Category: Random Tidbits

Random Musings

No comments

Yes, I Am a Compulsive Lier

  By

Wow, two months without a post, time flies, and I have no swatter.  I could write about what it feels like to fumble through a hundred mile labyrinth with just a candle, but even I wouldn’t want to read that.  It’s more like waiting to ambush words that come near my ears, stalking phrases and syllables, striking, tearing into them to rip out whatever meaning they have, and then disemboweling them across the page . . . thus spoke the vegan poet.

Below is another response to a Quora post I gave that I liked to a question someone who asked me to give an answer.  I think I’ve done most of those compulsive behaviors…

Question: What are some examples of compulsive behavior exhibited by people? For example – nail biting, washing hands frequently. Are there any other such behaviors that people generally don’t talk about or are lesser known?

My response:

If you asked this question to a behaviorist (a particular school of thought in psychology made popular in the early twentieth century by rock stars such as Ivan Pavlov, John Watson, and B.F. Skinner), they might say all behavior is compulsive.  By compulsive, I assume you mean beyond one’s control, obligatory, or stemming from an irresistible urge.  Radical behaviorists would reject the notion of free will, deeming all learning to be the result of environment and that we come into the world with a blank slate (i.e., Tabula Rasa).  There would be no need for them to distinguish “compulsive behavior,” as you suggest it, because there could be no other alternative.

For the indeterminists out there, others who have answered this question have already pointed out that the list of compulsive behaviors is near inexhaustible.  In line with that, I will add that any action performed by us that seems to undermine our volition could fall under the umbrella term “compulsive behavior.”  They could include:

1) Excessive blinking
2) Joint popping
3) Not walking on cracks in the sidewalk, or only walking on cracks in the sidewalk
4) Making a certain number of steps between concrete tiles
5) Licking one’s lips
6) Pacing
7) Tapping one’s finger, foot, or a pencil
8) Checking one’s appearance reflected in every mirror, window, or puddle
9) Adjusting one’s clothing
10) Making sure that every list one makes has exactly ten items on it…
11) … or is a prime number
12) … or has a dozen items so that it can be mapped onto any sexagesimal time system

14) Triskaidekaphobia

“Locus of control,” from personality psychology, is something worth mentioning here.  People who have an external locus of control generally believe that external factors, or outside forces, control the events that happen to them.  Contrarily, people who have an internal locus of control generally believe that they have control over the events that happen to them.
Someone adhering to an extreme external locus of control would likely be more in line with behaviorists, and some might even believe in destiny or fate and hold that all behavior is compulsive.  However, this would become sticky real fast in a court of law if a defendant’s excuse for committing murder was that a ladybug landed on the windowsill, signaled that three people had to die today, and it could not be otherwise.

Contrarily, someone adhering to an extreme internal locus of control would likely flat out reject that compulsive behavior exists, even in situations that appear beyond one’s control, such as controlling the weather or persuading someone to buy something they don’t need.  Unless you’re actively engaged in cloud-seeding, or are a salesperson who doesn’t know the meaning of the word no, it’s difficult to maintain that kind of zealotry in the face of so much indifference to one’s every whim.

The Quora Question

 

No comments

When 1 + 1 Does Not Equal 2

  By

I saw the question “Why is 1 + 1 = 2?” on Quora, a Q&A site, and I liked the answer I gave to it.  I provided three alternative solutions.  So here it is, three cases where someone might not consider one plus one to equal two.

My Quora post

If you ask any mathematician, they will tell you 1 + 1 = 2. Straightforward, unimaginative.

If you ask a nihilist what 1 + 1 equals, he or she will likely say the expression means nothing. If they are feeling particularly spirited, then they might say the bolder 1 + 1 = 0. If they are the extremely skeptical type, however, they might hold that 1 + 1 can not be equal to anything beyond itself. This last type type would reject even the notion that 1 = 1, (Aristotle’s “A is A”) on account of the number one on the left being distinguished tempo-spatially from the number one on the right.  Even this letter Z  being read here is not the same Z it was two seconds ago; at the very least, its pixels have refreshed.

If you ask someone who believes in an omnipresent deity or who holds that all things are united with all other things, he or she might not only say that 1 + 1 = 1, but would likely reject the notion that entities are distinguishable from one another in the first place. For such perspectives, one cannot be added to anything else, as it already encompasses everything.  Isaac Newton’s law of universal gravitation is something they might point towards as well.  Does anyone know what the universe plus one is?  How does someone add anything to something that already encompasses everything?  One does not, it might be said.

“Humankind has not woven the web of life. We are but one thread within it. Whatever we do to the web, we do to ourselves. All things are bound together. All things connect.” – Chief Seattle

If you ask a Gestalt psychologist what 1 + 1 equals, then they might say 1 + 1 = 3, or 1 + 1 = 4, or quite possibly any positive integer up to infinity. A popular adage in Gestalt psychology is “The whole is more than the sum of the parts.” One such example is Kanizsa’s Triangle. A photographic mosaic (larger picture made up of smaller pictures) is another example.  Also to consider are optical illusions, such as the rabbit/duck, and the young lady/old lady.  Ten bees spread out in a garden is no big deal; ten bees in a car is a swarm.

It’s a complex world we live in.

No comments

29th Birthday Means It’s Prime Time!

  By

It’s been six years since I last had a birthday that was also a prime number (23).  Unfortunately, my next one is only two years away.  A part of me is thinking that it would be awesome if I could produce another book by then, or accomplish some other gargantuan task between my remaining prime birthdays (31, 37, 41, 43, 47, etc.). Stranger things have happened.

Also, somebody found the Parabola theme from CryoutCreations and he really likes it!  I have to say it’s a lot more functional than the previous theme I was using and I like the look of it.

Only ten days left till Affect Engineering hits the streets, pending I don’t find anything dreadful that needs fixing before then.

No comments

Back from Oblivion

  By ,

Museums, post-apocalyptic movies, improv, dancing in a music video, Mile High Blues, food poisoning, headaches, hallucinations, a Renaissance festival, visiting family, science fiction (Eureka), cops with cool British accents (Luther), resourceful spies (Burn Notice), Scrabble, the Grizzly Rose, the Mercury Cafe, the Turnverein . . .

After being out of town for over a month vacationing, I have been eager to get back to work, more so than usual.  I acquired the final permissions that I need just a few days ago, so a finished book should be rolling off the press soon, likely within the next week or two.  There is more to come.

No comments

Folly and Failure in the Effort to Foster Catastrophic Climate Destabilization

  By ,

Dear Ecologists,

In the scientific community, catastrophic climate destabilization (a.k.a. climate change or global warming) is almost undoubtedly the most serious self-inflicted threat of harm to human civilization and the survival of hundreds of thousands of species on earth. Yes, almost . . . thank goodness for the scientific method. Otherwise, there would be no wiggle room for naysayers like myself to make a wager.

I did not want to have to bring up the fact that the ever-present possibility of a nuclear holocaust has given global warming a run for its money for more than half a century. I am saving that as my trump card. In the race to extinction one always needs to hedge a bet.

Gamblers of the world unite!

True, it has been an uphill battle on all sides. Trying to dissuade millions of people from changing their lifestyles, debunking nearly irrefutable scientific evidence, and demobilizing nations from taking substantial action to avert the smoldering carbon crisis has been incredibly taxing, figuratively speaking. However, there are many things that could have been done better with far fewer hassles, and affect engineering has helped me realize them.

Let us say the entity being valued is human civilization, and catastrophic climate destabilization is threatening to end it. What sorts of arguments should one make to alleviate concerns about perfectly legitimate hazards? Here are some samples.

Self-Distinction and Identification: Discouraging people from even identifying with civilization is a brilliant first step. The supposedly doomed human civilization is sometime in the future, not the here and the now. People have a hard enough time trying to identify with present-day society; what on earth could have made one think they would identify with future ones? Why overestimate their vicariously felt affect? Why encourage them to identify in the first place?

Existence and Attention: A tried and true favorite. If no one knows about catastrophic climate destabilization, then no one will think twice about it threatening civilization. If one stops talking about civilization, then maybe people will stop thinking it exists too. Time to stop using “How’s the weather?” as an icebreaker. Problem solved.

Uniqueness and Uniqueness: There could be plenty of civilizations out there, maybe in outer space too. What’s the harm in losing one? Another one will show up. There are probably extra ones already had that nobody even knows about.

Sufficiency: Civilization alone is not enough to make anyone happy. People will need something else too, perhaps some new land that no pioneer has despoiled.

Sentiment: There are other things more important than the survival of the species, like having the newest car model or a vacation getaway.

Severity and Susceptibility: Catastrophic climate destabilization is not that bad a thing, it might even miss earth.

Response Efficacy and Self Efficacy: Whatever one person could do to minimize catastrophic climate destabilization would likely be ineffective, and nearly impossible to achieve besides.

Benefit Intensity and Susceptibility: Climate destabilization might be a good thing.

Reasoning and Entropy: There are plenty of other things to worry about, like the economy. Why fuss over things that cannot be controlled? Best to divert one’s energy elsewhere.

Sincerely,
A Catastrophic Climate Destabilization Naysayer
P.S.

If a writer has to point out sarcasm, then the reader’s discernment has been overestimated.
If a writer has to point out sarcasm, then the reader’s discernment has been underestimated.

Both of these statements are true.

1) In the case of the former, the reader does not know that sarcasm is at play. The writer learns this and knows the point was lost.
2) In the case of the latter, the writer doubts the reader knows that sarcasm is at play. The reader learns this and knows the point was lost.

Pointing a finger at sarcasm is the only way to kill it.