So I'm reading a book called "The Compassionate Mind". It really is a bit hippyish and lacks practical applications for me, but it's still an interesting read. Sorta got a "let's modify Buddhism with the scientific method" vibe going on, which still feels odd, 100 pages in. He's currently doing a "evolution of humanity in 6 pages" which is always fun, and he, on the same page, talks about how compelled we are to be involved in social structures - family, community, social and religious groups (to be fair, it has been a theme). He then ends the sub-section with a phrase along the lines of "let's step back from these archetypes".
If it's so inbuilt in us to be part of these "archetypes" then to what extent can we step back from them? Is it even desireable to try to do so, given that there's clearly a point of us being in them? I mean, I'm all up for trying to spot these things, observe the patterns, but we're stuck within them and that's the context we have to work from. Could go up a hill, but I'd still be there with me, and it's hard to do stats without an internet connection.
But I do feel like far too much of an engineer when reading these texts. Come, let us build together :)
Monday, November 23, 2009
Sunday, October 11, 2009
Reading body language
I have, in the last few months, read a lot about reading body language and hence learnt a lot. A book fully dedicated to such techniques is arriving in a few days - I'm going to have you pegged. All of you. Ha!
*please read body language responsibly*
*please read body language responsibly*
Wednesday, October 07, 2009
Quotes
The harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly; it is dearness only that gives everything its value. I love the man that can smile in trouble, that can gather strength from distress and grow
Thomas Paine
We have it in out power to begin the world over again
Thomas Paine
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
Statistical “sexism”
Yesterday, the idea of cheaper car insurance for women was brought up at work. It does seem to be sexist – women will get cheaper car insurance than men, if everything else is equal (especially true in the 18-25 age range). It seems to be socially acceptable, perhaps based on a purely mathematical thing, or that the reasoning is obvious and seemingly within the experience of many people – men, especially young ones, tend to drive a lot faster and more aggressively, so their accidents tend to be a lot worse (more expensive) than women's.
At the other end of the scale, in terms of legality when talking about stats, is that it would be illegal to not give a job to an equally or more qualified woman than a man because she is more likely to become pregnant and take the 36 weeks maternity leave she has available in law. And although that could be a purely statistical decision, it would not only be illegal but also would seem to be viewed as quite immoral.
So it got me thinking about other examples of sexism that seem to be mostly or purely statistical, and for the examples I can come up with, it doesn't seem to be illegal most of the time. Going back to insurance and linking in with pregnancy, women will have higher health insurance costs because of the risks associated with pregnancy, which is interesting because it seems roughly equivalent to the job thing but more minor. Women get lower incomes from their pension schemes because in general they live longer than men. There are more male fire-fighters in the UK than women and I think I'm right in saying that's an active selection process – women have, in general, lower lung capacities than men, and therefore would find it more problematic in smoke-filled environments. The whole women not allowed in many positions in the army because they are, generally, less physically strong than men*. There is also the whole thing about women and men having separate sports competitions because, similarly to the army situation, men generally have stronger muscles than women.
So it does seem that in the examples I can think of “sexism” (or to use a less loaded term but with more words, selection based on sex) for purely statistical reasons isn't viewed as something immoral or that ought to be any other way. I does make me think a bit about what we mean when we say sexist, though; it seems more subtle today than yesterday morning.
At the other end of the scale, in terms of legality when talking about stats, is that it would be illegal to not give a job to an equally or more qualified woman than a man because she is more likely to become pregnant and take the 36 weeks maternity leave she has available in law. And although that could be a purely statistical decision, it would not only be illegal but also would seem to be viewed as quite immoral.
So it got me thinking about other examples of sexism that seem to be mostly or purely statistical, and for the examples I can come up with, it doesn't seem to be illegal most of the time. Going back to insurance and linking in with pregnancy, women will have higher health insurance costs because of the risks associated with pregnancy, which is interesting because it seems roughly equivalent to the job thing but more minor. Women get lower incomes from their pension schemes because in general they live longer than men. There are more male fire-fighters in the UK than women and I think I'm right in saying that's an active selection process – women have, in general, lower lung capacities than men, and therefore would find it more problematic in smoke-filled environments. The whole women not allowed in many positions in the army because they are, generally, less physically strong than men*. There is also the whole thing about women and men having separate sports competitions because, similarly to the army situation, men generally have stronger muscles than women.
So it does seem that in the examples I can think of “sexism” (or to use a less loaded term but with more words, selection based on sex) for purely statistical reasons isn't viewed as something immoral or that ought to be any other way. I does make me think a bit about what we mean when we say sexist, though; it seems more subtle today than yesterday morning.
Thursday, July 16, 2009
Conversation about hypnosis
So I was chatting to a friend of mine who gets dead nervous about presentations, and I, mostly joking, said I could hypnotise that out of him. He responded in a very interesting way, which I'd not thought about before - he expressed the opinion that hypnosis was along similar lines to drinking to relax before presentations.
Expressing hypnosis as a parallel to drinking, or more generally equivalent to mind altering drugs, is never a way I've thought about it. Truth be told, I've never really thought about it much before, the only time it ever really came up was in an Evangelical religious context - it involves deamons and such and is evil and should be avoided. Fair, enough, I guess, but those ideas aren't really predictive and such loose points in the "any sort of use" field of play. Outside of that context, it's been a cool thing done by tv show guys, something that seems to help people get thin, and at the moment it feels very much like refined normal living; we use body language, suggestion, relaxed states, all the time when dealing with people, and it just seems to be creating a reliable way of doing that time and time again for fixed results, though that's something else to talk about.
I suppose what I'm getting at is that I view it as part of the internal process of the human mind, or at least the inter-personal processes of the human mind. Whereas I view controlled chemical changes very much as something outside of the mind coming in and altering the states. Which isn't always a bad thing - anti-depressants rock for many folk, opiates are probably okay even recreationally if people don't use them too much, lots of alcohol is good for evening once in a while, that sort of thing.
But I just can't really view hypnosis as in that sort of spectrum. On the outside, a little, perhaps - you have an issue, fear, you apply solution, either hypnosis or alcohol, and then you function with said issue being less of an issue for a short time. But then you could draw a parallel between alcohol and breathing exercises before performance, or between alcohol and having a lucky handkerchief, to exactly the same effect. Which most people, I think, would call unfair.
I didn't get to finish the conversation, I really must try, as he had more important things to do than indulge my desire for other people's opinions on odd subjects. But it did get me thinking.
Expressing hypnosis as a parallel to drinking, or more generally equivalent to mind altering drugs, is never a way I've thought about it. Truth be told, I've never really thought about it much before, the only time it ever really came up was in an Evangelical religious context - it involves deamons and such and is evil and should be avoided. Fair, enough, I guess, but those ideas aren't really predictive and such loose points in the "any sort of use" field of play. Outside of that context, it's been a cool thing done by tv show guys, something that seems to help people get thin, and at the moment it feels very much like refined normal living; we use body language, suggestion, relaxed states, all the time when dealing with people, and it just seems to be creating a reliable way of doing that time and time again for fixed results, though that's something else to talk about.
I suppose what I'm getting at is that I view it as part of the internal process of the human mind, or at least the inter-personal processes of the human mind. Whereas I view controlled chemical changes very much as something outside of the mind coming in and altering the states. Which isn't always a bad thing - anti-depressants rock for many folk, opiates are probably okay even recreationally if people don't use them too much, lots of alcohol is good for evening once in a while, that sort of thing.
But I just can't really view hypnosis as in that sort of spectrum. On the outside, a little, perhaps - you have an issue, fear, you apply solution, either hypnosis or alcohol, and then you function with said issue being less of an issue for a short time. But then you could draw a parallel between alcohol and breathing exercises before performance, or between alcohol and having a lucky handkerchief, to exactly the same effect. Which most people, I think, would call unfair.
I didn't get to finish the conversation, I really must try, as he had more important things to do than indulge my desire for other people's opinions on odd subjects. But it did get me thinking.
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
Odd thing
So wandering my way through this guided tour of all things hynosis, I've come across an interesting point. I used to be dead religious, and I could, reasonably easily, enter a meditative state and stick there for half an hour, hour at a time. I can't do that anymore - a couple of reasons, not least being totally out of practice. But I can still get there, even if I can only hold it for 5 or 10 minutes at best.
Now this isn't, per-se, the interesting thing. Turns out that if I go to that place, with only 20 seconds or so of prep, and to get into it properly it takes much longer, I can hold my breath for over twice as long as I usually can. I'm not really sure what use it is, but when I was doing that I realised that when I can't sleep, it's a very similar thing I do to force myself to sleep.
More often than not works, if I'm having difficulty sleeping.
So hey, even when I'm ill and I'm not properly studying, I still learn things. Been learning more things, but I left my notepad somewhere else, so I've not been writing them up. Will correct in a couple of days, hopefully. Also, my first attempt at hypnosis this weekend, I think :D Nothing too audacious, but you never know, I might be hypnotising people to be stuck to bars in no time.
Now this isn't, per-se, the interesting thing. Turns out that if I go to that place, with only 20 seconds or so of prep, and to get into it properly it takes much longer, I can hold my breath for over twice as long as I usually can. I'm not really sure what use it is, but when I was doing that I realised that when I can't sleep, it's a very similar thing I do to force myself to sleep.
More often than not works, if I'm having difficulty sleeping.
So hey, even when I'm ill and I'm not properly studying, I still learn things. Been learning more things, but I left my notepad somewhere else, so I've not been writing them up. Will correct in a couple of days, hopefully. Also, my first attempt at hypnosis this weekend, I think :D Nothing too audacious, but you never know, I might be hypnotising people to be stuck to bars in no time.
Sunday, July 12, 2009
Conversations about DB
So I was explaining to someone I know about Derren Brown and why he's so very fascinating to me. I was going into some detail about the ventriloquist act - how Derren, over the course of a few days, gradually pushes the idea that his subject is a ventriloquists' dummy, culminating in a ventriloquist show where he started being the dummy, in a very strange sort of way. It was truely bizarre, a little bit freaky and all in all, dead fun.
She said to me that she wouldn't ever let anyone have that sort of control over her.
Which struck me as a very strange thing to say. All day, every day, we let people have control over us, our thoughts, and our actions. What we choose to listen to on the radio, figures of authority in our lives, but most of all our friends and family. For most of us, and she's no exception, our own well being, internal thought lives, our behaviours depend massively on those around us. While it's not control, mostly, in the sense of the other party making deliberate choices, and mostly it's a reciprocal arrangements, there is a huge level of influence and I'm not certain people are willing to choose to ignore it many cases, and mostly, it probably wouldn't be sensible to move away from influence.
But regardless of all of that, her behaviours and internal life is massively influenced by the people around her. It's not quite the same as deliberate hypnosis, but this idea that she's in control is quite probably an illusion.
She said to me that she wouldn't ever let anyone have that sort of control over her.
Which struck me as a very strange thing to say. All day, every day, we let people have control over us, our thoughts, and our actions. What we choose to listen to on the radio, figures of authority in our lives, but most of all our friends and family. For most of us, and she's no exception, our own well being, internal thought lives, our behaviours depend massively on those around us. While it's not control, mostly, in the sense of the other party making deliberate choices, and mostly it's a reciprocal arrangements, there is a huge level of influence and I'm not certain people are willing to choose to ignore it many cases, and mostly, it probably wouldn't be sensible to move away from influence.
But regardless of all of that, her behaviours and internal life is massively influenced by the people around her. It's not quite the same as deliberate hypnosis, but this idea that she's in control is quite probably an illusion.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
