Monday, July 31, 2006

Interesting demographic phenomenon

With the baby boomer population reaching retirement age, we're going to have an interesting phenomenon in the next 10 years or so: a generation of seniors that (for the most part, using the gross generalizations that are necessary to demography) did not live through hardship when they were young.

It's sort of a cultural touchstone that Seniors Suffered Through Hardship. The 1930s were the Great Depression, the 1910s and 1940s were World Wars, so anyone who lived through those decades was (at least during my lifetime) generally considered to have Been Through Hardship. But the boomers? Nothing so all-encompassing. Individuals went through hardships, sure, but the generation as a whole was born and raised in an era that is, by general cultural consensus, idealistic and propserous. Their childhood is the touchstone that people harken back to when they want to evoke A Better Time or The Good Old Days.

I wonder how that's going to effect society as a whole, to have elders who are not considered to have been through hardship - and, with the economy and employment patterns being what they are, to have possibly enjoyed more security and propserity than their children and grandchildren ever will?

Sunday, July 30, 2006

One more point about gym class

An addendum to my explanation of why gym class should not be mandatory:

Think of all the things you were forced to do when you were a kid, but hated doing.

How many of those things do you actively seek out as an adult?
How many of those things do you actively avoid as an adult?

What do people enjoy about being an adult? Ask around, google the blogosphere, bring it up as a "getting to know you" question, and you'll get comments on eating cookies instead of brussel sprouts, staying up as late as you want, not being dragged to churches you don't believe in and smelly bigoted relatives' houses, seeing something you want in a store and simply buying it yourself.

Essentially, the joy of adulthood comes down to being able to choose not to do the things you hated doing as a kid. Except in cases of psychological abuse or brainwashing, I've never heard of someone who hates to do something suddenly starting to love it because they were forced to do it for even longer, and I've never in any case heard of a grown adult suddenly starting to love the things they were forced against their will to do as a kid.

Frankly, I'm rather surprised that so many people seem to think more mandatory phys. ed. is a solution. Obviously these aren't he people who hated phys. ed. as kids, but can't they draw just one simple parallel with their own memories of things they hated as a kid and see that this isn't going to work?

Saturday, July 29, 2006

Dual citizenship: points to keep in mind

With the recent evacuation of Canadian citizens from Lebanon, there has been some debate on Canada's policies on dual citizenship. Coincidentally, I recently did some research on dual citizenship, and learned a number of interesting things that I haven't seen mentioned in this debate:

1. Some countries don't have a mechanism for renouncing citizenship. It simply cannot be done. There is no enabling legal statute, their computers simply do not allow a citizen to be deleted from the database, basically you can't renounce your citizenship any more than you can walk into city hall and buy a fish licence for your pet fish, Eric. Some people have brought up the idea of requiring new Canadian citizens to renounce any other citizenships. But what would happen if the other country didn't recognize the renunciation?

2. In some countries, citizenship is automatically hereditary. Any child of a citizen is also a citizen. This means that there may be some dual citizens walking around who don't even know that they are dual citizens. From a more pratical perspective, it is quite possible for someone to be born in Canada and inherit a citizenship from an immigrant parent, but not speak the language of the old country since they have lived all their lives in Canada. Since not all countries publish their citizen information in English or French, these unwilling dual citizens would not even be able to do the research to learn whether they are dual citizens and how or if they can renounce their other citizenship. (Realistically, the parent may well be able to help, but we can't make policy that assumes everyone's parents are living and willing and able to help them.)

3. Parents deal with citizenship issues on behalf of their minor children. I don't know the details here, but if a couple with young children immigrates, no one is going to ask, say, a six-year-old to take the citizenship exam and the oath. Teenagers maybe, I'm not sure, but simple logic dictates that parents must be able to act on their children's behalf for citizenship as with any other legal matter. If the whole citizenship thing happens when the kid is too young to understand, and they've been a Canadian citizen as long as they can remember, they may well not think to look into their old country citizenship status. I myself know some people who immigrated as children, have been Canadian citizens for decades, and only recently learned that they still hold old country citizenship after being informed that they might by someone else in the same position.

These sound like minor exceptional cases, but we need to take them into consideration when making dual citizenship policies - especially since they can occur in combination.

Picture this: a family immigrates and becomes Canadian citizens when their children are young. The children grow up and have children in Canada, with these children automatically being Canadian citizens. The children grow up, the grandparents (i.e. the original adult immigrants) pass away. However, unbeknownst to any of the survivors (and perhaps to the grandparents, since they didn't have internet when they immigrated), the old country has hereditary citizenship with no way of renouncing it. So one of the Canadian-born generation travels to the old country on a classic 20-something journey of self-discovery, when disaster strikes and they need to be evacuated. But guess what? They can't be evacuated because it turns out they're a citizen of the old country, even though they're born in Canada, in Old Country for the first time in their life, and hardly even speak the language!

Free advice

It's 1:00 a.m., I'm flossing my teeth, and my brain suddenly gives me one sentence that sums up a whole lot of the important things I've learned in my life. So here it is, free for the taking:

Make your decisions based on what you do want, not on what you think you should want.

We get a lot of messages telling us, directly or indirectly, what we should want - social influence, family values, the platitudes spouted by those around us,* themes in pop culture, the prevailing wisdom in advice columns, the goals set in self-help books - they all seem to be nudging us towards having uniform wants. I have learned to look critically at my goals and analyze whether they are things I really do want or just things I've been conditioned to want, and to work towards what I really do want, even if it is universally unpopular. The choices for which I've had the least support are the ones that I regret the least.

*Yes, I do realize that this whole thing is a platitude and therefore negates itself.

Friday, July 28, 2006

Formula for when teachers can consider former students to be adults

Cary Tennis had a letter from a teacher who had an affair with a former student, who was legally an adult at the time. This triggered an interesting discussion in the comment as to when, if ever, teachers can ethically consider their students as adults for fraternization purposes.

This inspired me to make a mathematical formula for when high school teachers and students can socially consider each other to be peers. I am in no way qualified to rule on this, but I like making up rules, and that's what blogs are for.

In order for the student to be considered an adult on par with the teacher, the following conditions must be met:

1. The student must have graduated
2. Any of the student's younger siblings, cousins, or other same-generation relatives who attended the same school, and whose attendance at that school overlapped that of the student in question, must also have graduated. This includes half-siblings, step-siblings, and any other members of the same generation residing in the same household as the student or any blood relatives.
3. Anyone who attended this school at the same time as any of the people listed above must have graduated. This means that if the school starts at grade 9, the people who were in grade 9 when the people listed above graduated must also have graduated.
4. Any former student who is the parent of one of the teacher's current student is automatically considered socially equal to the teacher, regardless of any other factors.

These conditions should ensure that the student in question is psychologically separated from identifying as a student, and is therefore able to look on the teacher as a peer.

I will illustrate this with examples below. For the purposes of these examples, I am using the calendar year in which the academic year ended to refer to the entire academic year. In other words, when I say 1999, I mean the 1998-1999 academic year. So:

I graduated from high school in 1999, at age 18. The students who were in grade 9 in 1999 graduated from high school in 2003.* This means that, if I were an only child, I would be a social equal with my teachers in 2003, at age 22.

However, I am not an only child. I have a sister, who graduated from the same high school I did in 2002. The students who were in grade 9 in 2002 finished high school in 2005.* This means that I would be considered a social equal with my teachers in 2005, at age 24.

Now suppose my aunt lived in the same neighbourhood as we did. My aunt has five children, the oldest of whom was in grade 9 when I was in grade 13, and the youngest of whom is 10 years younger than me. This means that her children would have been in the same high school that I went to, non-stop, from the time I was there to 9 years after I graduated.* The last of these cousins would graduate in 2008, and the students that were in grade 9 in 2008 would graduate in 2011. This means that I would be a social equal with my teachers in 2011, at age 30.

However, suppose my aunt had only her youngest child, and suppose I was an only child. Under this model, I would finish high school in 1999, and then none of my relatives would attend this school until 2005. This means that there's enough of a gap between myself and my cousin that his attendance at the school wouldn't influence my status, and I would be considered socially equal to my teachers in 2003, just the same as if I were the only member of my family attending.



*The inconsistency in these numbers is due to the fact that grade 13 was eliminated in Ontario in the interim. I find it easier to work with real-life numbers than to redo the math as though grade 13 had never existed.

Thursday, July 27, 2006

How to improve physical fitness among students who don't like phys. ed.

It seems the media's on about phys. ed. again, this time fretting over the fact that fewer high school students are taking phys. ed. The comments here are inspired by this interview from Metro Morning (direct link to RAM file) but here's a brief print article if you don't want to bother listening.

The problem in all of this is that the experts they are consulting are people who like phys. ed. The two people in the interview are both gym teachers, and a grown adult isn't going to become a gym teacher if they hated phys. ed. in school - they're going to pick another teachable or a completely different career paths. If they really want productive suggestions, they should ask people who hate phys. ed.

Therefore, I offer myself up as an expert. My credentials: I was raised in a family where physical activity was strongly valued, and was in excellent physical condition throughout childhood. However, phys. ed. class in middle school and high school led me to detest physical activity of any sort. The last day of mandatory gym class in grade 9 was the most liberating day of my life thus far, and then I turned my back on all physical activity until almost 10 years later, when I picked it up again, strongly against my will and hating every moment, in the service of being able to fit into my clothes.

First I will go over the points that the original interview completely missed, and then I will offer up two simple suggestions for improving physical fitness among students who don't like gym class.

Points they missed:

1. Phys. Ed. is a class, and students get grades. This means that those of us who aren't athletic or coordinated, or are timid as the result of a particularly traumatic childhood athletic injury, or, in some contexts, are near the bottom of the social ladder, will get a poor grade. This will pulls down our average, decreasing our chances of getting university acceptances and scholarships, as well as the possibility of putting "Honour Roll" on our resume at an age where people don't have very much to put on their resumes at all. If you're getting A's in all your classes except for one in which you're getting a C, of course you're going to drop that class!

2. Phys. Ed. is the most "Lord of the Flies" part of the school experience. For those of us who were at the bottom end of the social spectrum, it was pure hell. The locker room forced us to expose the details of our physique to our tormentors, and gave them the opportunity to sexually harass us and steal or vandalize our possessions. The gym gave our tormentors plenty of opportunities to throw things at us, grab us, and swarm us entirely as part of mandated activities, plus the noise and chaos gave them plenty of opportunities to hiss vicious insults in our direction without the teacher noticing. Plus it added a myriad of complications to the system of unspoken rules that you must obey to avoid being tortured on the playground. Performing well athletically was commendable, but sweating was an egregious violation. Also, showering was "gay", but so was changing your bra, and changing your socks made you a total dork. If your classmates could tell that you were making an effort, then you were a keener and a suckup and therefore subject to public humiliation, but they'd also get mad at you if you didn't hold up your end of the teamwork. Oh, and if your job in the basketball game was to cover a popular girl, and you did your job well, you'd get a lecture on how rude it is to stand in front of someone while she's trying to play basketball, and then all the popular girls would block your way outside of gym class, like when you're trying to go to class or find a stall in the bathroom or a seat on the schoolbus. Associating all physical activity with this sort of environment isn't going to increase people's desire to engage in physical activity - quite the opposite!

Ask yourself:

1. How many people did you know who originally had no particular interest in athletics, but grew to love athletics because of phys. ed. class?
2. How many people do you know who originally had nothing against athletics, but grew to hate athletics because of phys. ed. class?

So, taking all this into account, what do we do for solutions?

1. Do NOT make ANY phys. ed. mandatory. While it may get people moving in the short term (or may just get them wedgies and fractures), it will only increase dislike and resentment for the subject in the long term. Life after high school is much longer than life in high school, so what you want to do is give students the tools they need to make their own informed fitness decisions. How do you do that?

2. Make Health and Phys. Ed. completely separate subjects. In my school days, they were one class, taught by the same teacher in the same period. The teacher would just deem certain days phys. ed. days and other days health days, as necessary. The problem is that this associated health class with phys. ed. class, which gave it negative connotations, and also told us that it really doesn't need to be taken as seriously. Picture it: you take the very group of people that has already established a bullying dynamic, the very teacher who has allowed the bullying dynamic to be perpetuated under his or her watch, at a schedule time that everyone has associated with running around like idiots, and then try to take this opportunity to teach the students sex ed.? Not the safest-feeling environment ever. Health class taught us a lot of useful things, such as some pretty decent sex ed., physical fitness theory (I acquired the basic knowledge required to design a physical training regime - without the help of the internet!), first aid, how your bones and muscles etc. work - it was all quite useful, and I would have enjoyed it as an academic class. However, by associating it with phys. ed, having it taught during a phys. ed. period by a phys. ed. teacher, I got the subconscious message "This is not for you," "This is not academically serious," "You are not going to be able to succeed in this class." (I ended up getting 98% in the health component, and 64% in the phys. ed. component. Unfortunately, the phys. ed. component was weighted more heavily). Health is for everyone, not just the most athletic among us. A student who does well in Health will be able to come up with their own plan to take care of their body, even if they don't want to take phys. ed. as a class. Schools should give students the background knowledge they need to do this, and then let them choose whether or not they want to be subjected to phys. ed. A student who knows basic fitness and nutrition theory is better equipped in the long term to take good care of themselves than a student who has had any enjoyment of athletics beaten out of them by mandatory gym classes.

Perhaps the best solution would be to separate health and phys. ed., and require only one course in one or the other in high school. That way, the athletic kids can enjoy running around playing Lord of the Flies, and the non-athletic kids can learn the theory they need to make their own fitness regimes whenever and wherever they feel safe doing so.

Tuesday, July 25, 2006

Worst phrasing ever!

A brief description of atrocities in Congo, in a mostly-unrelated article:

...husbands were forced to watch as their wives and daughters were systematically gang-raped

Awww, they had to watch! Poor babies! I mean yeah, it's certainly unpleasant, but the husbands weren't the ones being raped! They aren't the primary victims! Presenting it that way is so...unempathetic! Honestly, I was shocked to see that the author is female. I would think that maybe a more narrow-minded man would think of it in those terms, but I simply cannot fathom how, in a situation where all the rape victims were female, a woman would not identify directly with the rape victims and automatically focus on their pain.

A more appropriate phrasing would be "Women were systematically gang-raped in front of their families." Because the women were the victims, so they should be the focus, and the fact that their husbands or fathers had to watch just added to their humiliation, which should also be the focus. Taking the focus away from the rape victims' ordeal and focusing instead on the pain of their family members is just a slap in the face of all the rape victims.

I'd expect better from a female writer who appears to work for some kind of humanitarian organization.

Sunday, July 23, 2006

Community

For those of you who aren't familiar with Toronto, Eglinton Ave. is a busy street. In five minutes of walking along Eg in the tail end of the morning rush hour, I cross paths with at least 100 people. At any time of day or night, weekday or weekend, if I crossed paths with fewer than 20 people on the same walk, I'd be surprised at how empty it is.

Today as I was walking along Eg, I saw a little boy, maybe five years old, maybe younger, kicking a paper cup like he was playing soccer. His mother followed behind him, close enough to provide appropriate supervision, but far enough to give him a bit of space for his little game. I watched him as I walked along, and I noticed that whenever his paper cup crossed the path of an adult walking in the opposite direction, they'd kick it back at him, temporarily becoming his teammates in his little game of soccer, helping him execute an intricate passing sequence to keep the ball away from the imaginary opponents.

Now THAT'S community!

Things They Should Invent: "How to call the doctor" lessons

I have no idea how to go about calling my family doctor. I don't know how much information I'm supposed to give to the receptionist, I don't know how much the receptionist knows medically, and I don't know enough about their office operations to know what constitutes a reasonable request and what constitutes being too demanding. I don't know if, when I'm scheduling the appointment, it's helpful or extraneous to mention that I want the appointment because I think I have strep throat. If I don't know whether I need a complete physical or just a pap, I don't know whether the receptionist can tell me by looking at my file. (My dentist's receptionist can look at my file and tell me what my next appointment needs to be, but I don't know if that's common). Sometimes this confusion has resulted in my making a whole appointment for a five-minute conversation with the doctor, and I don't know if that's how they prefer to do things or if it's just a fuck-up on my part.

I want to get HPV vaccine, but I don't know if I qualify because of my age, but I don't know whether I might be able to trick them into giving it to me if I don't mention that I'm concerned about my age and just waltz in as though I'm entitled. I don't know if they already have information about when they'll be able to distribute the vaccine and the logistics thereof (i.e. do I need a consultation first? Do they have the vaccine on hand or do I need to pick up the prescription from the doctor and get it filled?)

I just hate having to be ignorant and demanding, and I want very much to take their operational requirements into account but I don't know how. I really wish someone would make a pamphlet or a web page or even just a rant in Customers Suck giving me some dos and don'ts for calling my doctor! (I've found a few pages related to specific diseases, or for parents of newborns, but nothing general)

Saturday, July 22, 2006

I don't blame the evacuees for complaining

Some of the people who were evacuated from Lebanon complained about how the evacuation was carried out. Some other people have said that they should stop bitching and be grateful. Whatever did happen, I don't blame them for complaining. Why? Well, as I see it, there were two possibilities:

1. The conditions of the evacuation were unreasonable, even taking into account the fact that they were evacuating people from a war zone.
2. The conditions of the evacuation were reasonable in light of the fact that they were evacuating people from a war zone, but were still difficult.

(In this case, it's not possible for the conditions to be both reasonable and not difficult, or people would not be complaining.)

If the conditions were unreasonable, their complaining is obviously justified.

If the conditions were reasonable but difficult, these people have just spent several days in life-or-death uncertainty, with insufficient food, water, and hygiene, being herded around like cattle, having no privacy, feeling like their fate could be destroyed by a minor administrative error, and all the while a few very loud people in Canada are saying they don't deserve to be evacuated because their going to Lebanon is proof of their disloyalty. They're tired, hungry, thirsty, smelly, sweaty, frightened, uncertain, and nauseous, and they doubtless feel they have lost some of their dignity on the way. Then someone sticks a camera or a microphone or a tape recorder in their face and asks how they feel. Of course some people are going to complain! I'm sure almost anyone would be a bit edgy in that situation! No one who has ever road raged or raised their voice to a friend or family member or snapped at a food service worker because their burger wasn't coming fast enough has a right to call the evacuees ungrateful just because they complained about difficult conditions. Let's give them some room to have a hot shower, a good meal, a good night's sleep, a bit of alone time, and watch some of what's going on in Lebanon on TV before asking them to give their final opinion.

Some of the evacuees complained that there was no air conditioning and no medical care on the ships. Someone else (in either the Star's or the Globe's letters to the editor - the letter-writer may have represented the ship company but I'm not sure) said that they are luxury cruise ships, citing the fact that they have a disco and a night club or something similar. However, all the night clubs in the world don't make up for lack of air conditioning or medical care!

Therefore, I propose that to be declared "luxury", a venue must meet the following conditions:

1. Heating and air conditioning must be available to make the venue a comfortable temperature.
2. The venue must be entirely free of vermin. The scope of the word "vermin" is to be defined but the fussiest user.
3. Indoor plumbing, including any toiletries the users need, must be available.
4. A reasonable variety of food and drink, as well as medical, transportation, and maintenance services, must be available within a reasonable timeframe and with a single phone call.

I don't care if the whole thing is made of diamond-encrusted platinum, if there's no air conditioning in the summer it doesn't count as luxury. If the a/c is broken, it doesn't get to be luxury until it gets fixed.

Why introverts find social interaction draining

When I was googling information on introversion recently, I found a number of comments from extroverts who simply could not fathom how introverts can find social interaction draining. I've been mulling this over, and I think I can explain. However, it requires a triple analogy. Please note that this is for casual acquaintances and strangers only - the dynamic is somewhat different for intimates, as I'll explain after I've presented the analogies.

Picture how you'd feel in each of these situations:

1. You're not at all hungry, but you're in a situation where you're being offered food and it would be rude to refuse.
2. You're a performer in a musical theatre extravaganza, but you've only seen your own lines, score, and choreography, and haven't rehearsed at all.
3. You're engaging in a sex act that will give your partner an orgasm, but cannot possibly give you an orgasm.

Imagine experiencing all these feeling simultaneously, and you've got how an introvert feels when interacting socially with casual acquaintances and strangers.

I will elaborate:

1. Being offered food when you're not hungry

Maybe you're just standard "not hungry", maybe you've just finished a big meal and you're trying to figure out how to discreetly loosen your pants. At any rate, if you were left to your own devices it certainly wouldn't occur to you to seek out food, and if there were a plate of food in front of you, you'd have no particular need to take a nibble. However, you're in a delicate social situation where it would be rude to refuse, so you take some food. Maybe it's really good, maybe it's mediocre, maybe it's disgusting. Maybe you have a bite and you feel okay you didn't particularly need it, maybe it's just too much and the thought of taking more nauseates you, maybe it's surprisingly good and you wouldn't mind having more when you're hungry, but you're really kind of full now. Eating the food may be more enjoyable than you thought, or nauseatingly difficult, or just meh, but the fact is that you didn't need it, and if you hadn't been offered any food you wouldn't be missing it.

The food is social interaction. Introverts very rarely need social interaction. Personally, I don't start wishing for social interaction until I've gone about five days without any human contact, and then an hour on ICQ with a close friend will take the edge off so I can function. When I do have social interaction it may be good, bad, or neutral, and I may have the energy to handle it just fine or I may be absolutely exhausted and desperately looking for an out. If it's exceptionally good, I might come out feeling better, but if it's bad or neutral I'll come out feeling worse. Whatever the result, I didn't go into the situation needing or wanting social interaction, and if there had been no social interaction I wouldn't miss it.

2. You're on stage and you've only seen your part of the script

You've only seen your own lines, and don't know what your cues are going to be. You have the sheet music for your own songs, but you don't know if it's a solo or if you're in the chorus. You have your own choreography and stage directions, but you don't know who or what else is going to be on the stage. Oh, and the pages of all this material are not numbered, so you're not sure if you have it in the right order. You've never rehearsed - you don't even know what the plot is or who your character is - and then you're thrust on stage and you have to improvise.

Casual social interaction does not come naturally to introverts. Because I don't need it, I can't just apply "Do unto others," as my golden rule instincts are telling me that social interaction would be unwelcome. So, to produce the requisite small-talk, it's constant improvisation, constant self-monitoring, constant thinking on my feet. I have a small corpus to work with, but I have to stay on my toes and consciously decide how the material I have fits into my current situation. For example, here's my background train of thought as I ride the elevator with a colleague:

"The back of my bra is riding up - will anyone see if I pull it back down? What's she saying? Oh, she's mentioned that she moved. An appropriate follow-up question would be to ask her where she moved to. Oops, now I'm in the very front of the elevator and the people behind me will need to get off first. How can I tell who wants to get off first? Which way should I step? She moved to Brampton? Why would anyone move there? What do I say in response to that? Oops, sorry lady, didn't mean to stand right in front of you, I wasn't sure which way I was supposed to step. Brampton, no, I've never actually been to Brampton. What can I say now? What's Brampton like? Okay, if I stand over here in the corner and let her off the elevator first, then I can pull the back of my bra down before I leave the elevator."


And it's like this all the time, whenever I'm doing any social interaction. I can't just talk mindlessly, (I've heard that extroverts can - is that true?) I have to work at it.

3. You're doing a sex act that cannot possibly give you an orgasm

Maybe you enjoy giving your partner pleasure but you don't particularly care for the act itself, maybe you're doing it out of duty, maybe it's kind of fun although certainly not orgasmic. At any rate, your partner is going to have an orgasm, but you're not. It simply does not stimulate the areas that need to be stimulated to give you an orgasm. And, because of the complexity of the act, there is no way for you to apply a little bit of friction to help yourself along without neglecting your partner.

Social interaction gives extroverts what Marti Olsen Laney calls "Hap Hits" - brain chemical reaction thingies that make you feel good. (There's a far more grownup explanation in her book, but I never took psych or biology, so my understanding of the science falls just short of being able to explain it to others. It is somehow related to dopamine.) Introverts don't get this. Maybe I'm doing my social interaction out of duty, maybe I'm glad it's entertaining the other people, maybe it's even fun, but it is not going to give me Hap Hits. I get my Hap Hits from being alone, without too much stimulation, and just being able to think. I get into a sort of calm and happy place, and then I can mull things over and think of new ideas and spontaneously solve translation problems that are sitting on my desk at work. (If you've been reading a while, you've probably noticed my Things They Should Invent - they come from this happy introvert place. So did this intricate analogy.) However, I can't do this while engaging in social interaction, and I can rarely do it while out in public (unless I'm in a situation where I'm sitting quietly and am not required to interact with or be observed by others). Just talking to others or determining whether I need to talk to others or walking down a busy street without getting in anyone's way stimulates too much of my brain, and I can't get to my happy place because there's too much else going on. While social interaction gives extroverts their Hap Hits, it actually prevents me from getting mine. Which is fine, (after all, you can't be having an orgasm every minute of the day) but it's never actually going to be stimulating.

Added bonus analogy: Let's go back to the sex act that gives your partner an orgasm but cannot give you one:

Partner: Hey, you know what? You should have an orgasm while we're going this! It's a lot more fun that way!

You: I can't, this doesn't stimulate the right parts of my body. If we do something else I can have an orgasm, but not while we're going this.

Partner: Come on, you just need to make an effort! Anyone can have an orgasm while doing this if they only put their mind to it!

You: No, actually it's physically impossible for me to have an orgasm while we're doing this. See the how my body is positioned? See how your body is positioned? See how all the parts of both our bodies that could possibly stimulate me, as well as the bedposts and the sex toys and the various other bedroom accoutrements are all fully occupied with stimulating you, and cannot possibly be reassigned to stimulate me in a way that would lead to orgasm without ceasing to stimulate you and completely changing the nature of this surprisingly intricate sex act.

Partner: No, if I can have an orgasm while engaging in this specific sex act, anyone can, including you! It's all your fault that you're not - if you were less stubborn and more open-mined, you'd be having an orgasm to! In fact, how dare you not have an orgasm for the sole purpose of spiting me!


This is what it's like when extroverts try to convince introverts that they need to work at becoming more extroverted.

So, in summary: Under most circumstances, introverts have no particular need for social interaction, it's hard work that requires constant effort and doesn't allow us to let our guard down for a minute, and it doesn't give us Hap Hits and prevents us from doing things that do give us Hap Hits. Even if it is a pleasant social interaction, the net effect is still draining.

So how's it different for close friends?

1. I'm still not hungry, but my close friends are the food that I have cravings for. The closer the friend, the stronger the craving. If I'm on my period and I've had a rough day, I'm probably craving Lays Salt & Vinegar Chips, and I'll eat any available unless I'm painfully full. You're probably sitting there saying "But I'm good food too!" You may well be. Maybe you're the best sushi in the world. But I'm not craving sushi, I'm craving Salt & Vinegar. Maybe if I eat some sushi I'll start developing cravings for it, but most likely I won't since I have all the craveable foods I need, as I have all the friends I need. So as it stands, I'm full, so I don't want to eat your sushi - not even the best sushi in the world - because then I won't have any room for Salt & Vinegar (i.e. I'll be too tired and cranky to be civil company for mi cielito.)

2. I still don't know the plot of the play, but my close friends are very good at doing improv with me. We've performed together before and gotten quite used to each others styles. They know how to cue me without breaking character. If I mess up, they use their l33t impr0v sk1llz to smoothly incorporate my gaffes into the performance. You're probably sitting there saying "But I know how to improv too!" and I'm sure you do - I always depend on everyone else's improv skills to get me through the performance - but my friends and I have worked together longer and it's much easier for me to work with them.

3. I'm still not going to have an orgasm doing this, but mi cielito knows how to make me feel good. He knows certain ways to touch me that aren't orgasmic, but are still rather happy and tingly. He knows my secret fantasy scenarios. He knows that if we do this one thing before and this other thing after, I'll enjoy the nonorgasmic sex act a lot more. Similarly, my close friends know how to keep me from getting overwhelmed, they're used to my sense of humour and the way I think so I can just blurt out anything that comes to mind without having to worry about whether it's appropriate small talk, and I can back off or zone out as needed without having to worry that they'll get offended or start thinking something's wrong with me. You're probably sitting there saying "But I want to help make the social experience good for you too!" I'm sure you do, but you don't know how. Your intentions may well be good, you may well have had experience with other introverts, but you aren't used to me. Just as there's going to be a bit of fumbling around the first few times you have sex with a new lover, even the most well-intentioned interlocutor is not going to make the experience as pleasant for me as a good friend.

Most interaction with close friends is still draining, but they know how to make it pleasant enough that it's worth being drained. On very rare occasions, it can be not draining - that's why when I say "Being with mi cielito is just like being alone," it is the highest compliment - it means that he can overcome the most basic aspects of my neurology and make what is normally a draining experience into a stimulating experience.

Thursday, July 20, 2006

Embryo adoption disgusts me

People should not be allowed to adopt embryos until there are no children waiting to be adopted. Why? Because embryos can wait. They're frozen. They can't feel pain or emotional distress. They don't know that they're just sitting there, parentless.

However, real-life children who have already been born and have not been adopted know that their birth parents didn't want them or couldn't take care of them, know that they don't have a forever home. Every day that they're not adopted is another day when they know that no one "really" wants them.

How on earth can a person, knowing that there are all these kids waiting for adoption out there, all of whom (except perhaps the very youngest) know that they're waiting for adoption, instead choose to adopt an embryo, which doesn't care whether it's adopted now or later and, even if it is never adopted and has to be destroyed, won't be able to feel any pain? Sickening.

Tuesday, July 18, 2006

Problem

The good: Health Canada just approved the HPV vaccine

The bad: It's only approved for women up to the age of 26, and it's administered over the course of six months. I am 25 years and 7 months old :(

The question: How do I get around this?

Musings

Have you ever had someone who you didn't know very well, but really admired? Like everything they did seemed so incredibly cool, and you wanted to be like them when you grew up, and you thought they could handle any situation with complete sangfroid and aplomb?

Have you ever then seen them do something really stupid? Like incredibly, unbelievably stupid and distasteful? And you're just sort of there staring that them, aghast, agog, dumbfounded, thinking "But aren't you supposed to be better than that?"

That's how I feel about the current situation in the Middle East.

Monday, July 17, 2006

The greatest luxury ever

The air in my apartment is cool. I have no idea what the temperature is in here because I have the least accurate thermostat ever, but it is more comfortable than strictly necessary. I could wear long pants or have a hot shower or a cup of coffee or put a cover over myself to sleep, and I would still be perfectly comfortable.

If you asked me what my career goal is, this is it. This is why I work. This is why I put up with the early mornings and the traumatic texts and the boring texts and the tight deadlines and the impossible subject matter - so I can be cool and comfortable in obscene summer weather.

Sunday, July 16, 2006

New Rule

If you say "It's a privilege, not a right," about something that actually is a legal right, you forfeit that right during the next situation where you normally benefit from it.

Why I don't talk to strangers

The Globe and Mail's David MacFarlane laments the fact that people in Toronto do not engage with strangers.

Well, Mr. MacFarlane, I cannot speak for anyone else, but I'm going to explain why I, personally, do not initiate social contact with you, personally.

1. I'm not going to smile or make eye contact or initiate any socializing with you, personally, because you are a strange man. In my experience, strange men tend to take any smile or eye contact from a young woman as a sign of interest. I am taken and do not wish to lead anyone on. Perhaps you wouldn't misconstrue my overtures - perhaps you're happily married or happily gay - but I have no way of knowing that, and it's simply not worth the risk. My existing social circle serves all my social needs, so it's no inconvenience to me whatsoever if I lose out on a nice friendship or a decent acquaintanceship, but it is a significant inconvenience to me if a strange man thinks I'm interested when I'm not.

2. But let's take your observations into the abstract. Why don't I engage people in general? Mostly it's because I have no reason to. I have nothing productive or helpful or informative or interesting or amusing to say to the vast majority of people I encounter. There is simply no benefit that could come from my interrupting their daily activities and train of thought. If I feel a silence might be perceived as awkward, perhaps while waiting for the elevator or something, I'll make an attempt at small talk, but if I can't think of any decent small talk I'll keep my mouth shut rather than blabbling pointlessly. If there is something specific that you want me to say, ask me about it, and I'll answer as long as you don't come across as too creepy. (If you want me to chat with people my instincts say are creepy, that right there explains why people aren't engaging with you.) But honestly, I'm not sitting here full of twelve kinds of brilliant amusement that I'm witholding from you out of spite - I just cannot see any reason why a stranger would want to talk to me, so I don't go around imposing myself on strangers, instead letting them get on with whatever important things they're doing.

3. But maybe the average person is more interesting than me, and what they have to say might be of interest to random strangers. Do you want them to talk to everyone? I counted once - I cross paths with 100 people between my apartment and the subway. Then there's the a crowded subway car (where I'd really rather read), and I'd estimate anywhere from 10 to 50 people between the subway and my office, depending on the timing. I'm close to a good 10-20 people when I go to get my lunch (including elevator rides, waiting in line, etc.). If I go grocery shopping after work I enounter 50-100 people in the store, and then another 100 on the walk home from the store. And, being a creature of habit, I'd say at least 25% of these people are "regulars", whom I see quite often. That's a lot of people. Imagine trying to engage with that many people! Imagine how difficult it would be to go about your everyday life if that many people tried to engage with you! It's simply not feasible. The odds suck - that's simply a fact of city life. If you don't like that, you might be more comfortable in a small town.

In the meantime, if you want to know what I have to say, you can read my blog at your leisure. If you have some information you think I could use, feel free to tell me. If you need help and you think I can help you, feel free to ask. But, to the best of my knowledge, I have nothing to gain from engaging with you, nothing to contribute that makes it worth inconveniencing you, and dozens, if not hundreds of people just like you that I encounter every day. I am not talking to you because there is no benefit to anyone and it's quite likely inconvenient for everyone. If this is not the case, you must let me know on an ad hoc basis.

Saturday, July 15, 2006

Clever multimedia crossover thingy of the moment

The plot in this week's Luann (start here and read forward) is playing out in parallel on MySpace - with audience participation!

Friday, July 14, 2006

Guardian Angels

I don't trust the Guardian Angels. I've been trying for several days to articulate why, but I'm afraid I can't get any more specific than "my instincts say so." My every instinct tells me that they are not to be trusted, that they (more the individuals than the organization) must have some ulterior motive. I've been doing research, reading all the news articles, and all I can come up with is the vagueness of their modus operandi.

1. Walk around in red outfits
2. ?????
3. Profit! Stop crime!

(Aside: I wear a lot of red and I live in a low-crime neighbourhood. Hmmm...) It seems to me that if their intentions were pure, they would be more specific about what exactly they do, how exactly they're going to stop crime.

However, this vague methodology is only part of why I don't trust them, and I can't seem to articulate the rest of it except to say that my every instinct is screaming that they are not to be trusted. If the Guardian Angels were a man sitting next to me on the subway, I would get off at the next stop and wait for the next train. If I saw them walking down the street, I would cross over to the other side. If they were walking behind me, I would duck into the next store that had security cameras. Essentially, their presence would make me feel less safe than I do now, but unfortunately I can't articulate this further except to say that it's coming from my "Gift of Fear" instincts, which have always served me well, are telling me so.