"Random"

I have never realized until recently just how odd it is to be alive. Here I am, stuck in this fleshy, prone-to-ailment body, being subjected to completely nonsensical sociological mores, such as the fact that saying "pee" twice in a row somehow makes the term less profane, "pee-pee." It seems (for lack of a better term) so random. I have fingernails that will keep growing until I clip them—I clip them because society deems it necessary for men to have short fingernails to be attractive. WHY?? This life is truly puzzling.

Grade school sociology

On one hand, we see violence, selfishness, condescension, class hatred, racial profiling, beatings, gang hostility, emotional, physical, and sexual abuse; on the other hand, friendship, love, kindness, sharing, and most significantly, sincerity. Such is the grade school social scene. Children are extremely prone to bluntly exhibiting their primitively innate tendency to defend familiarity and shun the unknown. They also obey their bodily wants and needs with little to no inhibition, due to their underdeveloped frontal cortices. Sincerity arises, along with bluntness. Adding to this, traits learned from their individual domestic environments are exhibited as social separation mechanisms because of their need for familiarity.

Hostility thus arises when groups of kids familiar with one another go through the groupthink process, creating group pride, and thus the need to be better, or stronger than other familiarity groups. Perhaps this is the root of all our current problems with racism: the lack of early exposure to what becomes alien in a child's mind.

My summer job

Ahh, how I love my job: I don't get many hours, and the hours I do get give me eight dollars each, but the work itself nearly persuaded me to skip out on a party with my college friends this past week, just so I could make it to an optional, unpaid work day.

I work at a youth conference at Snow College where we have on-belay events, water fights, and much more. My job is to make sure the kids stay safe, learn lots, and have tons of fun! The people I work with are turning into some of my best friends.

In lieu of my regular intellectually deep post this week, I'll end here with the promise of an analysis of occupational preeminence or grade school sociology next week.

Hypothetical Situations #1: Self-control (Punny me)

The brain is often considered the last frontier of human anatomy. It is essentially the only bodily organ that we, the human species, have not been able to fully comprehend. What we do know is that everything we sense is merely a complex interpretation of impulses triggered by sensors. For example, the surface on which the words of this article are displayed may not actually exist in the same way your brain interprets it to.

I tell you this to help you perceive that the brain is capable of making you believe much more than reality. The brain is merely a three-dimensional specifically organized placement of tens of billions of simple units (neurons). If we knew specifically how communications worked between the 100 billion neurons existing in the human brain, we would be able to design memories, create abilities, diminish or enhance emotions, change tastes, turn pleasure into pain, alter fingernail growth rate, etc. This all seems unrealistic in today's world, but something occurred to me. Being that our consciousness is based upon memory, and our subconscious memories are stored in the same area as our conscious memories, it must be theoretically possible that dreams could be recorded in one's memory as reality.

Imagine trying to talk things out with the person you thought you kissed last night. Imagine trying to explain to your associates why you left your home wearing nothing but your underwear. Imagine wondering where on earth your purple pet sloth went—needless to say, things would get messy. The brain alteration necessary to produce such an effect is extremely unlikely to ever occur, intentionally or not, but it's fun to think about.

Theoretically it is possible to control a dream that is so realistic that it matches reality. Imagine being able to fly. Imagine dating a celebrity. Imagine being a world record holder. Imagine it, and it is as real as your existence. Perhaps your current situation, at the very moment you read these words, is a dream in which you can alter your world to your liking.

Question: What would it take to get a person to be able to dream so realistically? Neurosurgical operation? Brain therapy?

Better question: What would it take to get a person out of such realistic, dreams?

Comment question: Is a perfect fantasy better than an imperfect reality?

Ironic question: Are self-controlled dreams characteristic of a self-controlled person?

—Drew

Contractual social protocal

I heard recently of a situation in which a young boy, whilst participating in a snowball fight with his friends, received a serious eye injury from a high velocity snowball. The young boy would never again be able to see out of the affected eye. Because of pricy medical procedures necessary for a healthy partial recovery, and perhaps a prosthetic eye, the parents of the boy sued the parents of the boy who delivered the injury.

My first reaction to this situation was that justice was served. However, after thinking it through, I concluded otherwise. It is true that you shouldn't hit people in they eyes with snowballs, but I think that by participating in what is obviously a precarious activity, you accept by default the risks associated with that activity.

Many organized sports require participants to sign waivers for liability purposes. What is on paper is legally binding. But spontaneous, unorganized activities such as snowball fights, water fights, pillow fights, arm wrestles, foot races, and various "night games," have no such contracts. To ask someone to sign a waiver before participating in a snowball fight with you says to the signer that you are not looking for a happy, fun fight. If that person signs the waiver, you can pack the snowball as hard as you want, and you can throw the snowball as hard as you want. I wouldn't sign it. I would discontinue my friendship with that person.

Because it is not realistic for humankind to have a waiver for every spontaneous but potentially dangerous activity we voluntarily expose ourselves to, our society should accept as legally-binding the contracts of social protocol and common sense, i.e., if you wish not to get hit by a snowball, participate not in snowball fights.

—Drew

P.S. New problem arising from this solution: defining common sense.

Like a lick

Sometimes the smallest actions can bring about large outcomes. Not like pushing a button to launch a nuke—more like licking a lollipop. A student study at the University of Cambridge concluded that it takes an average of 3,480 licks to finish a tootsie pop. A single lick in this case does not make a perceptible difference. Neither do ten licks. Is the tootsie pop not finished at lick number 3,479?

Last week, I thought about how hopeless it was for a single person to conserve energy, conserve water, pick up trash, become vegetarian, etc. The actual effect that such actions have on the environment is almost negligible in singularity. Even if ten people made habit of such actions, it will not noticeably effect the quality of human life. However, I came to the conclusion that this mindset is probably accountable for significant portions of environmental negligence, obesity, poor dental hygiene, poor sleep habits, and many other negative outcomes. When people believe that a single small action with an imperceptible consequence can not affect them or their environment, they are probably right. "It won't hurt to leave the lights on just this once," or "this one candy bar won't affect my weight," or "I'm too tired to get up and brush my teeth; I'll be sure to brush tomorrow," are examples of such actions with little consequence. Perhaps the man who justifies the once-a-day candy bar will be regretful when he becomes self conscious of his difficult-to-hide, difficult-to-eliminate pot belly. Lots of small actions can lead to large consequences. For good or for bad.

In conclusion, you will (analogically) never finish the lollipop if you do not have faith in a single lick. Unless you bite it. However, this not only defeats the accuracy of my analogy, but is very bad for your teeth. By the way, brush your teeth every night.

—Drew

An objective postulation: thrill seeking

Pre-article information:
The term "thrill seeking" as used in the following text will refer exclusively to one's voluntary participation in a physically dangerous, physically stimulating sport. Please do not get "physical thrills" confused with criminal, intellectual, pop-musical, immoral, or Edward Cullen thrills (although context shifts using these five thrill classifications might be amusing). Enjoy.

Our bodies are incredible things. They naturally reward us with good feelings when we do something that encourages a longer lifespan or encourages reproduction.

The practicing of thrill seekers' sports seems to be an innate part of humanity regardless of race or culture. This is overwhelmingly strong evidence that the trait of physical thrill seeking is part of how we evolved. Whether it is a coincidental evolutionary flaw or a naturally selected trait is the real question.

As a perfect example, cliff diving is a very common activity in most cultures. Some may say that cliff jumping would be meaningless without the social-vs.-rational dilemma: weighing the physical risk of the act against the magnitude of social pressures (commonly in the form of the adrenaline-inducing chant, "....Dooo it. Dooo it. Dooo it...."). But, I believe that even if we take the social aspect away from this thrill seeker sport, there will be at least a semi-addicting physical gratification.

In a logical world, I think that the body would not give a positive reaction to such life-threatening activity. So, if you love life AND have low insurance rates, you are more evolved than the rest of us. Kudos.

—Drew

Friends with benefits/detriments

Adopted primarily by people with limited moral inhibitions, the popular relational status of "friends with benefits" baffles me. Active participants of this practice disregard the complexity of emotion involved with osculation (let alone sex), and thus betray the socially assumed association of the action with love. If the socially adapted definition of sensuality shrinks to a simple slake of a craving which disregards the inevitable connection of physical amorous activity to mentality and emotion, members of that society will have lost the distinct methods of romantic expression effective to differentiate relationships on intimate levels.

I do not hold the belief that a relationship should be primarily based on physicality. This is because hormonal attraction is naturally installed in every evolutionarily normal human. Therefore, casual sex/making out reveals very little about one's actual feelings: it can be exclusively classified as a release of endorphins, which should not be (but is commonly) confused with love. This can be detrimental to the emotional state of one or both participants, and detrimental to what should be the serious, consequential nature of the action.

The primary basis of a good relationship should be intellectual compatibility. This will bring meaning and personality to the secondary basis of physical intimacy.

Let us not lose the class of a kiss.

—Drew

Sociological Insecurity

It is interesting how a lapse of cognitive ability tends to occur at the most opportune of moments.

I experienced an interesting incident a few weeks ago, wherein a employee at the campus cafeteria greeted me after listening to me play the piano (there is a piano in the cafeteria). He expressed his amazement at my magnitude of skill, and told me that he could not wait for me to make an album. I responded with a typical exchange of first names and a firm handshake, ergo formally accepting "Derrick—the nice black man" as one of my acquaintances.

The next day, I returned to the cafeteria piano to again flaunt the consequences of my hard work. Whilst I was performing the second movement of Beethoven's Pathetique Sonata, Derrick came up to the upright grand piano and placed a Reese's candy bar on the piano's top. I assumed that it was his intention for me to eat his gift. But I was not entirely sure what to do in the situation, because this action was a slight breach of etiquette for two reasons:

1) We were at the time merely acquaintances. Acquaintances do not normally give gifts. 

2) Derrick must not know that gifts are to be given only AFTER a concert. He could have waited at least until after the movement. 

I hesitated at the sight of the candy, but a thought occurred to me: perhaps if I played the piano more often during Derrick's working hours, I would get free food. The etiquette breach didn't seem so bothersome anymore. 

This thought process turned out to be right. The next day, he delivered some leftover chicken nuggets to me. The following day, I received a pop tart. This pattern continued for about 5 days, the same way.

One night, after these 5 days, I was getting some dinner at the cafeteria. In what I assumed was a dystopian* effort to minimize physical communication between customer and employee, the method of ordering food at the campus cafeteria consisted of a disposable paper menu upon which one would check-mark his desired food items. On the ordering table, there was a pencil container filled with pens. These pens were uglified with plastic forks, tackily scotch-taped to them. The tines were all facing up, with the ball-point ends at the bottom of the container (yes, this is pertinent to the story).

As I reached for a pen, I noticed Derrick coming towards me, a tray of pie in his hands. He kindly offered a plate of pecan pie to me, which I gratefully took. However, the dessert did not come with a fork. So, I looked hurriedly around myself, and I saw a cup of plastic forks positioned rather close to me. What luck! I grabbed a fork and took a bite of the delicious pie. 

Suddenly Derrick took the fork from my hand. Yet another breach of etiquette. I looked up and saw an odd look on his face. I looked down and saw the pen he just took out of my hand. The PEN. Whoever thought to adorn the pens with forks probably did not foresee this issue. I was sure that there was nothing I could have said to him to make him think I was any less stupid, so I didn't speak.

Derrick turned and went to grab a fork sans pen for me, as if he was thinking, "This kid needs my help to get him a real fork." I waited there for him to come back with a kosher utensil. Avoiding eye contact with him, I thanked him for the pie and fork and hurried out of the room.

I haven't seen Derrick since that day. He no longer works at the cafeteria. Coincidence? Gosh, I hope so. I am, however, glad that I don't have to face him when I go to dinner anymore. Then again, I never really did have to physically communicate with him to get my food.

—Drew

*Dystopian: Dialectical opposite of "Utopian," typically referring to a fictional totalitarian society.