I Think I Over-Analyze

The Complexity of Scope

2012-11-26T06:26:00.005-08:00

Upon watching a heart felt video that featured several of Christopher Hitchens friends speaking about the life of this eccentric intellectual, I was driven to contemplate the seeming caprice of his life, and also of my own. And really where could we be without a little caprice? Could it be possible to subscribe to the right ideology and be entirely content with it? I've encountered several options for potential truth that I could easily fall in love with and thus dedicate my life to perfecting, but fortunately I've come to separate myself from these options over time. Each time I decide to drop an idea and move on to the next, I feel burdened by disappointment and shame that there was an earlier part of me that felt that it was entirely correct. Yet I admit that I must dismiss my prior disappointment and say that I am appreciative of my ability to move past the initial value of what I've come to be in admiration of. Through doing this, I've gained the lessons I've needed to gain that make it's mark on my character.

The scope a person can hold on any particular issue is never based on anything more than that person's experience and understanding of the issue. How does a person raised in a dictatorship come to understand a democracy? Through no means of her own, I should say, but rather she is incapable of a reification of her own construct of a democratic reality. But isn't this to be expected? So how is one to come to understand when their conditions are this far removed? Through education and exposure is one simply put answer but it isn't enough to turn the pages and observe nature when there are a seemingly infinite variety of attempts to make sense of all these.

We as people are engaged in a futile attempt to connect the pieces of our reality with a purpose towards a sort of blend of idealism and intellectual honesty, and we do this with the most hopeful of hearts and reaching minds. The fact is that we could not hope to obtain this, but we try and we try hard and our conquest for a globalization is always slightly out of reach as it is constantly pulled away through premature dogmatic ideas and sluggish cooperation. So as long as we have those who disagree that we have our idealist nature figured out, there will always be a divide between us. But what if we refrain from committing to any of these ideologies and allow nature to take its course? Firstly, this passive approach begs for a converting turn of events and one that takes this path is simply setting themselves up to adopt a mental construct that causes the least amount of private disturbance. But primarily, this approach leads to the sluggish cooperation that pulls our potential globalization further away.

If I could make a wish for the world, it would be for everyone to take a stand for personal passion in an honest manner that is only manifested after they've educated and exposed themselves to the world. And also that their passion moves in a direction to further exposure of idealism, then humility, then insight. We'd all do well to take a break from our trampled trails for truth so that we can see our mistakes, or more kindly put, our inaccuracies, and allow humility to take it's turn.

To give way to ideologies is to accept a construct that one can freely criticize with the intent of forfeiting the same view to move on to other ideologies as determined by the insights gained from experience prior. This is the conquest to truth and it is beautiful.

Education and Knowledge

2012-10-18T17:22:00.002-07:00

I've discovered a great divide between the laborious tasks of formal education and the properties of insight and worth while knowledge. It's quite the difference when you feel as if perspective is constantly knocking at your door passing out insight, yet you are too preoccupied by endless amounts of fact-laden papers to even answer the door?

What am I saying here?

I'm saying, in short, that it is a damn shame that the knowledge and insight that has driven the collective intellect of our history is tarnished for those who wish to be enlightened by having to commit to a condensed, ill-practical, incompentently instructed "education". One that is in the form of a degree or other such title. How is it that we have come to approach the shoulders of our giants by briskly overviewing all general fields that are ever so lightly related? How is it that we cannot build an established foundation of understanding for our field of study without committing 4 months at 3 hours a week to some "course" who's objective is to prime the student to further studies? It wouldn't be too difficult to acknowledge that the majority of the material that I learned from earlier semesters is long long lost. And why is this? Because there is a fine line between knowledge and education. Without the experience, the insight, the eureka that not only makes sure that you understand, but acts as a driving force to further engage in the pursuit of knowledge.

Perhaps there needs to be a division in the post-secondary infrastructure. One where those who wish to find a route to a future where their life's needs will be met is provided (in the form of whatever criteria those in the job field would require of you), and one where people who wish to be fulfilled on an intellectual level can openly explore and experience the insights and perceptions of our forethinkers. This latter route is one where people can be free to call themselves intellects because it is not based on assessments that ensure that we gathered the appropriate amount of detail, but rather it is based on the motivation and passion for gaining a worldview that one can respect and revere. The road of exploration leads us to the same questions that intellectuals before us were challenged by and we are fortunate to be given their works so that we may, as Stephen Hawking puts it, springboard off their understandings into a realm of enriched reality. A reality that is far more wondrous and majestic when viewed by the scope of intellectuals before us.

Neuroscience of Distress

2012-06-22T12:07:00.001-07:00

I was scanning around YouTube for some interesting content relating to science's idea on life and meaning, and I sharpened my focus to any of neurosciences attempts to answer these questions. I found David Richardson, who I've seen around a number of times before on YouTube and his messages of affective neuroscience that is something that would peak the interest of any scientist to humanitarian to spiritualist. With a branch of science that deals with affection, my hesitancy and skepticism was to be expected. But he takes a humble approach and uses the most prized subjects to obtain his data. But what sort of subject would be the most effective for displaying affection? Surely the moral leaders of our world be more suffice than the majority of us out there. Moral drivers such as Gandhi, Jesus, Martin Luther King or the Dalai Lama. Only the latter of these respectable men are still alive today to be used as subjects and this is what Richardson did, he flew to India and he spoke with his holiness.

Using the Dalai Lama as the template for this affective-based discourse raised alarms in my head. But like I said, who better than this man and a select few others that understand and practise compassion and love to represent the moral sphere of our planet. To reduce my skepticism even more, I had to ask if I could imagine a person more understanding of compassion and love than an individual who spends moments each and every day of their life focusing on these emotions and feeling them at their truest value. No politician, educator, theologian, human rights activist or any average individual except for the one who devotes their time to experiencing and meditating on these feelings could be more grounded and competent in their understanding of compassion and love. If there were an iota of doubt that a man such as the Dalai Lama would not be a sufficient subject for a field of affective neuroscience, I'm not sure what I could possibly mean by affection that has not already been covered.

So if this is a man that a scientist could look for insight on questions of empathic concern and compassion, what questions ought we to ask, and how does this emotional connoisseur approach the answers? I would suggest that you watch Richard Davidson's lectures for a more detailed report on how this is done, but I want to talk about the exact opposite of this.

My thoughts here stemmed from the title of the video which was "The Neuroscience of Happiness". This is a rather cheery title, and using the study of affective neuroscience would be a great approach to this. But I realized that the focus of empathic concern and other such emotion-specific discourse is a heavy contributor for the moral zeitgeist that is happening today. But perhaps something that needs to be addressed is the taxing effect this has on an individual. Emotions are heavy and they can use a lot of resources and an absence of these resources leads to mental decay in the form of a loss in patience and an empathic disinterest. I look at the mother with her 2-year old, fighting with the toddler about something they want, but cannot have. The mother has to not only be the parent and refuse their wishes, but she also has to do it in a loving matter. Simply ignoring the cries of the toddler is not a psychologically healthy approach to dealing with these matters, and its very annoying when the episode happens in a public place. If I could give my own talk on these issues, I'd call it "The Neuroscience of Distress". I think my questions on a topic such as this would be; What is the resource being used in distressing situations? Are individuals with more developed related brain regions more patient? What sort of lessons can be taken from those who have bore such distressors for a long time? Such as the values of empathic concern are a contributing force in developing a global civility, understanding the underpinnings of despair will help us relate to each other, and thus, drive us out of the constraints of suffering that occurs on all levels of human existence.

It's fair to say that our world is lacking a necessary empathic investment, and this was realized and brought to our attention 50 years ago with the love movement that opened the eyes of the world to the destruction that we were bringing quickly to our planet. But instead of calculating the investment needed, how about we view the empathic budgeting that needs to be discussed. The humanitarian promotes a list of "shoulds" that we all ought to follow in order to promote well being for all of us, many of us recognize this issue but don't act on it. This lies slightly outside of understanding distress, but it's another concern I have for the troubles that are creeping around the corner or our moral development. What happens when we realize the amount of concern we need to invest in our world but cannot make the commitment? We become the sheep and not the shepherd, and this simply won't do. When will we learn to integrate our every day life into the ideals for a global morality?

Eventually we will come to understand every consequence of practising empathic concern, and when we do, I feel that we will be more unified than we have ever felt.

But hey, perhaps I'm just over-analyzing.

Letting Go

2012-04-08T07:06:00.002-07:00

Throughout my short lived life, I've recognized that we cannot hold on to the things we've come to love, cherish and appreciate forever. Well, we don't even live forever, so there is a sense of temporary, a characteristic of living, that needs to be within us so that our world does not come crashing down whenever we think about death or any other thing that we value. Let this be a friend, a toy from childhood, your first car and more personal ideas, like your thoughts on an important matter. These things come and go. Although not necessarily, but we've all come to experience what it is to lose something, or lose to someone, and we've had to find ways of coping and getting over it.

What is it to let go? We know that things will end, but when invited to the possibility that it may end, it causes us immediate grief, or we efficiently put it in the back of our heads, never to think about it again. Some people suffer immensely at the idea of potential loss, and some people, like the tibetan monks, have removed themselves from attaching to anything so that loss is non-existent. While I see this as a valuable trait to abolish our attachment to values, it is beyond our Westerner mindset to go on throughout life without attaching ourselves to something. It's important to us to have something to call our own. It provides comfort in knowing that we can fall upon something when we are troubled. Or have something to give up when faced considering "it could be worse!"

But it can be worse. We could actually lose these things. Like I said, it doesn't have to be materialistic, or interpersonal. It can be views and ideas that give us comfort. I hold great comfort in knowing that I can eat, sleep and socialize on a few occasions throughout the week, and that only these things are required to keep me functioning on a base level, certainly not fulfilling, but at least I'm alive. If it was globally agreed that socializing was in fact poisoning to our self and that we were better off living without it, then I would have to let go of my friends, and my ideas of what it is to live a functionable life. Of course, it is without argument that interpersonal relations do nothing except enhance our experience and is probably the key ingredient in maintaining a fulfilling life at all. But letting go of something that I once held great comfort in would be completely devastating.

Let me quickly run over the neuroscience of attachment. Our attachment to things is something within our brains that can be understood. Our value towards a childhood toy extends from a life long ownership and our memories of that toy come to mean other things, like that time when you hurt your hand so you ran to your toy, or when your friend made you cry so you ran to your toy. All memories are a part of your brain chemistry and these memories are as well, and thus the toy from your childhood has become an extension of yourself. Take a relationship, during times of high emotion, two people can integrate their experiences on a level that means BOTH individuals are building neural connections at the same time so that the other person becomes an extension of themselves and same with the other person. This is what it is to belong to something, to be able to see value in your memories and see all the people, items and ideas that come with these memories. And these memories and experiences amount to who we are.

When faced with letting go, the realization of the loss is similar to letting go of a part of yourself. On a blunt level, this is like psychological suicide, or homicide, depending on how the loss occurred. This is the reality of it, and it should come as no surprise to anyone because we have all experienced this. As humans though, we have developed coping methods. When an extension of who we are is no more, we can do a number of things. We can reassign the values of our loss, in lost relationships this can be seen as the "rebound effect". We cannot bear the loss of the person we have come to base ourselves on and thus look to someone else to fill that void. Unfortunately, this doesn't work because each person is individually unique and this new person does not have the same neural framework as you have constructed. This type of loss cannot be replaced, but rather needs alternate coping methods so that the framework can be disassembled and built anew.

Although I am not experienced enough with loss to advise the best coping methods, I can say for certain that I cope effectively well in knowing that a loss, is in fact a biological process. Although the loss hurts me no less, it does provide a definite light for the end of the narrowing tunnel. As the great proverb states, "this too shall pass".

To let go is to lose yourself, but to belong is to gain yourself, and as long as you have your memories with your values contained therein, you have yourself.

Yet I think I've over-analyzed.

Emotional Design

2012-03-19T13:09:00.001-07:00

Emotional design is a concept I've mulled over for quite some time now. Emotions are powerful, they are unique, they have purpose and they have drawbacks. They make life worth living, and not worth living. They allow you to consider outcomes, and prevent you from systematic thinking. All of these things, all brought to you by some molecules and nerves in your head. Funny, eh?

Design. What do I mean by design in this case? I mean the entirety of a specific emotion. From it's affect on you physically and mentally, to what it makes you say or do. Every emotion can be recognized by anyone who is accustomed to feeling emotion. You know what it is like to experience joy over small events, such as awakening to a bright, warm day, or learning something you didn't know before, or those few moments before eating a meal you've just prepared. These are some of my examples of joy. And that is just joy, I could go on forever just listing different emotions but the point is that you can recognize an emotion in real time and label it quite accurately.

Emotions have multiple aspects and thus can be broken down. Any emotion produces an arousal effect. Simply meaning that there is increased activity in the brain whenever you experience emotion. Besides the messages that are being sent and received and how they affect you, first it needs to be noted that with activity in a part of the brain that deals with whatever emotion you experience, there is lacking activity elsewhere. This is not to say you cannot use other parts of your brain during this time, but rather activity in the brain regions that are aroused takes dominance over other areas, such as areas that promote reasoning.

Emotions are useful in many circumstances, but they also have their drawbacks. On my post relating to jealousy, I experienced defeat through hypothetical foresight. Emotion surged through me, activated a part of my brain dealing with constructing foresight, to see possible ends, and I saw this foresight as inevitable. As if it already happened. It already hit me and I felt angered. But at the same time I sought out reasons. Why would I deserve this? Where did I go wrong? How did I not see this? At the same time I pondered potential ways to immediately resolve the issue. I'll kill him, I'll leave her, I'll cry, scream, hate and whatever else it takes to get away from this feeling.

So jealousy, described in this way, has multiple components to it. All of this happens in your head and uses up a lot of energy at once, it's no wonder why people who have low impulse control tend to buckle and break during emotional times such as these. But I blame this on poor recognition of one's emotions. Jealousy can be seen as beneficial - as in to search for reasons - or detrimental - as in to consider vengeful tactics. It is when we break down our emotions that we see this in plain view.

It is clear to see that some aspects of emotion are necessary, while others are not. And people who can manage their emotions have already taken the initiative to allow their arousal to settle so that they may properly assess the situation. This is why it is useful to recognize that the regions in your brain that are on high-alert take away from key functions that prevent one from legitimate reasoning. If you know that you are not reasoning with a "full brain", then perhaps you should not be reasoning at all. These are biological processes and need time to fully complete, so one cannot expect to be reasonable during these moments of high arousal.

If you can break down your emotions, you can experience them for their own productive function and put aside the harmful effects. But if you have not, then it would be wise to leave a situation to allow yourself to calm down and start reasoning once you know you are relaxed.

In a later blog, I'll consider possible methods of dealing with harmful effects of emotion, such as effective coping, and differences between reasoning during high and low arousal.

But for now, I think I've over-analyzed.

Self-Deceiving 101

2012-03-02T13:20:00.000-08:00

A follow up on my previous blog.

Some interesting findings have emerged with associating motivation with self-discipline. Since I've started, I've decided to replace motivation with self-motivation. When thinking about the two concepts, it just made more sense to think about motivating the self, as opposed to just motivation where motivation by itself is a tad broad.

So let me try to explain what I'm doing again, just to make it a little clearer. Donald Hebb coined the term "Hebbian Learning" a while back and he theorized (and this theory has been proven since) that neurons that fire at the same time will eventually become linked, and therefor, after some time when one neuron is fired, it will automatically fire the other because it's ties are strong enough to do so. This is a simple way of explaining it, because it applies on a much larger scale when dealing with full networks of neurons. So what does all of this mean? A thought, any thought, will fire neurons. So here's my conclusion...

If I think of thought A, and then think of thought B, after a while these neurons will become linked.

So I've decided to assign thought A "self-discipline" and thought B "self-motivation". I begin by meditating for some time until I have a clear mind as this works as a control so that I don't accidentally think of miscellaneous things while going back and forth between self-discipline and self-motivation. Then I will start the Hebbian learning. I'll keep this up for 5-10 minutes and then I'm done for the day. Thats it! It doesn't take much time to start linking neurons, you just have to go back and refresh them from time to time so that their connections don't weaken.

Originally, I had suspected some sort of cool loop where I could be motivated to be disciplined and disciplined to be motivated. The two would just feed off each other and I could do anything I told myself to do because I was motivated and disciplined enough to do so. Such results haven't been apparent yet, but rather I've learned how these two things can associate with each other. It's nothing remarkable by any means, but it is interesting.

I made a little error in my learning though. For some reason, when I thought about self-discipline, my mind would tend to go to "self-deceit" (probably because of some alliteration commonality), but now whenever I start my learning I can't help but to think of deceit first! Which is funny, because in a way, I am deceiving myself into thinking that there is a tie between self-discipline and self-motivation.

Like I said, I haven't tricked myself into being motivated nor disciplined, but I have found new ways of thinking of either concept. And I think this is the result of alternating between the two thoughts.

I've e-mailed some experts on the subject of neuroplasticity to see what they have to say about this and look forward to hearing back from them so I can use their advise to further this experiment, and to share on here.

This has been a fun experience so far. Hope to share further details later.

Holy over-analyzed.

Self experiment

2012-02-27T14:46:00.000-08:00

So I've been reading this book recently on neuroplasticity. It's essentially the idea that our experiences, from what we do, to what we think, to anything that requires brain activity, physically changes our brain. And more importantly, the idea that neurons that fire together, wire together. This phrase has resonated within me so much that I've decided that I'm going to try this out.

There was a story within this book where a man who was involved with violent sexual behaviors was actually not able to differentiate between thoughts that were violent and those that were sexual. This man had a violent upbringing and this affected him sexually when he went to find other partners. The conclusion that was made was that the area of the brain that was involved with violent thoughts was physically wired together with sexual thoughts. So he had undergone treatment where any time a remotely sexual thought was mentioned that was not violent, the therapist asked him to focus and elaborate more on those thoughts, and if he had any briefly violent thought that was not sexual, the therapist would ask him to focus and elaborate on that. Eventually, he was able to separate his violent thoughts from his sexual thoughts. HOORAY!

So, I've thought about this story in particular and how I could apply it to my own life. So here is what I've done. I've taken 2 concepts: Self-discipline and Motivation and I have made an effort to integrate these 2 concepts together by alternating thoughts of each. My prediction is that with increasing development in motivation, I will consequently develop the area of self-discipline, and with increasing development in self-discipline, I will consequently develop the area of motivation. Essentially, not only am I building these two areas by thinking about them, but I am also merging the 2 into a singular concept.

My findings so far, after just a few days, has led to increased insight about these 2 concepts individually and together. By asking myself, "What is it to be motivated to be self-disciplined?" and, "What is it to be self-disciplined to be motivated?" I've been able to creatively construct answers, and these answers help in developing each concept separately, and together.

This has been a very exciting trial so far and I'm more than excited to see how much further this progresses as time goes on.

I've been over-analyzed.

Jealousy

2012-02-12T17:20:00.000-08:00

What better time to talk about an emotion than when you're currently experiencing it. Normally I'm a pretty apathetic person, but sometimes that analytical portion of your brain just can't handle the input, and emotion simply has to take over.

So what am I talking about exactly? Well, jealousy. To put it bluntly. Although I do feel that there is more than just a word that needs to be addressed. What is jealousy? To me, it is threat. We can see the obvious evolutionary functions of jealousy. It gives us the drive to want to do better. But in the moment itself, it feels very similar to defeat. The fact that you've already lost. I would probably point my finger at projected memory, the ability that we have to predict the future. When jealousy takes hold, it uses this ability as a feedback loop to the initial strength of the emotion.

So what do we have here? Threat brings about jealousy, jealousy tells us that the future contains defeat, and defeat is not something that is approved of in human nature. Humans want to win, that's how we progress. So after the emotion subsides and the threat (hopefully) gone, we are left with the projected memory of defeat, and need to better ourselves so that the threat diminishes.

But perhaps I'm over-analyzing.

Debt, Oh Burden

2012-02-02T10:30:00.000-08:00

Debt, of debt, why doth though haunt me so? Why do I put myself into debt? Of course I know the answers to these constantly burdening questions. I accept assistance and/or some other favoring, and a portion of my brain that deals with reciprocation¹ is firing on high-alert establishing that I need to give back, or pay back, or favor back, or what have you. But of course, as is with debt, I cannot find the means to pay back this.

My issue with it all isn't exclusive to money either, the social aspect is affected by this as well. And while the monetary debt cannot always be justified due to lack of means for acquiring such money, the interpersonal debt clock needs only a means of creativity to return these favors. Either way, I'm in debt on many scales and need to work on a creative means to correct this.

Another point I wanted to bring up though was that some people are just so nice that they don't ask for a return in the favor, as if the moment of altruistic behavior is justified as a payback method. Or perhaps it is altruistic. But I'm not keen in the moral philosophy department, too wide of a school. But never does the assurance that you are not "actually" indebted to these gifters give me the peace I seek. If someone gives you $1,000 because you were in a financially troublesome scenario, any person with a moral backbone would look to repay this. And if the same gifter said that a payback was not necessary, that would not diminish the need to pay it back. Unless it was from a game show or huge corporation that had the money to be throwing. But like I said, this isn't exclusive to monetary value, this is just an example to encompass favors in general. Point is, I am not aware of any tool of reassurance that would offset my need to payback a favor, except time. But then I'm in debt but have just forgotten about it. Which is a terrible situation. And also not applicable to this blog.

In summary, I'm in debt. People are too nice. I feel bad even though favors were done FOR me. And over-analyzing this has led to no further development in the conclusion.

And I have to cut this blog short. Perhaps I have not over-analyzed this yet.

¹ Decided to look into it briefly and found that a Social Neuroscience text from Oxford found activity in the Ventral Caudate that was linked to reciprocal activity.

Habit: Friend or Enemy?

2012-01-24T16:07:00.000-08:00

I don't need to go into much detail to show anyone that there is a good side to a habit, and a bad side. Probably a more difficult time with the good side of a "habit". I find it is conventionally known as a bad thing. Drop that smoking habit. I have a habit of chewing on nails. But sometimes a habit is a good thing, because if you know the outcome of a habit, and you think its a good thing, you repeat the habit. Thus perpetual habituation.

Till the habit results in a bad thing.

Habits do not come with value. And this is the main lesson really. That nothing matters. Hmm... that was a bit nihilistic. That nothing HAS TO matter. Nothing in this universe comes with an inert value. Now, we have value to assign to things, but it really is, at the end of the day, entirely up to us what we assign value to. But what has value got to do with habits? I will habitually take a certain path to a certain destination because I value things like, my conservation of energy and my conservation of time. But that path is not labelled with signs reading "I save time and energy"! You just value those things and thus make a habit from it.
Or what about feeling good? I value feeling good. Why? Because it feels good! I don't think I can make it anymore blatant than that. I enjoy an energy drink, because I value energy because energy makes me feel good. Let's rewrite into a formula:

I enjoy X, because I value Y because Y makes me feel good.

Now unless your apathetic or someone who is chastised for feeling good, this formula works. But this formula is mainly to illustrate that our habits come from our values. So we repeat this cycle as a demihedonist, because not many people want to admit to a life of pleasures, and satisfying values does not constitute as pleasures, to which I say, we should redefine our term of pleasure. Actually, while we are on the topic, why the hell not.

Pleasure (noun): A feeling of happy satisfaction and enjoyment.
-Oxford English Dictionary

This term works well for the most part, but happiness just seems to me as a criteria that colors the real meaning. So let's rewrite this. A feeling of satisfaction. And if you are satisfying your values, then that is pleasurable. Ok, I think I've got that point taken care of.

So back to the main point. There is a reason why habits, that were so good in the start, turn out to be so bad. I mean, it had to get this detail of detest somehow? Why would someone want to "break the habit" anyways? Well, habits and value work very well together. But means vary. And a means is necessary to continuing a habit. I lose all my money and I can't afford energy drinks. Well, this is where it gets sad. Because if I don't have a means to satisfy a habit, my values have to contend with that.

If something makes you feel good. You continue doing it, until the end no longer justifies the means. But that's not to say you must drop your values. If I become broke, I don't suddenly lose my value for energy because I can't buy an energy drink. But I also don't have the means to obtain energy (except sleep, but sleep is for the weak). So what do I do? Endure? Go crazy? Or will I just forget about it? Well, depending on your values, it could be any three of these. But your habit, as formed by your values, has brought you to a place of no return. Neurochemically there is a lot going on here dealing with imbalance of neurotransmitters, neural life, synaptic death, mumbo jumbo, but the main point is that it hurts. Whether it be a slight poke or a gauge into your self, a cease in habit does not go unnoticed.

So that's it. I enjoy what I value and I make habits. My habits are defeated and the pain is determined by the values I placed. But let me finish with the first lesson in the beginning. Habits do not come with value. You created the value. You created the pain. So don't worry if a habit is comes to an end, because after a while, you're probably going to reassign your values to another habit.

But perhaps I'm over analyzing things.

When you don't like the road, take another one.

2011-12-14T05:46:00.000-08:00

Go. Stop. Go. Stop. Seems to be the only two options we've been given. I recently had a experience yesterday that caused me to reconsider a certain aspect, the aspect of wanting, craving, yearning... perhaps yearning is too strong.

Dopamine is a fascinating thing when it comes to these aspects. Dopamine is what makes you want things, it's the thing that sees the light at the end of the tunnel and says "go for it". But here's the thing I noticed. You don't have some dopamine dedicated to particular cravings. There is no dopamine for sex, or chocolate, or money, or drugs, there is only dopamine and the direction it provides.

Like I said, I had an experience yesterday that caused me to reconsider the aspect of wanting or craving. Upon walking through the mall, I had a simple thought. Chocolate. I was on a 15 minute break and I didn't have time for much, but to my luck, I had no money on me. What happens when dopamine is used and you don't get to the light at the end of the tunnel? You start thinking of other ways to get there. But on such a tight time schedule, how could I possibly acquire money in time to buy some sugary sweetness? Well, perhaps I should reconsider what's going on with my craving. All I really want is to satisfy my craving, but like I said, dopamine isn't specific to the item or whathaveyou you require, it's just craving, it can be satisfied by anything that satisfies a craving. So I had brilliant idea and thought about how much reading a book would satisfy my craving. It's small, but so is a Kit-Kat. So like that, I went to the bookstore that was in the mall, searched for an interesting book and read the first page, and to my luck, it was entertaining, and offset was my dopamine flow. No more craving.

If we can all do this, there is no such thing as addiction, at least in the material realm. Because as long as you can find satisfaction in something, your initial item of crave can just be tossed aside.

But perhaps I'm over-analyzing.

That's a good idea

2011-11-10T06:02:00.000-08:00

What is it about an idea that comes and goes oh so fast? Seriously, it comes to exist like rolling thunder, a flash of an idea and slowly crept behind by a developing boom. Insights is what my psychology text likes to call them. Moments of eureka! And suddenly a bit more of your life makes sense, or more efficient, or more likable.

I have these ideas, and all of them are so awesome and applicable to my life that I can't see why I would ever consider letting go of this. But like the storm, these ideas seem to settle and disappear. The persistence of maintaining an idea for yourself dwindles. So I must ask myself, why does this happen? Are some ideas more likely to persist than others? Was my idea to go to the gym 3 times a week not really a good idea? Was setting up a strict budget that was also comfortable to live by to extreme? When these moments of progress come about, why am I, along with others, so willing to throw it in the air as if that first moment of "this will make life so much better!" was not such a good idea?

The human brain works in mysterious ways, I get that. But a good idea is a good idea, it doesn't just become bad. It doesn't just become not worth carrying out. We can all celebrate those times when we actually carry out what we've told ourselves what we'd do, but after a while we quit as if all we fought for was the celebration.

Initiative. A word that ties in quite well for this scenario. A reasoning for wanting to do something. Perhaps we should focus on the whys a little more. Why do I want to go to the gym? Why do I want to conserve my money? Do I feel unfit? Am I poor beyond means? Are the answers to these questions outweighed by reasoning of "nah, why bother"? I've heard the discontinuation to things we ought to do be referred to as names like lazy, ill-motivated, traits of a quitter. Personally, I think that we don't understand the concept of counter-reasoning enough to actually use these terms properly.

Perhaps I'm over-analyzing it.

Get away random face!

2011-11-06T14:40:00.000-08:00

I think I over-analyze things. I walked through the mall and there seems to be a flood of people everywhere, and you can't help but notice every single person walking by. Or at least I do anyways. And you have to think, if I was in a large public place trying to get something done, would I want to be bothered? Probably not. I probably want to come in contact with as few people as possible and get my shopping done in the most efficient and uninterrupted manner. Upon thinking about this, I have to give myself a minute or so to ponder, how is my presence in the mall affecting other people who are also doing the same thing. Which brings me to my point, which is, am I as invisible and lacking in the obstacle department as I should be? Probably not, so I should think about it.

If I'm walking through the mall and I have to come across someone, say bumping in to them at the clothing store, or those few moments when you are obliged to hold a door open for someone (or run for a door that someone has so graciously opened for you) how efficient or how invisible am I making myself? After having a few of these micro-interactions, I've gathered a few lessons.

1. Never cross someone's full field of vision. I consider this to be one of the more subtle acts of public etiquette as actually crossing someone's field of vision is never threatening, off-putting, or even really annoying unless you're a cynical numb-nut (really need to start getting creative with my insults). I feel that if you never cross someone's field of vision, they will never be obliged to acknowledge you. And if you go unrecognized, you have not broken anyone's train of consciousness and helped in making that person have a happy and uninterrupted shopping event!

2. Bumping into someone around clothracks, tight aisleways, or other such blind corners. This is a rather unfortunate scenario that I wish could have been prevented. But alas, it happens. And it has to be dealt with, you've already impacted each others uninterrupted, perfectly efficient experience, now what? I suppose one extreme would be to get down on your knees and beg for forgiveness, but that's just annoying and getting you into deeper troubles than first started. I advise a proper Canadian "sorry about that". Now I've always put into question of that light hand on the shoulder that really sends the signal of, "I'm genuinely sorry" but going by some people's attitudes, I am usually avoidant of doing such a thing as to promote a quick switch that activates anger, but all that has to be judged in a matter of seconds! No wonder it comes off as awkward...

3. Standing and waiting for some reason while another person is also standing there. Damnit I hate these. I've decided to go with facing at least 90 degrees away from them. Mathematically speaking, that person would be in only 50% of my viewing potential, which gives me a safe peripheral provided this person tries to violate rule 1 to which I can just continue to turn my body so that he never crosses my field of vision. In general though, I find that standing in close proximity to a person is inevitably due for fail when it comes to staying invisible, I mean, if I'm standing in a spot, I'm going to look at everything around me just to keep me occupied whilst I wait for whatever it is that I'm waiting for. One of those things may be the person who is standing, waiting, with me. And Murphy's Law says that when I look at that person, that is the one time they look back, or at least notice you've noticed and/or analyzed them. And suddenly you exist. Fail.

I think I over-analyze things.