Normal Differentials

I made you another graph, imaginary readers. This one is more silly than the previous ones, which weren't particularly serious, so if you don't understand this one, that's okay; I barely do, and I made it. This one came about because of a conversation I had with [Princess Leia Vampire] the other day.

I ran into her at the student union between classes, and we talked for a while, which was nice, because I don't see her all that often. Anyways, in the middle of an idle conversation probably about how she still needs to give me back the comics I lent her last month, which she is now holding hostage, she said that she can't be friends with normal people because when talking to a normal person, if she says something like 'That building looks like a hippopotamus,' the normal person gets weirded out. (Side note: Koltoff Hall really does look like a walrus.)

Once you see the walrus, you can't unsee it

It was at that point that I remembered why we've been friends since the sixth grade: we were both rather strange children, and we are still both rather weird (read: geeky/nerdy/strange).

Anyways, we then decided to graphically depict how difficult it is to talk to normal people (read: people who are different than us). Thus, the above graph came to be. It shows the weirdness of a situation as a function of the normalcy of the people being talked to.

Taken to the extreme, this illustrates the situation where I try to talk to someone who is just so normal that we have nothing to say to one another outside of basic pleasantries, after which we descend into awkward silence because we are so different, we can't relate on any level that isn't completely superficial.

For example, this is one of the reasons that I haven't had a real conversation with [Random Roommate #2] in the two months we've been living together. We simply have nothing to talk about because we have so little in common. In reality, this is probably because we are different people, and not because of a differential in the normalcy of us, but it's more fun to say that it has to do with her being too normal.

If You're Not a Part of the Solution, You're Part of the Precipitate

via reddit

I ran across the above cartoon today while wasting time on the internet. It makes a fair point about our education system: people learn in different ways, yet we persist in measuring everyone by a rubric that only works for some. My problem with this, which is more general than just this cartoon, is that it fairly criticizes the system, making a rather tired point, and then leaves it at that. I'm tired of people criticizing things without providing any sort of alternative way of doing things. This is probably an unfair expectation of a political cartoon, but it embodies this issue for me, which I've been thinking about a lot lately because of the Occupy Wall Street movement.

In general, I think it is a good thing to criticize things and institutions that you see as being problematic/ deserving criticism, but after a while, you have to move on from just pointing out the problems and move towards presenting a solution. Criticism should serve as a starting point for further discussion to ultimately facilitate change. Criticism for criticism's sake is useless, but people use it to mask the fact that they don't have a solution to the problem they are presenting.

As far as Occupy Wall Street (OWS) goes, I'm fairly ambivalent towards it as a whole movement. I think it's great that people are standing up against what they see as a problematic system, which does have a lot of problems. I like that they are bringing attention back to the economic problems that are affecting people, like joblessness and debt, rather than the rubrics that people tend to use to measure the economy. (I fail to understand why I should care about the Dow Jones Index or the NASDAQ. I don't get why these mysterious points are important.) On the other hand, I don't like their vilification of everyone who earns a certain amount, regardless of their circumstances.

All that said, my biggest problem with OWS is that I don't see them having a real purpose or endgame. What do they think will be a fair solution? What are their solutions to the problems they are protesting? I don't know. I don't see them as having any real solutions that are practical or in any way achievable. They say they want a more democratic society. What does that mean? Direct democracy? That's not possible in a country of 350 million. They say they want a fairer society. How so? What constitutes fair, and who is the judge of that? They say they want economic justice. Does that mean wealth redistribution, because if it does, it violates the tenets of a capitalist society.

I certainly don't claim to have the answers, but I don't think the OWS protesters do either. People are frustrated with the slow recovery, and the unemployment rates, and the fact that the wealthy have a relatively low tax rate. Those are perfectly valid complaints, and protesting is a good way to make everyone aware of those frustrations, but, after a while, it becomes meaningless because no real solutions are presented. Yelling about how angry you are and how much you don't like the current situation isn't going to change anything. It may be cathartic, but it won't do anything, unless you provide an alternative system that you can show would be better than the current system. We are all aware of the problems with the current system, so give us a better one. They maybe you can affect real change. Stop whining and do something real. Otherwise, this whole OWS movement is meaningless.

Buzz In!

I love quiz bowl. I really do. I've been involved with it since the eighth grade, so that makes five years, three schools, and more tournaments/practices/meets than I can count. I have heard thousands of questions and read hundreds by now. I've even written a couple dozen. But this year, for the first time, I just can't get excited about it.

For those of you, imaginary readers, who don't know what quiz bowl is, here's a very unhelpful explanation via Wikipedia. The best way I can explain it without getting bogged down in the details is as competitive team trivia. There are two teams of four who compete against each other to see who can answer the most random trivia, mostly academic, correctly. Yes, it is kind of like Jeopardy!.

So much classier than any team I've been a part of...

I've played one tournament this year so far, and it was fun, but I realized that I didn't really care if I played or didn't, or that I did well, or about the outcome of the tournament. I still enjoyed it; it just didn't seem as important as it used to. I would have rather stayed in bed, and then spent the day with my friends and being productive, rather than spending the day in Northfield with a group that only contains a couple of people I like.

One of the reason's I got so into quiz bowl in high school was because I was good at it. I was a solid high school player. Not amazing, not even the best on my team, but well rounded and versatile. It's always fun to be good at something. But in college play, I'm not as good as I was. I'm a decent B player, but I'll never be an A player, which is okay with me, but it gets a bit discouraging when half of the freshmen on the team are better than I'll ever be. I don't need to be the best, but I do need to feel like I'm doing well, and I'm not sure I'm doing particularly well anymore.

The other reason I enjoyed playing in high school was the people. They were fun to be around, and despite the few I didn't like, the people made it way more fun than winning ever did. I enjoyed hanging out with [Inauthentic Irish] and [Spelled Like It Sounds], so it was always fun to play a tournament, no matter how well we did or didn't do. There are a couple of people I like and get along with on the college team, mostly [Short and Spunky] and [If It Sounds Ancient...], but also a few others, but they are far outnumbered by people I'm either ambivalent towards or outright don't like. Even though [Not The Boy Wonder] has been less annoying lately, I still want to punch him in the face every time I have to interact with him, and most of the freshmen this year are either annoying or so arrogant it's hard to be around them.

I got really into the team here last year. I went to as many tournaments as I could, and I staffed if I couldn't play. I went to most of the practices, and every social night we had. This year, I just don't want to. I think it was so important to me last year because I came to school not knowing anyone, and it gave me a group of people that I knew, even if we weren't all friends. It gave me something to do outside of my dorm room and people to do things with who weren't [Clothes Don't Fit]. But now I have friends who I'd rather spend time with, and other things I'd rather do. And since I've lost the social aspect of it, or no longer need to social aspect of it, the competitive aspect of it isn't enough to excite me.

I'm going to stick out my obligations for this year, with the tournaments I've already signed up for, and the ones I'm going to write for, but I don't think I'm going to play as much as I did last year, and I don't know if I'm going to come back again next year. It's just weird to think about not doing quiz bowl, because it's been such a big part of my life for so long, but I don't want to waste my time on something I don't enjoy anymore. At this point, scaling back and ultimately stopping will be a good thing, because it will give me more time to focus on things that are more important and things that I enjoy. Sorry [A-PUSH Not A-SLACK], but I just can't do quiz bowl anymore. It was one of the best things in my life for a long time, but I've changed, and it's changed, and we just don't get along so well anymore.

Bat-Queer Theory

We learned about Queer Theory today in my GWSS class. Apparently it's all about breaking down barriers between societally imposed binaries with regards to gender/sex/sexuality etc. I found it mostly annoying, but shouldn't surprise you, imaginary readers. 

The details of what we learned aren't important. What's important is that my instructor drew an umbrella on the board, to illustrate how "queer" is an umbrella term, and while not paying attention to what she was saying, I noticed something peculiar. The umbrella she drew looked suspiciously like the Bat symbol.

This realization has lead me to formulate something that I like to call Bat-Queer Theory. Here's a helpful image to illustrate the overlap. 

Turns out Google Docs has a paint feature. More images to follow

Bat-Queer Theory (BQT) basically states that there is a socially constructed binary between the Bat family (Batman and his associates who operate under the Bat) and everyone else. BQT attempts to break down that binary by realizing that some people identify with the Bat. They may feel like they don't fit with the traditional societal roles, but rather, they identify as Batmen/women/other or as Robins/Nightwings/Spoilers or as Pennyworths.

I hope to establish BQT as a legitimate academic field, because it is important that no one's identity is marginalized, including Bats. Frankly, I'm surprised and appalled by the Queer and Feminist movements' lack of inclusion of Bats. I would have thought that they of all people would recognize the intersectionality of Bats and other identities. I hope to right that wrong, and I hope that you, imaginary readers, will help me in my endeavor. Bats have been othered for too long, and it is time that people recognize them for what they are: Fictional superheroes of Gotham City.

My Public Opinion

First of all, go read this article from the Star Tribune's op-ed page.

For those of you too lazy to actually read it, the above article is a piece by an old-school Republican from Minnesota with the awesome name Wheelock Whitney about why he plans to vote against the up-coming marriage amendment. It was a well reasoned, well written piece, that didn't get too defensive and didn't rely on name-calling, which I think is always a good thing. Regardless of the expressed sentiments, what really struck me about the piece was this statement:

"Personal moral values and religious beliefs are appropriately taught in families and houses of worship. But in a free society we must allow others to live according to the dictates of their own consciences."

That statement pretty much sums up how I feel about politics, and also religion, and just opinions in general. If I had to sum it up in one sentence I would probably say that I believe in respect.  I do not care what you believe, whatever it may be, and however detestable I may find it, I will respect your right to hold those beliefs as long as you respect my beliefs and don't try to impose yours upon me. In return, I will try not to impose my belief system upon you. 



I really hate it when people try to impose their personal morals on others, which happens in lots of different ways, but I see most prominently reflected in politics. Any values based issue I see as one group trying to force their value system on other people. Gay marriage is a good example of this. So is abortion. My feeling about the issue is that if you don't agree with abortion, don't get an abortion, but also don't make it impossible for anyone else to get an abortion. You don't know them, or their situation, or their belief system, so don't try to make their decisions for them.


I think that every person has the right to choose what to do with their own life, within certain constraints, and nobody else should make those decisions for them or take that choice away. You are free to live your life however you want, so long as you don't try to make me live my life the same way you live yours.

I know that some of you, imaginary readers, are shaking your head at me right now and saying "well, under this system, isn't all government an imposition of a belief system? Are you really a crazy anarchist/libertarian who doesn't believe in any government at all?"


The answer to the first question is that I guess that's true, but for me, it really only extends to issues that I see stemming from religious/moral beliefs. I know very little about political science/theory, and I mostly try to not think to hard about government, because I usually end up confused about the whole thing, so I'm not here to make any grand statements about the nature of government. I am possibly the least qualified person to do that.


As for the second question, I generally think government is necessary for the oversight and regulation of society, foreign policy, and the economy, but if I were to give you a reason why it's necessary, it probably wouldn't make a lot of sense (see above re: qualifications) so I'll just leave it at that.

Oktoberfesting

It's getting to be that time of year again: autumn, or as I like to call it, the Month of Gratuitous Oktoberfesting. It seems like, as soon as October starts, everything here starts to have Oktoberfest themed celebrations, which, if nothing else, does accurately reflect the high German population in the Upper Midwest. This is all well and good, provided said Oktoberfests actually understand what Oktoberfest is outside of it being German.

By this, I mean that I get annoyed when a place (read: the dining hall) puts on an Oktoberfest with the only Oktoberfesty aspect of it being that there are brats. If you don't give me beer, I do not accept your validity as an Oktoberfest.

Oktoberfest is a Bavarian beer festival, that happens to include lots of traditional Bavarian foods such as bratwurst and schnitzel because you can't survive on beer alone for two plus weeks. (Actually, given the high caloric content of beer, you might be able to, but even if you could, you probably shouldn't.)

I know that some of you, imaginary readers, are currently shaking your non-real heads are telling me that no, it is a celebration of German culture, so I should stop complaining about it being accurately portrayed in America. But to that I say, you are right, it is a celebration of German culture, but a full fifty percent of German culture, particularly in Bavaria revolves around beer (the other half consists of discipline and not talking about anything that happened between 1933 and 1945).

And yes, I know that I'm not an expert on German culture because I'm not German, but I did survive four years of [Frau Crazy]'s German class, so that has to count for something.

I generally don't think things need to be authentic to their origins, as I don't care that you're Oktoberfest celebration is a weekend in mid to late October rather than 16 to 18 days at the end of September through the first weekend in October. That doesn't matter to me. What matters to me is that you at least try to understand what it is that you are emulating and stay true to  the concept. Oktoberfest is a beer festival. If you're not going to have beer, call it something else. This is all.

Theory of Gendered Digestion

For my GWSS class today, we had to read a chapter from Elizabeth Wilson's book Psychosomatic: Feminism and the Neurological Body about the links between the Central Nervous System (CNS) and the Enteric Nervous System (ENS), which is made up of all of the nerves in your gut and regulates everything between the stomach and the rectum, and is often referred to as the "brain in the gut" or "second brain" because of how closely it resembles the CNS.

The article was more scientific than theoretical, and dealt with the relationship between ENS and CNS, specifically which one is more in charge when it comes to how out gut feels, and which way the feedback loop runs. I thought it was fairly interesting, if for no other reason than it included some really interesting facts about the ENS, including that we have more neurons in our gut than our spinal cord, and that the neurons in the ENS are more similar in structure to the CNS neurons than the those in the rest of the peripheral nervous system.

The article was interesting in it's own right, but it was also a fairly big departure from what we have been reading, given that it is an example of feminist science practice rather than feminist science theory (which kills me, because science is science, dammit, but academic feminists don't seem to like that line of reasoning). The feminist theory was implied in how Wilson approached the relationship between the ENS and CNS, saying that there wasn't a hard and fast division between the two, rather than explicitly stated, which threw some members of the class for a loop.

Prior to class starting, I overheard a couple of other students discussing the text. One of them was saying that she couldn't really see where the feminism came into play, and the other was telling her basically what I just told you, imaginary readers, to which she responded "I guess it has to do with the stomach being so closely associated with women." And the other student agreed with her.

What?

Since when has the stomach been associated with women? I can buy into some of the stuff we've read about women being associated with nature and sexuality and blah blah blah, but with digestion? I was under the impression that neither gender is more or less associated with that particular bodily function. I should say that this was a student speculating before class, and not anything the instructor said or that was stated in the text, but still. Is this actually a thing that I've just never encountered before? Or does this seem as crazy to you, imaginary readers, as it does to me?