real question is what the debate on abortion, which in all fariness does constitute the disposal of something with at least the potential to live and therefore could be said to have 3rd party harm, and gay marriages, which have little to do with anyone except the now-happy couple.

I’d rather not make a statement on homosexuality itself, since unlike cheese, it isn’t really an acquired taste so your views will stay what they are. However the question here is whether we should have a legal right to stop them from being joined in a legal union, if not a religious one.

At the end of the day, it comes down to this; the religious lobby is against homosexuality but it’s also against sex before marriage, contraception and most other religious groups. We haven’t banned any of those.

Lets just hope that whichever presdential candidate has the sense to realize that also has the sense to deny it all the way through the campaigning process so they have a hope of passing the bible belt’s screening and making it to the white house… 

It seems like every time the Olympics come round the corner, they bring with them this faint glimmer of hope. Hope that sports for sports’ sake can exist, that it is possible to put aside our differences and partake in it, that politics doesn’t have to invade everything…

Until someone pours a bucket of cold water on your head, douses out this flame (as well as that on the official Olympic torch) and starts raving on about boycotts…

So, just so I can be unique, lets actually consider the ramifications of boycotting the Beijing Olympics.

Firstly, a boycott of the opening ceremonies. Well of course people will miss Sarkozy (read: his stunning new wife), and as angst-ridden as the Chinese government will be, simply being deprived of his presence will not really change a whole lot, especially since he’s only planning to skip the opening ceremonies. The Chinese may however save on one plate of expensive food, so we can always entertain the ludicrous hope that they’ll feed it to the underprivileged in their country… or they could just eat it themselves. On a global scale, well everyone’s already paying attention to this ridiculous ‘free tibet’ (MORE ON THAT LATER) nonsensical drama anyway, so he might as well go and have a nice cup of tea with his old pals.

As for a full athlete boycott, well same sort of prnciples apply. The Chinese will be humiliated and fuming, but somehow probably not all that keen to change their minds on Tibet or Darfur, especially not if the requests they would be entertaining would be coming from the self same group at whose hands they have taken a huge hit to their ego (see: pointless boycott).

So, no benefits then, any down sides? Well, again just because I want to stand out, lets look at China’s status in today’s socio economic environment. With its current position as the world’s factory, China’s economy is tailored to mass production of cheap, not necessarily high quality, but most importantly movable commodities and it is for this reason that it is poised to take over the position of the highest GDP per country within the next couple of decades and that of the highest GDP per capita within half a century. China’s political influence is inevitably skyrocketing along with its economic stock so it’s likely to become (if it isn’t already) a major world contender if not super power. Anyone else remember the last time there were two, that didn’t like each other so much?

As dramatic as it sounds, it is true that China is gaining in strength and it is also true that dating back to confucius, China places a lot of emphasis as a state on the notion of pride and honour. So, in the name of diplomacy and avoiding a second less frigid version of the cold war, perhaps alienation isn’t exactly the word of the hour?

Then again, Sarkozy will do just about anything to get the pictures of his charming but scantily clad wife off tabloids, maybe even paint a target on his head… 

Once upon a time, and so the story begins…
As kids, we’re taught from a young age to believe that at some point we would get our own personal happily ever after. Girls would be saved and whsked away by a Prince Charming and boys, they’d get to save a hot girl from some trauma or another and she would be so grateful. If its not happy, its not the end, right?

This post isn’t about gender stereotypes, or encouraging violence or fairy tales at all. Its just about the cold inset of reality when we have to save ourselves. Would you prevent youself from the fall after the high if you could? I suppose my perspective on this is more conflicted (read: less dogmatic) than usual because its something that confuses me.

I’d like to believe that I have control over my life, over my happiness but it occurs to me that the moments I am truly happy are not found in my self contained moments, but in the spontaneous affection of a friend or a humorous moment with those I love. Perhaps, our Happily Ever After does not come at the end of our days, or even all at one time but over many such moments when, again and again, someone I love saves me, if only from a life without them.

At heart, I think I’m still waiting for everything to work out and the credits to roll, but aren’t we all? On the one hand, it’s so passive and fatalistic that it frustrates me and yet, I wait. Maybe, Happily ever afters aren’t the reason that we are sometimes waiting for the big finale, and maybe they just alleviate the stress of worrying about a cliff hanger, or worse, that our lives would be a tragedy…

-Midge

P.S. This is highly unusual and most probably a one off, but I’d like to dedicate this post to my friends, who’ve really stuck with me and tolerated all of my tears (a whole new meaning to cry me a river, trust me) and tantrums with a level of kindness I can never hope, but will always strive to mimick. In particular, to A, thank you for never hanging up or signing out, and to T, for never grudging me a hug, even if it was the 900th time I’d needed one that hour…

Since I’m  still aglow with holiday buzz, a more whimsical entry than usual:

I miss fun candy.

This revelation came to me when after buying a rather marked up box of jelly beans as a movie snack, I then proceeded to spend half the movie splittiing each jelly bean in half with my friend and with the help of my cell phone (read:torch) trying to read which of the 36 flavours it was. I have no idea what happened in that movie, but it was a great night. Which led me to bring some jelly beans back for a younger relative, who in classic childlike innocent heresy, proceeded to eat a handful together!

The point of this quaint and melodramatic anecdote? When I was younger, we played with our food. From candy necklaces to MnM’s that came in a mask shaped pill strip to Kinder eggs with the little DIY toys, we always had a bucket of fun and then some.

Now, they gobble, swallow, consume wihtout a moment to enjoy the simple joy of having found the only pina colada faloured jelly bean in the box (and snatching it out of the grasp of my poor friend, sorry D!) Now, candy is about the temporary gustatory pleasure, and little else. No wonder I can’t find a Melody Pop in stores anymore, who cares if you can play “baa-baa black sheep” on a lollipop if it doesnt taste as good as chupa-chups eh?

Even with the desensitization to violence, premature sexualization, extreme body image issues and even the banishing of the old ninth planet, I can’t help but feel this is the most tragic loss of all… 

Once upon a time, a woman’s only place was in the bedroom or kitchen, so she could keep Fred or Barney happy and perfect her dinosaur stew.

Not Today. Now we are civilized. Now we have options.

…Of course any woman who doesn’t work is obviously backwards and conservative and unfulfilled because obviously, choosing to be a stay at hoome parent is not an option.

But that’s because now we have options, right?

Having always been a staunch believer in equality regardless of sex, race or religion, it shocked me to be called backwards for expressing a wish to one day be a stay at home mom. Now, let me be clear, I did not, and do not in any way equate this with my being a woman (except the mom part, which is purely grammatical) or believe this should be the only option open to any woman, or even that it is the best for every woman.

I just want to be a stay at home parent myself. *cue gasps*

My personal aspirations aside though, I’m starting to wonder when we moved this far down the road to a woman’s right to work that it is now her duty to her sex to stand and be counted in an effort to boost the rising statisics of women on any given different careerpaths.

Now again, because in an effort to prevent people, intentionally or otherwise, misconstruing my words here, I am NOT trying to imply that women shouldn’t be equally educated and have all the opportunities men do. But it is important to remember that being a full time parent belonogs amongst those ranks and is a vital enough career to society to warrant some respect, instead of patronizing sneers from “liberated” individuals.

So maybe we need to rethink what equality of opportunity really meant to those peopple that devoted their life to achieving it, because a complete inversoin of the same prejudices was very likely not it.

-M

P.S. I’ve been very careful to avoid the word feminism in this article, and would like to take a moment to clarify that that was intentional. Firstly, this post is about equality and feminism seems to now have taken on connotations that seem more close to chauvinism with bias towards women. Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, I would like to distance myself from the “neo-feminist movement” which in my humble opinion is a perversion of the base ideals it has laid its foundations in. (The right not to be called a slut is not one I am particularly interested in, since in my opinion there is a perfectly adequate male equivalent: a gigolo)

Ok, you got me, I don’t have that kind of cash (not for you anyway) but The Seattle Biomedical Research Institute does. And they are offering the same deal.

The justification for this? The FDA is reviewing its safety, and no-one’s going to die, some will just be cure faster than others. And that’s the point really, to test the efficiency of different vaccines.

Even ignoring my lack of faith in the self same FDA that thinks aspartame is an acceptable additive to my foods, there are some serious flaws with this little experiment. Firstly, the scientists seem to ignoring the possibility of side effects, low immune systems and/or bad vaccines, all of which could result in serious injury if not fatalities.

But lets pretend that intentionally infecting humans is a foolproof plan, that still doesn’t make it ethical. Does anyone else get that uneasy feeling in the pit of their stomach when they think about testing vaccines on humans? Now. think about how outraged we get about animal protesting, and then project that times 10 onto a 5″9 mammal with blond hair, blue eyes and a really really low self worth!

On a really really really REALLY base level, $4000 dollars isn’t nearly enough to get malaria!

So really kids, life lesson here: Work at McDonalds. Even they have some basic health benefits…