Bewildered

It is hard for me to understand most people, and I frequently get into trouble because my reactions to various problems doesn't seem to fit people's expectations. It is difficult for me to understand other people, though, due to the vast gulf that seems to separate how they see the world and how I see the world.

There are times when the reality of this yawning chasm in opinion seems very real to me. This is one of those times.

A study was done recently on happiness and satisfaction with life. The questions asked were general questions about job satisfaction, daily stresses, and how much time a person spends worrying. Nestled in the list of relatively unexciting questions, however, was this little gem:

"Still on the topic of happiness, if there was a legally available drug that could be bought over the counter, that made you feel happy and did not have any side effects, do you think that there would be occasions when you would take it? Would you say, 'Yes, definitely,' 'Yes, probably,' 'No, probably not,' or 'No, definitely not'?"

My immediate response to this question when I read it was to laugh. Of course there would be occasions when I would take such a drug! How on Earth could you find people who wouldn't be enthusiastic about being happy more often than they are? I mean, even the most upbeat people I know have days when they are down or just sort of neutral. Who wouldn't want to take a few of those 'blah' grey days and make them into a veritable birthday party in their heads?

If I were to make predictions about how the breakdown of people sampled would answer that question, I would have guessed something like as follows:

Yes, definitely: 75%
Yes, probably: 15%
No, probably not: 7.5%
No, definitely not: 2.5%

I would tend to expect a direct linear relationship between the data, where an overwhelming majority of people would want to have such a drug available to them at some point in their lives, and very few people who would not ever want such a drug that would make them happy with no adverse consequence.

Somehow, humanity has once again surprised and baffled me. The actual results were as follows:

Yes, definitely: 12%
Yes, probably: 14%
No, probably not: 19%
No, definitely not: 53%
(I left off the percentage of 'don't know' responses)

So I was right about there being a linear progression from one end of the spectrum to the other, but my estimate was exactly reversed. Indeed, whereas I suggested that only 2.5% of people would disagree vehemently with the use of such a drug, in actuality I was off by a whole heapin' lot. The real answer was more than 2100% of my estimate.

I have to admit that I really don't understand how other people think. What in the world could they possibly find wrong with free happiness? I just don't know.

Hilarity Ensues!

I always attend my Comparative Constitutional Law course because I enjoy learning about alternative ways of doing things. Understanding the world around me helps me to judge whether our way of reacting to certain problems is the right way or the wrong way to behave, and gives me insight as to better ways to approach anything we might be doing incorrectly.

Rarely do I attend my class for the entertainment value (other than on an academic level), but, today, that is surely what the class was treated to. Nothing quite prepares one for the experience of having a young professor, wearing a suit and tie, tell the class that his favorite type of music is late 80’s hardcore rap and R&B. Even better is when he proceeds to bust out phat rhymes for a minute and a half. Even better yet is when you get to hear your professor use the word ‘motherfucker’ in one sentence, then discuss content-neutrality of anti-expression laws in the next.

Absurdity is a beautiful thing.

Meaningless ramblings

Alright, I have a confession to make. It’s not a surprising confession, probably, and certainly not something that is a new revelation, either to me or to my writings here.

I have a bad habit of shirking my responsibilities in favor of doing things that I consider far more fun. For instance, today, I had the day off. I always have the day off on Tuesday (scheduling a semester where you only have class three days per week rocks), and I have a long list of things I am supposed to do. I have a paper to write for five classes, two upcoming presentations, two upcoming written assignments for classes, and classes to prepare for (considering I haven’t done much of my reading for this semester). On top of that, I have mounting cleaning to do in my home, mounting pressure as I put off deciding what to do with my future, and an oil change for my car that is growing more overdue.

Even though I have quite a lot to do, I somehow always manage to find an excuse in my head to avoid doing any of it (and I do mean ANY of it). Today, I didn’t get up until after 1:00 pm, spent almost 8 hours playing games on my computer, watching Futurama episodes on DVD, and playing British pop music on repeat (Atomic Kitten and Sophie Ellis Bextor classics). Ordinarily I would be a little abashed to suggest I listen to pop music (from any country), but in this case, I feel justified in letting it slide. I have a crush on one of the Atomic Kittens (which one? Why, the cute one, of course).

Why can’t I focus myself enough to do any work? Ugh.

Among the growing list of things I’m supposed to be doing, I include writing in this – my online journal of sorts. Having a place to unburden myself, even if there isn’t anyone who seems to read it anymore – aside from spammers, of course – is something that I find useful in keeping myself in check.

To remedy my unaccountable absence from my writing, I’ll proceed to throw out some things I’ve been thinking about recently:

First, recently in Joplin, Missouri, a young fellow brought a firearm to his school in an attempt to be the star of his very own school shooting spree. I’m still mystified about what precisely pushes these children over the brink, and I don’t buy the simplified answers given by the media or the children themselves. Violence on television and in video games does not create violent people. Whatever they add simply exacerbates some underlying mental problem or personal weakness, and it is that underlying problem that needs to be addressed to help them. I don’t buy that bullying pushes them over the edge, either. From elementary school through high school, I was hit, kicked, tripped in the hallway, had my books slapped out of my hands, and was spit on. I was the butt of more jokes than I can count, and guess what? I never once even considered getting a knife or gun to put in my backpack. Whatever makes these people violent is something that they have inside them. We need ways to identify whatever this problem is, and we need to figure out how to fix it.

What’s more, this kid didn’t bring his daddy’s revolver or a kitchen knife to his school. He didn’t steal his grandfather’s hunting rifle, either. This kid walked into his school with an AK-47. That’s right… He walked into his school with a military assault rifle. Pardon the language, but where the hell did the kid get his hands on an assault rifle? Really, now. Where? Do his parents just happen to have military weapons hanging around the house? Is there any legitimate reason for Americans to allow civilians to possess military-style weapons? I can’t think of one that also doesn’t allow your average Joe to also own a tank or artillery.

Secondly, I was talking to a guy I know at the law school, and he told me of troubles that he’s having with his girlfriend. Apparently, he’s been sleeping on the sofa for a while now because in a recent disagreement he did something fairly boneheaded. As a way to convince her that he was right, he created an itemized list of previous disagreements that they had, the respective positions of each of them, and the ultimate winner of their arguments (listing him as the winner, naturally). What’s worse, when showing her this list, he made her say aloud for each item on the list that he had been right in their previous disagreement.

Obviously, such a piece of ‘evidence’ isn’t all that helpful to maintaining the relationship. It’s likely to result in hurt feelings on her account, and what’s stranger, it isn’t even a piece of evidence to show the correctness of his position in their current disagreement. Whether he was correct in any previous disagreement has no bearing on the truth or falsity of his position in the current disagreement. I’m a little embarrassed that we are turning out lawyers who aren’t capable of telling when their arguments are based on a logical fallacy (in his case, a reliance on authority for truth).

So here’s my problem… His actions were dumb – circus grade dumb, really – but should I give him bonus points for style? To do something that obviously ridiculous is one thing, but to do it with an itemized list takes being dumb to a whole new level.

Finally, I’ve been on a kick recently of reading poetry. Screw the classic poets. I’ve read Langston Hughes, Emily Dickenson, and e.e. cummings. I wasn’t impressed. Instead, I picked up a book of Medieval Latin poetry used by the Church of the day. I can summarize it in just three words: dark and creepy. One of them, called Dies Irae, is about the ending of the world. Even weirder, it is written in a bizarre meter that brings to mind an image of a fifteenth century monk in sackcloth binding someone to the rack to purify the soul of the accused. The other bit of poetry I’ve been reading is something lighter, though far less understandable. I have a small book called “Death before dying,” that is the poetry of an Islamic mystic from India. A member of a group called the Sufi Muslims, who believed that one should achieve spiritual death (and get oneness with God) before actual physical death, the poet’s words frequently make allusions to religious references whose meanings I can’t really fathom.

Either way, both of the books of poetry evoked images and scenes which I think I can use as settings for short stories I am writing. Exciting stuff. Maybe only to me, but sometimes, that’s enough.