So I've been feeling that turning 38 is the beginning of a new chapter in my life, and trying to figure out what it's going to be.
Then, in the past few weeks, things keep happening where being perfectly diligent results in bad outcomes, but being less than perfectly diligent results in good outcomes.
And I realized this needs to be my next new year's resolution: be less diligent.
The need for less diligence isn't just a result of the bad luck I've been having the past couple of weeks. It's also a result of the fact that my system hasn't been serving me well.
My system was originally designed when I was 22 and unemployed. Social media didn't exist then, and my personal care required far less diligence.
Since then, whenever something comes up that I need or want to be part of my routine, I've been adding it to my system. But I never took anything out, because everything in there seemed just as necessary as it has always been. I did notice problems with this approach, but I still continued it.
However, since my head injury, this has all been snowballing. What with the massive amounts of rest I needed in the aftermath of my head injury, and the general need to scale back on everything, and the addition of vision therapy to my routine, I'm essentially 6 months behind. Parts of the system were designed to be cumulative, so if I don't finish the task today I have to do it tomorrow, but since the head injury it has gotten ridiculous. I feel hopelessly behind, which is a stupid feeling to be living with every single moment of every single day when you're meeting all your work deadlines and paying all your bills on time and getting ahead on your mortgage.
So my project for the next year is to destroy and rebuild my system.
I will continue following the current system until my birthday, but for the purpose of gathering data. I will note what aspects aren't serving me and reflect upon how to fix those problems.
Then, on my birthday, I will erase my backlog so I'm no longer "behind", introduce any fixes I think of between now and then, and continue following the system for the purpose of gathering data.
The next year will be spent pinpointing which aspects of the system don't serve me, and figuring out ways to fix them so they do serve me. Then I will reboot the system again on my 39th birthday, to reflect everything I've learned in the interim.
And, hopefully, I will enter the second half of my life with a system that serves me well and reflects my actual needs, rather than punishing me for not meeting some completely arbitrary standard of diligence.
Showing posts with label thoughts from the shower. Show all posts
Showing posts with label thoughts from the shower. Show all posts
Sunday, November 11, 2018
*8
When I turned 8, I had the sudden feeling that I had stopped being a Little Kid and started being a Big Kid.
When I turned 18, I became a legal adult and endeavoured to start living as such rather than as my parents' child (which was difficult given that I was still in high school and living in my parents' house - both normal for an 18-year-old at the time, because this was back when high school was still five years long).
Turning 28 also felt significant, in that I suddenly didn't feel like I was cool enough for my age. I made myself a series of three anti-resolutions, that ultimately led to my Entitlement journey, which would ultimately give me the tools I would ultimately need to adult properly.
In December I turn 38, and that also feels significant because it's the halfway mark in many respects:
- My statistical life expectancy at birth is 76, and 38 is half of 76.
- I moved out of my parents' house at 19, and 19 x 2 = 38. So, starting this coming year, the majority of my life will have been spent living independently rather than as my parents' dependent.
- At the age of 38, I will mark my 16th anniversary as a professional translator. This is significant because I was 16 when I came to the realization that translation is the right career for me, so, starting this year, I will have spent more of my life a translator than not a translator. (The six years between realizing I should be a translator and starting to work as a professional translator were spent completing high school and going to university for my translation degree.)
38 feels like it's going to be meaningful, and I think I'm just starting to figure out how. That's for my next post.
When I turned 18, I became a legal adult and endeavoured to start living as such rather than as my parents' child (which was difficult given that I was still in high school and living in my parents' house - both normal for an 18-year-old at the time, because this was back when high school was still five years long).
Turning 28 also felt significant, in that I suddenly didn't feel like I was cool enough for my age. I made myself a series of three anti-resolutions, that ultimately led to my Entitlement journey, which would ultimately give me the tools I would ultimately need to adult properly.
In December I turn 38, and that also feels significant because it's the halfway mark in many respects:
- My statistical life expectancy at birth is 76, and 38 is half of 76.
- I moved out of my parents' house at 19, and 19 x 2 = 38. So, starting this coming year, the majority of my life will have been spent living independently rather than as my parents' dependent.
- At the age of 38, I will mark my 16th anniversary as a professional translator. This is significant because I was 16 when I came to the realization that translation is the right career for me, so, starting this year, I will have spent more of my life a translator than not a translator. (The six years between realizing I should be a translator and starting to work as a professional translator were spent completing high school and going to university for my translation degree.)
38 feels like it's going to be meaningful, and I think I'm just starting to figure out how. That's for my next post.
Sunday, October 14, 2018
The only requirement for assisted death should be wanting to die
I've always been thinking about medically-assisted dying from the point of view of not having access to it. I fear reaching the point where I can no longer have a quality of life that meets my minimum standards, but not being eligible to be put out of my misery. I fear decades of being tube-fed against my will, or never being able to have privacy because I'm too far into my decline to be unsupervised but not permitted to die.
And I've been writing about assisted dying from this perspective. Recent attempts at assisted-dying legislation set out very specific medical prerequisites for qualifying for assisted death. I see gaps in these criteria, so I'm trying to come up with policy ideas that would fill in the gaps while being sufficiently palatable to pass into law.
It recently came to my attention that some people think about it from the opposite perspective: they're concerned that the existence very specific medical criteria will create a situation where people who meet those criteria but want to continue living will be pressured or coerced to die. I've noticed that, in particular, people with disabilities who have been through some shit are concerned about being seen as less worthy of living if they meet the assisted dying criteria.
As a proponent of assisted dying, this is not my intention! My wanting death to be available to me and not wanting to have life inflicted upon me against my will doesn't mean that I don't want life to be available to others and want death to be inflicted upon others!
Fortunately, there is a simple solution to meet the needs of both sides. One, and only one, medical prerequisite for assisted death: the patient wants to die.
If the patient wants to die, they meet the legal requirements for assisted death. If the patient doesn't want to die, they don't meet the legal requirements for assisted death. Period.
The only problem is, I don't think they'll go for it. Too many people are uncomfortable with the idea of death on demand that they feel it's morally imperative to put obstacles in the way. I don't like it, but right at this exact moment I think our options are assisted dying with obstacles, or no assisted dying whatsoever.
But those obstacles shouldn't be medical prerequisites for assisted death. Instead, they should be part of the protocol that medical professionals follow.
For example, when a patient requests assisted death, protocol could dictate that medical professionals first conduct a quality of life analysis, and try to resolve the quality of life issues through less drastic means. Perhaps even a minimum amount of time would have to pass between the patient first requesting assisted death and assisted death being administered, during which time other, less drastic interventions are tried to resolve the patient's quality of life issues. (There would have to be an exception in cases where this minimum amount of time is longer than the patient's life expectancy prognosis, or when the patient and their medical team have already tried everything.)
But ultimately, in order to meet the needs of vulnerable people who want death to be available to them and vulnerable people who don't want death inflicted upon them, the only legal requirement, the only official medical criterion, and the sine qua non for assisted death must be wanting to die. Everything else is merely procedural.
In other words, the only requirement for whether to provide assisted dying is that the patient wants to die. Everything else is about how.
And I've been writing about assisted dying from this perspective. Recent attempts at assisted-dying legislation set out very specific medical prerequisites for qualifying for assisted death. I see gaps in these criteria, so I'm trying to come up with policy ideas that would fill in the gaps while being sufficiently palatable to pass into law.
It recently came to my attention that some people think about it from the opposite perspective: they're concerned that the existence very specific medical criteria will create a situation where people who meet those criteria but want to continue living will be pressured or coerced to die. I've noticed that, in particular, people with disabilities who have been through some shit are concerned about being seen as less worthy of living if they meet the assisted dying criteria.
As a proponent of assisted dying, this is not my intention! My wanting death to be available to me and not wanting to have life inflicted upon me against my will doesn't mean that I don't want life to be available to others and want death to be inflicted upon others!
Fortunately, there is a simple solution to meet the needs of both sides. One, and only one, medical prerequisite for assisted death: the patient wants to die.
If the patient wants to die, they meet the legal requirements for assisted death. If the patient doesn't want to die, they don't meet the legal requirements for assisted death. Period.
The only problem is, I don't think they'll go for it. Too many people are uncomfortable with the idea of death on demand that they feel it's morally imperative to put obstacles in the way. I don't like it, but right at this exact moment I think our options are assisted dying with obstacles, or no assisted dying whatsoever.
But those obstacles shouldn't be medical prerequisites for assisted death. Instead, they should be part of the protocol that medical professionals follow.
For example, when a patient requests assisted death, protocol could dictate that medical professionals first conduct a quality of life analysis, and try to resolve the quality of life issues through less drastic means. Perhaps even a minimum amount of time would have to pass between the patient first requesting assisted death and assisted death being administered, during which time other, less drastic interventions are tried to resolve the patient's quality of life issues. (There would have to be an exception in cases where this minimum amount of time is longer than the patient's life expectancy prognosis, or when the patient and their medical team have already tried everything.)
But ultimately, in order to meet the needs of vulnerable people who want death to be available to them and vulnerable people who don't want death inflicted upon them, the only legal requirement, the only official medical criterion, and the sine qua non for assisted death must be wanting to die. Everything else is merely procedural.
In other words, the only requirement for whether to provide assisted dying is that the patient wants to die. Everything else is about how.
Thursday, September 06, 2018
The first cloth
Think about how you make woolen or cotton cloth.*
You get wool off a woolly animal or cotton out of a cotton plant. You card it, spin the result into thread/yarn, and then weave it into cloth.
Isn't it amazing that humanity came up with cloth at all!
Each of these steps requires specialized tools, and I can't really picture how you'd arrive at a rudimentary version before the tools exist. Even just the idea of turning fluff into string is mindblowing, to say nothing of inventing a tool that makes it happen! (While writing this, I've been watching youtube videos of how spinning wheels work, and I still don't understand how they work.)
The only thing that exists in nature that's remotely cloth-like is animal pelts. So someone had to come up with the idea of turning fluff into something that resembled animal pelts (as opposed to seeing them as two completely disparate things), and then they had to figure out a mechanism by which to do it! Because they didn't have tools for as-yet-nonexistent processes just sitting around, they probably came up with rudimentary versions of carding, spinning, weaving and sewing that did not require any specialized tools! And the results of these processes would have been useful and satisfactory enough that people kept using and refining the processes over generations until we got the old-fashioned processes and tools that are part of recorded history.
Based on what I can google, the details of how people figured this out, and all the intermediary processes and tools that were once used and subsequently obsoleted, are lost to history. Which is a tragedy, because it's fascinating and mindblowing - possibly the most complex invention that we take completely for granted!
*Linen and silk are also types of cloth that predate recorded history. They have comparably complex, multi-step processes, but I don't understand them as well and you can google them just as well as I can. There are likely also other types of cloth I haven't heard of in other cultures whose histories I'm not up on. And there may well be yet more that were tried and obsoleted prior to recorded history.
You get wool off a woolly animal or cotton out of a cotton plant. You card it, spin the result into thread/yarn, and then weave it into cloth.
Isn't it amazing that humanity came up with cloth at all!
Each of these steps requires specialized tools, and I can't really picture how you'd arrive at a rudimentary version before the tools exist. Even just the idea of turning fluff into string is mindblowing, to say nothing of inventing a tool that makes it happen! (While writing this, I've been watching youtube videos of how spinning wheels work, and I still don't understand how they work.)
The only thing that exists in nature that's remotely cloth-like is animal pelts. So someone had to come up with the idea of turning fluff into something that resembled animal pelts (as opposed to seeing them as two completely disparate things), and then they had to figure out a mechanism by which to do it! Because they didn't have tools for as-yet-nonexistent processes just sitting around, they probably came up with rudimentary versions of carding, spinning, weaving and sewing that did not require any specialized tools! And the results of these processes would have been useful and satisfactory enough that people kept using and refining the processes over generations until we got the old-fashioned processes and tools that are part of recorded history.
Based on what I can google, the details of how people figured this out, and all the intermediary processes and tools that were once used and subsequently obsoleted, are lost to history. Which is a tragedy, because it's fascinating and mindblowing - possibly the most complex invention that we take completely for granted!
*Linen and silk are also types of cloth that predate recorded history. They have comparably complex, multi-step processes, but I don't understand them as well and you can google them just as well as I can. There are likely also other types of cloth I haven't heard of in other cultures whose histories I'm not up on. And there may well be yet more that were tried and obsoleted prior to recorded history.
Sunday, August 19, 2018
The first shapes
Circle, square, triangle, rectangle. Shapes are an extremely basic thing taught to toddlers, alongside letters and numbers and colours and animals.
But they're also rather an artificial human construct.
I mean, some shapes do exist in nature, but most of nature is irregular in shape. Prehistoric humans could have gone a lifetime without ever seeing a triangle, so they probably didn't feel the need to name it. And if they did name it, they wouldn't feel the need to teach it to children as a basic core concept.
Shapes would probably become more common as humans started making things, and standardizing the thing they're making. Then they would need to communicate what the things should look like, so they'd need names for shapes.
Would some time have elapsed between the naming of shapes and teaching them to children as a basic concept? On one hand, if they were a fairly new human invention, people might not feel they're a basic concept that small children need to know. On the other hand, in the past children have been closer to their parents' livelihoods, so they would likely learn the vocabulary of their parents' trades and/or the tasks of everyday living early on simply as a matter of course.
It's also interesting to think about the time between when people started making things but hadn't yet named shapes. If you don't have a word for a shape, you're less likely to be thinking in terms of shapes. Therefore, people probably didn't see it as necessary for things to be a particular shape in the way we do today. For example, you probably aren't going to think that the rocks around the fire need to be in a circle if you don't have a word for a circle. You probably aren't going to think your room needs to be rectangular if you don't have a word for a rectangle. Why should flatbread be round? Why should a tent be triangular? Things might have been all kinds of funny shapes simply because people didn't have the vocabulary for standard shapes!
Also, what constitutes a "standard" shape may well have varied depending on what kinds of things a particular society made. If you live in a teepee, you might have a word for triangle or cone, but not a word for rectangle or cube. If you live in an igloo, you might have a word for circle or dome, but not triangle. The internet tells me that igloos are made of blocks of ice, but perfectly cubic blocks won't make a perfectly hemispherical dome, so maybe your concept of what constitutes a "block" or a "dome" is affected by this fact.
And then, after millennia of no shapes, and millennia of shapes being the result of what people made, we somehow transitioned into theoretical shapes - perfect circles, squares, triangles and rectangles. Which affected the shapes of things people made, and eventually became so commonplace that they were no longer just for mathematicians and architects and engineers, but instead taught to preschoolers.
But they're also rather an artificial human construct.
I mean, some shapes do exist in nature, but most of nature is irregular in shape. Prehistoric humans could have gone a lifetime without ever seeing a triangle, so they probably didn't feel the need to name it. And if they did name it, they wouldn't feel the need to teach it to children as a basic core concept.
Shapes would probably become more common as humans started making things, and standardizing the thing they're making. Then they would need to communicate what the things should look like, so they'd need names for shapes.
Would some time have elapsed between the naming of shapes and teaching them to children as a basic concept? On one hand, if they were a fairly new human invention, people might not feel they're a basic concept that small children need to know. On the other hand, in the past children have been closer to their parents' livelihoods, so they would likely learn the vocabulary of their parents' trades and/or the tasks of everyday living early on simply as a matter of course.
It's also interesting to think about the time between when people started making things but hadn't yet named shapes. If you don't have a word for a shape, you're less likely to be thinking in terms of shapes. Therefore, people probably didn't see it as necessary for things to be a particular shape in the way we do today. For example, you probably aren't going to think that the rocks around the fire need to be in a circle if you don't have a word for a circle. You probably aren't going to think your room needs to be rectangular if you don't have a word for a rectangle. Why should flatbread be round? Why should a tent be triangular? Things might have been all kinds of funny shapes simply because people didn't have the vocabulary for standard shapes!
Also, what constitutes a "standard" shape may well have varied depending on what kinds of things a particular society made. If you live in a teepee, you might have a word for triangle or cone, but not a word for rectangle or cube. If you live in an igloo, you might have a word for circle or dome, but not triangle. The internet tells me that igloos are made of blocks of ice, but perfectly cubic blocks won't make a perfectly hemispherical dome, so maybe your concept of what constitutes a "block" or a "dome" is affected by this fact.
And then, after millennia of no shapes, and millennia of shapes being the result of what people made, we somehow transitioned into theoretical shapes - perfect circles, squares, triangles and rectangles. Which affected the shapes of things people made, and eventually became so commonplace that they were no longer just for mathematicians and architects and engineers, but instead taught to preschoolers.
Saturday, August 04, 2018
Things They Should Study (or publicize, if they've already studied it): to what extent do social programs make life easier for employers?
I am truly terrible at washing my windows. Every time I wash them, they end up covered in streaks - basically I'm just rearranging the streaks a couple of times a year.
I've considered on and off hiring someone to wash my windows, but I have no idea how to hire someone good. I'd be happy to pay well for completely streak-free windows, but if they're just going to rearrange the streaks, that isn't worth anything to me - I can do that myself.
The problem, of course, is that all window-washers and any number of random odd-job people are incentivized to say "Of course I can give you streak-free windows!" They need money. They need to hustle. Conventional wisdom is that you should apply for jobs even if you aren't confident you can do them.
But this makes it much harder to find someone who actually is good - especially if, like me, you're unaccustomed to hiring people - so I end up hiring no one.
I have heard small business owners make similar complaints - they're often in the market for skilled, competent help before they're in a position to put resources into long-term development, but, because they don't have much experience with hiring, they have trouble finding/identifying people who actually are skilled and competent in and among all the gumption/desperation applicants, so they often end up not hiring at all.
In the shower the other day, it occurred to me that basic income might improve this situation. An effective basic income program would eliminate the desperation factor, so employer and prospective employee could have a straightforward conversation about their needs and abilities.
So I could say "What I really want is completely streakless windows. A cleaning job that results in streaks has no value to me. Are you able to guarantee streaklessness?"
And my prospective window cleaner would have the leeway to say "You know, I don't think I can do a job that could make you happy." Or to quote me a ridiculously high price since I'm so needy and demanding, which I can then accept or reject depending on what it's worth to me.
And my prospective window cleaner would be far less likely to be a person who's bad at cleaning windows, because people who are bad at cleaning windows aren't going to be going around looking for window cleaning jobs.
I did one brief, cursory google and couldn't find much on how basic income interacts with the hiring experience from an employer's point of view. So I started looking into the logistics of Ontario's basic income pilot, to see whether it could produce relevant results . . . and, that very day, the government cancelled the basic income pilot.
***
In recent discussions of introducing pharmacare, I was surprised to see the idea raised of pharmacare covering people who don't already have a drug plan through work.
That seems like an administrative nightmare. (How will the government know who does and doesn't have drug coverage through work? Will pharmacare cover my the large co-pay in my workplace plan? Do we have to worry about coverage gaps if we lose our job?)
But it also seems like it would be a lot more convenient for employers if pharmacare were universal. Employers wouldn't have to administer or pay for drug plans any more. Employers who don't provide drug plans wouldn't lose quality employees who can pick and choose to other employers with better benefits. And employers who already provide good benefits would immediately realize significant savings by not having to do so any more.
***
When they were talking about creating an Ontario pension plan, they were also talking about having it apply only to people who don't have pensions through work.
Again, it seems like it would be far more convenient for employers if the public pension plan covered everyone, for exactly the same reasons. It would save employers the trouble of administering a pension plan, employers who are unable to provide a pension plan wouldn't lose out on quality talent, and employers who already provide a pension plan would immediately realize significant savings by not having to do so any more.
***
Discourse about social programs tends to focus on what it can do for regular people, which is, of course, where the focus in planning and delivering social programs should be.
However, I've noticed a strong correlation between people who are opposed to social programs and people whose roles involve hiring. I also remember seeing things from time to time where organizations representing small businesses object to the fact that government employees receive benefits, presumably because their tax dollars are supporting providing benefits that they can't offer their own employees.
It would be useful to have the data to quantify how social programs can make life easier for employers, in addition to making life easier for ordinary people.
I've considered on and off hiring someone to wash my windows, but I have no idea how to hire someone good. I'd be happy to pay well for completely streak-free windows, but if they're just going to rearrange the streaks, that isn't worth anything to me - I can do that myself.
The problem, of course, is that all window-washers and any number of random odd-job people are incentivized to say "Of course I can give you streak-free windows!" They need money. They need to hustle. Conventional wisdom is that you should apply for jobs even if you aren't confident you can do them.
But this makes it much harder to find someone who actually is good - especially if, like me, you're unaccustomed to hiring people - so I end up hiring no one.
I have heard small business owners make similar complaints - they're often in the market for skilled, competent help before they're in a position to put resources into long-term development, but, because they don't have much experience with hiring, they have trouble finding/identifying people who actually are skilled and competent in and among all the gumption/desperation applicants, so they often end up not hiring at all.
In the shower the other day, it occurred to me that basic income might improve this situation. An effective basic income program would eliminate the desperation factor, so employer and prospective employee could have a straightforward conversation about their needs and abilities.
So I could say "What I really want is completely streakless windows. A cleaning job that results in streaks has no value to me. Are you able to guarantee streaklessness?"
And my prospective window cleaner would have the leeway to say "You know, I don't think I can do a job that could make you happy." Or to quote me a ridiculously high price since I'm so needy and demanding, which I can then accept or reject depending on what it's worth to me.
And my prospective window cleaner would be far less likely to be a person who's bad at cleaning windows, because people who are bad at cleaning windows aren't going to be going around looking for window cleaning jobs.
I did one brief, cursory google and couldn't find much on how basic income interacts with the hiring experience from an employer's point of view. So I started looking into the logistics of Ontario's basic income pilot, to see whether it could produce relevant results . . . and, that very day, the government cancelled the basic income pilot.
***
In recent discussions of introducing pharmacare, I was surprised to see the idea raised of pharmacare covering people who don't already have a drug plan through work.
That seems like an administrative nightmare. (How will the government know who does and doesn't have drug coverage through work? Will pharmacare cover my the large co-pay in my workplace plan? Do we have to worry about coverage gaps if we lose our job?)
But it also seems like it would be a lot more convenient for employers if pharmacare were universal. Employers wouldn't have to administer or pay for drug plans any more. Employers who don't provide drug plans wouldn't lose quality employees who can pick and choose to other employers with better benefits. And employers who already provide good benefits would immediately realize significant savings by not having to do so any more.
***
When they were talking about creating an Ontario pension plan, they were also talking about having it apply only to people who don't have pensions through work.
Again, it seems like it would be far more convenient for employers if the public pension plan covered everyone, for exactly the same reasons. It would save employers the trouble of administering a pension plan, employers who are unable to provide a pension plan wouldn't lose out on quality talent, and employers who already provide a pension plan would immediately realize significant savings by not having to do so any more.
***
Discourse about social programs tends to focus on what it can do for regular people, which is, of course, where the focus in planning and delivering social programs should be.
However, I've noticed a strong correlation between people who are opposed to social programs and people whose roles involve hiring. I also remember seeing things from time to time where organizations representing small businesses object to the fact that government employees receive benefits, presumably because their tax dollars are supporting providing benefits that they can't offer their own employees.
It would be useful to have the data to quantify how social programs can make life easier for employers, in addition to making life easier for ordinary people.
Thursday, January 11, 2018
Jedi theory (no spoilers, but formulated while watching TLJ)
This post does not contain any specific spoilers, but it was formulated while watching The Last Jedi.
Movie canon states that Anakin Skywalker did not have a biological father and was instead conceived by midichlorians.
I propose that that holds true for all force-sensitive people just not everyone knows it.
How many mothers of force-sensitive people have we seen in movie canon? Shmi, Padmé, and Leia.
Padmé is married to Anakin, so it is assumed that Anakin is the biological father of her children. Leia is either married to or in a relationship with Han (I'm not sure whether it's explicitly stated that they got married), so it's assumed that Han is the biological father of her child.
But for all we know, they could have been conceived by midichlorians too. The couples could have been having regular marital relations as well, but it was the conception by midichlorians that ended up sticking.
Many women are in relationships with men, and therefore would assume their male partner is the biological father of their children.
On top of that, movie canon states that traditionally, force-sensitive children were taken to the Jedi temple to be raised. Since they're forbidden from having family attachments, they wouldn't really talk about their parents, or their mother's relationship status, or even realize that their mother's relationship status might be significant. The question of "so how did you get conceived?" probably wouldn't even come up.
So maybe all this time, all force-sensitive people have been conceived by midichlorians and nobody noticed.
Movie canon states that Anakin Skywalker did not have a biological father and was instead conceived by midichlorians.
I propose that that holds true for all force-sensitive people just not everyone knows it.
How many mothers of force-sensitive people have we seen in movie canon? Shmi, Padmé, and Leia.
Padmé is married to Anakin, so it is assumed that Anakin is the biological father of her children. Leia is either married to or in a relationship with Han (I'm not sure whether it's explicitly stated that they got married), so it's assumed that Han is the biological father of her child.
But for all we know, they could have been conceived by midichlorians too. The couples could have been having regular marital relations as well, but it was the conception by midichlorians that ended up sticking.
Many women are in relationships with men, and therefore would assume their male partner is the biological father of their children.
On top of that, movie canon states that traditionally, force-sensitive children were taken to the Jedi temple to be raised. Since they're forbidden from having family attachments, they wouldn't really talk about their parents, or their mother's relationship status, or even realize that their mother's relationship status might be significant. The question of "so how did you get conceived?" probably wouldn't even come up.
So maybe all this time, all force-sensitive people have been conceived by midichlorians and nobody noticed.
Tuesday, January 09, 2018
The first stairs and the first upstairs
Which came first, stairs or upstairs (by which I mean multi-storey buildings)?
Maybe they could make multi-storey buildings with ramps or ropes to climb? Or ladders? (Do ladders count as stairs? They seem like a fairly complex and creative invention in and of themselves.)
Or did someone invent stairs (to where?) and then later someone else thought "Hey, if we put these in a building, we can have a room on top of another room!"
I wonder how much instruction people needed to figure out the first stairs? I wonder if their purpose was readily apparent to the uninformed onlooker? I wonder if they seemed incredibly dangerous or unnatural to some people?
Maybe they could make multi-storey buildings with ramps or ropes to climb? Or ladders? (Do ladders count as stairs? They seem like a fairly complex and creative invention in and of themselves.)
Or did someone invent stairs (to where?) and then later someone else thought "Hey, if we put these in a building, we can have a room on top of another room!"
I wonder how much instruction people needed to figure out the first stairs? I wonder if their purpose was readily apparent to the uninformed onlooker? I wonder if they seemed incredibly dangerous or unnatural to some people?
Saturday, November 11, 2017
How to make your children feel that you love them unconditionally
I've recently seen quite a number of pieces of advice suggesting that making sure your children know you love them unconditionally is parenting panacea. I've seen it mentioned as a way to protect children from predators, prevent children from growing up to be predators, ensure success in life and prevent all manner of ills.
I can't vouch for whether or not it's as miraculous as people say it is. But, as a child of parents who want me to believe their love for me is more unconditional than I actually think it is, I have some thoughts on how to convince your children your love for them is unconditional.
To make your children believe you love them unconditionally, you have to pay attention not only to your words and actions towards your children, but also your words and actions towards and about others.
The more you speak disapprovingly or contemptuously of people in certain situations or with certain characteristics, the more likely your child is to think you won't love them if they should ever end up in that situation or develop that characteristic.
Even if you tell your child every day that you love them unconditionally, and even if you actually love them unconditionally every day, the more you speak disapprovingly or contemptuously of Those People, the more likely your child is to question whether you would love them if they became one of Those People.
For example, the more your preteen child hears you commenting on how disgusting it is that overweight people don't have the self-discipline to manage their weight, the more your child is likely to think you'll stop loving them after the puberty fairy comes along and gives them a body that's prone to plumpness.
The more your child hears you saying that unemployed people are lazy ungrateful bums who deserve to starve if they don't pull themselves up by their own bootstraps, the more your child is likely to think you'll stop loving them if they should ever struggle to find work.
And it's not just the things you say to your child that you need to be careful of. You also need to be careful of the things you say in their presence - conversations with other adults when your child is in the room, or things you post on the internet now that your child might read when they're older. (Don't you aspire for your child to grow up to be savvy enough to track down things people posted on the internet decades earlier? And don't you aspire for your child to be interested enough in your opinions and in you as a person to look you up?)
"Surely you're not saying that I have to express unconditional love for every random person I might ever speak to or about within my child's sphere of awareness!"
You don't have to express unconditional love for random people for the simple reason that our baseline feeling towards random people isn't love. Our baseline feeling towards random people is neutrality.
So what you need to do is express unconditional neutrality for the random people you speak to or about within your child's sphere of awareness.
For example, compare the following two statements:
1. "That disgusting piece of scum drove drunk and killed three people! I hope he's raped repeatedly in prison and then dies of AIDS!"
2. "I hope he's isn't ever allowed to drive again so he doesn't kill anyone else."
In the first example, the speaker veers into hatred and contempt for the drunk driver. In the second example, the speaker still wants the drunk driver to be suffer natural consequences, but maintains baseline neutrality towards them.
Children who hear their parents lose their baseline feeling (neutrality) towards people who are in certain situations or have certain characteristics may conclude that the parents will also lose their baseline feeling (love) towards their children in similar situations. And the more they hear their parents react to different situations by losing their baseline feeling, the more likely they are to think it could happen to them.
"But my child would never do that! My child would never become one of Those People!"
I'm tempted to point out that Those People's parents most likely didn't think they'd turn out that way either, but I doubt that argument would be effective.
Instead, think about it in terms of leeway. If you end up not being entirely successful in making your children feel you will love them unconditionally, they might still feel you'll love them functionally unconditionally if you can convince them that you wouldn't lose your baseline feeling of love in the face of things they would never actually do.
For example, if I felt it was plausible that my parents would continue to love me if I did something so bad that I went to prison, I wouldn't even question that they would continue to love me even if I were unemployed. I would never actually do something so bad as commit a felony, so, if I felt my parents would continue to love me if I did so, that would be functionally equivalent to unconditional love.
"But some things are Very, Very Bad and as a parent I need to make that clear to my child!"
That's your decision to make as a parent. Is it more important to you that your child knows you disapprove of Those People, or that your child feels you will always love them unconditionally? Only you can decide.
I can't vouch for whether or not it's as miraculous as people say it is. But, as a child of parents who want me to believe their love for me is more unconditional than I actually think it is, I have some thoughts on how to convince your children your love for them is unconditional.
To make your children believe you love them unconditionally, you have to pay attention not only to your words and actions towards your children, but also your words and actions towards and about others.
The more you speak disapprovingly or contemptuously of people in certain situations or with certain characteristics, the more likely your child is to think you won't love them if they should ever end up in that situation or develop that characteristic.
Even if you tell your child every day that you love them unconditionally, and even if you actually love them unconditionally every day, the more you speak disapprovingly or contemptuously of Those People, the more likely your child is to question whether you would love them if they became one of Those People.
For example, the more your preteen child hears you commenting on how disgusting it is that overweight people don't have the self-discipline to manage their weight, the more your child is likely to think you'll stop loving them after the puberty fairy comes along and gives them a body that's prone to plumpness.
The more your child hears you saying that unemployed people are lazy ungrateful bums who deserve to starve if they don't pull themselves up by their own bootstraps, the more your child is likely to think you'll stop loving them if they should ever struggle to find work.
And it's not just the things you say to your child that you need to be careful of. You also need to be careful of the things you say in their presence - conversations with other adults when your child is in the room, or things you post on the internet now that your child might read when they're older. (Don't you aspire for your child to grow up to be savvy enough to track down things people posted on the internet decades earlier? And don't you aspire for your child to be interested enough in your opinions and in you as a person to look you up?)
"Surely you're not saying that I have to express unconditional love for every random person I might ever speak to or about within my child's sphere of awareness!"
You don't have to express unconditional love for random people for the simple reason that our baseline feeling towards random people isn't love. Our baseline feeling towards random people is neutrality.
So what you need to do is express unconditional neutrality for the random people you speak to or about within your child's sphere of awareness.
For example, compare the following two statements:
1. "That disgusting piece of scum drove drunk and killed three people! I hope he's raped repeatedly in prison and then dies of AIDS!"
2. "I hope he's isn't ever allowed to drive again so he doesn't kill anyone else."
In the first example, the speaker veers into hatred and contempt for the drunk driver. In the second example, the speaker still wants the drunk driver to be suffer natural consequences, but maintains baseline neutrality towards them.
Children who hear their parents lose their baseline feeling (neutrality) towards people who are in certain situations or have certain characteristics may conclude that the parents will also lose their baseline feeling (love) towards their children in similar situations. And the more they hear their parents react to different situations by losing their baseline feeling, the more likely they are to think it could happen to them.
"But my child would never do that! My child would never become one of Those People!"
I'm tempted to point out that Those People's parents most likely didn't think they'd turn out that way either, but I doubt that argument would be effective.
Instead, think about it in terms of leeway. If you end up not being entirely successful in making your children feel you will love them unconditionally, they might still feel you'll love them functionally unconditionally if you can convince them that you wouldn't lose your baseline feeling of love in the face of things they would never actually do.
For example, if I felt it was plausible that my parents would continue to love me if I did something so bad that I went to prison, I wouldn't even question that they would continue to love me even if I were unemployed. I would never actually do something so bad as commit a felony, so, if I felt my parents would continue to love me if I did so, that would be functionally equivalent to unconditional love.
"But some things are Very, Very Bad and as a parent I need to make that clear to my child!"
That's your decision to make as a parent. Is it more important to you that your child knows you disapprove of Those People, or that your child feels you will always love them unconditionally? Only you can decide.
Colonel Fitzwilliam
The interesting thing about Colonel Fitzwilliam in Pride and Prejudice is he is in pretty much the same position in life as the Bennet sisters.
Colonel Fitzwilliam is charming, but he isn't an eligible suitor for Elizabeth because, as a second son, he has little fortune of his own and therefore has to marry an heiress to continue living in the style to which he is accustomed. This is why he has to be charming - all he has to offer the as-yet-theoretical heiress he needs to marry is his charms, and perhaps connections to an earldom if he finds a new-money heiress who doesn't yet have connections with nobility.
Similarly, the Bennet sisters have little fortune of their own and need to marry someone with money to continue living in the style to which they are accustomed. And they have to be charming, because all they have to offer a prospective husband is their charms, and perhaps connections with gentry if they find new-money husbands who don't yet have connections with gentry.
Now, Colonel Fitzwilliam does have his career in the military, which earns him some money. Indeed, it is more money than many people of that era have. But he still feels the need to marry an heiress because he would suffer a significant decline in quality of life if he were limited to living on his military salary.
Similarly, the Bennet sisters do have their dowries, which are more money than many people of that era have. But they still feel the need to marry well, because they would suffer a significant decline in quality of of life if they were limited to living off their dowries after their father dies.
So despite the fact that, on the surface, a colonel has far more freedom and options than an unmarried young lady in this era, Colonel Fitzwilliam faces essentially the same challenges as the Bennet sisters if he doesn't want his quality of life to decline, and he has to perform the same emotional labour to have any hope of maintaining his quality of life.
Colonel Fitzwilliam is charming, but he isn't an eligible suitor for Elizabeth because, as a second son, he has little fortune of his own and therefore has to marry an heiress to continue living in the style to which he is accustomed. This is why he has to be charming - all he has to offer the as-yet-theoretical heiress he needs to marry is his charms, and perhaps connections to an earldom if he finds a new-money heiress who doesn't yet have connections with nobility.
Similarly, the Bennet sisters have little fortune of their own and need to marry someone with money to continue living in the style to which they are accustomed. And they have to be charming, because all they have to offer a prospective husband is their charms, and perhaps connections with gentry if they find new-money husbands who don't yet have connections with gentry.
Now, Colonel Fitzwilliam does have his career in the military, which earns him some money. Indeed, it is more money than many people of that era have. But he still feels the need to marry an heiress because he would suffer a significant decline in quality of life if he were limited to living on his military salary.
Similarly, the Bennet sisters do have their dowries, which are more money than many people of that era have. But they still feel the need to marry well, because they would suffer a significant decline in quality of of life if they were limited to living off their dowries after their father dies.
So despite the fact that, on the surface, a colonel has far more freedom and options than an unmarried young lady in this era, Colonel Fitzwilliam faces essentially the same challenges as the Bennet sisters if he doesn't want his quality of life to decline, and he has to perform the same emotional labour to have any hope of maintaining his quality of life.
Thursday, October 05, 2017
T.H.I.N.K. before you speak: let's replace "inspiring" with "informative"
T.H.I.N.K before you speak: Is it:
True
Helpful
Inspiring
Necessary
Kind?
I think "inspiring" is too tall an order. There are plenty of things that should be said that are nowhere near inspirational. For example, "Excuse me, ma'am, you dropped this," and "Thank you, I appreciate it," and "I put the coffee creamer in the fridge but the sugar bowl is still on the table." For these kinds of benign statements, you can make an argument for true, helpful, necessary and kind, but they are by no stretch of the imagination inspiring. Nevertheless, they should be said.
I think the word "inspiring" is only even in the acronym in the first place because they wanted a vowel so they could make a word. So let's replace it with a better word that starts with a vowel.
I propose informative. One of the things we should think about before we speak is whether we're providing new information that our interlocutor doesn't already have, as opposed to being one of those assholes go goes around monopolizing the conversation and people's time by stating the obvious.
T.H.I.N.K. before you speak. Is it:
True
Helpful
Informative
Necessary
Kind?
Saturday, September 23, 2017
Two kinds of people in the world
Theory: There are two kinds of people in the world:
1. Someone you disagree with about almost everything agrees with you on a particular point. This leads you to conclude that they must be a more sensible person than you originally thought.
2. Someone you disagree with about almost everything agrees with you on a particular point. This leads you to question whether your opinion about that point is in fact correct.
I further theorize that each of these groups of people would conclude that the other group's approach/attitude is coming from a place of self-absorption.
1. Someone you disagree with about almost everything agrees with you on a particular point. This leads you to conclude that they must be a more sensible person than you originally thought.
2. Someone you disagree with about almost everything agrees with you on a particular point. This leads you to question whether your opinion about that point is in fact correct.
I further theorize that each of these groups of people would conclude that the other group's approach/attitude is coming from a place of self-absorption.
Sunday, September 17, 2017
The first homophones
Homophones are words that sound the same but have different meanings.
If you think about it, it's really weird that homophones became a thing in the first place!
Yes, I know, homophones tend to enter the language from different origins. For example, "sight" comes from Old English, and "site" comes from Latin.
But someone at some point in human history was the first person to attempt to use a homophone, and at some point (may or may not have been the first attempt) the notion stuck.
It's so weird to me that the notion stuck! If you imagine a world where there's no such thing as a homophone, it seems like homophones would be a dealbreaker - think of the confusion if words suddenly started meaning multiple unrelated things depending on context, in a universe where words have only ever had one meaning!
But for some reason it stuck. No one said "Dude, you can't call it a "site" - that sounds exactly like "sight" and everyone will get confused! We already have perfectly good words like "place" or "location". Use one of those." (Or they did say this and went unheeded.) And then, as time passed, even more homophones got added. (Including, in this specific example, the word "cite".)
If it hadn't already happened, no one would ever believe that something like that could happen.
If you think about it, it's really weird that homophones became a thing in the first place!
Yes, I know, homophones tend to enter the language from different origins. For example, "sight" comes from Old English, and "site" comes from Latin.
But someone at some point in human history was the first person to attempt to use a homophone, and at some point (may or may not have been the first attempt) the notion stuck.
It's so weird to me that the notion stuck! If you imagine a world where there's no such thing as a homophone, it seems like homophones would be a dealbreaker - think of the confusion if words suddenly started meaning multiple unrelated things depending on context, in a universe where words have only ever had one meaning!
But for some reason it stuck. No one said "Dude, you can't call it a "site" - that sounds exactly like "sight" and everyone will get confused! We already have perfectly good words like "place" or "location". Use one of those." (Or they did say this and went unheeded.) And then, as time passed, even more homophones got added. (Including, in this specific example, the word "cite".)
If it hadn't already happened, no one would ever believe that something like that could happen.
Sunday, September 03, 2017
Those People (but not you)
The following is a quote from Believe Me by Eddie Izzard. As usual, any typos are my own:
This makes me think of an odd phenomenon I've experienced over the years: people who rant and rail about "those people" (who have a certain characteristic or do a certain thing) but then don't include you in that, even though you do or might plausibly have that characteristic or do that thing.
Initially I thought they were just putting on a show of backpedalling in an attempt at being less rude. But then I had relatives whose hobby is ranting and railing about people who don't have jobs seem genuinely surprised that it never occurred to me that they would help me out if I lost my job. They seemed to think it was glaringly obvious that of course they'd help me out if I lost my job, even though every word I've ever heard them say about unemployed people is that they're bad and wrong and lazy and unworthy of any help.
I was also once in a conversation with a small business owner who was expressing prejudice about a certain identifiable group, but then seemed genuinely surprised when I assumed they would prefer not to have clients of that identifiable group. (And then, in an interesting feat of mental gymnastics, expressed the idea that the problem with Those People is they aren't interested in being a client of the business in question, and if they were a client of the business in question they would be One of the Good Ones.)
I don't understand how people can think this way. And I'm not saying that in a bemoaning-lack-of-human-compassion sort of way, I'm saying I can't extrapolate from my own experience having a human brain to figure out how the human brain can do this.
If they think being unemployed is bad and wrong and means you're lazy and unworthy of help, why wouldn't they conclude that I'm bad and wrong and lazy and unworthy of help if I lose my job? If they do conclude that but feel morally obligated to help me anyway, why would they be surprised that I wouldn't expect them to do that? And why would they reassure me in advance that they'd help me if they think being unemployed is so bad and wrong it needs additional external disincentives?
Conversely, if they want me to be confident I'd cared for and supported if unemployed, why would they spend so much time ranting and railing about unemployed people in the presence of someone who could become unemployed at any time and historically has had difficulty getting jobs?
If the small business owner expresses prejudice against a certain identifiable group, why would they be surprised that I'd conclude they'd prefer not to have clients from that group? If they want more clients from the group, why would they express prejudice against that group? If they are in fact prejudiced against that group, why do they see it as a problem that members of the group are disinclined to do business there (as opposed to being indifferent or tacitly relieved)?
Which was odd, since one of her really good friends - a man she'd met in San Francisco when she was on holiday there with my father - was gay and he and his partner lived there together. I think she definitely must have known that they were gay, but somehow it didn't bother her.
I think lots of people in the world behave similarly: they can like individuals for who they are, despite the fact that they don't' necessarily agree with or approve of the bigger issues and ideas related to their sexual or gender identities. Its a strange disconnect to me - not wanting to let facts affect your opinions - but it seems to work that way. I've been on the receiving end of this kind of thinking. I may seem more acceptable as a transgender person to some people, and they may be more accepting of me because of my charitable marathon running, and perhaps being on the telly, but they won't necessarily change their mind-set about LGBT+ people in general.
This makes me think of an odd phenomenon I've experienced over the years: people who rant and rail about "those people" (who have a certain characteristic or do a certain thing) but then don't include you in that, even though you do or might plausibly have that characteristic or do that thing.
Initially I thought they were just putting on a show of backpedalling in an attempt at being less rude. But then I had relatives whose hobby is ranting and railing about people who don't have jobs seem genuinely surprised that it never occurred to me that they would help me out if I lost my job. They seemed to think it was glaringly obvious that of course they'd help me out if I lost my job, even though every word I've ever heard them say about unemployed people is that they're bad and wrong and lazy and unworthy of any help.
I was also once in a conversation with a small business owner who was expressing prejudice about a certain identifiable group, but then seemed genuinely surprised when I assumed they would prefer not to have clients of that identifiable group. (And then, in an interesting feat of mental gymnastics, expressed the idea that the problem with Those People is they aren't interested in being a client of the business in question, and if they were a client of the business in question they would be One of the Good Ones.)
I don't understand how people can think this way. And I'm not saying that in a bemoaning-lack-of-human-compassion sort of way, I'm saying I can't extrapolate from my own experience having a human brain to figure out how the human brain can do this.
If they think being unemployed is bad and wrong and means you're lazy and unworthy of help, why wouldn't they conclude that I'm bad and wrong and lazy and unworthy of help if I lose my job? If they do conclude that but feel morally obligated to help me anyway, why would they be surprised that I wouldn't expect them to do that? And why would they reassure me in advance that they'd help me if they think being unemployed is so bad and wrong it needs additional external disincentives?
Conversely, if they want me to be confident I'd cared for and supported if unemployed, why would they spend so much time ranting and railing about unemployed people in the presence of someone who could become unemployed at any time and historically has had difficulty getting jobs?
If the small business owner expresses prejudice against a certain identifiable group, why would they be surprised that I'd conclude they'd prefer not to have clients from that group? If they want more clients from the group, why would they express prejudice against that group? If they are in fact prejudiced against that group, why do they see it as a problem that members of the group are disinclined to do business there (as opposed to being indifferent or tacitly relieved)?
Tuesday, August 29, 2017
Better advice for the LW who didn't want to disclose her surgery
While searching for another old post, I came upon this old post responding to an advice column where the letter-writer wanted to avoid disclosing the nature of her surgery to her co-workers.
In my previous blog post, I came up with a somewhat complex subterfuge approach. But upon rereading it, I came up with something much simpler that requires less subterfuge. This is obviously now irrelevant to the LW, but here it is for any googlers.
First, the letter:
Dear LW,
If your budget permits, acquire some unflattering clothes that drape poorly and hide your figure. Ideally do this some time before the surgery is scheduled. (It would be extra effective if the unflattering clothes were on-trend.) Start wearing the unflattering clothes as soon as possible.
Ideally, you do this long enough before the procedure that your unflattering clothes cease to be interesting or novel and just blend into the background.
Then go about life as usual, get your procedure when it's scheduled, and continue wearing your unflattering clothes for a period of time after the procedure.
Then after some time as passed (perhaps as the weather transitions into the next season) start wearing clothes that fit properly. If your pre-surgery clothes no longer fit your post-surgery body, start by transitioning from the unflattering clothes to your pre-surgery clothes, then (as you acquire them) to clothes that fit your post-surgery body. (Again, it would be extra effective if the more flattering clothes were on-trend.)
This way, the change in your body won't appear sudden, and your improved shape will appear at least partly attributable to to more flattering clothes. If you can do both the unflattering and the flattering with trendy clothes, it will just look like the evolution of fashion.
(Another option is, if asked, to say the unflattering clothes are due to an unspecified medical situation that requires loose clothes. I'm not sure whether this would be helpful or not.)
In my previous blog post, I came up with a somewhat complex subterfuge approach. But upon rereading it, I came up with something much simpler that requires less subterfuge. This is obviously now irrelevant to the LW, but here it is for any googlers.
First, the letter:
I am in my early 30s. As a teenager, I was quite obese (300 lbs), but I am very grateful to say that I have been slim now for several years. But my body still “bears the wounds” of my previous weight: lots of loose skin, a sagging chest, etc. Special garments were needed to hold it in. I recently underwent the first of two surgeries to correct my loose skin, a procedure called a body lift. I took a month off work, and was paid through the company’s short-term disability plan. Though I did say it would be the first of two surgeries, I did not tell people at work the exact nature of my surgery: I think there is a stigma attached to cosmetic procedures. I did get the odd “soft inquiry,” but kept mum. My dilemma is that my second surgery involves a lift and augmentation of both my bum and breast area. How do I handle telling my boss and co-workers without revealing too much or coming off as cold and closed off? Also, how do I respond should I get comments about my new appearance? While I fear negative judgment about being “paid to get a boob job,” this is a private issue that has a long history.
Dear LW,
If your budget permits, acquire some unflattering clothes that drape poorly and hide your figure. Ideally do this some time before the surgery is scheduled. (It would be extra effective if the unflattering clothes were on-trend.) Start wearing the unflattering clothes as soon as possible.
Ideally, you do this long enough before the procedure that your unflattering clothes cease to be interesting or novel and just blend into the background.
Then go about life as usual, get your procedure when it's scheduled, and continue wearing your unflattering clothes for a period of time after the procedure.
Then after some time as passed (perhaps as the weather transitions into the next season) start wearing clothes that fit properly. If your pre-surgery clothes no longer fit your post-surgery body, start by transitioning from the unflattering clothes to your pre-surgery clothes, then (as you acquire them) to clothes that fit your post-surgery body. (Again, it would be extra effective if the more flattering clothes were on-trend.)
This way, the change in your body won't appear sudden, and your improved shape will appear at least partly attributable to to more flattering clothes. If you can do both the unflattering and the flattering with trendy clothes, it will just look like the evolution of fashion.
(Another option is, if asked, to say the unflattering clothes are due to an unspecified medical situation that requires loose clothes. I'm not sure whether this would be helpful or not.)
Saturday, August 19, 2017
Conspiracy theory conspiracy theory
I think internet conspiracy theories either are, or are being used as, trial balloons by the powers that be. The powers that be are observing the public's response to the various conspiracy theories, and if enough of the population believes a particular theory, the powers that be will use it next time they want to cover something up.
For example, I've heard conspiracy theories that various massacres didn't actually happen, alleging that the powers that be hired actors to pretend to be victims of the massacre. Of course, that's ridiculous because if the powers that be wanted people to believe there had been a massacre, they would achieve that by killing a bunch of people. That's far more feasible and efficient than faking a massacre!
However, if enough people believe this, I theorize that the next time the powers that be want to cover up a massacre, they'll "leak" "evidence" that it was just faked with actors.
Another weird conspiracy theory is the sovereign citizen movement, which, as far as I can tell, believes that the laws of the US have secretly been replaced by another set of laws for the purpose of enslaving everyone, but can be circumvented with the appropriate paperwork. Of course, that's ridiculous because of the powers that be wanted to enslave us all, why would they create a loophole that can be accessed with mere paperwork?
However, if enough people believe this, I theorize that next time the powers that be want to let off someone who has done something so inexcusable for which there is so much evidence that the perpetrator can't possibly be found not guilty in court, they'll "leak" documents showing that the perpetrator was a sovereign citizen.
The weirdest conspiracy theory I've ever heard of (haven't actually seen this in the wild, but haven't looked too hard) is that the earth really has two suns, and the powers that be are hiding one of them for us. Of course, that's ridiculous because what would that achieve?
However, if enough people believe this, I theorize that next time the powers that be want to cover up something like a nuclear blast, they'll "leak" the idea that it was just the second sun briefly escaping.
I can't even begin to speculate on whether the powers that be are the ones coming up with all these conspiracy theories to see which ones stick, or whether they're just piggy-backing on existing online conspiracy theorists who are in it for the clicks and/or merch sales. But in either case, we'd be naive to think they aren't looking at which conspiracy theories stick and how to leverage them.
For example, I've heard conspiracy theories that various massacres didn't actually happen, alleging that the powers that be hired actors to pretend to be victims of the massacre. Of course, that's ridiculous because if the powers that be wanted people to believe there had been a massacre, they would achieve that by killing a bunch of people. That's far more feasible and efficient than faking a massacre!
However, if enough people believe this, I theorize that the next time the powers that be want to cover up a massacre, they'll "leak" "evidence" that it was just faked with actors.
Another weird conspiracy theory is the sovereign citizen movement, which, as far as I can tell, believes that the laws of the US have secretly been replaced by another set of laws for the purpose of enslaving everyone, but can be circumvented with the appropriate paperwork. Of course, that's ridiculous because of the powers that be wanted to enslave us all, why would they create a loophole that can be accessed with mere paperwork?
However, if enough people believe this, I theorize that next time the powers that be want to let off someone who has done something so inexcusable for which there is so much evidence that the perpetrator can't possibly be found not guilty in court, they'll "leak" documents showing that the perpetrator was a sovereign citizen.
The weirdest conspiracy theory I've ever heard of (haven't actually seen this in the wild, but haven't looked too hard) is that the earth really has two suns, and the powers that be are hiding one of them for us. Of course, that's ridiculous because what would that achieve?
However, if enough people believe this, I theorize that next time the powers that be want to cover up something like a nuclear blast, they'll "leak" the idea that it was just the second sun briefly escaping.
I can't even begin to speculate on whether the powers that be are the ones coming up with all these conspiracy theories to see which ones stick, or whether they're just piggy-backing on existing online conspiracy theorists who are in it for the clicks and/or merch sales. But in either case, we'd be naive to think they aren't looking at which conspiracy theories stick and how to leverage them.
Sunday, July 30, 2017
A pragmatic approach for law-abiding citizens
The biggest benefit of being a law-abiding citizen is credibility. If your job or your landlord or the kids' hockey team you want to coach wants a police check, you'll pass with flying colours. If anyone is trying to dig up dirt on you, they're going to find nary a parking ticket. If you ever want to criticize anyone else's less-than-optimal behaviour, you can stand up tall, look the world in the eye, and proclaim "I am a law-abiding citizen!"
That is why the greatest threat to us law-abiding citizens is non-law-abiding authorities, in particular those whose abuse their authority in a way that causes people harm.
Many people's visceral response to this statement is "No, the greatest threat to us is criminals!" But non-law-abiding authorities are criminals. They can do anything to us that criminals can do. Authorities can kill us. Authorities can steal or destroy our possessions. Authorities can rape us. Authorities can cause us permanent injury.
And, on top of that, non-law-abiding authorities who abuse their power can destroy our hard-earned credibility. They can lay charges that will lead to us failing police checks, regardless of whether we're actually convicted, regardless of whether we actually did it. Our names would get be in the paper (and therefore googleable) associated with these charges, regardless of whether we're actually convicted, regardless of whether we actually did it. They can detain us - even if we're not found guilty, they can detain us until the trial is over - thereby preventing us from going to work and earning a living, thereby making it more difficult for us to pay our bills. This could cause us to lose our jobs, our homes, our credit rating, and our credibility in many areas of life. Ever had an employer or a creditor cheerfully give you the opportunity to correct an honest mistake because you've proven your reliability over the years? Think they'll still do that if you've missed work or missed payments because you were in jail?
Therefore, the most pragmatic approach for law-abiding citizens is to come down hard on non-law-abiding authorities. Give them the full force of your law-abiding, hard-working taxpayer outrage, and make this outrage known on social media and letters to the editor and messages to your elected representatives. Call for the dismissal of those who allowed it to happen. Don't let them distract you with particulars of the case that they claim justify their failure to comply with the law. Make it very, very clear that their failure to comply with the law is unacceptable and beyond the pale, and we will not stand idly by while such things happen.
In the specific case of Omar Khadr, this means our outrage should be focused on the non-law-abiding actions (or inactions) of authority figures that led to this whole situation. If the settlement specifically is what bothers you, focus your outrage on the non-law-abiding actions (or inactions) that led to the settlement being legally required, making it very, very clear that you will not tolerate authority figures behaving in a way that makes it necessary to spend tax dollars on these kinds of settlements, whereas if they had just abided with the law they could have saved us all this money.
It is not in our best interests as law-abiding citizens to express outrage about the fact of the settlement, because the settlement was a legal requirement. By expressing outrage about the fact of the settlement, we'd be suggesting to authorities that failing to comply with the law would be a popular decision. Whereas by expressing outrage about the non-law-abiding behaviour that made the settlement necessary, we will make it clear that complying with the law is a popular decision and failing to comply with the law is unacceptable.
That is why the greatest threat to us law-abiding citizens is non-law-abiding authorities, in particular those whose abuse their authority in a way that causes people harm.
Many people's visceral response to this statement is "No, the greatest threat to us is criminals!" But non-law-abiding authorities are criminals. They can do anything to us that criminals can do. Authorities can kill us. Authorities can steal or destroy our possessions. Authorities can rape us. Authorities can cause us permanent injury.
And, on top of that, non-law-abiding authorities who abuse their power can destroy our hard-earned credibility. They can lay charges that will lead to us failing police checks, regardless of whether we're actually convicted, regardless of whether we actually did it. Our names would get be in the paper (and therefore googleable) associated with these charges, regardless of whether we're actually convicted, regardless of whether we actually did it. They can detain us - even if we're not found guilty, they can detain us until the trial is over - thereby preventing us from going to work and earning a living, thereby making it more difficult for us to pay our bills. This could cause us to lose our jobs, our homes, our credit rating, and our credibility in many areas of life. Ever had an employer or a creditor cheerfully give you the opportunity to correct an honest mistake because you've proven your reliability over the years? Think they'll still do that if you've missed work or missed payments because you were in jail?
Therefore, the most pragmatic approach for law-abiding citizens is to come down hard on non-law-abiding authorities. Give them the full force of your law-abiding, hard-working taxpayer outrage, and make this outrage known on social media and letters to the editor and messages to your elected representatives. Call for the dismissal of those who allowed it to happen. Don't let them distract you with particulars of the case that they claim justify their failure to comply with the law. Make it very, very clear that their failure to comply with the law is unacceptable and beyond the pale, and we will not stand idly by while such things happen.
In the specific case of Omar Khadr, this means our outrage should be focused on the non-law-abiding actions (or inactions) of authority figures that led to this whole situation. If the settlement specifically is what bothers you, focus your outrage on the non-law-abiding actions (or inactions) that led to the settlement being legally required, making it very, very clear that you will not tolerate authority figures behaving in a way that makes it necessary to spend tax dollars on these kinds of settlements, whereas if they had just abided with the law they could have saved us all this money.
It is not in our best interests as law-abiding citizens to express outrage about the fact of the settlement, because the settlement was a legal requirement. By expressing outrage about the fact of the settlement, we'd be suggesting to authorities that failing to comply with the law would be a popular decision. Whereas by expressing outrage about the non-law-abiding behaviour that made the settlement necessary, we will make it clear that complying with the law is a popular decision and failing to comply with the law is unacceptable.
Monday, June 05, 2017
Childfree for Dummies: Part VI (plus: help write the analogy!)
Sometimes medical professionals insist on taking measure to protect the patient's fertility even when the patient is childfree and doesn't want to be fertile. And sometimes, if you complain about this, people will counter with "But he's just looking out for your health."
But unwanted fertility is not part of health.
Fertility is a thing my body does that I don't want it to do, much like acid reflux or gaining weight or sweating profusely. It has no benefit for me and adds nothing to my quality of life. On top of that, unlike acid reflux or gaining weight or sweating profusely, fertility could have the most severe negative consequences possible - both for myself and for innocent others.
Therefore, fertility is not an aspect of my health, but rather a chronic condition to be managed. And managing it is the top priority of my life. The vast majority of the medical care I receive is in service of managing this chronic condition. If it were not possible to receive the medical care that permits me to manage this condition, I would take drastic measures - up to and including breaking the law, risking my personal health and safety, and relocating to another part of the world - to keep it under control.
So when medical professionals disregard the fact that a patient is childfree and give them treatment that preserves their fertility in cases there are also options that may reduce or even eliminate fertility, they're basically refusing to cure the chronic condition that overshadows every aspect of the patient's life.
***
I'm trying to think of an analogy for this concept, but it's not working out as well as I'd like. Here's what I've got so far.
Analogy: imagine you're a pre-op transman, and you're diagnosed with breast cancer. One possible treatment is mastectomy. This would not only eliminate the cancer and either vastly reduce (or even completely eliminate) the likelihood of its returning, and vastly reduce (or even completely eliminate) the amount of follow-up care you'd need, it would also remove the breasts that you don't even want (and, depending on their size, may cause you day-to-day discomfort).
But the doctor refuses to give you a mastectomy, and in fact says they will make every effort to save your breasts. Because most women want to keep their breasts. When you point out the unfairness and very near cruelty of the doctor making you keep your unwanted breasts when removing them would be an effective treatment to everything that ails you, people counter with "But he's only looking out for your health!"
Of course, the problem with this analogy is it's likely ineffective to the people who need it. People who aren't able to imagine what it would be like to not want to have children ever are also likely to have difficulty imagining what it would be like to be transgender. (Unless there are transfolk who can't imagine being childfree, which would be an interesting combination of characteristics.)
Can you think of another comparable analogy that would explain the concept more effectively for the target audience?
But unwanted fertility is not part of health.
Fertility is a thing my body does that I don't want it to do, much like acid reflux or gaining weight or sweating profusely. It has no benefit for me and adds nothing to my quality of life. On top of that, unlike acid reflux or gaining weight or sweating profusely, fertility could have the most severe negative consequences possible - both for myself and for innocent others.
Therefore, fertility is not an aspect of my health, but rather a chronic condition to be managed. And managing it is the top priority of my life. The vast majority of the medical care I receive is in service of managing this chronic condition. If it were not possible to receive the medical care that permits me to manage this condition, I would take drastic measures - up to and including breaking the law, risking my personal health and safety, and relocating to another part of the world - to keep it under control.
So when medical professionals disregard the fact that a patient is childfree and give them treatment that preserves their fertility in cases there are also options that may reduce or even eliminate fertility, they're basically refusing to cure the chronic condition that overshadows every aspect of the patient's life.
***
I'm trying to think of an analogy for this concept, but it's not working out as well as I'd like. Here's what I've got so far.
Analogy: imagine you're a pre-op transman, and you're diagnosed with breast cancer. One possible treatment is mastectomy. This would not only eliminate the cancer and either vastly reduce (or even completely eliminate) the likelihood of its returning, and vastly reduce (or even completely eliminate) the amount of follow-up care you'd need, it would also remove the breasts that you don't even want (and, depending on their size, may cause you day-to-day discomfort).
But the doctor refuses to give you a mastectomy, and in fact says they will make every effort to save your breasts. Because most women want to keep their breasts. When you point out the unfairness and very near cruelty of the doctor making you keep your unwanted breasts when removing them would be an effective treatment to everything that ails you, people counter with "But he's only looking out for your health!"
Of course, the problem with this analogy is it's likely ineffective to the people who need it. People who aren't able to imagine what it would be like to not want to have children ever are also likely to have difficulty imagining what it would be like to be transgender. (Unless there are transfolk who can't imagine being childfree, which would be an interesting combination of characteristics.)
Can you think of another comparable analogy that would explain the concept more effectively for the target audience?
Wednesday, May 17, 2017
Things They Should Invent: Uber but for driving practice
I've blogged before about the problem of driving schools being based on the assumption that you have a car to practise in and a willing, fully-licensed driver to accompany you while you practise. And if you don't have a car to practise in and a willing, fully-licensed driver to accompany you, you won't get enough practice to get good enough to pass the test, unless you pay your driving instructor a significant (and prohibitive to some) amount of money to accompany you while you practise.
It occurred to me in the shower that the Uber model could fill this gap.
The client creates an Uber account indicating that they are a learning driver looking for an accompanying driver to practice with. The car owner accepts the client as usual, arrives at the client's location as usual, and the only difference is that the client drives the car to their destination and the accompanying driver sits in the passenger seat, serving as accompanying driver.
The client would pay the car owner more money than the typical Uber fee to make up for the increased risk incurred by the car owner. (It would have to be less than the a driving instructor would typically charge for a lesson - I don't know offhand if Uber drivers would consider that sufficient compensation for increased risk.) Uber drivers could, of course, opt out of providing driving practice, and instead provide only driving services. I don't know how it would work for insurance, but Uber has operated (and possibly still does operate) in a questionable insurance environment and that didn't stop it.
Even if the client does supplement their practice with additional professional lessons, the Uber model could be useful by allowing the client to get driving practice whenever they have to go somewhere (which is often how it works when you already have a car and an accompanying driver in the household) rather than having to book lessons whenever they fit in the instructor's schedule. Going to work? Driving practice! Going on an errand? Driving practice!
Obviously, this model is not ideal. The ideal would be a baseline driving instruction system that works equally well for clients who have a car in their household and clients who don't have access to a car, where instructors are well-paid, well-trained and properly insured, and where quality driving instruction is reasonably affordable to all clients.
But in the meantime, this is a need. If there are people willing to serve as accompanying driver in exchange for pay, the Uber model could fill this need. And it would enable new drivers for whom practice is inaccessible to become more experienced before getting fully licensed.
It occurred to me in the shower that the Uber model could fill this gap.
The client creates an Uber account indicating that they are a learning driver looking for an accompanying driver to practice with. The car owner accepts the client as usual, arrives at the client's location as usual, and the only difference is that the client drives the car to their destination and the accompanying driver sits in the passenger seat, serving as accompanying driver.
The client would pay the car owner more money than the typical Uber fee to make up for the increased risk incurred by the car owner. (It would have to be less than the a driving instructor would typically charge for a lesson - I don't know offhand if Uber drivers would consider that sufficient compensation for increased risk.) Uber drivers could, of course, opt out of providing driving practice, and instead provide only driving services. I don't know how it would work for insurance, but Uber has operated (and possibly still does operate) in a questionable insurance environment and that didn't stop it.
Even if the client does supplement their practice with additional professional lessons, the Uber model could be useful by allowing the client to get driving practice whenever they have to go somewhere (which is often how it works when you already have a car and an accompanying driver in the household) rather than having to book lessons whenever they fit in the instructor's schedule. Going to work? Driving practice! Going on an errand? Driving practice!
Obviously, this model is not ideal. The ideal would be a baseline driving instruction system that works equally well for clients who have a car in their household and clients who don't have access to a car, where instructors are well-paid, well-trained and properly insured, and where quality driving instruction is reasonably affordable to all clients.
But in the meantime, this is a need. If there are people willing to serve as accompanying driver in exchange for pay, the Uber model could fill this need. And it would enable new drivers for whom practice is inaccessible to become more experienced before getting fully licensed.
Sunday, April 23, 2017
How to apologize to someone you've wronged in the past and are no longer in touch with, without imposing upon them
A recent Savage Love Letter of the Day contains a twitter thread on whether or not a man should apologize to a woman he only now realizes he assaulted back then. (I can't find the original discussion - it might be from a podcast.)
I've seen this question - whether to seek out someone you've wronged in the past but are no longer in contact with so you can apologize to them - asked in various forms in various advice columns over the years, and the argument against doing so is the same every time: the wronged person may well have moved on and the apology would simply dredge up old bad feelings, with the end result being that the apologizer feels better for unloading/doing what they perceive as penance, but making the wronged person feels worse.
But today my shower gave me an idea for how to apologize to a person you've wronged in the past and are no longer in touch with, without dredging up any bad feelings.
Post an apology on your primary online presence (blog, facebook, twitter, whatever). Do not use the wronged person's name, but do include enough details that they'll recognize themselves in the apology. Ideally the post should be public, but if you don't have it in you to make it public it should be visible to as many people as you dare.
If the wronged person ever thinks of you, they'll google you. If they care, they'll start reading through what you've posted. And they'll find your apology and see themselves.
If the wronged person ever mentions you to a mutual acquaintance, and your post has reached the mutual acquaintance, through the natural combination of social media and gossip mill, the mutual acquaintance will tell the wronged person about the post, and the wronged person will check it out if they're interested.
If the wronged person isn't thinking about you, this won't intrude upon their lives at all.
In either case, your emotional needs are still attended to. If your emotional need is to express your remorse, it's put out there and they'll receive it if they're in a position where they're seeking out information about you. If your emotional need is for penance, you'll get it by admitting your wrongs in front of all your followers.
In short, everyone's needs are attended to, no one is imposed upon.
I've seen this question - whether to seek out someone you've wronged in the past but are no longer in contact with so you can apologize to them - asked in various forms in various advice columns over the years, and the argument against doing so is the same every time: the wronged person may well have moved on and the apology would simply dredge up old bad feelings, with the end result being that the apologizer feels better for unloading/doing what they perceive as penance, but making the wronged person feels worse.
But today my shower gave me an idea for how to apologize to a person you've wronged in the past and are no longer in touch with, without dredging up any bad feelings.
Post an apology on your primary online presence (blog, facebook, twitter, whatever). Do not use the wronged person's name, but do include enough details that they'll recognize themselves in the apology. Ideally the post should be public, but if you don't have it in you to make it public it should be visible to as many people as you dare.
If the wronged person ever thinks of you, they'll google you. If they care, they'll start reading through what you've posted. And they'll find your apology and see themselves.
If the wronged person ever mentions you to a mutual acquaintance, and your post has reached the mutual acquaintance, through the natural combination of social media and gossip mill, the mutual acquaintance will tell the wronged person about the post, and the wronged person will check it out if they're interested.
If the wronged person isn't thinking about you, this won't intrude upon their lives at all.
In either case, your emotional needs are still attended to. If your emotional need is to express your remorse, it's put out there and they'll receive it if they're in a position where they're seeking out information about you. If your emotional need is for penance, you'll get it by admitting your wrongs in front of all your followers.
In short, everyone's needs are attended to, no one is imposed upon.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)