I Bring Out The Stupid In People

I'm starting to get the feeling that my mere presence lowers people's IQs.  Here some some instances to back up my observation (and these don't even mention the awful drivers I seem to see every time I get behind the wheel):

1. Me: "So, I was reading about this research being done by a doctoral student at Dalhousie University blah blah blah."
   Other guy: "Research by a doctoral student at a university? Sounds pretty sketchy to me."
   Ummmm....you mean at an educational institute where people do research to be recognized (the bread and butter for a scientist) rather than for maximizing profit (like in a corporation)? Where this person will not achieve his dream of a PhD unless he can rigorously defend his research face to face with his peers and superiors actively trying to attack his research?
   Yeah. University research, esp. at a place like Dal, is totally sketchy.</sarcasm>
   
2. After talking about Jesus' standard for adultery ("If you even look at a woman with lustful intent, you have already committed adultery in your heart") someone said "And it's morals like that which prevented Christianity from ever making it big beyond the first century."
3. When discussing the cost of home ownership and whether or not I could afford it, I pulled out my iPhone to use the calculator someone said "Put your calculator away! This is no time to make calculations! You just have to do it!"
4. "You should cheat on your taxes because when you pay your taxes, all you're doing is supporting welfare cheats." Besides the implication that two wrongs do make a right, does this person think the whole tax system exists to give money to "welfare cheats"? A quick and dirty calculation reveals that less than 1% of your actual tax dollars goes to welfare recipients. (Same guy said this as #3.)
5. In reference to someone saying something similar to #4; "Remember that at election time." Yeah, whatever you do, don't vote for the party that's in favour of people cheating the system! Whichever party that is.
6. "You shouldn't complain about a late night party. Free music is always a good thing." Well....unless you have a migraine, or are sick, or have to get up early to work, or, in this exact case, the party is several kilometres away and the solution is to put the speakers up on stands. (This incident refers to Ottawa Folkfest 2014.)
7. "Einstein was an idiot." You lose a lot of credibility when you say this.
8. "The Bible can't be true because the Hebrews never would have been slaves because they weren't black." Because the only slaves in history were black. </sarcasm>.
9. "I f&#%@ing hate unions!" After having lost his job due to a layoff in a unionized environment; instead of been shown the door and perhaps being given a severance cheque (like in a non-unionized place), this person was given the option of 1) leaving immediately with severance pay, 2) sticking around for a year to find another job in the (rather large) organization, or 3) taking some money, going to school to upgrade his skills, then come back to work being put on a priority list to look for a position within the (rather large) organization. He took the third option, and had found a job and was complaining that he might not start at the top of the pay scale, instead of having to work up through a few years of guaranteed raises.
10. Me in December, 2012: "I just have this really ominous feeling that 2013 is going to be a bad year for me." Other person: "You'll just have to make it a good year then.". I knew at that point of a few changes coming up that were going to negatively affect my life. Besides that there was a mass exodus of my social circle. (Approximately 19 friends moved away that year. For context: in January of 2012 I didn't have 19 friends in Ottawa.) Aside from that there were a few things too personal for this blog. By December I knew I was right: 2013 is probably on record as being one of my worst years so far, and the vast majority of the good and the bad (of any year for that matter) was well beyond my control.

Some honourable mentions:

1. "You shouldn't rent because when you rent, you're just throwing your money away." This is an honourable mention because a lot of people say it, and it is technically true, and still may be practically true in some cases, in some parts of the world. But not in Ottawa in 2015. The implication is usually that when you own, you're not throwing your money away. To see why this is wrong, you have to use something called a 'calculator'.
2. "Hello, help desk support? My Microsoft isn't working." This is honourable mention because a lot of non-techies wouldn't know what's wrong with that. However, this was uttered as I was walking through my office. I work in IT.
3. "Canada is the most taxed country in the world." I'm calling this an honourable mention because it's really hard to verify the veracity of this statement. Do they mean the most amount of distinct taxes? The highest tax percentages for Sales tax? Property tax? Income tax? What tax bracket are we talking about? However, it made the list because upon a quick Google search reveals, by most measures, Canada's not even in the top ten.
4. "If you're trying to sleep while your neighbours are partying, just wear earplugs." Have you ever actually tried earplugs? They muffle sound, not cut it out entirely. Also, have you ever tried sleeping with earplugs in your ears? I moved this one to the honourable mentions because it turns out that ear plugs actually do work for a lot of people for some noises. I've found out that I have a weirdly shaped ear that makes it very difficult for any ear plug to stay in. I've tried many types of earplugs. I've twisted, scrunched, pulled on my lobes, done every thing I could think of, but I can't seem to get any to stay in my right ear for very long.

A Christian Perspective on Harry Potter

Dislcaimer

I'm only on the fourth book: The Goblet of Fire. Something could come up later that throws the rest of this post out the window.

I did start reading them a while ago, and got further (the fourth book, I think), but I read through them faster, basically racing through them. I'm now reading them at a slower, more enjoyable pace.

Background

This post is an extension of my previous post: My Harry Potter Fan Theory where I ultimately conclude that in the Harry Potter universe, magic isn't magic per se; it's technology.

I have recently started reading the Harry Potter series of books, and am so far enjoying them.

When the books first came out, there was discussion amongst Christians as to what the Christian perspective on them was. The books easily lend themselves to comparison to Lord of the Rings and Narnia. There seems to be a "completeness" about 3. We seem to want triologies. So many jokes involve three similar, but contrasting things. (A priest, a pastor, and a rabbi walk into a bar...)

Tolkien and Lewis make two. They were both Brits who wrote fantasy highly popular, other-world epics, which are often enjoyed by younger readers, which have thus far stood the test of time. Where's the third?

Enter J.K. Rowling and Harry Potter. We don't know if Harry Potter will stand the test of time, but the other criteria are met.

But, for the Christian reader, Narnia is blatant allegory. Middle Earth mythology are not allegory, but are laced with Christian themes, and clearly from a Christian world-view. What about the Harry Potter universe?

Most Christian parents would be happy for their kids to read Narnia. For Middle Earth writings, it would be more a question of age-appropriateness. We read The Hobbit as a class in grade 4 (9 years old), and I just loved it! That summer I tried reading Lord of the Rings, and I just couldn't get past the birthday party! Now that I'm older and more used to longer, slower stories, Lord of the Rings is a much more enjoyable read.

But what about Harry Potter? Some would say "No way. That's witchcraft and it's of the devil!"

What I Heard Others Saying

When this discussion first came to my consciousness, I was still a post-secondary student living in Sault Ste. Marie. The default position was "Harry Potter promotes witchcraft, and is therefore evil."

So, at first I just went with the default position. I was too busy with school to be doing all that reading, and it's easy saving money on a movie ticket when none of your friends want to see the movie.

A friend, whom I greatly respect, disagreed with the default position.

"But, what about the spells? They use spells! Surely that's evil." I asked.

She replied to the effect that the Harry Potter spells are mostly just Latin, and that "nobody had a problem with 'Bippity-Boppity-Boo.'"

Then years later, on Twitter (I'm not calling it X) Tim Keller, in an AMA said that he enjoyed Harry Potter "as a story of friendship and redemption" or something to that effect.

Okay, if you're going to argue with Tim Keller on whether or not a Christian should partake, you'd better have some solid ammo.

Time for my own reading. I picked up a box set of the Harry Potter books, and started reading. And I noticed a few things that lead me to develop my own fan theory, which I will delve into now.

My Own Findings

First, in order to decide if Harry Potter is evil by Christian standards, we need to understand the basis for why we think witchcraft and wizardy is evil.

In Mere Christianity, C.S. Lewis says that the reason we don't have witch hunts anymore is that not that we don't think that witches are evil, but because we don't believe in witches anymore.

“Three hundred years ago people in England were putting witches to death. Was that what you call the 'Rule of Human Nature or Right Conduct?’ But surely the reason we do not execute witches is that we do not believe there are such things. If we did—if we really thought that there were people going about who had sold themselves to the devil and received supernatural powers from him in return and were using these powers to kill their neighbours or drive them mad or bring bad weather—surely we would all agree that if anyone deserved the death penalty, then these filthy quislings did? There is no difference of moral principle here: the difference is simply about matter of fact. It may be a great advance in knowledge not to believe in witches: there is no moral advance in not executing them when you do not think they are there. You would not call a man humane for ceasing to set mousetraps if he did so because he believed there were no mice in the house.”

― C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity

So, the primary issues with witches are:

1. They do evil things (ex: kill neighbours, destroy crops, etc.)
2. They call upon evil beings (ex: the devil, demons, etc) for them to use their power

I'll look at each in turn.

Witches Do Evil Things

Yes, they do do evil things, especially "he who must not be named".

But they also do good things.

In the Harry Potter universe, magical powers seem to be like any technology; it can be used for good or evil. In The Philosopher's Stone, Snape talks about curing poison. Surely that's good.

Are you using your smartphone for good or for evil? Or are you just using it to facilitate whatever else you're doing (communication, research, entertainment, education, etc.)?

Furthermore, Dumbledore does talk about sin with the assumption that sin is something bad. "Curiosity is not a sin", or something like that.

The Harry Potter universe acknowledges good and evil, and their versions of good things and evil things seem to be pretty much in line with Judeo-Christian versions. Curing poison is good. Killing people is bad.

Witches Call Upon Evil Beings

Here's where things get interesting.

There's no mention of any specific supernatural being (that I've gotten to). But in my reading I noticed a couple of things: First, they celebrate Halloween (aka: All Hallows (ie: Saints) Eve), not Samhain. They celebrate Christmas, not Winter Solstice. That is to say: they're celebrating Christian holidays instead of the actual pagan holidays! (It gets a little tricky with Easter because the word Easter is pagan in origin, not Christian.)

If the Harry Potter universe were truly trying to indoctinate kids into the occult, why not introduce them to Samhain and Winter Solstice? Rowling is already introducing everyone to a world of new vocabulary (like Muggle and Squib), a whole new sport with complex rules, new magical creatures, a history, etc. Introducing the audience to Samhain and Winter Solstice would have been small potatoes compared to the rules of Quiddich.

To me, that was the first thing I noticed that suggested that my friend and Tim Keller might be right; these aren't manuals of witchcraft the way we think of witchcraft.

So, where do they get their power?

I explore this further in My Harry Potter Fan Theory. In summary, they're not witches and wizzards in the Harry Potter world; they're more like X-Men. They have a genetic mutation (or several) that allow them, through the use of a wand and incantations, to manipulate the electromagnetic field. It's not magic. It's technology that's not understood through the lens of scientific method.

And that doesn't make a thing evil. Simply using a power that you don't understand doesn't mean you're grasping at power that you shouldn't. Do you understand how your phone works? I don't. And we still use our phones.

Aren't They Using Power For Their Own Ends?

This is a common objection from Christians about Harry Potter. If I understand it, the object could be summed up as follows: "In Narnia and Middle-Earth, power is to be used for the betterment of others, not achieving one's own objectives, like it is in Harry Potter. Those witches and wizards are using magic for their own means, rather than for others'."

But is that what's going on? Let's look into it.

Power in Narnia and Middle Earth

Narnia

There are a few instances where people are put in positions of power, and saying they do not feel ready, and Aslan assures them that it's that feeling that says that they are ready, and if they had said they were ready, they wouldn't be. And, of course, The White Witch would like to rule Narnia and prevent the four humans from ruling; and Edmond would like to be at her side bossing Peter around and putting him in his place, all while he eats Turkish Delight. Then there's the Last Battle, where ape tries to basically take over by being the puppet master who controls "Aslan". And the green witch in The Silver Chair.

So, yes, there do seem to be themes of the dangers of the pursuit of ill-gotten power and authority. All true authority and power belongs to Aslan. And, yes, any unrightful power is often self-serving, rather than others-serving. It seems to be a theme that a king or queen's primary duty is to their own people; servant leadership.

But, how apparent would this be to Lewis' target audience: 7 to 9 year olds? I don't think it's the main point of the books. It seems more secondary.

Middle Earth

(Forgive me if I conflate the movies with the books.)

In Middle Earth, the pursuit of power is largely a Sauron thing. (A whole series of posts could be written on these themes in Middle Earth from before the end of the Third Age, which is when The Hobbit and Lord of the Rings take place. And most people are only familiar with those writings, so I'll stick to them here.)

Sauron wants to take over, so he created the rings of power (minus The Three). This would help him take over the world. I don't think it's ever stated what his end-game was. Was it to take over, then bring Melkor back to Middle Earth to finally rule? Or just to rule himself? Then what?

Gandalf and Galadriel are both offered The One Ring, and decline, but not without saying they would start off with the best of intentions, but would eventually go bad, serving themselves. Same thing would happen with men.

The special thing about hobbits is that they have enough interest to keep the ring around without succumbing to it for long enough to return it and destroy it. Others would likely go bad before reaching the mountains bordering Mordor. Whereas Tom Bombadill, who's so self-sufficient, wouldn't even care about the ring, and would likely lose it.

I think Tolkien's warning about the pursuit of power could be summed up as following: "You may start out like Superman, but eventually you would turn into Homelander."

It seems like the pursuit of power is a substantial theme in Lord of the Rings. Power must be kept in check. No one should have absolute power.

In other words, Tolkien isn't trying to say "Power is to be used for others, not for the self." He's trying to say "The pursuit of power is a problem."

Power in Harry Potter

Lewis and Tolkien warn us against the perils of power. It's more subtle, but Rowling warns us of the same thing! Remember, in the Harry Potter universe is that magic is not the power like, say, the one ring. Magic is not the power. It's a talent based in genetics.

It's like if you found out you had perfect pitch as a kid, you should sign up for music lessons; you need to hone that skill to be useful; to be a gift to the world, to fulfill your God-given purpose. When Happy Gilmour finds out he's better at golf than hockey, he develops the skill of golf to win enough money to buy his grandma's house back (or whatever it was for).

If you had the "magic gene" that exists in the Harry Potter universe, you need to learn to control it. (In Fantastic Beasts we see what happens when magic is suppressed. It's not good.) You don't go to Hogwarts to learn to summon satanic powers, or communicate with the under-world. It's closer to taking music lessons when you find out you have perfect pitch.

And, really, what do they use these spells for? They're not destroying crops or killing babies. They're using it the way we use technology. We have cars and airplanes. They have broomsticks and portkeys. We have phones. They have owls and some can communicate through fires. We have microphones and PA systems. They can amplify their voices with wands. We have flashlights. They can create light with their wands. They do hunt vampires (implying that vampires are inherently evil), or train dragons, or keep magical creatures out of view of muggles. It seems like they're just going about their lives as we are, just differently. If the existence or use of "magic" is evil, then so is any of our technology.

In fact, there's a whole government body overseeing the use of magic, making sure everything is done properly, and people aren't abusing their magic.

The "magic" isn't the power. But power still exists in the magic world as it does in our world, Narnia, or Middle Earth. It's the domination of other people. It's ill-gotten authority. And the Harry Potter books and movies have plenty of warning against that; just like Lord of the Rings, or the Chronicles of Narnia. So, don't take a throne that doesn't belong to you; don't use the One Ring to fight against Mordor. And don't use any spells to dominate or kill others.

The warning is in the four houses: Gryffindor, Hufflepuff, Ravenclaw, and Slytherin. As Hagrid (inaccurately) points out "There's not a witch or wizard that went bad that wasn't in Slytherin." But, he's correct in most instances. Part of the traits of students in House Slytherin are they desire power and cunning and ambition. They want to get on top. They want to be better than others. (Not all, but some.)

Slytherin exists as a warning to us what happens when those traits (which, as C.S. Lewis points out, are not evil in and of themselves) get out of hand and take over as the top thing. There's a whole 43 minute video on YouTube exploring Why does Slytherin still exist?. I didn't watch the full thing (it seems like there may be spoilers), but it seems like we don't know of any good Slytherins. There probably are good Slytherins, but their stories are probably not interesting enough to make it into the stories. (I understand there may be some repentance later on in the stories. But no spoilers, please.)

And it's clear that your personal preferences play a role in what house you're placed in. Harry could have gone Slytherin, but he wanted Gryffindor, and there he was placed. It's as though Rowling is warning us: "Don't desire Slytherin. It's better to desire friendship, loyalty, bravery, knowledge than power."

The Imperius Curse 

Furthermore, it can be said that the real problem with the power is to dominate or control other people. Ultimately, that's what the One Ring gives you.  The Green Witch from The Silver Chair is in the wrong for doing this.

And in Harry Potter, the Imperius Curse allows someone to do just that!  "Ah ha!  See!  EVIL!"

Except that the Imperius Curse is one of the three "unforgivable curses" which lands one a life sentence in Azkaban without possibility of parole.

So it seems that Harry Potter is teaching us that there is right and wrong; and it's wrong to control other people for your own ends. Just like in Middle Earth and Narnia.

Divination

But what about Divination? That's clearly frowned upon in the Bible, and that's in Harry Potter.

Rodney Dangerfield gets more respect than Divination does in the HP universe. They downright make fun of it, often saying or implying that it's not a real thing.

Conclusion

"Power" or "magic" in the Harry Potter world is derived from genes, and not evil spirits, demons, or the devil. We're "fearfully and wonderfully made." (Psalm 139:14) If some people have the genetic ability to interface with the world in a different way than others, then it's God that gave them that gift. Magic people in the Harry Potter universe aren't getting their power from Satan. The source of the magic is not in conflict with a Christian world and life view.

Any technology can be used for good or evil. Harry Potter uses technology and genes to do mostly good.

Since the two problems with witchcraft (source of power, uses of power) are inconsistent with the Harry Potter universe, we can conclude that there's nothing inherently wrong with Christians enjoying the writings or the movies.

Lastly....

I will continue to update this post as I read through the books and find further supporting, or contradictory evidence.

“Fairy tales do not tell children the dragons exist. Children already know that dragons exist. Fairy tales tell children the dragons can be killed.”

― G.K. Chesterton

My Harry Potter Fan Theory

Dislcaimers

I know I'm probably not the first one to come up with this. I haven't looked for others. These are just my own conclusions. I guess I'm writing this out in case one of my old English teachers stumble upon it. "See, I can do this sort of thing, but only if I find the subject matter interesting."

I'm only on the fourth book: The Goblet of Fire. Something could come up later that throws the rest of this post out the window.

I did start reading them a while ago, and got further (the fourth book, I think), but I read through them faster, basically racing through them. I'm now reading them at a slower, more enjoyable pace. And during that time, I noticed a few things that have led to my current theory which I outline here.

Theory: Harry Potter et al aren't actual wizzards and witches; they're basically X-Men

Allow me to explain.

While reading the first book, something jumped out at me: At Hogwarts they were celebraing Halloween (ie: All Hallows (ie: Saints) Eve) and Christmas. Why would British witches and wizzards celebrate Christian holidays, rather than their pagan equivalents: Smahain and Winter Solstice?

Then I noticed that everyone is either magic or a muggle. There's no going back and forth. If you're a muggle, you can't learn these spells and do magic. If you're magic, you can certainly not do, but you can't stop actually being magic.

And, for the most part, magic people come from at least one magic parent. Occasionally, two magic parents produce a muggle (i.e.: a Squib). And occasionally, two muggle parents produce a magic person. But, it's noted that there is often a magic person somewhere in their ancestry. It really seems like genetics are involved.

I don't understand genetics well enough to understand how things like recessive genes work. But I think it's that a gene can be passed down for generations without the thing it codes for appearing. For example, my brother and I both identify as gingers (but not as much as the Weasleys). But no one else on either side of our family has a hair colour even close to ours! So, out of nowhere, we have this reddish/strawberry-blond hair. And out of nowhere, Hermione, a talented witch, is born of two muggles.

And what if several generations ago, like hundreds or thousands of years ago, there was a genetic mutation that somehow allowed a person to interact with, and manipulate the electromagnetic field? And this if generally what we see in the Harry Potter universe. They can manipulate objects as a whole (move things without touching them). And they can transform objects (this would be maniupulation of molecules, atoms, and subatomic particles). But they can't create ex-nihilo; hence their need for money. (I don't know why they need their own currency though.).

(In The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe, Mr. Beaver tells the Pevensie children that Jadis is not a "daughter of Eve", but a "daughter of Lilith". What if that's where the magic started? This isn't a part of my theory, per se, but I'm currently reading through the Narnia Chronicles, and that thought occurred to me. It also fits in with a popular meme that the four Hogwarts houses equate to the Pevensie children. Maybe there is a Narnia/Harry Potter cross-over!)

At one point it's even mentioned that a lot of electronics don't work at places like Hogwarts because of all the magic concentrated in one location. Why would magic interfere with electronics? But this is exactly what you would expect if magic were really just the manipulation of the electromagentic field!

There also seems to be some complexity and precision to magic. You can't just say an incantation and make something happen. A wand is needed. And not just any wand, it has to be a wand that works with you specifically. And incantations need to be pronounced properly ("Wing-gar-dium Levi-o-sa", not "Wingardium Levio-sa"). And the swish-and-flick of the wand needs to be done properly. This seems to be more in line with science than magic.

And they can't bring people back from the dead. (There doesn't seem to be any explanation (so far) why some people die (like Harry's parents) and some people become ghosts (like Nearly-Headless Nick)). This implies there's more to life than electronic impulses. Either that, or no one's figured out how to get those impulses going again. But the spirit-world does exist in the Harry Potter universe.

Hogwarts or Dumbledore's School For Gifted Youngsters?

Any sufficiently advanced technology looks like magic to a primitive society. It seems like this is more like technology that was derived without scientific method. They don't understand it at the sub-atomic level. They just know a set of causes and their effects without understanding the underlying relationships. (And that's okay. Do you know how your phone works? I don't. But we can still use our phones. Nor does our lack of understanding make it magic. But someone understands it.)

And since they take kids out of muggle school long before they can learn about scientific method, maths, science, and other muggle subjects, and concentrate entirely on their own subjects, it's unlikely that science will ever be appreciated or applied by magic people. They'll continue to hand down their potions and spells to the next generation without understanding why they work, all the while calling it "magic" rather than what it is: technology.

Conclusion

Wizards and witches in the Harry Potter universe are more like mutants a la X-Men, and not like witches and wizards like we normally think of them. In the L. Frank Baum books, after The Wizard of Oz leaves Oz, he does return and Glinda teaches him some basic spells. He does become a wizard. Dudley Dursley will never become a wizard.

I will continue to update this post as I read through the books and find further supporting, or contradictory evidence.

There Are No Anchovies

A little while ago I blogged that I don't believe in Anchovies; I'm an A-Anchoviest. Things have changed.  Now I'm a believer.  I feel like my sole has been saved.

This is the bassic story of my conversion.

A friend at work saw my blog and told me he has had anchovies. Then we walked through Costco and he tried showed me some.  But they didn't have any.  He assured me if I went into any Italian grocery store they'd have them.  I thought he was just throwing me a red herring.  I mean, for cod's sake, did he think I was some kinda sucker?  Or, maybe he was just being koi?

My next clue was when someone at the office came into my cubicle one morning and plunked down a jar of anchovies onto my desk and walked away.  Walleye thought something smelt fishy after that.  I started to trout my beliefs.

I took the jar home and decided to make a pizza with anchovies.  I invited three friends over to share the anchovies.  I didn't want be shellfish, after all.

So, we made the pizza.  (In fact we made two in a roe!)  It felt like it took forever to make.  We waited with baited breath.  Anchovies are reel salty. The pizza was loaded with other toppings: peppers (green, red, orange, and yellow), onions, tomatoes, olives, cheese, and pepperoni. When I took a bite of a slice that had anchovies, the taste of the anchovies over-powered the taste of everything else.

Here's a picture of the pizza after I put the anchovies on it (and before I put everything else on it).  As you can see, the anchovies are on three quarters of the pizza.  There were four of us that night.  The pizza would be divided by four.  I asked "Should I make two slices with anchovies?"  They said "Two?  Nahhhh, make it three... just for the halibut."

Well, it was a fun night.  You might even say it was like salmon chanted evening.

Incidentally, I didn't eat any of the anchovies raw.  I was afraid I might fall eel.  Then I would have needed some real professional kelp.  I might have even needed a team of sturgeons to trawl through my system to cure me.

My experience is that anchovies aren't very common, so if you'd like to try them and you're in a store and you see a jar of anchovies, you'd better snapper up before someone else does.  But, if someone else tries at the same time, you might get in a fight.  Then it will down come to mussel.  Who knows, in a thousand years anchovies could be extinct.

And now, as the French would say: La Fin!

(PS:  Sorry for the crappie puns.  They didn't serve any great porpoise and I'm sure you've just about haddock with them.  I suppose I should have warned you.  Oh whale.  Caviar Emptor.)

I'm An Aanchchoviest

I don't think anchovies really exist.

Think about it.  Have you ever had an anchovy?  You know about them as pizza toppings that you pray are never on your pizza. They're a topping that only other people have on their pizzas - people with bad taste.

If you were with some people who were ordering a pizza they would ask you what you wanted on your pizza. You would likely say something like "Oh, just about anything is fine with me. Get whatever you want." If they said "Okay. How about anchovies?" You would make a disgusted face and say "Ewww! No. That's gross!" But you've never actually had anchovies.

If you ask your friends if they like anchovies, they'll make a face like they just bit into a lemon sprinkled with mace and say "No way!" But if you ask if they've had any, they'll say they haven't.

Once upon a time, I found the idea of raw fish was really repulsive. Now I love sushi. Once upon a time I found wine intolerable. Now, not so much. Tastes change. It occurred to me that I was judging anchovies without giving them a fair shot. So I started to try to order them with my pizza. But they never seemed to be on any menu! One time I did see it on a menu and I asked about it. They told me something like "Oh, we don't have those. If you want them you have to order a few days in advance." Who orders a pizza a few days in advance?

Then I forgot all about it. Until now. I found a recipe for Cesar Salad dressing. It calls for "1 can of minced anchovies (optional)". I decided to go for it. But, try as I might, I can not find any evidence at any grocery store that anchovies actually exist!  So I make the dressing without anchovies.  It's not too bad, but I'll never how bad it could be.

Sleepers vs. Non-Sleepers

A couple of weeks after moving into my new apartment, there was a power-outage that lasted from 10:30 at night to about 4:30 in the morning. It was July. I live on the top floor. My room got very warm very quickly.

During the power outage, my apartment was very quiet. Sort of. There are two types of noise: white noise, and non-white noise. I normally sleep with the air conditioner and a fan on. The building's ventilation system makes a certain amount of white noise. That was all silenced. Now, I could hear all the non-white noise, such as people talking in adjacent units, cars driving by on the streets, dogs barking in the distance, etc.

I didn't get to sleep that night until about 4:30 AM. When I told this story to the McQueens Robin laughed and said I was the only person she knew who wouldn't be able to sleep at night during a power-outage. I tried to explain the difference between white noise and non-white noise, and how I can sleep with white noise, but not non-white noise. She didn't buy it. Jack suggested that there seem to be two types of people in the world: sleepers and non-sleepers, and sleepers will never understand non-sleepers.

Sleepers are people that go to bed and sleep. They sleep because they want to sleep. Or because they're comfortable and tired. I was a sleeper when I was a teenager.  Actually, most teenagers are.

A non-sleeper can't just go to sleep. They need certain conditions to be in place. During the day, I am a sleeper. At night, I'm a non-sleeper. In the day, I can sleep while sitting upright on a noisy, hot, crowded bus with my head against the bouncing window. But at night, I need everything to be just so.

So I started contemplating the difference between sleepers and non-sleepers, trying to develop a theory as to what makes one one and not the other. Then I stumbled across Today's Articles. It turns out that science already has answers.

When you're awake, your brain produces high frequency brain waves. As you fall deeper into sleep, your brainwaves lower in frequency.  Every now and again, while sleeping, a spurt of higher frequency waves are produced. Those spurts are called "spindles". The scientists found that people who produce more spindles don't get woken up as easily as those who produce fewer spindles.

Unfortunately, the question of "how do I make my brain create more spindles?" remains unanswered.

Concentrated Bad Luck

I have some theories on luck. My first theory is something called the "Universal Luck Constant" meaning there's only so much good luck to go around in the universe. If you use up a lot of luck in one area, there's less to go around in another.  For example: one time my friend and I parked out car in the city to play pool for an hour or two. We didn't put any money in the parking meter - thus risking a parking ticket. We both played one of the worst games of pool in our lives. We couldn't sink a ball to save our lives. When we returned to the car, there was no ticket. We used up all our luck by not getting a ticket. We had no luck left over to play pool.

Another theory about luck is that you can have a lot of bad luck in a short amount of time, but then things turn around afterwords. In February of 2008 I had a really bad month. This is what happened (in chronological order):

It snowed a lot

That was the February of an almost record breaking winter. Pastor Jack went to Jamaica on a missions trip. Robin went to Italy on a class trip. The other two kids were away at school. This left Wendy and I at home. So I did as much of the shovelling as I could. It snowed 4 our of every 5 days.  Shovelling was a daily chore.  I was really getting tired of it. Ottawa almost broke a record that winter for amount of snow.

My uncle died

This was, by far, the worst part of that February. He should have lived to 120 years. It was the uncle with whom I lived when I lived in Toronto. He is greatly missed.

I ordered a used CD online, and when I got it, it was damaged.

I blogged about this before. The day I received the CD was the day my uncle died. I decided to deal with the CD when I returned from Toronto. When I returned, I found out the deadline for returns had passed.

My camera stopped working

It was hard to describe what was wrong with the CD, so I decided to take a picture. When I did that, I saw that my camera wasn't working.

My first cavities in years

Since my last trip to the dentist I had taken better care of my teeth than ever before, yet I got a cavity. Two of them, in fact.  For the first time in my life, I was confident that this trip to the dentist would end well. It didn't. I had two cavities! I began to suspect a dental conspiracy. When I got the cavities filled my dentist took liberties and did some other work that I hadn't asked her to do. That extra work wasn't covered by my insurance. This eventually broke down my trust in her, so I had to find another dentist. You have to trust your health care providers.

A button fell off my jacket

I found this nice corduroy jacket at The Bay. I wear it at work. Then a button fell off. Upon examination, I saw a second button was getting close to falling off. No big deal - I'd just sew them back on.

I lost my sewing kit

This is not a big deal. My sewing kit is one of the $2 kits you find in the dollar store. It has some thread, a few needles, scissors, etc. It wasn't a huge deal, just an annoyance. I wasn't able to sew a button that had fallen off my jacket (see above).

My desktop computer stopped working

The day I realized I lost my sewing kit, I decided I wanted to watch a DVD on my desktop computer. When I turned the computer on, it didn't work. The video card was broken. Oh well, I still had my laptop. My laptop only has a 12" monitor, but it's better than nothing. And, it's an Apple so it "just works."

The DVD software in my laptop stopped working.

When I inserted the DVD, and the DVD software started, my computer froze. I rebooted and tried again. It froze again. I tried starting the DVD software without inserting a DVD into the computer. The computer froze. I looked around the Interwebs and found out that on my specific laptop model (12" PowerBook G4) the DVD software with that specific version of Mac OS X didn't work. I had to wait for Apple to fix the problem and release a patch.

As the last thing happened I was really starting to loose it. Everything was going wrong that month. The last four items happened on the same day. The only good thing that happened that month was that I signed my indeterminate contract at work. That means there is no determined end to my employment with the federal government. Other than that, everything was going wrong. When I couldn't watch a DVD that day on either of my computers, I just grabbed my iPod and listened to some soothing music whislt lying in the fetal position on my bed.

See how all that luck was concentrated into that one month?

Then March began. This is what happened in March:

I re-ordered that CD

It was in perfect condition when I received it. In the end I spent as much on the two used CDs as I would have spent on one new CD.

My camera got fixed

On a whim, I took my camera into Blacks to ask if they had seen my problem before. The guy at Blacks looked at it and told me "Yes I have seen this. In fact, that's a known problem with these cameras. Cannon is aware of the problem, and they're fixing this problem for free, regardless of warranty status." He told me how to go about getting it fixed. Yay!! I didn't have buy a new camera!

I learned a lot about oral health

My suspicion of the dental profession led me to do a lot of research. I found out some things like how cavities can heal themselves given the right conditions. I discovered something called xylitol, an all-natural sugar substitute that kills the bacteria that causes things like cavities, gum disease, inner-ear infections, and some throat infections. There's also evidence that it helps the bones absorb calcium. It has 40% of the calaries of sugar. It's digested independently of insulin, so it's safe for diabetics. The only downsides are that it's a wee bit expensive, and hard to find. I did find it in January of 2009, and I've had great dental reports since then.

I found my sewing kit

This happened within the first couple of days of March. I found it in the jacket that had the missing button. When I found it, I knew the month was starting to turn around.  I promptly fixed the buttons on that jacket.

Apple patched their DVD player software

Apple released the patch, which I installed allowing me to watch DVDs on my laptop again!

I thought it was so funny how everything was concentrated into February of that month. By the end of the month I was really feeling defeated by life. Once March arrived, things started turning around immediately. Then life returned to normal.

I also noticed something about bad luck.  Only one of those things was really bad; my uncle passing away.  The rest of them were small.  The thing that made them seem worse was that it felt like every single day something else went wrong.  Even if it was just coming home and having to shovel a foot of snow off the driveway. By February the snowbank at the corner of the driveway was about 8 feet tall, and it was quite the feat of strength throwing snow over that hill. The bad luck incidences were accumulative.  Eventually you just need something to go right.

So that is an example of Concentrated Bad Luck. 2009 was like that too, and I'll get to that later.

Here's a Dilbert comic illustrating the Universal Luck Constant:

You Can't Help Yourself Because Your Self Sucks

According to today's article, Self-Help books that tell you to repeat mantras like "I am a lovable person" do not work for people with low self-esteem, (LSE) and only marginally work for those with high self-esteem (HSE).

I suspect they don't work for those with LSE because as they're chanting those they're thinking about how they're not true. It brings to the forefront of their minds how much of a lovable person they're not. Then they feel worse.

I suspect the reason a great many other self-help books don't work is that people who read them don't actually put them into practise. Reading a book won't fix your life. Doing what the book says might. Years ago I read The Wealthy Barber - a small, easy to understand, book about finances. I have yet to do anything suggested in that book.

Will Ferguson wrote a novel called "Happiness" about a self-help book that actually works. Everyone gets rich, looses weight, follows their dreams, and embraces the things they can't change. Hilarious.

BTW: Today's title is one of the best lines from the movie School for Scoundrels with Billy Bob Thornton and Jon Heder (a.k.a. Napoleon Dynamite).

Different Ways To Learn

Sometimes I wonder if there's any real such thing as intelligence or is it just our imagination?

Some of you may have witnessed someone with a "learning disability" have great difficulty in school. Eventually they take some psychological tests and they're told they have a "learning disability." Along with that, they're usually told how they have to learn. For some, they need to draw what they're learning. Some need to explain what they're learning to someone else. Or they need something else. When they find that something else, they're fine and can do quite well in school.

I have witnessed many examples of people who, by our public "education" system aren't very smart, and have low chance of success. But they found that they learn differently. Once they found out how they need to learn, and put their new learning techniques into practice, they become much more successful, and by our public "education" systems' standards, smart.

After seeing enough cases I have to wonder if there's any such thing as absolute intelligence, but rather different kinds of intelligences, and different learning styles. If you think you're stupid and incompetent you're probably not. You just haven't figured out how you learn. If you know someone who appears stupid and incompetent, they may well not be. They might have yet to learn how they learn.

You may have noticed I put "learning disability" in quotes. "Learning disability" implies that they're disabled; ie: unable to do something. I'd rather call it "learning differentability." They just learn in a different way than what the public "education" system thinks everyone should learn. You'll also noticed I put "education" in quotes. But that's for another post.

At this point you may think I have confused intelligence with school smarts. Right now the best measure of intelligence we have is the IQ test. IQ tests were originally developed to predict academic success in children. If you've taken enough IQ tests then you know they're just testing you in a small set of skills. You can improve upon those skills. Sometimes you see a problem solving question that you already know the answer to so you don't need to use any mental horsepower to solve it. This artificially boosts your test score. The more you practice those types of problems, the better you are at solving them. But your mental horsepower hasn't necessarily changed.

So IQ tests don't actually test your inherent mental horsepower, but your ability to solve certain types of problems. They're meant to predict academic success in a given teaching/learning model. However, it is noteworthy that many people with learning differentabilities have exceedingly high IQs. But I have no actual statistics to back that up. Just the availability heuristic.

Anyway, my point/theory is that there are multiple types of intelligences/learning models, not just one as generally imagined by the mass populace.

Physical Work == Health-Food

Physical work is the health-food of living.

Health food is good for you. Most people don't eat health-food because it tastes good. They eat it because it's good for you. (mmmmmm.....rice cakes.) You eat junk food because it tastes good, and it's readily, cheaply, and easily available. Opening a bag of chips and a can of pop is easier than making a meal consisting of some meat, rice, and vegetables.

Physical work is good for you. Your body wasn't designed to sit at a desk in front of a computer for 8 hours a day. Doing physical work is better for it. Most people tend towards the lazy (or higher efficiency). Sitting at a desk is physically easier than paving a road.

There are some people, I'm sure, who like health food for it's taste.

There are some people, I'm sure, who really enjoy doing hard physical work for the sake of hard physical work.

When you eat a lot of junk food, you get to a point where you're full, meaning you don't feel like eating any more. But you don't feel satisfied. Not like after you finish a good meal. The feeling of fullness is quite different. You feel much better after eating a healthy meal than you do after eating a full bin down at the Bulk Barn.

There's something satisfying about doing manual labour. I disdain hard work as much as the next guy, yet I think my best job ever was being a ramp-rat at Air Canada. Sure, it was hard work. But there's something satisfying at the end of the day when you've earned your pay by physical work. I don't get the same satisfaction from my desk job.

I'm not about to give up my current diet for a health-nut type diet.

I'm not about to leave my computer programming job for a construction job.

This blog entry has been brought to you buy a lazy, tired, busy, ill-prepared, pestered Andrew.

Goodnight everybody!

I Have Something To Say

"Women have x words to speak everyday, whereas men have y words to speak everyday. Where x is greater than y by a factor greater than 1, and is often in the area of 4 or 5. (eg: x = 4y)"

People have long believed that women have more words to speak in a day than a man does, so after a day of work, women still have more words they have to say, while her husband has met his quota, and then some. She talks into the evening, and he stays relatively quiet.

Not so, according to Today's article. That's a myth with no scientific backing. Studies put the sexes at the same amount of words.

The article doesn't go into the details of any of the studies so I can only go by what the article says. The article seems to say that the amount of words that were spoken was what was measured. I don't think the old saying isn't really about how much men and women speak, but rather, how much they feel they have to speak. There's a difference.

I know, for myself, that I have a certain amount of socializing have to do in a certain amount of time. And with socializing comes talking. There are times, like during exams, or social dry spells (like when I was doing chemistry), when I hardly see any friends. I work mostly alone. I eat lunch alone most of the time, and after a while I need to socialize, darn it! I need to get out and talk!

On the other side of the coin, if I socialize too much than I no longer enjoy it, and I find myself to be listless, apathetic, withdrawn, and just waiting to go home and get away from it all.

So it seems I have a certain range of hours per week that I need to socialize. I'll wager most people have this too; a certain amount of socializing and talking they need to do. It's probably different for most people. Some, those we know as social butterflies, need lots. Loners need little. Some people who can get by on little, but still do well with lots of socializing simply have a large range of optimal socializing time.

And that's all I have to say about that.

UPDATE:  the original article seems to be gone, but here's a more recent article on the Sex Differences in Talkativeness.

Hmmm....Turns Out I'm Right

Today's article says something that I've suspected for years, but always assumed I was wrong about. Apparently, a child's level of activity has little to do with obesity.

I first thought of this because I hated phys-ed. (It turns out I make most of my decisions the way most people make their decisions. I decide things based on non-rational reasons, then I find the logic and evidence to back up what I've already decided. This fools me into thinking I make decisions based on rational reasons. You probably do it too. And a lot more than you may think.) I complained to my friend "Why do we have to take phys-ed?" He said "So we don't get fat."

At the time I was too young to realize how much nonsense this was. We had phys-ed two or three times a week for an hour and twenty minutes. Once you count for time to change, and stand there listening to the teacher telling you what to do, team-picking time, etc. you're down to 50 minutes to an hour of actual activity time. So, that works out to 2.5 to 3 hours per week of forced physical activity time. Not all of that time will be used to run around and be active. There will still be a lot of standing around.

Ask anyone who's tried to loose weight by purely exercising. That is not enough. Plus, there were enough fat kids in the class to refute his claim. Furthermore, I was only forced to take phys-ed until grade 9. So, from grades 10 through 12 I didn't take one phys-ed class. When I graduated from high school I weighed 120 lbs. By my friend's logic, I should have gotten fat. (BTW: In the second semester of grade 12 I ate a slice of pizza and drank a can of pop (non-diet) almost every day.)

Furthermore, my participation in phys-ed wasn't exactly stellar. When playing basketball I tried to put as many people between me and the ball as possible. I tried to stay away from the basket so I wouldn't be passed the ball. When playing badminton I would play with the kid in the wheelchair. And he would usually win. I remember being body-checked in soccer-baseball. I was a pretty small kid, so I got picked on a bit. Plus I was a really annoying nerd, so I got picked on lots. Mea culpa though.

So I didn't exactly get many rewards out of phys-ed. And my heart breaks when I hear the bureaucrats saying "We'll combat obesity by making our kids take more phys-ed." I think of all the younger versions of me. That's the sort of thing that would have made me want to drop out of high school. (For those who have known me in my post-high school time, you may think of me as being studious and keen on school. I wasn't that way in high school.) I hear this plan and know it won't fix anything! Furthermore, this seems like something parents should be taking more responsibility for.

Besides, if kids want to be active, they will be without the school making them. If kids don't want to be active, the school can't really make them. They'll do just enough to pass and get by.

So, how do we get our kids to be thin and healthy?

The article says that they found diet to be more influencing on obesity than activity.
Good diet is paramount. Genetics also help. (That's how I stay[ed] thin.)

Emails (Part 3)

Remember my previous entries on Emails? In the second one I suggested the reason people have so many emails is that they don't read their emails fully, thus causing a chain reaction of otherwise redundant emails.

I came across these articles on emails and thought of another possible reason. (The first article lists the 12 steps to getting over an email addiction, and the second humourously explains why those 12 steps won't work.) Perhaps these people subconsciously purposely send nonsensical replies to emails in an attempt to get more emails. If that person is an email addict than it would be the same as the alcoholic who finds reasons to go past the liquor store, or the gambling addict who's wonderings seem to lead them past the casino. When you have an addiction you want to feed it. When you have an email addiction it gets satisfied when you check your inbox and see new messages in it for you.

I know I am somewhat addicted to email, but I'm getting over it. I receive email at work and at home. At work it's usually work related, so not too exciting. Nothing to get addicted to there. However, I do have a reputation for being quick with my updates. If someone tells me "The link on page X is now www.newlink.com" I would have it fixed pretty fast. So I usually check my messages as soon as they come in. It's not an addiction; it's a reputation to maintain.

The other place I check is as home. Back in the day, a few months ago, I would get home and check my mail and I might have one message in my inbox. Even that wasn't too exciting usually. I subscribe to a few email lists, so most of my daily emails would be from that. Not too exciting. But every now and then it might be from a friend. Especially if I was expecting one. If I emailed someone, and knew they usually took 2 days to reply, on the second day I would check my mail more often. Frequency of checks would increase until either A) I got the email, or B) I gave up waiting. It's waiting for that sort of email that gets you addicted.

But then something happened. Spam. When it first started I would check my inbox and it would say "25 new messages." and I would be all like "WOW! 25 new messages! Boy, am I popular!" Then I would look and it would be all spam. After a while of this I just expect a full inbox with nothing but spam.

So at work my incoming emails aren't rewarding enough to develop an addiction, and at home I've become cynical. Email addiction: cured.

What Happens To All Your Change

According to today's article older people use more change than younger people. I could have told you this years ago. I noticed this. I would notice that a line in a store would move at a rate inversely proportional to the mean age of the population of the line. The reason for this was obvious. Young people would pay in bills. Only bills. Old people would look for bills, then start searching their change purse for the exact change. Paying in bills is faster because cashiers make change all day long so they become very fast at it. A lot faster than an octogenarian searching for exact change.

It's sometimes nice to have your observations validated by science.

But you may ask "Why is this?"

Well, guess what! I have a theory about that too!

When you're young you pay in bills all the time so you usually get change back. This means you'll accumulate change, and lots of it. You put the change in your pocket (because you're not old enough to have a change purse), then that night the change makes it's way to the desk or dresser where it sits and collects dust until you get older.

Then, you look at your desk or dresser and there's several thousand dollars there in pennies, nickels, dimes, and quarters. You figure you have to do something with it. When you're young ,your attitude to change is that it is only money in the technical sense, not the practical sense. (If you look close, I'm making bad puns. Or am I?) It technically is legal tender, but you'd never spend it. You don't have the time to count change. You're in too much of a hurry to download the latest hip-hop song.

So, here you are, older. Your kids have moved away, you've retired, and suddenly you have time, time to count out exact change while a line of youngun's, who are in a hurry, forms behind you. And, why not? You have that dresser or desk full of loose change.

So, basically, the change that accumulates when you're younger gets spent when you get older. Suddenly, change is money in both the practical sense and the technical sense.

I think the scariest thing about this theory is that I formed it years ago, when all I had time for was bills. But now I'm getting older, and I'm stuck in a mid-point. I do use change to buy stuff, but I still rarely count exact change. Instead, if the price comes to $7.63, I'll look for a $10 bill, which I will inevitably not have. (Apparently, the Canadian mint has printed a sum total of seven $10 bills in the entire history of Canada. So the misprint of Flanders Fields isn't as big a deal as you may think.) So I'll get a $20 bill, and look for 2 quarters, a dime, and three pennies. That way the cashier can give me two $5s, a Toonie, and a Loonie. (For all you American readers, yes, that really is what we call our two dollar coins, and one dollar coins respectively. And yes, we do have one and two dollar coins instead of bills.)


I have, on occasion, payed with exact change. But it disrupts a natural process. A purchase interaction is specifically scripted.

Ex:
Cashier: "Hi. How are you?"
Me: "Not bad, and yourself?"
Cashier: "Pretty good." This is followed by a question about if there's anything else, or if I was able to find everything today.
Me: "No, this is it."
Cashier: "That will be $7.63."
Me: "Here's $20."
Cashier: "Thank you. And your change and receipt..."
Me: I take the change in complete blind faith that they gave me the right change, and I put it into my pocket, because I'm still too young to have a change purse. "Thank you."
Cashier: "Thank you. Have a nice day."
Me: As I start walking away I say "You too." Then I quickly turn way in order to break eye-contact while feeling satisfied with a completely flawless interaction.

But when you give exact change that upsets the interaction and throws the rest off balance, and you can't recover. A receipt can act as change, it allows the interaction to flow. But if it's for something for which a receipt is not forthcoming, then it messes everything up.

Ex:
Cashier: "That will be $7.63."
Me: "Here you go, $7.63."
Cashier: "Thanks." Then the cashier and I stand there in awkward silence for a few minutes shifting our eyes to the left and right trying to not make eye contact, and yet not be obvious about it. I'm not really sure if I should say "thanks" and it certainly isn't, according to the script, time for them to tell me to have a nice day.

I wonder how old people get used to that part? Perhaps when you turn 50 you receive a new script that handles that exact scenario?

Why Some Months Pass By Faster Than Others

I write this post on January 19. It feels like we've been in January for ever and a day. It feels like ten years ago we were celebrating the December Retail Season. And February is still two weeks away!

Why is it that some months seem to fly by and others seem to move at the rate of 0.25 days per day? I have a theory that tries to answer that question.

I developed this theory either when I was in school (a Monday to Friday week) or working for the Ontario Government (a Monday to Friday week), not when I was working a job with an irregular school. If you work a job with an irregular schedule you may think my theory is really crazy nuts. But if you have a Monday to Friday week then you may just think its plain nuts.

How fast the month passes depends, not on how many days are in the month, but on what day of the week the first day falls on. If the first day falls on a Monday or Tuesday it will be slow. If it falls on a Thursday or Friday the month will fly by faster than Superman looking for a toilet when he has diarrhea. If the first day falls on a Wednesday, Saturday or Sunday then the month will go by at a moderate pace. (Sunday slower than Saturday, and Saturday slower than Wednesday.)

The reason for this is that you never really pay attention to the day of the month on the weekends.

Take the scenario where the first day of the month is a Thursday. By Thursday you're more concerned that the weekend is fast approaching. Same thing with Friday. Then you ignore the dates on Saturday and Sunday. When you return on Monday you look at the calendar and see that it's already the fifth! You've only spent two days in the month and it's already the fifth! Furthermore, it's already the second week of the month.

But the month is still so new you haven't grown impatient with it yet. Then, the following Monday it's the 12th and you're already well into the double-digit dates, and the month is almost half over and you've only been in it for seven days!

Now, on the other hand, take a month that starts on Monday. On the first day of work it's also the first day of the month. After five days in the month you still haven't had a weekend. Then you have a weekend and on Monday it's the 8th. You're not even in the double-digit dates yet. You have to wait for Wednesday for that pleasure. You don't reach the middle of the month until the next (3rd) Monday, and what's worse is that (unless it's February of a non-leap year) you have 2 more whole Mondays in that month left! A total of five Mondays! Nobody wants five Mondays in a month!

If you don't believe me, think about how long this month has been and that it started on a Monday. Then pay attention to the next month (February) which starts on a Thursday. It will be fast. Just in case you think that it went by fast because it only has 28 days, pay attention to March which has 31. (February also presents the problem of it being a bitter, cold winter month which will create the illusion of greater length. March may turn out to be a nastier month, weather-wise, but at least March contains hope.)

---

UPDATE: Here it is, one month after I originally wrote this and look how fast February is going by. Today is February 19. It was February 1 just yesterday. The day before that was January 31. The day before that was January 31. And the day before that was also January 31. In fact, it was January 31 for four and a half days in total this year. And lets not talk about how many days January 30 took up.

And The Most Popular Topic of Conversation Is...

Remember my post about conversation? It turns out some psychologists were interested in conversation as well. They asked groups of people to get to know each other over six weeks, and record what they talked about. The most popular topic of conversation (58%) was music.

The study does not tell us why this is so. But guess what? Believe it or not, I have a theory!

My theory is as follows:
Almost everyone likes music. A lot of people are at least somewhat passionate about it. So, when trying to get to know someone it's a good topic to start with. It can also lead to CD trades, concerts, expanding one's own music taste, etc.

Sure people like movies and sports. There are probably more people passionate about music than movies. However some real sports fanatics would out-fan, and out-number music fanatics. But if you picture the average person, I think you'd more more likely to see someone who cares more about music than sports, or at least specific sports. A football fan won't have too much to talk about with a hockey fan.

I have often wondered why people like music so darned much. I do. I like to think I am passionate about music. But I can't for a moment think I'm alone. Lots of people are. And music is personal. What's beautiful music for one may be agonizing noise for another. But why is this so?

My theory on this is that music acts as the soundtrack of our lives. You hear a song, and it's associated with a feeling and/or emotion. You listen again, and due to the familiarity principal, the liking feeling is reinforced. Within the last couple of weeks I've started listening to more Celtic music. I told a friend who's really into Heavy Metal about my new-found appreciation. He said "That doesn't surprise me. You are from Nova Scotia."

I nodded, "Oh yeah....I guess that does make sense."

The other thing is that a song may have a certain "hook" that makes the song. Brittany Spears' Hit Me Baby One More Time has that little piano "riff." I can't prove it, but I'd bet money that that piano riff made that song, and consequently her, a lot more popular than it and she would have been without it.

Sometimes music makes you feel like you want to feel, or sympathizes with how you do feel. Pink Floyd's The Wall is great to listen to when you want to be alone. Jagged Little Pill is good when you're angry at the world. Oddly enough, the Christian music I listen to doesn't sound much like the secular stuff that I listen to. (I'm still looking for the Christian version of Pink Floyd.)

And music tastes are as personal as fingerprints. Each person's is different. Even people who share the same music taste might name the same bands as their top five, but they're probably not in exactly the same order.

Emails (Part 2)

In my previous post I talked about the new communication world existing on the internet. Today I'd like to concentrate on Email and the way people use it.

In my line of work communication by email is essential and frequent. I always hear about people saying that they have hundreds of emails to get through. I say "Hundreds? How do you get so many?!"

They say "Well, most of that is spam."

I get plenty of spam at home, but manage to avoid a lot of it at work. I know a number of emails that come in aren't really emails to worry about. Someone might email me asking me to do something. So I do it, and email them saying "The job is done." Then they email me back saying "Thanks!" I don't have to worry about that email. It takes less than a second to read, then it gets deleted.

But I've noticed a trend in email communication that leads to my hypothesis about why people have so much darned email and I have such little. It's this:

People don't read their emails!

Allow me to explain how this leads to more emails.

I email person A with three questions, 1, 2, and 3. Two days later I receive a reply from A with an answer to question 1, and if I'm lucky, a half-answer to question 2. The half-answer is the sort of answer that shows that A didn't really read question 2, so they don't know what's really being asked. They see a couple of words, assume they know what's being asked, and answer that question. Then they leave question 3 completely ignored.

Then I get the email back. I read it and am satisfied with answer 1, confuzzeled by answer 2, and frustrated by the lack of answer 3.

So then I have to email them back clarifying q 2, and re-asking q 3. Then they reply with the answer to q 2. Q 3 is again ignored. At this point I feel like if I email them again with q 3 I'm just bothering them. After all, they already had two chances to answer q 3, but chose to ignore it. Maybe they had a reason to ignore them. It would be nice if they just said something like "I'm sorry, but I don't know the answer to q 3 at this time."

But its happened often enough, socially, in school, in most of the places I've worked that I think it's not just a small group of people who don't do well with email. The problem seems to be pretty wide spread.

I've also found that if there's any explanations that go with my emails that increases the odds of the recipient being confused. Example:

Take Joe, an imaginary software development group leader. This means he was probably once a computer programmer. As a computer programmer, it should go without saying he knows what "Windows" means, what "departmental software" is, what an "upgrade" is, etc. I shouldn't have to explain any technical terms to him. I should just say who I am, what I'm doing, what I want, and what I want from him.

My email to Joe:
"Hello Joe,

I'm working on the team that's upgrading the department's computers. Soon you'll be receiving a new computer with the latest version of Windows on it. Before we do that, we'll need to know what departmental software you require installed on your computer, as well as make backups of your 'My Documents' folder, as well as any other data you need transfered to your new computer.

Would you please provide me with a list of departmental software you need installed on your computer.

Also, would you please tell me how much storage space your My Documents folder uses?

Thanks!

-=Andrew"


A week later, Joe's reply:
"Hello Andrew,

I don't know why you want to wash my windows. I don't even have windows. I work in a cubicle in the middle of the floor. The nearest window to me is three rows over, and it just faces a brick wall. I don't even have a door, just an opening where the cubicle walls don't touch.

Hope this helps.

-=Joe, project leader in software development"

This bothers me on three counts:

1. Now I have to write back, disguising my derision trying not to call Joe an idiot, or an illiterate. (Incidentally, Joe is the 17th person to write back with just as stupid a reply.)


2. As a student I can't help but think "Why am I still a student, and how did this guy get to where he is?!" If that's the kind of knowledge and reading comprehension that gets someone to be a project leader in software development, then with my skills I should be taking over for Bill Gates when he leaves Microsoft. But I'm stuck as a student, making student wages, doing student work.


3. He ignored my second question.

Of course, this means I have to write an email to Joe again, this time explaining in great detail everything he should know. I'll have to re-ask the second question, which will be ignored, so I'll have to ask again.

Now, it's reasonable to assume Joe handles most of his emails like this. So lots of people have to do what I now have to do with Joe. I have to write a total of three emails, when one should have sufficed. If Joe has a team of five people, and one supervisor, that's six more people he has to communicate with. In a given time period each of those people has to send him an email with two questions each, and he goes through the same process with each of them as he does with me. Where seven emails (including mine) should have been enough, 21 are actually required.

Joe now complains, along with his underlings and his supervisor, that he has too much darned email. He also might say "Since I get so many emails everyday I don't have time to read each word in every single email!" Yet, if he did read his emails all the way through, allowing for proper comprehension he could cut down his email load by a factor of three. That reduction would save more time than it would cost to read each email.

That's my theory.

Do you get a lot of emails every day? Are you reading all of each (non-spam) email, or are you just getting the gist of it? (Or more accurately, do you just think you're getting the gist of it?)