But is the conclusion true? More importantly, what are the implications if it were true?

Firstly, it seems to me as if this may be a cultural issue, not a universal issue. That is, it may not be true of all humans in all cultures but it seems to be the case for the majority in the United States. I’ve had conversations with women from foreign countries where they expressed exasperation with the idea that men and women cannot be just friends. I don’t think this is a uniquely American issue, but at the very least it does not seem to be the case in other countries which could indicate that it is at least partially due to cultural influences.

Now for the most important aspect of all this, the implications. If we agree that men and women cannot ever be just friends then we must admit that the friendship between men and women is aimed at acquiring a mate. Basically, that the friendship between men and women is part of a dating strategy. This implies that the only possible ways for males and females to interact are those that are intended to lead up to sex. So it seems like this mindset suggests that practically any interaction I have with a female MUST be because I want to get into her pants. Put another way, there is only value in interacting with the opposite sex if, and only if, said interaction will lead to sex. Are you starting to see why this is a problematic way of thinking?

Seriously, if I hold the door open for a woman, it must be because I want in her pants. If I wash the dishes after a dinner with my girlfriend, it must be because I want in her pants. If I tell a girl I love her, what I really mean is “I want to have sex with you and these three words seem to make that happen.” Now, while some might actually think this way, I certainly do not and most of the people I know, men and women both, do not think like this. It’s not just that either, this mode of thought would be repulsive to most of the people I know, and one must keep in mind that I know a lot of free-lovin’ hippie types.

But it gets even more complicated when you consider other sexual orientations such as homosexuals and bisexuals. A gay man and a gay woman could obviously be friends because they’re invalid sexual partners. What about a gay man and a straight man? Can they be friends? Is there value in the interaction between valid sexual partners if and only if they lead to sex? What would this be like if a bisexual felt this way?

Are the relationships straight men have with one another simply for the sake of scoring? That is, are hetero male friends only useful in their capacity as wing men?

Seriously, this mindset is so messed up that it’s not funny. It suggests that the value of a human being lies between their legs. Some may feel this way but I think we need to rethink the way we look at human interaction. Human beings are more than genitalia

I figured I would revisit this concept because it’s been a while and I’ve expanded my theory to be both simpler and more comprehensive. The old hypothesis has been absorbed a bit into this one, in that I can now explain it in terms of this new framework.

First things first, let’s look at the mind. Because I cannot have literal things in my mind, I must represent things symbolically (See Solipsism Plus for more details). It’s much like building a miniature version of the world in your mind. This mental world you build is further populated with mental models of all the individual things you could think of. We also build mental models of ourselves. The way we construct this self model can sometimes result in being particularly susceptible to being offended.

Part of the problem is that we often confuse the model for the thing itself. A chair is a thing wholly separate from anyone’s mental model of that chair just as the word “chair” is not a chair itself. Likewise, I am not your mental model of me. I am not even my own mental model of me. There is a big difference between damaging me and damaging my self model. However, many (perhaps most) don’t make this distinction. What happens then is that an attack, threat or challenge to one’s self model is perceived as a direct attack.

Now comes the fun part. If our self model is built such that it is dependent on other concepts then an attack on any of those concepts could be perceived as an attack on our self model. Imagine that your self model was a statue which is propped up by pillars. Any attack or weakening of those pillars could be disastrous to that statue.

Here’s an example. Let’s say that I’m a devout Christian. Let’s also say that I believe I would be nothing without god. That is, my self model is dependent upon my god model. When someone suggests that god does not exist, I see this as an attack on god and by extension, an attack on me. I then react as if I had been physically attacked because I also confuse my self model with my literal self. This can happen with many religions because it can be beneficial for a religion if its members feel strongly attached to it and defend it as they would defend themselves. The unfortunate side effect is that it makes for some rather grumpy fundamentalists. The fact of the matter is that what I believe or don’t believe about your, or any other, god has no bearing on anything, least of which who you are as a person. Furthermore, the strength of one’s faith is never known until it is tested.

Now, imagine a person who, as part of their self model, defines themselves as a MAN. Their definition of what a man is happens to be hyper masculine and does not make any room for anything less manly than the Brawny paper towel guy. When exposed to males which challenge that definition of what it means to be a man, such as effeminate males, then it could be perceived as an attack on their pillar of masculinity and thus an attack on themselves. But is their reaction reasonable? The thing is, there are effeminate men and there are also masculine men. Heck, there are masculine homosexual men. These are still men and it has no bearing on who I am as a person. They’ve got certain traits and we share some of those traits but the way one acts and who one is sexually attracted to are not married to the concept of what it means to be a man.

Pride is also somewhat similar because we often define ourselves by the features we’re most proud of. For example, consider the phrase “I am smart”. If your intelligence is a foundational feature of your self model, such that without it you wouldn’t be yourself, then a challenge to your intelligence may be perceived as an attack against your self model. So what is the real problem here? It’s the pride. If I value my intelligence so much that I feel I could not live in a world where I did not possess it, then something is wrong. Once who I am become contingent upon my intelligence, then it sets me up to be offended quite often because nobody knows everything and we all occasionally act the fool. If I were offended every time I looked stupid, I would never learn anything. In fact, if I were offended every time my intelligence were challenged, then I would be deserving of having my intelligence challenged as this sentiment could only serve to hinder my pursuit of knowledge and wisdom.

Another way this works is through context. The stage we stand on is another one of those symbols I was talking about. If who I am relies on the stage upon which I stand, then suggesting that I’m on a different stage could be perceived as a challenge to my self model. For example, lets say your model of the world includes a prudish level of decency such that nudity should never be shown in public. Who you are depends on this being true as your prudence is a defining part of your character. When you see public nudity, and especially when you see it being accepted, such as the public display of sculptures depicting nudity, then your model of the world has been challenged, and by extension, your self model has been challenged. But is that prudish response necessary? Is it not possible that the world now lives by sensibilities which I do not hold to and vice versa? Being able to see yourself as an actor on many different stages is a sign of versatility of character.

I once asked a racist “how would you feel if you were born black?” to which they responded “I would kill myself.” They didn’t realize that if they were born into a different body and in this different social context that they would not necessarily hold that sentiment. They could not only had their self model propped up by their “whiteness” but also felt as if the world was such that even the black people should know that they should desire death. It didn’t occur to them that it could be any other way. Whether or not this inability to put themselves in the shoes of someone else was a symptom or a cause of their racist beliefs I have no idea, however, it certainly did result in the person being offended quite often and for the stupidest things. The person who can put themselves in the shoes (or the bare feet) of another and is able to divorce their ethnic background, social standing, gender, sexuality, etc… from their self model has a diversity of character which allows for them to more easily gain insight on what it might be like to be someone else.

So what should we do when we’re offended? Most people lash out, but I urge you to lash in. When I am offended, I take it as an opportunity for introspection. Someone has shone a light into an odd part of my self model and I’ve realized that I need to do some reevaluation. I try to find peace with both the offending statement being true and false. For instance, I can live with myself if I were stupid or intelligent, gay or straight, ugly or pretty, and so on. Part of this involves not only recognizing the above concepts but also building one’s self not by propping it up but by having your self model sitting firmly on the ground and behaving more like a basket within which you can place various things. So instead of my intelligence being something which defines me, it is merely something I possess. It’s just another apple in the basket, if the apple gets removed, the basket is still upright and whole. It also allows me to temporarily remove and evaluate a concept from my self image while I do this introspection. This is a powerful tool for self discovery.

Take away points:

• Do not confuse the self model for the self.
• You possess traits, do not let them define you.
• When offended lash in, not out.

I’m still working on this theory of offense. The model fits pretty well with the data that I’ve gathered so far. If you have anything to add or a criticism, I would be glad to hear it. If you were offended by what I had to say, then this message is addressed to you. Get over it. :P

All that being said, I’m going to try to clear some of this stuff up as best as I can. If need be, I can just reference this the next time someone starts spouting quantum drivel.

First things first. What the heck is an observer? A classic experiment in quantum physics (henceforth QP) is the two slit experiment. Most people even casually interested in the field know about this. Through this experiment we see that light behaves like both a particle and a wave. But we also see that the wave-like properties of photons rely on it being able to pass through both slits at the same time. If we set up a detector to determine which slit the photon went through, it destroys the wave pattern. In this way, the observation of the path of the photon puts it in a definite place/time instead of it being in a wave of probabilities. What basically happens is that the wave collapses into only one of the two possible outcomes. Fridge magnet philosophers take this to mean that the universe is in an indeterminate state until we observe it. This isn’t just a huge leap of logic, it is a leap into a big steaming pile of absurd garbage.

Now, why is that the case? Firstly, we can blame the scientists a bit for this one. They picked a really bad word to use for this. “Observer” comes with all this semantic baggage that we can’t help but incorporate into the definition. However, when the quantum physicist talks about an observer, he doesn’t mean a conscious mind looking through an eyeball at a quantum event. In the two slit experiment, the observer is the photon detector. Think about it for a bit. We can’t directly observe the QP world, we have to use machines to do this. Let’s follow the logic of the person who believe that it is our consciousness which produces the event. The photon is in a wave-like state, the detector makes a measurement and sends data to a computer, the computer interprets that data and outputs the data on the screen for the researcher to view. If the conscious observation of the researcher is what causes the photon to take a definite path, and until then it inhabits all possible paths, then the data sent by the detector, the data received by the computer and even the computations done in that computer must also operate as if all possible paths were taken and only when the researcher looks at his screen does it collapse into one possibility. Anyone with half a brain in their head can see why this makes no sense. To put it simply, an observation in QP refers to an interaction. This has absolutely nothing to do with anyone’s mind.

QP invalidates determinism? Seriously, that’s not what ANY scientist actually believes, but I keep hearing this come up. The QP world is a strange one. Quantum particles behave in more or less statistical ways which are otherwise random in the way they behave. But if the QP world is random, why isn’t everything else random? The thing is, like in the two slit experiment, interaction between particles forces them to be in one definite place/time. A photon whizzing through empty space can behave like a wave completely. But as soon as it bumps into something else, THAT is where it is. The more interactions you get, the more definite the position of that particle becomes. Just like the photon interacting with the detector and having it’s probable course collapse to one possibility, the same thing happens when two particles interact. This is why things behave less and less like quantum objects the larger they get. Atoms still behave in a quantum manner, molecules less so, and big chunks of stuff hardly have any quantum features at all. In order to get big stuff to act in a quantum manner, you have to chill them down to near absolute zero and even then, the effect is reduced the larger you get. This is why, while all the electrons in all the atoms in all of the DNA molecules in my cells may be acting in a random way, my DNA isn’t being shuffled like a deck of cards by some QP deamon.

Seriously, who ever thought that suggesting the universe was random was a good idea? Not only is it obviously and demonstrably false, but all of science pretty much agrees that the universe is built upon causal determinism. There’s not really any disagreement amongst the experts. Yes, the smallest stuff appears to be random. Yes, these random events have an effect on the macro world. However, the macro world operates with very little randomness. To imagine otherwise should produce nothing but wonder that the universe even holds together as it may spontaneously transform to be filled with grape jello, after all, it’s all random.

The Many Worlds Hypothesis. This is an interesting one that people get wrong all the time. The problem lies in the fact that people take the analogy literally without realizing the absurdity. The analogy states that as I go through my life, I will be confronted with a series of choices. I seem to have made only one choice at each of these junctures. However, the many world’s hypothesis suggests that perhaps I took all possible choices. There are an infinite number of such choices at every moment in my life. I imagine that if that were true, that there would be an infinite number of worlds where I choose to smash my face into my keyboard until the stupidity of that idea is erased from my mind… but not in this one. The problem is that this is an analogy, not the reality of the hypothesis. It is talking about the quantum world, not the macro world. It applies to the photon moving through the two slits, but not to what direction I’m going to turn at a given intersection on my way to Denny’s. If that were true, I would be much more likely to never make it to the restaurant and starve to death in traffic… a fate I sometimes feel would be preferable to listening to any more of this quantum drivel.

These are the biggest things I hear people get terribly wrong. There’s a lot of snark in the above comments, but in my opinion these beliefs NEED to be ridiculed. I’m not calling anyone an idiot, I know many of these people are smart and educated. That is why I get so frustrated, I know they’re capable of much more. Heck, even just reading the Wikipedia article on QP would clear a lot up.

Well, I’ve got a few ideas about how the system “should” be set up. I’m no economist, but I do support a few interesting policies that I think are worth noting.

First, I think that the current tax system is WAY to complex. With increased complexity, you increase the likelihood that large corporations will use that complexity to their advantage and benefit from the system more than the lower income brackets. This complexity also requires a lot of government employees review all of that mess and requires the need to enforce it as well. The more complex the tax system, the more resources are required to regulate it. In effect, complex taxes are a mess.

Progressive Taxes can also stunt economic growth. I remember when my mother and father got better jobs, which bumped them up into the next tax bracket (but only just barely). They actually ended up making a slightly higher amount for a disproportionately greater amount of work. I am convinced that the current system discourages economic growth by “punishing” people for earning more.

My solution is not a new one… but I am going to put a twist on it. I am a firm believer in the flat tax. Basically, a flat tax system is a very simple and easy to understand tax. It is a tax on income that is the same percentage no matter how much you earn. Likewise businesses will all be subject to the same taxation of profit. Every company, no matter how much they earn, or how big or small they are will pay the same percentage of their profits to the government. Up to this point, this is just like any other flat tax system. However, I don’t believe that there should be caps for the poor. I think EVERYONE should have to pay.

However, there is the twist I mentioned. I believe that an alternative to making the system more complex by adding exemptions and allowances for dependents and so on… would be to simply have a rebate system that is designed to redistribute a percentage of the nations wealth. Basically, if everyone payed 20% on their income taxes (no matter how much they made or how big their family is), it would make it all very simple to understand. Then the government takes 30% of the total taxes collected, divides that money up evenly, then give it back to everyone as a tax rebate. If we exclude the taxes paid by businesses (for simplicity’s and demonstration’s sake), you can estimate that the average income for an American household is around $45,000. This means that the average tax rebate would be $2,700 (which is equal to the amount payed for those making $13,500 per year). Basically, What this does is encourage growth from those making less than a third of the national average without punishing people for making more money. Because there are no “brackets”, there is no way that making more money could result in you actually earning less because of extra taxes.

The only problem produced is that it might encourage moochers, or poor people who intentionally earn less because they’re getting paid to be citizens anyway. The good news is that the tax refund will be paid yearly and they will likely need more than the average of $2,700 per year in order to survive. Also, if people do decide to mooch, they will bring down the national average income which will then reduce the amount they earn every year.

This little twist simplifies the system and has a few other benefits. It will help close the gap between the rich and the poor instead of widening it. It will not encourage or discourage people from getting married for tax reasons. It will not encourage the poor to have more kids for tax reasons. The last one is very important because the ever-increasing population is a huge burden on this planet and personally, I would rather see a progression towards the middle class rather than a progression towards the poor. Essentially an increase population of the rich (because they can afford to have more kids than the poor) would cause their wealth to spread out, causing them to move towards the middle class. All while the poor are discouraged from having large households while providing them the economic assistance they need to move into the middle class.

The other cool effect is that it will boost the economy. Small businesses will have the same opportunity as the big guys. This will increase an individuals opportunity to compete and prosper. Also, because the refund checks will be issued yearly, it actually encourages people to go out and spend it fairly quickly, injecting money back into the market and ultimately benefiting both the consumers (because they get more stuff) and the producers (because they’ll sell more stuff).

The only problem then is the issue of “Marginal Utility”. Basically this means that the more money you have, the less it effects your survival. If a retail worker earning $15,000 had to give up $3,000 in taxes, it would be a very big deal and would certainly effect their livelihood. However, if a CEO of a major corporation earning 10 million had to pay 2 million in taxes, they’ve still got 8 million to live comfortably on. Also by removing deductions, you can discourage the small businessman from working because a large percentage of his profits might be spent on items necessary for his business (which are deductible). Granted, the big businesses will have the same issues but they’ll have much more money to throw around. Graduated tax rates are supposed to compensate for this by taxing the rich more. However, the result is that the rich hire professionals to figure out how they can pay the smallest amount possible (something the poor cannot afford). The end result is often that the rich pay a smaller percentage of their wealth than the poor because they can use the complexities of the system to weasel out of paying what they owe. A flat tax would make it impossible for these big businesses to get out of paying. Additionally, using the money gained from the flat tax to fund programs to help provide relief from poverty would offset this major issue.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Besides the flat tax, I also support a carbon tax. This is basically a tax that forces companies to pay for polluting. In its most basic form, it is a tax on oil and coal. Companies will have to pay more for these products and would be rebated if they manage to reclaim/capture carbon or otherwise do not release it into the air. For instance, plastic is made from petroleum products, but much of the carbon from these products is stored in the resulting plastic. These companies would get money back from the taxes they paid on the petroleum they used based on the amount of carbon that is fixed in the end result.

The cap and trade system is just too complex and would cause the market to become extremely volatile. It is also far too complex and will encourage big polluters to find loopholes and cheat the system. I really don’t want my power bills or my gas prices to be going all over the place just because they managed to complicate the market. I want things to be simple and easy to understand. I want the system to result in stability and sustainability. The cap and trade system just doesn’t seem like it could do that.

It is suggested that the carbon tax would put an increased burden on the poor. If it became more expensive to drive our cars or power our homes, this could indeed cause much more hardships in lower income homes. However, the more affluent rich tend to spend more on carbon emitting products such as gas and power. If you use a percentage of that tax to help lower other taxes, then the benefits will be felt most by the poor, especially if in a flat-tax system. If 50% of the carbon tax went to lowering other taxes or was added to the yearly tax rebate (as discussed earlier), it would significantly lower the impact of the carbon tax on the poor. If you put the remaining 50% aside specifically into incentives, grants, and compensations for producing or using zero carbon energy sources, you could drastically increase the rate at which we shift to green energy. Imagine that more green energy research could be performed because more government grants will be available to them. Imagine that installing solar cells on your roof will be cheaper because the government will refund a percentage of their cost.

The carbon tax will have several effects. It will begin reducing carbon emissions immediately. It is simple and easy to implement. It will encourage energy companies to research less carbon expensive methods of energy production. And it would encourage the general public to be more carbon conscious, because carbon emitting products will be more expensive.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The system I’m propsing is simple and easy to understand. It may be flawed (simply because I’m not economist). However, I think it would work fairly well. All I know is that the current system is broken and current efforts to fix it are like putting duct tape on a crack in the Hoover Dam. Something drastic needs to be done soon before the entire economy collapses.

Read more about the flat tax by clicking here.
Read more about the carbon tax by clicking here.

Make money, lose weight, or kill yourself! Google makes suggestions for what you might be searching for based on trends. The image below shows Google’s suggestions when “top 10 best ways to” is typed in.

Google Suggests Suicide

Now, I know that Google isn’t actually suggesting that I should kill myself. What it really means is just that there just happen to be a large number (379,000+) pages that are about the “top 10 ways to kill yourself”. Likewise there are a similar number of pages (360,000+) that are about the “top ten ways to commit suicide”.

I am encouraged by the fact that there are about 82 times more pages on the “top 10 ways to go green”. Although this is somewhat balanced out by the fact that apparently more people want to destroy the Earth than want to commit suicide (about 163,000 more)… although I suppose you could consider the destruction of the planet as a form of suicide… unless the plan also involves an escape strategy so that they could survive on another planet.

It seems, however, that the majority of people simply want to make money. This is not surprising when you consider the distribution of wealth in a world where 1% of the world’s population controls 99% of the world’s wealth. Perhaps the poor are just depressed by their financial standing. I know I am. That’s why I dabble in internet marketing and work as hard as I do while going to school full time. At some point, reality sinks in and you realize “none of my dreams can come true because I just can’t fund them.” That is rather depressing isn’t it?

A friend of mine was trying to do a search for “top 10 best ways to make money” and when he did it, the very first suggestion was “kill yourself”…. immediately followed by “kill someone”. Seems like the results change fairly frequently, but it’s still very illuminating. Seems like a lot of people are angry and depressed, likely over money problems or social problems. Admittedly, I have a word document that I add to occasionally that details my many plains for the destruction of the planet (evil super-villian style). But it’s more of a cathartic stress-relief and an exercise in creativity, than an actual blueprint. Who knows, I may want to create a cartoon series, or a game that involves such elements in their story-line.

Based on these results,I think people are angry and depressed mostly because they feel poor, unattractive, unimportant, unwanted, or otherwise disadvantaged. I know Google is just trying to be helpful, but should it really be putting this kind of ammunition in someone’s hands? Especially the young children who might be searching for “top 10 ways to ruin the first day of school”. I suppose when it comes right down to it, it’s not Google’s fault. People are angry and depressed, so they create content that relates to that. In fact, they are probably less likely to commit an act of violence (against themselves or others) if they are capable of releasing such emotions by creating such content.

I think the burden lies with us as a society. We need to step up and address the issue of suicide. It is up to us to recognize the early warning signs that someone might be or become suicidal and to help try to prevent suicides. As for myself and my wife, we both use a very powerful strategy for quelling suicidal thoughts. We live for other people. In other words, my life is not just mine, it is shared by all of those around me. My friends and family are invested in my life, the loss of which will cause them harm. Additionally, you top it off with a promise to such individuals “I will not kill myself because I know it would hurt you.” This method does have one flaw, however… what if they have nobody to make such promises to? Go out and get some friends, that’s my suggestion. We are social creatures and we require some degree of social interaction. you may find that you feel better just by gaining a friend.

This Article, gives great advice for the recoginizing the early signs of depression and suicidal thoughts as well as ways to help somone through their troubles. It also urges people not to assume full responsibility for the suicidal person’s emotion support. They need professional help. The thoughts may go away, they may get worse. The depression could be caused by something as simple as a vitamin deficiency, but you won’t know unless you get checked out by a doctor. The Samaritans are also a great resource for those who just need someone to talk to. They offer completely confidential and non-judgmental emotional support 24/7/365. I have personally used them to work through some of my own depressions.

Additonally, the causes of this anger and depression need to be addressed… such as money making methods that actually work and ways to increase social equality without destroying capitalism. Pipe dreams, I know. But one can still dream, even if it is idealistic hippie-dippy commy garbage.

First, you cannot get more energy out of a system than you put in without losing something. In other words if you use electricity to break water into hydrogen and oxygen, and then burn it, then you’re putting in energy from the batter and producing power from the engine. Not only that but the engine loses quite a bit of that energy as heat. Because the battery is charged by the alternator (which is run by the engine… which in this case is run by the battery), the battery will run down. It’s basically like trying to recharge an electric car by running it. It simply won’t work. This might work if the water was broken outside of the vehicle and the gas was burned in the vehicle. Basically a station would make the fuel and your car would consume it. That might be thermodynamically possible, but it’s still not very practical.

Now there are kits you can purchase that claim to increase your fuel efficiency by using this process as an additive to your air intake. The battery is now used to break water into hydrogen and hydro-oxygen, but instead of being used purely as a fuel, it is used to increase efficiency. This works by piping these highly flamable gasses through the air intake. Some claim that this can drastically increase your fuel efficiency, with some claiming to reduce your fuel consumption by 60%. I find that to be highly unlikely but I do think it is possibly to increase fuel economy in this way.

What is happening is actually very simple. You’re just making a chemical battery. Yep, that’s it. Your alternator uses energy from your engine to recharge the battery. When the battery is fully charged this energy is completely wasted, it goes nowhere. Alternators are designed to provide much more than enough energy to recharge the battery so this can be quite a bit of lost energy. In these systems, it simply takes that extra energy to break water. You’ve then stored that energy, which would have otherwise been wasted, in these gasses. Those gasses are then fed into the fuel system and burned. All the energy is still coming from the gas. You’re just recapturing otherwise lost energy and feeding it back into the engine.

I’ve also heard of engines that use water directly for combustion and work in combination with gasoline. Basically, they combust fuel in the engine and use the residual heat to combust water in the next stroke. It hits the hot cylinder and simply turns to steam. This reduces the temperature of the engine, making it run more efficiently and reclaims some of that heat energy to produce power for the engine. This has shown a lot of promise, but I’m concerned that the water will damage the engine. Also, if the water and steam isn’t completely ejected from the cylinder, it will make the combustion of the gas less efficient and cause the engine to chug and knock.

All in all, this has led me to believe that water can indeed be used as a fuel if it is produced outside of the car, it can be used to increase the efficiency of your gas by reclaiming otherwise wasted energy from your alternator, and it might be useful for generating steam power alongside gasoline. It’s possible. But I don’t know if all the scam artists out there selling kits are really telling the truth. This might be something worth looking into though.

Just me musing some stuff over. What are your thoughts?
Type to you later,
~Nathaniel

Now, she goes into a little side rant about cigarrette ads and smoking that I don’t really agree with. But the most important message is fairly clear. Now, nicotene is an appetite suppressor… but I certainly wouldn’t suggest anyone smoke to loose weight.

To see my opinion on the matter of the idea of “thin=attractive” check out this article.

This isn’t so much a rant, as it is a simple statement… but I’ll put it under rants because well… this is my site and I can do whatever I want with it. so :P

Type to you later,
~Nathaniel

If you’ve got ADD and can’t sit through reading all of this, scroll down to the bottom, I’ve got a nice summary for you. :P
In no other country in the world does ADD exist. Yep, it’s entirely American. How is it that only Americans are affected by this? Probably because the FDA and pharmacologists just made the whole thing up to sell pills. The teachers jumped on it because if they had any trouble students, they could always just suggest that their parents dope them up into becoming conforming zombies

I’m going to go through the symptoms of ADD really quickly:

* Often fidgeting with hands or feet, or squirming while seated.
* Having difficulty remaining seated.
* Having difficulty awaiting turn in games or group activities.
* Often blurting out answers before questions are completed.
* Having difficulty in following instructions.
* Having difficulty sustaining attention in tasks or play activities.
* Often shifting from one uncompleted task to another.
* Having difficulty playing quietly.
* Often talking excessively.
* Often interrupting or intruding on others.
* Often not listening to what is being said.
* Often forgetting things necessary for tasks or activities.
* Often engaging in physically dangerous activities without considering possible consequences.
* Being easily distracted by extraneous stimuli.
Obtained from here on 9.11.07

A glance over all of this shows that I could have easily stated “… symptoms of being a child…”
The fact of the matter is that everything that makes a kid a kid, is listed there. Kids are impatient, they are adventurous, they don’t like to sit still, they have boundless energy, and they aren’t going to understand or play by a great deal of the adult rules. That’s what it’s all about, people label a kid as having ADD when that child does not conform to the adult expectations that are being forced upon them. When we can’t brainwash or discipline the kid out of them, we decide to dope them up so we can control them. It’s just insane is what it is.

An Academic Excuse:
The fact of the matter is that yes, people with ADD are chemically different from “normal” people. However, I argue that this is a natural deviance. The brain simply operates in a different way than the average person. In fact, the so called “attention deficit” seems to only concern things that are boring. These same children could probably play video games for hours on end and name all of the Pokemon by memory… and tell you a little about each one. These are not children who cannot pay attention. They are simply bored with all the things we’re trying to get them to do. People with ADD learn a little differently, lazy teachers do not attempt to teach these kids as best as they can, they dope them up so that their flawed teaching methods will work on them well enough for them to pass standardized tests (another rant best saved for later). In other words, these teachers need to learn how to teach these children. Additionally, these children need to be taught how to learn. That’s about it. Also, I’ve found that the discipline found in martial arts is a great way to help teach these kids self control.

An excuse for bad behavior:
I have heard far too many people proclaiming “It’s not my fault, I’ve got ADD”. I was actually in a chat room once where someone was typing like a moron, being very rude, and when confronted they responded with “shut up, I got ADD. U cant descrimate against meh!” If I where able to reach through my monitor, through cyberspace, through their monitor, and slap them, I WOULD!

When I was young, I was diagnosed with ADD. After being diagnosed everyone let me slide through school without even trying because as everyone had pointed out to me “something was wrong with my brain.” So I did whatever I wanted to, caused a lot of trouble, and when they asked me why I was acting out, I told them that I forgot to take my pill that day.In fact, I rarely took my pills, I would hide them inside the water fountain. ADD became an excuse for bad behavior. The point is, I was capable of controlling myself, but I didn’t because I found a way to get away with it. I had no idea, at the time, what kind of damage this would would do to me.

I learned, years later of course, that my treatment and behavior caused a great deal of damage to my self esteem. Imagine this from a kid’s point of view:
1) there was something wrong with my brain
2) it made me stupid
3) I was so stupid that I had to take pills to fix me
4) people treated me like I was stupid
5) I came to the conclusion that I must be a mentally handicapped moron who would never amount to anything.

Yep, that’s the train of thought. Lucky for me, I snapped out of it. As soon as I learned that I could actually get help on my schoolwork I decided that I was not stupid and took it upon myself to do whatever I had to in order to get by. Yes, I had to DECIDE that I wasn’t stupid. It took years and years before I was able to think of myself as an intelligent person.

I have also heard people use ADD and dyslexia as an excuse for bad spelling and grammar. Now I actually do have both fairly badly. However, I have learned to work with my shortcomings. Right now I am using Mozilla Firefox, which has it’s own built in spell-check feature. I also read and reread everything to make sure my point comes across the way I intended it to. In other words, I’m not lazy about it.

Treatment: learning how to cope with ADD
One thing that really helped me was martial arts. It taught discipline in a fun and engaging way. I was able to pay attention to it because I had a man with a big stick threatening to hit me if I didn’t do what he said. Just kidding, it was fun and challenging and I really enjoyed getting to fight and not get in trouble for it… or have to be angry to do it. I also had to learn how to apply myself and I had to learn how to learn. I figured out, eventually, that if I wanted something bad enough, I had to do whatever it took to get it. If I wasn’t willing to do whatever it took, I just didn’t want it bad enough. I am currently enrolled in online classes with the Art Institute of Pittsburgh, Online Chapter. It takes quite a bit of discipline to apply myself and get my work done. But I do it. Why? Because I want to design games for a living, I want it so bad that I’ll overcome any obstacle, including the ones in my own brain, to get there. Pills only treat the problem, they do not solve or cure anything. There may not be a cure for ADD but you can learn to cope with it to the point to where it becomes second nature. Once I overcame my need for the pills, I was able to function as a somewhat normal individual.

Conclusions:
ADD is not a disorder but rather a natural deviation of the human mind.
ALL CHILDREN need to be taught how to learn
ALL TEACHERS need to learn how to remain interesting enough to keep the attention of these children.
Children can learn discipline well from martial arts
Treating children with ADD differently than normal kids will damage their self esteem
Treating children for ADD by medicating them will damage their self esteem and make them into zombies
ADD is a Fictional American Fad that is being used as an excuse to dope kids up so that we can control them

In other words, get them off the pills, be interesting, teach them discipline in a fun way, let them know they are smart and give them the chances to prove it, encourage intelligent/academic endeavors, but do not discourage so called childish behaviors, let them have fun, let the kids be kids and stop doping them up!

Type to you later,
~Nathaniel

To me, the only body types that are unattractive are anorexic and obese. So, if you’re Skeletor or a pumpkin patch kid, you might want to reconsider your diet. Otherwise, you’re healthy enough and that’s what really matters. Big women, little women, women of all shapes and sizes, I guarantee you that your confidence and how you carry yourself is what matters the most. I can also guarantee that the vanity of a woman who whines about a few extra pounds is FAR more repulsive than that supposedly extra weight.

When my wife asks me if her butt looks big in whatever she’s wearing, I respond with “Yes it does, and it’s super hot!” The funny thing is, that’s is TOTALLY contrary to how I was raised… which was to never mention/guess/comment on a woman’s age, weight, or pregnancy status. If a woman asks you if she looks fat she wants to hear “no honey, you look beautiful, those pants are really slimming.” but I found that to be dishonest.

In any case, women, get over it. You look fine. You don’t have to compete with the women on TV so there’s no use trying. As long as you’re happy and healthy, who cares? Be proud of what you’ve got. There’s no need to feel self-conscious. As I’ve always said “If a person cannot see you as beautiful, it does not mean that you are not so. It only means that they do not really see you.” and “If truth is beauty and beauty truth, then as long as you’re true to yourself, you’ll never be anything less than beautiful.” and it’s true! It is so true. It is my sincere hope that one day, the women of the world will discover that they don’t have to listen to the media and realize that they are beautiful.

Just remember, the clothings stores, the makeup manufacturers and quite a few people in between all make money by making you feel bad about yourself. They make you think that you need their products/services in order to be attractive and it’s just not true. Don’t fall for their dastardly advertising/brainwashing tactics. Be your own woman and be proud of who you are. Trust me, we’ll love you for it.

Type to you later,
~Nathaniel

Personally, I think that many game development companies are too focused on how a game looks and not focused enough on how the game plays. As games become better and better looking, they seem to lend less to the realm of game play. Almost as if the player is forced to sit and watch the artists show off their work instead of playing a game.

I used to program games on my TI-83+ graphing calculator. These where ugly games, written in a very limited programming language. But I made them fun. Why? Because if they weren’t fun, no one would play them! I didn’t have the fancy graphics and options that modern games have because of the language limitations. However, that didn’t stop me from making very addictive versions of tic-tac-toe, slolum, FPS, maze, guessing, and memory games. I had a blast, and so did the students who I gave the games to. So much so, that the teachers tried to erase all the programs from every calculator in an effort to curb these distractions. Good thing we had them backed up on our computers… or they might have been lost forever. My point here is that even an ugly, option-low game can be very fun and addictive. Games don’t need to be pretty, they don’t need extensive storyline, THEY NEED TO BE FUN!

That being said, graphics and storyline are VERY important for the immersion of a game. Games like Halo 3, Bioshock, and Heavenly Sword are all examples of engaging graphics and storyline. They’re also extremely fun to play (I’ve only personally played Halo 3 and read very good reviews about the other two). Hopefully, as graphics becomes easier for us to utilize and making games pretty becomes super easy, we will be able to focus better on making games fun again. I’ve got good hopes for the game industry. Also… if I ever manage to break into the game industry, I can guarantee that my main focus will be on fun… unless I’m an artist. Nah, fun is king.

Let me just put it this way: People didn’t wait so long in line for Halo3 just so they can see how neat the graphics where. They waited that long so that they could buy the game and blow stuff up in cool new ways! End of story.

Rant to you later,
~Nathaniel